12 ms·

> with people buying cheap airline tickets, airports have found a solution by turning themselves halfway into malls This is entirely overlooking the fact that

by raydev 3y ago

> with people buying cheap airline tickets, airports have found a solution by turning themselves halfway into malls This is entirely overlooking the fact that you are a captive of the airport as long as the TSA screening process exists. At best, going through security is annoying and adds anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours of wait time, and at worst it is legitimately traumatizing. Prices are high simply because people are punished for leaving on foot, and people are prohibited from bringing many goods through security.

crubier 3y ago
Yeah, Airport security is not useless, I'm not against it, but at the same time it's undeniable that the airport shopping industry can thank terrorist groups for justifying the existence of this absolutely inefficient system that keeps millions of people captive of their greediness..
- noirbot 3y ago
  I would be curious to compare to the 90s though. I remember when I was younger, I'd sometimes just go to the airport back when you could just walk out to the gates, grab a snack and then watch the planes take off and land. Obviously that's not a "normal" thing to have done, but in a world with lighter security, I remember airport food being around the same level as mall food court options, so it was an interesting option for getting out of the house. I'd be curious if there's some lower-security path towards making Airports more of a common space, not that there's any chance of it happening.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Changi in Singapore is very much a common space, because the security is at the gate.
    - paulmooreparks 3y ago
      Not really. A boarding pass is required for airside access.
      - refurb 3y ago
        Exactly. Changi is no different than other airports - you can only access the ticketing and baggage arrival areas unless you have a boarding pass. It does have a massive mall attached to the public area though (Jewel).
        JadedEngineer 3y ago
        Yes but security is done at each individual gate which makes a massive difference. And the staff is nice and polite. I don't remember ever queing for anything at Changi and I've used it so much. It's about the only airport I don't hate these days.
        FabHK 3y ago
        Security at the individual gate is also done at Kuala Lumpur, Doha, and some others. I prefer the usual arrangement of a centralised security check. This stack exchange answer does a good job listing some of the advantages and disadvantages of security at the gate: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/34818/why-is-security-screening-done-at-the-gate-in-some-airports https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/34818/why-is-secu...
        7952 3y ago
        I think some of the space saving benefits are overstated. Baggage claim takes up a surprisingly large amount of space and you still need customs.
        refurb 3y ago
        Security isn't done at the individual gate in Terminal 4 (newest terminal). And actually security screening at the gate is a pain in the ass. Once you're screened you're stuck in a room with no bathrooms (you need to leave and get rescreened). And if your flight changes gates (happened to me), you have to get rescreened all over again. It is helpful in the sense that bottlenecks don't happen earlier on, but I'm not sure it's that great of an approach.
    - hackernewds 3y ago
      Changi is a stunning example of how beautiful an airport experience can be. I fly through there + Singapore airlines every chance I get. Perhaps a benevolent "dictatorship" can be beneficial.
      - mrosett 3y ago
        “Benevolent” dictatorship
      - Kamq 3y ago
        A single dictator has never really been the problem. You can find dictators that do better than democracies throughout history (especially on long-term planning). It's the transition of power that's the problem. Like, a real bad problem. Like raze half your country and set you back 50-100 years problem.
        mongol 3y ago
        What kind of dictator are you talking about? Roman-style, where it could be time limited, or the modern version, of which there are many terrible examples before power transition becomes an issue?
        denton-scratch 3y ago
        > could be time limited Roman dictators weren't like modern autocrats. They were officials, appointed for a limited time (usually no more than 6 months) to address some specific emergency. They weren't crooks who staged coups. And it doesn't seem to have been a desirable appointment to hold; dictators often stood down before the time-limit.
        vanattab 3y ago
        I mean your technically correct that dictators were supposed to give up thier absolute power and indeed some did. But there is definitely a reason the term has adopted it current meaning.
        3y ago
  - efitz 3y ago
    In the early 1990s I was very late for a flight. My friend dropped me off at the departure area; I got out of the car 5 minutes before departure time. I ran through the airport to security, let them know what flight I was on, and then ran to the gate after walking through the metal detector fully clothed and sending my bag through x-ray. Security radioed the gate and the flight crew left the door open so I could board. I made it, took my seat and buckled in, they closed the door and the plane pushed back. Elapsed time car seat to plane seat was about 7 minutes. Every single person I interacted with was helpful and understanding. What strikes me today is that EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT FLYING SUCKS. Airports are just part of the problem. I know this sounds extreme but they need to deregulate and privatize every single thing about the airline industry. Government just needs to ensure that liability flows in part to executives and board members regardless of corporate structure. Airlines can form a consortium to operate ATC themselves and can modernize it; something the government is completely failing at. A modern ATC would let us break away from the hub model that gives airports so much power. And your sandwich will be cheaper at an airport closer to your destination where you didn’t have to wait an hour for security to feel you up and take naked pictures of you.
