6 ms·

Having to throw away your water bottle at security is ridiculous. Buying something in the duty free shop, only to have them take it away at the next airport on

Having to throw away your water bottle at security is ridiculous. Buying something in the duty free shop, only to have them take it away at the next airport on connecting flights. On some flights they don't even serve drinks anymore (unless you pay). Great recipe for dehydration. Seats are so cramped that more and more people suffer from thrombosis after flying. There's no space for your hand luggage because the airline charges extra for checked baggage and everyone takes the biggest suitcase they are allowed to take on the plane. Ridiculous forms you need to fill out online (hoping you don't fall for a scam website), where you can pay only by credit card (not so common in many countries), just to fly through a country that is visa free? Flying via US or Canadian airports has become a major hassle... Flying used to be different. I remember that on one flight you could just walk to the front, and watch the pilots fly the plane through the open cockpit door.

doit123 8y ago
Don't forget the dose of radiation for millions of travelers from those scanners. 20 years later thousands of people die of cancer and fucking idiots can't explain why.
- akuji1993 8y ago
  It appears that there is some small risk connected to that, but the background radiation you get from actually being in the air is higher. So if you're scared of the radiation from the scanners, you should probably not check what you get from being in the air. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850714000168 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S168785071...
  - alexmat 8y ago
    One is unavoidable if you want to fly, the other is security theatre. It's reasonable to complain about policies which are ineffective even if the harm is small relative to other sources of radiation.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      It's reasonable to complain about security theatre from the standpoint that it is security theatre. It is not reasonable to complain about a policy for from the standpoint that it causes physical harm if the level of "harm" inflicted is orders of magnitude smaller than other aspects of the same activity. This is not a what-about-ism, because the very act of flying (which is what border security policies are strictly related to) causes "more harm" in this specific context than the policy itself. The harm caused by flying itself is also incredibly insignificant, but if someone is going to argue that scanner's radiation is the reason people are getting sick then they must agree that the radiation from the act of flying itself is a much larger issue (and discussing scanner radiation would make no significant difference to whatever harm they think the radiation is doing).
      - Retric 8y ago
        ~0.9 μSv concentrated in on the surface of the skin is a much higher cancer risk than that same radiation spread over the body. A traveler that goes through these things 200 times a year for short flights really does have a significant increased risk of cancer. Even if they are slightly under the 250 μSv full body dose limits at 180 μSv due to that concented exposure.
        rblatz 8y ago
        Who flies 200x a year and doesn’t have precheck?
        Retric 8y ago
        That suggests precheck is a rubber stamp. Does nobody get rejected?
        cyphar 8y ago
        I'm sure people get rejected from precheck. I doubt that people rejected from precheck would take up a job where they have to travel on a plane four times a week on average (or rather, they travel enough that they go through a full-body scanner four times a week).
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    The larger problem is that it's a degrading invasion of privacy that reeks of totalitarianism, and it does nothing for security.
oblio 8y ago
> Flying used to be different. Yeah, it was. Expensive.
- yesforwhat 8y ago
  and inaccessible to the majority of people
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Not in the period under consideration, and a generally overstated case regardless. Robert Gorden in The Rise and Fall of American Growth: surprisingly, the period of most rapid decline in the real price of air travel occurred before the first flight of a jet plane. As shown in figure 11–10, the price of air travel relative to other goods and services declined rapidly from 1940 to 1960, declined at a slower rate from 1960 to 1980, and has experienced no decline at all in its relative price between 1980 and 2014. The growth rate of passenger miles traveled has mirrored the rate of change of the relative price except with the opposite sign, because lower prices stimulate the demand for any good or service.
  - masonic 8y ago
    In total, perhaps. But deregulation had a huge effect on the cost of major long-haul routes with multiple competing airlines (e.g. LAX-JFK).
lazerwalker 8y ago
> On some flights they don't even serve drinks anymore (unless you pay). Great recipe for dehydration. Flights that don't serve free drinks tend to be (at least in my experience) SUPER cheap budget airlines. In the bygone age of luxurious leisurely air travel, you weren't flying from San Francisco to San Diego for $50 or from Paris to Barcelona for 30€.
tomcooks 8y ago
Unrequested advice: drink your bottle, pass security with it, refill your bottle at any fountain, bar, toilet after security. If you're dehydrated tell a hostess, free water will be provided (costs them a lot less than being sued).
- secfirstmd 8y ago
  Yes that's my flying hack
- wil421 8y ago
  I just empty my water bottle before the security line. Take the top off when it goes through the X-ray and fill it up after.
bena 8y ago
> I remember that on one flight you could just walk to the front, and watch the pilots fly the plane through the open cockpit door. And sadly, that's the only change that matters. Cockpits are now closed and locked.
masonic 8y ago
I remember that on one flight you could just walk to the front, and watch the pilots fly the plane through the open cockpit door That changed in the USA even before 2001, at least by typical policy if not statute. I recall a trip in the late 1990s flying Aur Canada (maybe YYZ-SFO) and while in Canadian airspace, I was invited in right behind the copilot to hang out for 20 minutes or so. I was surprised how much air traffic could be seen just with the naked eye.

