5 ms·

The problem, as I see it, is that flying has become an utter evil to be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary. It used to be that flying somewhere wa

The problem, as I see it, is that flying has become an utter evil to be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary. It used to be that flying somewhere was a trip in and of itself. Now it is a nightmare. Now, everything from pre-boarding security (which is an absolute joke) to in flight (non)service to hoping that your luggage makes it to your destination at the same time you do to being cavity searched by customs upon arrival is and everything in between is an absolute horror show. Truth is that there are no good airlines. Just functional airlines. At this point I am just thankful to arrive at my destination in one piece. Frankly, I don't know why foreigners still come to America. If I showed up at JFk and got the third degree from some rude lackey on a power trip then got fingerprinted along with my wife and child I would turn around and never come back. (I know, separate issues but I'm venting.)

jedwhite 16y ago
I think it's related to the fact that the customer service staff onboard airlines (the attendants) see themselves as safety enforcers rather than anything else. And that is part of a culture of "security theatre" - doing things purely to make people think they are safe rather than improve actual safety. Like the show of turning off electronic devices and reprimanding passengers for being slow. Peggy Noonan has written some good pieces of this, most recently: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425983109795768.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440780457542...
bambax 16y ago
> I don't know why foreigners still come to America We don't, mostly. I used to come to NY every two years, used to love the city. Now I go elsewhere. Haven't been there in six years and I don't think I'll be back. This is a big world, there are other places to see; America is abusive at home just as it is elsewhere. Flying in Europe is still acceptable; in Germany the local TSA let you carry almost anything on board (and joke about it).
- gokhan 16y ago
  And why is this downvoted?
- c1sc0 16y ago
  What's more : with online check-in I am not even asked for Id prior to boarding on my recent flights from Zurich. Just download your boarding pass to your mobile, go through security in ten minutes and board the plane. I used to arrive 2 hours in advance for a flight and now I am cutting that down to 1 hour just to be on the safe side.
retube 16y ago
"Frankly, I don't know why foreigners still come to America. If I showed up at JFk ... " Precisely why I've never visited :)
coffeemug 16y ago
Why is pre-boarding security an absolute joke? The phrase "security theater" gets thrown around a lot, but I have not heard well articulated arguments as to why current security procedures are ineffective, and more importantly have not heard constructive suggestions on how to improve pre-boarding security. How would you design security procedures? Which procedures out of the ones that are used currently are ineffective and why? Which ones are effective and why? Which ones should we add that aren't being used currently? Will they reduce average pre-boarding time per customer? Increase it? How will that affect overall air traffic and scheduling? Will they improve safety? Reduce safety? How do you go about quantifying that? What standards are you using? How do you propose to train the security personnel in the new procedures? How much will it cost? Is there a cost/benefit analysis? Is it a qualitative matter where cost benefit analysis does not apply and it's a question of ideology? In that case, are there other ideological issues with the current system of government we should rather spend our time and resources on fixing? With all due respect, it seems that every time I see people make an argument about airport security online, they blow the inconvenience completely out of proportion, make hand-wavy arguments that appear appealing on the surface but have absolutely no substance, and reduce a very complex problem to what does not appear to be a viable solution even at the slightest scrutiny. It's easy to criticize a working system someone has built. It's much harder to design a better one that can be reasonably implemented in practice.
- Herring 16y ago
  bureaucrats have a vested interest in the chaos in which they exist.
  - lzw 16y ago
    And power over the populace has many uses, not the least of which is creating a culture of cowed people unwilling to resist e latest edicts.
- gruseom 16y ago
  Well, the two procedures that get my goat are: (1) everybody take off your shoes because one guy tried to blow up his shoe ten years ago; (2) the asinine rules around liquids and gels because some nutcases in the UK were chattering about JITting themselves some explosives but never actually got close to figuring out how. Both of these rules seem premised on the idea that terrorists are clever enough to come up with those diabolical schemes, but too stupid to concoct any new ones, so we can just plug yesterday's holes. Since that's obviously dumb, who are the rules really designed for? Who else but the general public? They (we) are the ones who heard about those plots and in whose minds the images stuck. In other words: security theater. Note also that the most recent such dude tried to blow up his underwear, yet no rules involving underwear have been promulgated. Why the inconsistency? Public sensibility: we're willing to tolerate our shoes being inspected but not our panties. It's difficult otherwise to explain why the security repertoire should be organized around something terrorists did 10 years ago rather than what they did 6 months ago. Someone (Schneier?) said that two things have contributed to genuine security post-9/11: locked cockpits and passenger alertness. I've heard a number of airline industry people say the same thing, e.g. that pilot guy who writes for Slate. This makes sense to me. But what do I know? I'm just a guy who stands in the line fuming at the stupidity of it all, reminding myself to breathe deeply and not say anything sarcastic lest I get hauled off to the back room.
ErrantX 16y ago
I have to be fair here and say every time I have flown into the US the border guards have been very courteous. I even had one joke, and the first time I flew into NY the girl recommended a restaurant for the first night near my accommodation. I suspect I have been pretty lucky :) As to in-flight stuff; I've given up on it. I fly short haul quite a lot and tend to use cheaper airlines to save pennies. But it's not worth it - the third time I did an overnight flight and got woken up to be told about all the amazing offers I very nearly swung for the idiot :)
- com 16y ago
  Once when I arrived at JFK, the immigration officer realised it was my birthday and sang "Happy Birthday" to me. Sweet, and embarrassing. Didn't enthuse the thousand people waiting behind me in the queue either. The difference with arriving in Australia and having my biometric passport checked, answering questions on a touchscreen, automated photo gates (and a total elapsed time from getting off the plane to waiting for my luggage of about, oh 10 minutes including walking) - it still seems that the US doesn't get it. Friendly is good. Manual, time consuming processes (and don't get me started about the ESTA introduction confusion) not to mention irritating queues, are all dumb and just piss people off.