    - ido 3y ago
      I don’t know where your faith that deregulating and privatizing would help the experience comes from. Here in Europe once they privatized parts of rail travel the experience got markedly worse. I moved to Europe about 20 years ago and it used to be much more of a pleasure taking trains with the EU (mostly talking about long range international trains within Central Europe) even not that long ago. Specifically in Germany the experience seems to have only gotten worse (both with quality of service and punctuality).
      - saurik 3y ago
        FWIW, in the US an airport doesn't actually have to use the TSA: the government can't actually quite mandate a single vendor like that here; there thereby exist private companies that operate to the TSA specification, and an airport can go with one of them instead. The airport in San Francisco (SFO) is the only one I have ever seen do this, using a vendor named CAS... and while the experience is mandated to suck a lot, it still sucks a lot less than the TSA as the CAS employees seem to get that they are just security technicians, not officers of the state (a distinction the TSA people don't understand, but also applies to them: the police at the airport, for example, have lots of jurisdiction over them, as far as I understand).
  - morelisp 3y ago
    I got me a white bread sandwich with some shredded lettuce And then I got me a ringside view for my quaint little fetish I just wanna drain my little pink heart of all its malice And kick back for the afternoon in this fluorescent palace
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  It’s not useless, but it doesn’t have to be as slow as it is. The government could hire 10x the number of agents to minimize lines without changing their budget by more than a rounding error, but they don’t care to.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It’s IMO worse than useless as terrorists can more easily kill people at the airport lines than destroying an aircraft. Holiday rush + luggage filled with even gunpowder and metal would make a huge statement that that everything we did was worse than useless. I was honestly expecting exactly that kind of follow up attack for years.
    - School-Cotton 3y ago
      The main purpose of airport security is not to prevent people from blowing up planes (although that’s an important secondary purpose) — it’s to prevent hijackings. Read about hijackings in the 60s before airport security; they were extremely common and disruptive.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Yes and no. Airport security showed up after US hijackings had already peaked, based on timing it seems the Federal Air Marshal Service service may have had a larger impact. The airport screenings are really an outgrowth of a Supreme Court case making such in depth screenings legal. Also it was relatively frequent but not that serious in the late 1960’s. The first US fatality from aircraft high jacking didn’t occur until 1970. Attacking airports has also happened multiple times including a 2002 incident in LA and even quite deadly attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre
      - hackernewds 3y ago
        why is a hijacking worse?
        3y ago
- KerryJones 3y ago
  "Airport security is not useless" While that's a pretty extreme statement, airport security's usefulness is definitely in question. Most other airports outside the US are significantly less strict (don't have to take off shoes, for instance), and there have been tons of youtube videos showing how you could easily slip in weapons of various sorts through airport security. It's practically a meme about the fact that they throw out all "might-be-bomb" liquids into trashcans right next to you -- in the same receptacle. It seems much more like security theatre, and maybe thanks to terrorist groups, but more thanks to sensationalist media + clever people who take advantage of the capitalistic system (one of the heads of the TSA just-so-happens to make the machines they use to scan your luggage, "private" business on the side that he gets paid for.) In addition, TSA Precheck / Clear / Global Entry are all ways to pay to have less inconvenience -- but have you seen any statistics they've been able to give out about stopped terrorist attempts? Don't you think that would be a thing that would be promoted if it was happening?
  - raspasov 3y ago
    Anecdotally, some of the worst/slowest/tedious airport security I have experience was outside the USA in recent years. In the US, even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least everything feels efficient, and appear quite standardized.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least everything feels efficient What does this actually mean?
      - dannyw 3y ago
        There’s no security officers sitting on their phones playing some game and chatting to each other, a common occurrence in SEA airports.
        gymbeaux 3y ago
        But I bet they have better bedside manners than TSA personnel. I really feel for the TSA “agent” who has to just sit and make sure nobody goes the wrong way through the “exit only” corridor that leads out of the terminal.
- bboygravity 3y ago
  counter-strike voice "Terrorists win."
- hackernewds 3y ago
  Or you know, instead of the strawmen, the airport security system could be much more efficient.
  - mrleinad 3y ago
    Not sure how, without heavily stepping even more on people's privacy and liberty. And I'm not talking about terrorists, but drug smugglers.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > Yeah, Airport security is not useless An airplane flight is practically a high-tech bus trip. Airport security probably is useless, otherwise there'd be an analogue for public transport. And as people regularly point out, the cost-benefit of airport security is probably net-negative. I bet almost nobody would choose a high-security airport over a low security airport if they had a choice.
  - megablast 3y ago
    They do have security in Canadian bus terminals who search you. And also in UK ferry terminals when going to Ireland.
