7 ms·

I've written to the airline I use for most travel and explained why this holiday season I'll be driving to my destinations. The airlines have the power in this

I've written to the airline I use for most travel and explained why this holiday season I'll be driving to my destinations. The airlines have the power in this situation, if they protest, this will be changed.

rhizome 16y ago
It's a matter of perspective, I imagine, but I don't think the airlines have much power here at all. I think it's reasonable to view US airports as having been nationalized over the past 9 years, so I think elected officials are probably a more-effective vector here.
- callahad 16y ago
  But who can most effectively lobby the elected officials?
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    Why would you assume that airlines can effectively lobby them? From a government official's perspective, the truth is that when an attack happens, they're going to get blamed. People aren't going to blame the airlines, they're going to blame the government. The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the better protected officials are from blame when the inevitable attacks finally occur. There's nothing an airline official can offer a government to compensate for loss of shielding from blame. As long as Americans are pathetic and fearful, we will have the government we deserve.
    - daten 16y ago
      Too bad the invasions of privacy at TSA checkpoints don't do anything to prevent "attacks". If you're going to cover your ass, at least do it in an effective way that doesn't offend your intelligent voters.
    - StavrosK 16y ago
      The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the larger the shitstorm officials will be in when the inevitable attacks finally occur and people realise the TSA groped their toddlers for nothing.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      Airlines are corporations with billions of dollars. Corporations with billions of dollars can effectively lobby the US government.
      - dangrossman 16y ago
        You might've missed this recent article on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1863927 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1863927
        philwelch 16y ago
        OK, maybe the unions would be the ones lobbying the US government. That works really well too!
        pmiller2 16y ago
        But, unions have no incentive to lobby the government in this matter on behalf of anyone other than airline employees. By definition, the airline unions don't represent the general public, so they can't be expected to lobby on behalf of the public.
        philwelch 16y ago
        The idea is that airlines, or airline employee unions, will face economic pressure from people choosing not to fly.
        rhizome 16y ago
        Except that they won't, they'll just lower prices and get bailed out with tax-dollars if they get into financial trouble. Air-travel is now a matter of national security, and by this token airlines are not threatenable.
    - rdtsc 16y ago
      > The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the better protected officials are from blame when the inevitable attacks finally occur. I believe that is true for other security theaters as well. A large bank, for example, instead of hiring in-house security experts, might contract out their security to an outside firm. Not because it is necessarily cheaper or the consulting company will do a better job, but because they can be blamed if something goes wrong. A security breach happens, shareholders are up-in-arms, C*Os tell them "we hired the best, we payed them a lot of money, if they can't protect our data, nobody can." The security firm in the meantime has to do their best to project themselves as "the experts". Usually carefully chosen stock photography of people in the business suits smiling and talking on the phone on the front page of their website, and the ability of the salesman to play and _lose_ at golf does the trick. TSA does the same thing. They are the scapegoats. So when shit hits the fan, nobody can point out to the politicians and say "you fucked up". Security theater is not pointless, it has an exact purpose, and that is to protect and serve (the government) from future blame.
      - alexqgb 16y ago
        'Shiftability' n. The state of being unaccountable. Highly valued in financial trades. http://on.wsj.com/9jZZsL http://on.wsj.com/9jZZsL
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    Security equipment manufacturers. Oh. Well, darn.
dkasper 16y ago
Relevant: American Airlines pilots are protesting the new measures - http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/american-airlines-pilots-revolt-against http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/american-airlines-pilot...
- davidcuddeback 16y ago
  Unfortunately, they're only protesting that it be used against pilots. They say nothing about the rights of their passengers. From the article (emphasis mine): "the practice of airport security screening of airline pilots has spun out of control and does nothing to improve national security" They would have deserved more kudos if they had stood up for passengers' rights as well.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    I am not a pilot, but I find the fact that they have to be security screened to be pretty darn annoying, and I'm glad they're protesting. A pilot does not need a box cutter to crash the plane. They have full control over the plane by definition. This has even happened -- 217 people dead because the pilot wanted to kill himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
    - anonymous246 16y ago
      How else do you prevent a pilot from smuggling in weapons etc and giving it to a (non-pilot) accomplice who flies on a different flight? Am I missing something obvious here? Pilots' protest seems totally misplaced.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        How do you prevent the pilot from hijacking his own plane and flying it into the one that his accomplice was going to box-cutter-and-toothpaste?
        16y ago

rhizome 16y ago

It's a matter of perspective, I imagine, but I don't think the airlines have much power here at all. I think it's reasonable to view US airports as having been nationalized over the past 9 years, so I think elected officials are probably a more-effective vector here.