doit123 8y ago

Don't forget the dose of radiation for millions of travelers from those scanners. 20 years later thousands of people die of cancer and fucking idiots can't explain why.

akuji1993 8y ago
It appears that there is some small risk connected to that, but the background radiation you get from actually being in the air is higher. So if you're scared of the radiation from the scanners, you should probably not check what you get from being in the air. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850714000168 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S168785071...
- alexmat 8y ago
  One is unavoidable if you want to fly, the other is security theatre. It's reasonable to complain about policies which are ineffective even if the harm is small relative to other sources of radiation.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    It's reasonable to complain about security theatre from the standpoint that it is security theatre. It is not reasonable to complain about a policy for from the standpoint that it causes physical harm if the level of "harm" inflicted is orders of magnitude smaller than other aspects of the same activity. This is not a what-about-ism, because the very act of flying (which is what border security policies are strictly related to) causes "more harm" in this specific context than the policy itself. The harm caused by flying itself is also incredibly insignificant, but if someone is going to argue that scanner's radiation is the reason people are getting sick then they must agree that the radiation from the act of flying itself is a much larger issue (and discussing scanner radiation would make no significant difference to whatever harm they think the radiation is doing).
    - Retric 8y ago
      ~0.9 μSv concentrated in on the surface of the skin is a much higher cancer risk than that same radiation spread over the body. A traveler that goes through these things 200 times a year for short flights really does have a significant increased risk of cancer. Even if they are slightly under the 250 μSv full body dose limits at 180 μSv due to that concented exposure.
      - rblatz 8y ago
        Who flies 200x a year and doesn’t have precheck?
        Retric 8y ago
        That suggests precheck is a rubber stamp. Does nobody get rejected?
        cyphar 8y ago
        I'm sure people get rejected from precheck. I doubt that people rejected from precheck would take up a job where they have to travel on a plane four times a week on average (or rather, they travel enough that they go through a full-body scanner four times a week).
- StavrosK 8y ago
  The larger problem is that it's a degrading invasion of privacy that reeks of totalitarianism, and it does nothing for security.

oblio 8y ago

> Flying used to be different. Yeah, it was. Expensive.

yesforwhat 8y ago
and inaccessible to the majority of people
dredmorbius 8y ago
Not in the period under consideration, and a generally overstated case regardless. Robert Gorden in The Rise and Fall of American Growth: surprisingly, the period of most rapid decline in the real price of air travel occurred before the first flight of a jet plane. As shown in figure 11–10, the price of air travel relative to other goods and services declined rapidly from 1940 to 1960, declined at a slower rate from 1960 to 1980, and has experienced no decline at all in its relative price between 1980 and 2014. The growth rate of passenger miles traveled has mirrored the rate of change of the relative price except with the opposite sign, because lower prices stimulate the demand for any good or service.
- masonic 8y ago
  In total, perhaps. But deregulation had a huge effect on the cost of major long-haul routes with multiple competing airlines (e.g. LAX-JFK).

lazerwalker 8y ago

> On some flights they don't even serve drinks anymore (unless you pay). Great recipe for dehydration. Flights that don't serve free drinks tend to be (at least in my experience) SUPER cheap budget airlines. In the bygone age of luxurious leisurely air travel, you weren't flying from San Francisco to San Diego for $50 or from Paris to Barcelona for 30€.

tomcooks 8y ago

Unrequested advice: drink your bottle, pass security with it, refill your bottle at any fountain, bar, toilet after security. If you're dehydrated tell a hostess, free water will be provided (costs them a lot less than being sued).

secfirstmd 8y ago
Yes that's my flying hack
wil421 8y ago
I just empty my water bottle before the security line. Take the top off when it goes through the X-ray and fill it up after.

bena 8y ago

> I remember that on one flight you could just walk to the front, and watch the pilots fly the plane through the open cockpit door. And sadly, that's the only change that matters. Cockpits are now closed and locked.

masonic 8y ago

I remember that on one flight you could just walk to the front, and watch the pilots fly the plane through the open cockpit door That changed in the USA even before 2001, at least by typical policy if not statute. I recall a trip in the late 1990s flying Aur Canada (maybe YYZ-SFO) and while in Canadian airspace, I was invited in right behind the copilot to hang out for 20 minutes or so. I was surprised how much air traffic could be seen just with the naked eye.