    - dazc 3y ago
      I've travelled by ferry to both Northern and Southern Ireland several times and have only been searched once. This was on a work journey where it turned out my colleague had a criminal record. This was 10 - 12 years ago so perhaps things have changed since? I have been routinely searched before boarding a ferry to Spain as a foot passenger. AFAIAA, car passengers are not routinely searched, so I don't know what the logic is there?
  - hunter2_ 3y ago
    In terms of attacking the passengers of the craft, you can equate the two. In terms of attacking a building with the craft, there are significant differences. A plane can take down a huge building. A bus usually can't. A train definitely can't.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Although I do agree with your point that the risk there is different; a much easier control would be to have an emergency autopilot mode in the plane that the pilot can't disable. So if the plane gets hijacked ... it just flys its normal route. The hijacker's only options are to either kill everyone on board (same risk profile as a bus trip) or not (at which point they aren't effective hijackers). Even if the plane just downed itself in an ocean in an emergency; that'd be technically not so hard to pull off. Enough to deter hijackers so the mechanism wouldn't need to be used.
- chii 3y ago
  > thank terrorist groups for justifying the existence of this absolutely inefficient system the terrorists have already won. They did more damage causing these security measures than any actual killing or bombing.
- crote 3y ago
  It is useless, though. The shops after security sell plenty of stuff which you somehow aren't allowed to take through security. A quick Google search will show you plenty of ways to build weapons or explosives using solely duty-free items. Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their undercover inspections. In some cases 95% of weapons and explosives make it through TSA without any issues! Airport security literally is theater. At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the security queue.
  - qball 3y ago
    >At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the security queue. This has already happened; most terrorist attacks these days occur at malls and schoolhouses. Same memetic infection to disrupt and destroy, same domestic hysterics, same feedback cycle. So it goes until the next big meme shift for the dissatisfied comes along. >Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their undercover inspections. Every (mid-2000s) attacker that managed to get through the incompetent security was defeated by the best security force available: passengers that know that allowing their plane to be hijacked or threatened by a bomb means certain death for everyone on board should they stay in their seats and permit it.
    - hedora 3y ago
      It’s not quite true that every attacker has been thwarted. There have been a few cases where the pilot waited for the co-pilot to use the restroom, locked them out of the cockpit with the post-9/11 door, then intentionally crashed the plane. All of these incidents were overseas. One was confirmed, and one or two more are suspected cases of pilot suicide.
      - qball 3y ago
        >It’s not quite true that every attacker has been thwarted. When passengers have been able to intervene, they have defended their airplane 100% of the time. When passengers have been prevented by regulatory means from defending themselves, they have failed to defend against a "trusted" figure turned attacker 100% of the time. Sometimes the correct approach really is to do nothing.
- klyrs 3y ago
  Ironically, restaurants are the go-to source of steak knives past security.
lisper 3y ago
> people are prohibited from bringing many goods through security That's true, but sandwiches are not among them.
- marcins 3y ago
  What if you have more than 100mL of Mayo on it?
  - vkou 3y ago
    Then you should be detained as a threat to national security.
    - haldujai 3y ago
      Deservingly so for committing such an atrocity. Should also check your coronaries. OP you are allowed to bring solid foods without restriction but are still limited to 100cc for liquid/salsa/sauce even if it's sandwiched. Practically it is not strictly enforced if your sandwich looks edible, I've never had my pulled pork sandwiches analyzed.
      - jkaplowitz 3y ago
        At least in US airports, not only must all the liquids, gels, and aerosols be within 100ml containers, but these 100ml containers must all themselves be contained in a single clear zip-top plastic bag per passenger of no more than 1 liter in volume. So, technically, TSA is not being maximally strict in enforcing their rules when they allow any sandwich containing even tiny amounts of liquids like olive oil or gels like mayonnaise to enter outside the single 1 liter bag per person that also contains their shampoo and toothpaste. No, I don’t expect TSA ever to enforce this maximally strict interpretation, but that is how the rule is worded. By contrast, some foreign airports that mention the 100ml rule make no mention of the single 1 liter (using the non-US spelling of liter) maximum enclosing container volume per passenger, let alone the requirements for the enclosing container to be a clear, zip-top, plastic bag. So this particular absurd pedantry about an absurdly worded rule that’s designed for TSA to keep you guessing on each screening about with how much leniency they choose to grace you that time does not apply to most foreign airports.
jghn 3y ago
Even in the before times I didn't really leave airside. There was so rarely something worthwhile trekking to within the time I had available to me, that it wasn't worth it. Yes, the TSA security theater makes this worse, but I have very few layovers where *that* is the make or break reason I don't leave airside.
jliptzin 3y ago
I am looking forward to widely available personal EVTOL aircraft. Unless the TSA sometimes makes it into there and ruins that too
scarface74 3y ago