callahad 16y ago
But who can most effectively lobby the elected officials?
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Why would you assume that airlines can effectively lobby them? From a government official's perspective, the truth is that when an attack happens, they're going to get blamed. People aren't going to blame the airlines, they're going to blame the government. The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the better protected officials are from blame when the inevitable attacks finally occur. There's nothing an airline official can offer a government to compensate for loss of shielding from blame. As long as Americans are pathetic and fearful, we will have the government we deserve.
  - daten 16y ago
    Too bad the invasions of privacy at TSA checkpoints don't do anything to prevent "attacks". If you're going to cover your ass, at least do it in an effective way that doesn't offend your intelligent voters.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the larger the shitstorm officials will be in when the inevitable attacks finally occur and people realise the TSA groped their toddlers for nothing.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Airlines are corporations with billions of dollars. Corporations with billions of dollars can effectively lobby the US government.
    - dangrossman 16y ago
      You might've missed this recent article on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1863927 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1863927
      - philwelch 16y ago
        OK, maybe the unions would be the ones lobbying the US government. That works really well too!
        pmiller2 16y ago
        But, unions have no incentive to lobby the government in this matter on behalf of anyone other than airline employees. By definition, the airline unions don't represent the general public, so they can't be expected to lobby on behalf of the public.
        philwelch 16y ago
        The idea is that airlines, or airline employee unions, will face economic pressure from people choosing not to fly.
        rhizome 16y ago
        Except that they won't, they'll just lower prices and get bailed out with tax-dollars if they get into financial trouble. Air-travel is now a matter of national security, and by this token airlines are not threatenable.
  - rdtsc 16y ago
    > The more bizarre and nonsensical the "security" restrictions, the better protected officials are from blame when the inevitable attacks finally occur. I believe that is true for other security theaters as well. A large bank, for example, instead of hiring in-house security experts, might contract out their security to an outside firm. Not because it is necessarily cheaper or the consulting company will do a better job, but because they can be blamed if something goes wrong. A security breach happens, shareholders are up-in-arms, C*Os tell them "we hired the best, we payed them a lot of money, if they can't protect our data, nobody can." The security firm in the meantime has to do their best to project themselves as "the experts". Usually carefully chosen stock photography of people in the business suits smiling and talking on the phone on the front page of their website, and the ability of the salesman to play and _lose_ at golf does the trick. TSA does the same thing. They are the scapegoats. So when shit hits the fan, nobody can point out to the politicians and say "you fucked up". Security theater is not pointless, it has an exact purpose, and that is to protect and serve (the government) from future blame.
    - alexqgb 16y ago
      'Shiftability' n. The state of being unaccountable. Highly valued in financial trades. http://on.wsj.com/9jZZsL http://on.wsj.com/9jZZsL
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Security equipment manufacturers. Oh. Well, darn.

dkasper 16y ago

Relevant: American Airlines pilots are protesting the new measures - http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/american-airlines-pilots-revolt-against http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/american-airlines-pilot...

davidcuddeback 16y ago
Unfortunately, they're only protesting that it be used against pilots. They say nothing about the rights of their passengers. From the article (emphasis mine): "the practice of airport security screening of airline pilots has spun out of control and does nothing to improve national security" They would have deserved more kudos if they had stood up for passengers' rights as well.
- jrockway 16y ago
  I am not a pilot, but I find the fact that they have to be security screened to be pretty darn annoying, and I'm glad they're protesting. A pilot does not need a box cutter to crash the plane. They have full control over the plane by definition. This has even happened -- 217 people dead because the pilot wanted to kill himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
  - anonymous246 16y ago
    How else do you prevent a pilot from smuggling in weapons etc and giving it to a (non-pilot) accomplice who flies on a different flight? Am I missing something obvious here? Pilots' protest seems totally misplaced.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      How do you prevent the pilot from hijacking his own plane and flying it into the one that his accomplice was going to box-cutter-and-toothpaste?
      - 16y ago