jedwhite 16y ago

I think it's related to the fact that the customer service staff onboard airlines (the attendants) see themselves as safety enforcers rather than anything else. And that is part of a culture of "security theatre" - doing things purely to make people think they are safe rather than improve actual safety. Like the show of turning off electronic devices and reprimanding passengers for being slow. Peggy Noonan has written some good pieces of this, most recently: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425983109795768.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440780457542...

bambax 16y ago

> I don't know why foreigners still come to America We don't, mostly. I used to come to NY every two years, used to love the city. Now I go elsewhere. Haven't been there in six years and I don't think I'll be back. This is a big world, there are other places to see; America is abusive at home just as it is elsewhere. Flying in Europe is still acceptable; in Germany the local TSA let you carry almost anything on board (and joke about it).

gokhan 16y ago
And why is this downvoted?
c1sc0 16y ago
What's more : with online check-in I am not even asked for Id prior to boarding on my recent flights from Zurich. Just download your boarding pass to your mobile, go through security in ten minutes and board the plane. I used to arrive 2 hours in advance for a flight and now I am cutting that down to 1 hour just to be on the safe side.

retube 16y ago

"Frankly, I don't know why foreigners still come to America. If I showed up at JFk ... " Precisely why I've never visited :)

coffeemug 16y ago

Why is pre-boarding security an absolute joke? The phrase "security theater" gets thrown around a lot, but I have not heard well articulated arguments as to why current security procedures are ineffective, and more importantly have not heard constructive suggestions on how to improve pre-boarding security. How would you design security procedures? Which procedures out of the ones that are used currently are ineffective and why? Which ones are effective and why? Which ones should we add that aren't being used currently? Will they reduce average pre-boarding time per customer? Increase it? How will that affect overall air traffic and scheduling? Will they improve safety? Reduce safety? How do you go about quantifying that? What standards are you using? How do you propose to train the security personnel in the new procedures? How much will it cost? Is there a cost/benefit analysis? Is it a qualitative matter where cost benefit analysis does not apply and it's a question of ideology? In that case, are there other ideological issues with the current system of government we should rather spend our time and resources on fixing? With all due respect, it seems that every time I see people make an argument about airport security online, they blow the inconvenience completely out of proportion, make hand-wavy arguments that appear appealing on the surface but have absolutely no substance, and reduce a very complex problem to what does not appear to be a viable solution even at the slightest scrutiny. It's easy to criticize a working system someone has built. It's much harder to design a better one that can be reasonably implemented in practice.

Herring 16y ago
bureaucrats have a vested interest in the chaos in which they exist.
- lzw 16y ago
  And power over the populace has many uses, not the least of which is creating a culture of cowed people unwilling to resist e latest edicts.
gruseom 16y ago
Well, the two procedures that get my goat are: (1) everybody take off your shoes because one guy tried to blow up his shoe ten years ago; (2) the asinine rules around liquids and gels because some nutcases in the UK were chattering about JITting themselves some explosives but never actually got close to figuring out how. Both of these rules seem premised on the idea that terrorists are clever enough to come up with those diabolical schemes, but too stupid to concoct any new ones, so we can just plug yesterday's holes. Since that's obviously dumb, who are the rules really designed for? Who else but the general public? They (we) are the ones who heard about those plots and in whose minds the images stuck. In other words: security theater. Note also that the most recent such dude tried to blow up his underwear, yet no rules involving underwear have been promulgated. Why the inconsistency? Public sensibility: we're willing to tolerate our shoes being inspected but not our panties. It's difficult otherwise to explain why the security repertoire should be organized around something terrorists did 10 years ago rather than what they did 6 months ago. Someone (Schneier?) said that two things have contributed to genuine security post-9/11: locked cockpits and passenger alertness. I've heard a number of airline industry people say the same thing, e.g. that pilot guy who writes for Slate. This makes sense to me. But what do I know? I'm just a guy who stands in the line fuming at the stupidity of it all, reminding myself to breathe deeply and not say anything sarcastic lest I get hauled off to the back room.

ErrantX 16y ago

I have to be fair here and say every time I have flown into the US the border guards have been very courteous. I even had one joke, and the first time I flew into NY the girl recommended a restaurant for the first night near my accommodation. I suspect I have been pretty lucky :) As to in-flight stuff; I've given up on it. I fly short haul quite a lot and tend to use cheaper airlines to save pennies. But it's not worth it - the third time I did an overnight flight and got woken up to be told about all the amazing offers I very nearly swung for the idiot :)

com 16y ago
Once when I arrived at JFK, the immigration officer realised it was my birthday and sang "Happy Birthday" to me. Sweet, and embarrassing. Didn't enthuse the thousand people waiting behind me in the queue either. The difference with arriving in Australia and having my biometric passport checked, answering questions on a touchscreen, automated photo gates (and a total elapsed time from getting off the plane to waiting for my luggage of about, oh 10 minutes including walking) - it still seems that the US doesn't get it. Friendly is good. Manual, time consuming processes (and don't get me started about the ESTA introduction confusion) not to mention irritating queues, are all dumb and just piss people off.