You are allowed to bring food in your carryon just not liquids. And isn’t the “waiting two hours an exaggeration”? I flew out of MCO (Orlando) around spring break and while it was hectic, it wasn’t that bad just looking at the line. Of course I fly enough that having Clear and TSA pre-check makes sense. I flew out of Atlanta - the busiest airport in the US for years and it didn’t take me that long to get through TSA even without PreCheck
- Quillbert182 3y ago
  Atlanta is my home airport, and I can assure you that two hours worst case may be on the short side.
  - scarface74 3y ago
    Without going back and forth with anecdotes. This is data https://www.ifly.com/hartsfield-jackson-atlanta-international-airport/wait-times https://www.ifly.com/hartsfield-jackson-atlanta-internationa...
- squeaky-clean 3y ago
  It took me 90 minutes to get through TSA in LAX recently. It split into two lines and the side I chose was moving sooo slowly compared to the other line. The person checking ID's was making small talk with every single person before letting them move along.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Briefly chatting with someone is a good way to pick up on whether they're relaxed and behaving normally or tense and secretive. It's probably a far more useful security measure than checking shoes or limiting liquids.
- gymbeaux 3y ago
  MCO can and does get very congested. Your one-off anecdotal experience is not representative, I promise you. That said, they are kind of addressing the congestion with that new terminal.
EGreg 3y ago
Best part is when TSA confiscates any liquids and then you are thirsty while waiting for the flights :) Why not sell fresh squeezed juices right as people get out of the security?
- fouc 3y ago
  I always drink the liquid, bring the empty container through, and then fill it up at the water fountains.
  - gymbeaux 3y ago
    Is water allowed if it’s frozen?
    - lioeters 3y ago
      There was a lady who tried that, bringing a bottle of frozen water and claiming that ice is not a liquid. I don't remember if she was allowed through or not, but looking it up, apparently it works now: > Frozen liquid items are allowed through the checkpoint as long as they are frozen solid when presented for screening. If frozen liquid items are partially melted, slushy, or have any liquid at the bottom of the container, they must meet 3-1-1 liquids requirements. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/ice https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...
      - yunwal 3y ago
        I’m not sure how making a bomb out of liquids works, but could you not just freeze all the necessary liquids and then hit them with the hand dryer in the bathroom?
saurik 3y ago
They are a bit higher, sure; but there is still quite a bit of competition inside the airport: surely, one of those vendors would defect to get a ton of surplus business... unless they are illegally colluding; so, we should expect most of the floor in pricing is coming from some external shared pricing irregularity (aka, the sky-high rents).
- kortilla 3y ago
  There is not enough actual competition for this to happen. Take a major hub like LAX which is already segregated by groups of airlines across subsets of terminals. How many options do you have to choose from post-security for something as simple as burgers or pizza? Let alone something like pasta or something like Indian or Chinese food. “We have both Panda Express and McDonalds” is not a sign of competition.
- crote 3y ago
  Collusion is quite hard to prove, though. A big problem is that it often isn't a free market. Joe The Sandwich Guy can't just randomly decide to open up a store inside the airport. There's a limited amount of space, a lease can easily last a decade, and any that come up are usually granted rather than auctioned. The airport is actively trying to provide a varied selection of products, which inherently means competition is limited: someone complaining about the price of a turkey sandwich isn't going to get a Big Mac solely because it is a few dollars cheaper. All of this is often made even worse because they aren't actually different vendors. Multiple stores are often owned by the same vendor, the different stores are just "exploiting various retail strategies". Nothing is actively illegal. Everyone just independently realized they could make a shitton of money because travelers are forced to either pay their prices or starve.
  - junofan 3y ago
    The airport is owned by the government. The buck stops there. This is a clear case of corruption.
    - throwawaybbq1 3y ago
vegetablepotpie 3y ago
But not all goods. If you need something to eat in an airport, there’s a bunch of snack options you can bring in. It’s not a movie theater. I’ve brought in Nuts, sandwiches, home baked bread wrapped in tinfoil. TSA just doesn’t want you bringing in the liquids. Am I going to get a warm meal with a drink on the side? No. Will I be full? Yes. Will is save $15. Yes. Will it take some planning and prep work? Yes.
- safeimp 3y ago
  Absolutely. I always buffer my time to the airport so I can stop off somewhere like a Whole Foods and load up on some food prior to the flight. Salad bar is typically my go-to. A. It’s less expensive B. It tastes 100% better
  - BostonEnginerd 3y ago
    You know that the system is screwed up when you can hold up the Whole Foods salad bar, as being the bargain option! I’ve found the dine-in restaurant options at EWR to be of reasonable quality, at least pre-pandemic. The food court areas are very hit or miss, even with the price gouging.
- elgaard 3y ago
  I have a bunch of 100 ml bottles (with "0.1 liter" stamped in the bottom). You can fit about 5 or 6 of those in a 1 liter plastic bag. That is enough to keep you hydrated and getting a drink while traveling.
- schwartzworld 3y ago
  They will even allow liquids in small containers. I've taken a bag full of nips on plenty of flights.
- dustedcodes 3y ago
  In London the have abolished the rule on liquids now: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65163418 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65163418
dsfyu404ed 3y ago
Regulatory capture in one of the most literal senses.
closeparen 3y ago
It’s usually a big production to get from the terminal to the nearest building that’s not airport property. Especially with hand luggage. Even if you could waltz in and out, I don’t see it.

