7 ms·
I remember a time when you could just walk into an airport and board a plane. In fact bring along a guest to see you off, they will be told when to depart if t
by rmason 5y ago
I remember a time when you could just walk into an airport and board a plane. In fact bring along a guest to see you off, they will be told when to depart if they don't have a ticket.
Then along came the first hijackers and you had to go through security and have a valid ticket to board a plane. After 9-11 security ratcheted up even more and the guards became federal employees.
Now if a third class nation is getting to ready to launch a missile all the planes sit until receiving a green light. When does the next hyperloop leave SF for Tokyo?
- fabianhjr 5y ago> When does the next hyperloop leave SF for Tokyo? Never, the whole world has been building more efficient and cost-effective transportation such as high speed rail. Some details by Adam Something on the technology itself: "The HYPERLOOP Will Never Work, And Here's Why" < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQJgFh_e01g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQJgFh_e01g >
- Robotbeat 5y agoHow is your high speed rail going to get from SF to Tokyo? Perhaps some sort of tunnel? But it’d still take too long and potentially have too much air resistance … unless, since you already have to resist a huge amount of water pressure, you lowered the pressure to that equivalent to the altitude that airplanes fly at or even higher. …Oh no.
- jonathankoren 5y agoAll you need is a radium drill. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tunnel_(1935_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tunnel_(1935_film)
- fabianhjr 5y agoWell, if you have infinite resources sure. If you wanted to do a non-air and non-boat link your only cost-effective option would be to do surface rail to Alaska and then cross about ~80 kilometers by bridge or tunnel (which is about the same as the Channel Tunnel) Sure as hell a direct tunnel from San Francisco to Tokyo wouldn't be doable. (The US cannot even finish their California high speed rail project)
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoNo? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel
- fabianhjr 5y agoAh yes, surely something that hasn't been built before can built the first time around for thousands of kilometers and have it be a vacuum chamber at the same time and cheaper than the current well used and proven technologies.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y agoYes. Of course! With additional pipelines for all sorts of things, and HVDC!1!!
- bigmattystyles 5y agoIn fact, if old movies are to be believed, you could just give your ticket to someone else. Tickets should still be transferable, right now airlines use the pretext of security to say that one shouldn't be able to re-sell their tickets, but I call BS.
- jaywalk 5y agoYou call BS on airlines not knowing who is on a flight being a security issue?
- bigmattystyles 5y agoI call BS on them not being able to handle it - you would still need to show ID to go through the gate and go through security. But if you can buy a ticket at the counter and board 10 minutes later, why can't you transfer the ticket to someone else up to say an hour before the flight. Whatever security checks they do are likely (near) instant. They use security as the pretext for not doing this, but I am guessing the real reason is that would ruin their overbooking schemes.
- astrea 5y agoI hate when businesses try to make money
- serf 5y ago> I hate when businesses try to make money who will think of the airline mega-corps and their insanely rich backers that capitalized such a locked-down already-for-profit industry in a country that supports near monopolies on infrastructural services? they're the ones I worry about most.
- mardifoufs 5y agoAirlines aren't exactly known for fabulous margins. I get your point, and I never feel bad for a corporation, but I think airlines are probably one of the few sectors with a hypercompetitive market, tons of options, and pretty low margins. they have basically 0 monopoly, so they compete very harshly on prices and services. Also, I'm not sure who the insanely rich backers would be considering airlines usually aren't exactly family empires and have pretty mediocre investment returns
- jdavis703 5y agoThere was never a time you could just walk through the airport in my lifetime (1990). There were always security controls. That said, you could bring guests, but even guests went through a security screening.
- colpabar 5y agoWhat about before 1990? Also, did you take a lot of flights as a baby that you remember?
- jdavis703 5y agoYeah my parents were divorced, so yeah I’ve got lots of memories of traveling between them in the 90s.
- colpabar 5y agoMy point was that commercial air travel has been around since before 1990.
- jdavis703 5y agoI know that security existed before the 90s (obviously due to the amount of armed skyjackings and bombings it was too lax). I don’t know when x-rays, magnetometers and other radio imagining was first deployed at airports. But it was there for decades before 9/11.
- notch656a 5y agoI went in without any security at all just a few years ago in Alaska through a commercial flight at a fairly big airport (anchorage). As far as I'm aware if your flight is in-state (as mine was) you can just walk right in still. I think carrying weapons is still prohibited, but there's no enforcement of that as long as you aren't out threatening someone. Believe TSA screening was necessary for interstate flights.
- 5y ago
- 908B64B197 5y agoWhat's crazy is that all these (costly) measures apply to 0 risk travelers. Think about all the things we could do with that money instead.
- slg 5y ago>Then along came the first hijackers I don't think most young people know how prevalent hijackings were in the past. There were dozens every year peaking in the late 60s and early 70s. In those days, they were usually done for ransom money or some political cause and the end goal was not to kill anyone. 9/11 obviously changed that as it became clear a hijacking threatened the life of everyone onboard as well as people on the ground. Security changes since then have resulted in hijackings almost completely disappearing from passenger flights in the western world. I would personally attribute this more to changes like reinforced cockpit doors rather than the TSA style screenings, but the security changes have brought a real measurable improvement in reducing hijackings.
- mulmen 5y agoHow common were hijackings in the late 1990s?
- slg 5y agoI don't have exact numbers, but less common than the 70s and more common than today. Like I said, they peaked in the 60s and 70s. While the TSA didn't exist until after 9/11, TSA style screenings were introduced in response to those hijackings. That was at least part of what caused the numbers to drop through the 70s, 80s, and 90s. That is why I'm not willing to completely dismiss those screenings as security theater. Sure, taking off our shoes is almost certainly meaningless from a security perspective. But walking through a metal detector and putting our bags through x-ray machines likely does help. Basically the screenings that still happen for people with TSA Precheck show what security practices are likely the most valuable.
- mulmen 5y agoRight, I’m curious to see the correlation with the post-9/11 measures as I suspect they are far less effective than previous, sensible precautions.
- jaywalk 5y agoDTW allows people to enter the terminals without a ticket. However, you are required to apply to do so a day in advance: https://www.metroairport.com/about-dtw/dtw-destination-pass https://www.metroairport.com/about-dtw/dtw-destination-pass
- jonas21 5y agoSure, airport security is annoying. But it was effective in bringing down the rate of hijackings, which are extremely rare in the US these days. 9/11 was over 20 years ago now, and I can't recall any US airliner being hijacked since. Contrast that to the era before security checks, when 130 American planes were hijacked between 1968 and 1972 [1]. [1] https://www.wired.com/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-age-of-hijacking/ https://www.wired.com/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-...
- durandal1 5y agoThe high jacking problem was solved with locked cockpit doors, everything else is security theater.
- awb 5y ago1) Solved is a bold word. Cockpit doors still open and close during flights. 2) If we don’t screen bags and a gun or bomb gets on board, it doesn’t matter wether the door is locked or not, that plane is at the mercy of the terrorist.
- astrea 5y agoWhat life does one lead to so boldly proclaim something so provably wrong?
- durandal1 5y agoIf you look at the data, my claim is proven right?
- xtracto 5y agoWhich brought other problems[1] into play. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
- FridayoLeary 5y agoBut which specific measures are actually effective and which are a waste of time? The 9/11 highjacking was accomplished with box cutters. Also 9/11 transformed highjacking from a major inconvenience to a national threat.
- kingcharles 5y agoI remember in the mid-90s turning up to check-in 15 minutes before the scheduled departure time of my flight from London to NYC, showing them my passport, the photo fell out of my passport, crew member picked it up and told me to just RUN for the gate. Boarded. All good.