by raydev 3y ago

crubier 3y ago

Yeah, Airport security is not useless, I'm not against it, but at the same time it's undeniable that the airport shopping industry can thank terrorist groups for justifying the existence of this absolutely inefficient system that keeps millions of people captive of their greediness..

noirbot 3y ago
I would be curious to compare to the 90s though. I remember when I was younger, I'd sometimes just go to the airport back when you could just walk out to the gates, grab a snack and then watch the planes take off and land. Obviously that's not a "normal" thing to have done, but in a world with lighter security, I remember airport food being around the same level as mall food court options, so it was an interesting option for getting out of the house. I'd be curious if there's some lower-security path towards making Airports more of a common space, not that there's any chance of it happening.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Changi in Singapore is very much a common space, because the security is at the gate.
  - paulmooreparks 3y ago
    Not really. A boarding pass is required for airside access.
    - refurb 3y ago
      Exactly. Changi is no different than other airports - you can only access the ticketing and baggage arrival areas unless you have a boarding pass. It does have a massive mall attached to the public area though (Jewel).
      - JadedEngineer 3y ago
        Yes but security is done at each individual gate which makes a massive difference. And the staff is nice and polite. I don't remember ever queing for anything at Changi and I've used it so much. It's about the only airport I don't hate these days.
        FabHK 3y ago
        Security at the individual gate is also done at Kuala Lumpur, Doha, and some others. I prefer the usual arrangement of a centralised security check. This stack exchange answer does a good job listing some of the advantages and disadvantages of security at the gate: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/34818/why-is-security-screening-done-at-the-gate-in-some-airports https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/34818/why-is-secu...
        7952 3y ago
        I think some of the space saving benefits are overstated. Baggage claim takes up a surprisingly large amount of space and you still need customs.
        refurb 3y ago
        Security isn't done at the individual gate in Terminal 4 (newest terminal). And actually security screening at the gate is a pain in the ass. Once you're screened you're stuck in a room with no bathrooms (you need to leave and get rescreened). And if your flight changes gates (happened to me), you have to get rescreened all over again. It is helpful in the sense that bottlenecks don't happen earlier on, but I'm not sure it's that great of an approach.
  - hackernewds 3y ago
    Changi is a stunning example of how beautiful an airport experience can be. I fly through there + Singapore airlines every chance I get. Perhaps a benevolent "dictatorship" can be beneficial.
    - mrosett 3y ago
      “Benevolent” dictatorship
    - Kamq 3y ago
      A single dictator has never really been the problem. You can find dictators that do better than democracies throughout history (especially on long-term planning). It's the transition of power that's the problem. Like, a real bad problem. Like raze half your country and set you back 50-100 years problem.
      - mongol 3y ago
        What kind of dictator are you talking about? Roman-style, where it could be time limited, or the modern version, of which there are many terrible examples before power transition becomes an issue?
        denton-scratch 3y ago
        > could be time limited Roman dictators weren't like modern autocrats. They were officials, appointed for a limited time (usually no more than 6 months) to address some specific emergency. They weren't crooks who staged coups. And it doesn't seem to have been a desirable appointment to hold; dictators often stood down before the time-limit.
        vanattab 3y ago
        I mean your technically correct that dictators were supposed to give up thier absolute power and indeed some did. But there is definitely a reason the term has adopted it current meaning.
        3y ago
- efitz 3y ago
  In the early 1990s I was very late for a flight. My friend dropped me off at the departure area; I got out of the car 5 minutes before departure time. I ran through the airport to security, let them know what flight I was on, and then ran to the gate after walking through the metal detector fully clothed and sending my bag through x-ray. Security radioed the gate and the flight crew left the door open so I could board. I made it, took my seat and buckled in, they closed the door and the plane pushed back. Elapsed time car seat to plane seat was about 7 minutes. Every single person I interacted with was helpful and understanding. What strikes me today is that EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT FLYING SUCKS. Airports are just part of the problem. I know this sounds extreme but they need to deregulate and privatize every single thing about the airline industry. Government just needs to ensure that liability flows in part to executives and board members regardless of corporate structure. Airlines can form a consortium to operate ATC themselves and can modernize it; something the government is completely failing at. A modern ATC would let us break away from the hub model that gives airports so much power. And your sandwich will be cheaper at an airport closer to your destination where you didn’t have to wait an hour for security to feel you up and take naked pictures of you.
  - ido 3y ago
    I don’t know where your faith that deregulating and privatizing would help the experience comes from. Here in Europe once they privatized parts of rail travel the experience got markedly worse. I moved to Europe about 20 years ago and it used to be much more of a pleasure taking trains with the EU (mostly talking about long range international trains within Central Europe) even not that long ago. Specifically in Germany the experience seems to have only gotten worse (both with quality of service and punctuality).
    - saurik 3y ago
      FWIW, in the US an airport doesn't actually have to use the TSA: the government can't actually quite mandate a single vendor like that here; there thereby exist private companies that operate to the TSA specification, and an airport can go with one of them instead. The airport in San Francisco (SFO) is the only one I have ever seen do this, using a vendor named CAS... and while the experience is mandated to suck a lot, it still sucks a lot less than the TSA as the CAS employees seem to get that they are just security technicians, not officers of the state (a distinction the TSA people don't understand, but also applies to them: the police at the airport, for example, have lots of jurisdiction over them, as far as I understand).
- morelisp 3y ago
  I got me a white bread sandwich with some shredded lettuce And then I got me a ringside view for my quaint little fetish I just wanna drain my little pink heart of all its malice And kick back for the afternoon in this fluorescent palace
School-Cotton 3y ago
It’s not useless, but it doesn’t have to be as slow as it is. The government could hire 10x the number of agents to minimize lines without changing their budget by more than a rounding error, but they don’t care to.
- Retric 3y ago
  It’s IMO worse than useless as terrorists can more easily kill people at the airport lines than destroying an aircraft. Holiday rush + luggage filled with even gunpowder and metal would make a huge statement that that everything we did was worse than useless. I was honestly expecting exactly that kind of follow up attack for years.
  - School-Cotton 3y ago
    The main purpose of airport security is not to prevent people from blowing up planes (although that’s an important secondary purpose) — it’s to prevent hijackings. Read about hijackings in the 60s before airport security; they were extremely common and disruptive.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Yes and no. Airport security showed up after US hijackings had already peaked, based on timing it seems the Federal Air Marshal Service service may have had a larger impact. The airport screenings are really an outgrowth of a Supreme Court case making such in depth screenings legal. Also it was relatively frequent but not that serious in the late 1960’s. The first US fatality from aircraft high jacking didn’t occur until 1970. Attacking airports has also happened multiple times including a 2002 incident in LA and even quite deadly attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre
    - hackernewds 3y ago
      why is a hijacking worse?
      - 3y ago
KerryJones 3y ago
"Airport security is not useless" While that's a pretty extreme statement, airport security's usefulness is definitely in question. Most other airports outside the US are significantly less strict (don't have to take off shoes, for instance), and there have been tons of youtube videos showing how you could easily slip in weapons of various sorts through airport security. It's practically a meme about the fact that they throw out all "might-be-bomb" liquids into trashcans right next to you -- in the same receptacle. It seems much more like security theatre, and maybe thanks to terrorist groups, but more thanks to sensationalist media + clever people who take advantage of the capitalistic system (one of the heads of the TSA just-so-happens to make the machines they use to scan your luggage, "private" business on the side that he gets paid for.) In addition, TSA Precheck / Clear / Global Entry are all ways to pay to have less inconvenience -- but have you seen any statistics they've been able to give out about stopped terrorist attempts? Don't you think that would be a thing that would be promoted if it was happening?
- raspasov 3y ago
  Anecdotally, some of the worst/slowest/tedious airport security I have experience was outside the USA in recent years. In the US, even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least everything feels efficient, and appear quite standardized.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > even if there _is_ a tedious process, at least everything feels efficient What does this actually mean?
    - dannyw 3y ago
      There’s no security officers sitting on their phones playing some game and chatting to each other, a common occurrence in SEA airports.
      - gymbeaux 3y ago
        But I bet they have better bedside manners than TSA personnel. I really feel for the TSA “agent” who has to just sit and make sure nobody goes the wrong way through the “exit only” corridor that leads out of the terminal.
bboygravity 3y ago
counter-strike voice "Terrorists win."
hackernewds 3y ago
Or you know, instead of the strawmen, the airport security system could be much more efficient.
- mrleinad 3y ago
  Not sure how, without heavily stepping even more on people's privacy and liberty. And I'm not talking about terrorists, but drug smugglers.
roenxi 3y ago
> Yeah, Airport security is not useless An airplane flight is practically a high-tech bus trip. Airport security probably is useless, otherwise there'd be an analogue for public transport. And as people regularly point out, the cost-benefit of airport security is probably net-negative. I bet almost nobody would choose a high-security airport over a low security airport if they had a choice.
- megablast 3y ago
  They do have security in Canadian bus terminals who search you. And also in UK ferry terminals when going to Ireland.
  - dazc 3y ago
    I've travelled by ferry to both Northern and Southern Ireland several times and have only been searched once. This was on a work journey where it turned out my colleague had a criminal record. This was 10 - 12 years ago so perhaps things have changed since? I have been routinely searched before boarding a ferry to Spain as a foot passenger. AFAIAA, car passengers are not routinely searched, so I don't know what the logic is there?
- hunter2_ 3y ago
  In terms of attacking the passengers of the craft, you can equate the two. In terms of attacking a building with the craft, there are significant differences. A plane can take down a huge building. A bus usually can't. A train definitely can't.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Although I do agree with your point that the risk there is different; a much easier control would be to have an emergency autopilot mode in the plane that the pilot can't disable. So if the plane gets hijacked ... it just flys its normal route. The hijacker's only options are to either kill everyone on board (same risk profile as a bus trip) or not (at which point they aren't effective hijackers). Even if the plane just downed itself in an ocean in an emergency; that'd be technically not so hard to pull off. Enough to deter hijackers so the mechanism wouldn't need to be used.
chii 3y ago
> thank terrorist groups for justifying the existence of this absolutely inefficient system the terrorists have already won. They did more damage causing these security measures than any actual killing or bombing.
crote 3y ago
It is useless, though. The shops after security sell plenty of stuff which you somehow aren't allowed to take through security. A quick Google search will show you plenty of ways to build weapons or explosives using solely duty-free items. Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their undercover inspections. In some cases 95% of weapons and explosives make it through TSA without any issues! Airport security literally is theater. At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the security queue.
- qball 3y ago
  >At best it'll result in the terrorist attack being moved from the airplane to the security queue. This has already happened; most terrorist attacks these days occur at malls and schoolhouses. Same memetic infection to disrupt and destroy, same domestic hysterics, same feedback cycle. So it goes until the next big meme shift for the dissatisfied comes along. >Not to mention that TSA over and over again fails their undercover inspections. Every (mid-2000s) attacker that managed to get through the incompetent security was defeated by the best security force available: passengers that know that allowing their plane to be hijacked or threatened by a bomb means certain death for everyone on board should they stay in their seats and permit it.
  - hedora 3y ago
    It’s not quite true that every attacker has been thwarted. There have been a few cases where the pilot waited for the co-pilot to use the restroom, locked them out of the cockpit with the post-9/11 door, then intentionally crashed the plane. All of these incidents were overseas. One was confirmed, and one or two more are suspected cases of pilot suicide.
    - qball 3y ago
      >It’s not quite true that every attacker has been thwarted. When passengers have been able to intervene, they have defended their airplane 100% of the time. When passengers have been prevented by regulatory means from defending themselves, they have failed to defend against a "trusted" figure turned attacker 100% of the time. Sometimes the correct approach really is to do nothing.
klyrs 3y ago
Ironically, restaurants are the go-to source of steak knives past security.

lisper 3y ago

> people are prohibited from bringing many goods through security That's true, but sandwiches are not among them.

marcins 3y ago
What if you have more than 100mL of Mayo on it?
- vkou 3y ago
  Then you should be detained as a threat to national security.
  - haldujai 3y ago
    Deservingly so for committing such an atrocity. Should also check your coronaries. OP you are allowed to bring solid foods without restriction but are still limited to 100cc for liquid/salsa/sauce even if it's sandwiched. Practically it is not strictly enforced if your sandwich looks edible, I've never had my pulled pork sandwiches analyzed.
    - jkaplowitz 3y ago
      At least in US airports, not only must all the liquids, gels, and aerosols be within 100ml containers, but these 100ml containers must all themselves be contained in a single clear zip-top plastic bag per passenger of no more than 1 liter in volume. So, technically, TSA is not being maximally strict in enforcing their rules when they allow any sandwich containing even tiny amounts of liquids like olive oil or gels like mayonnaise to enter outside the single 1 liter bag per person that also contains their shampoo and toothpaste. No, I don’t expect TSA ever to enforce this maximally strict interpretation, but that is how the rule is worded. By contrast, some foreign airports that mention the 100ml rule make no mention of the single 1 liter (using the non-US spelling of liter) maximum enclosing container volume per passenger, let alone the requirements for the enclosing container to be a clear, zip-top, plastic bag. So this particular absurd pedantry about an absurdly worded rule that’s designed for TSA to keep you guessing on each screening about with how much leniency they choose to grace you that time does not apply to most foreign airports.

jghn 3y ago

Even in the before times I didn't really leave airside. There was so rarely something worthwhile trekking to within the time I had available to me, that it wasn't worth it. Yes, the TSA security theater makes this worse, but I have very few layovers where *that* is the make or break reason I don't leave airside.

jliptzin 3y ago

I am looking forward to widely available personal EVTOL aircraft. Unless the TSA sometimes makes it into there and ruins that too

scarface74 3y ago

You are allowed to bring food in your carryon just not liquids. And isn’t the “waiting two hours an exaggeration”? I flew out of MCO (Orlando) around spring break and while it was hectic, it wasn’t that bad just looking at the line. Of course I fly enough that having Clear and TSA pre-check makes sense. I flew out of Atlanta - the busiest airport in the US for years and it didn’t take me that long to get through TSA even without PreCheck

Quillbert182 3y ago
Atlanta is my home airport, and I can assure you that two hours worst case may be on the short side.
- scarface74 3y ago
  Without going back and forth with anecdotes. This is data https://www.ifly.com/hartsfield-jackson-atlanta-international-airport/wait-times https://www.ifly.com/hartsfield-jackson-atlanta-internationa...
squeaky-clean 3y ago
It took me 90 minutes to get through TSA in LAX recently. It split into two lines and the side I chose was moving sooo slowly compared to the other line. The person checking ID's was making small talk with every single person before letting them move along.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Briefly chatting with someone is a good way to pick up on whether they're relaxed and behaving normally or tense and secretive. It's probably a far more useful security measure than checking shoes or limiting liquids.
gymbeaux 3y ago
MCO can and does get very congested. Your one-off anecdotal experience is not representative, I promise you. That said, they are kind of addressing the congestion with that new terminal.

EGreg 3y ago

Best part is when TSA confiscates any liquids and then you are thirsty while waiting for the flights :) Why not sell fresh squeezed juices right as people get out of the security?

fouc 3y ago
I always drink the liquid, bring the empty container through, and then fill it up at the water fountains.
- gymbeaux 3y ago
  Is water allowed if it’s frozen?
  - lioeters 3y ago
    There was a lady who tried that, bringing a bottle of frozen water and claiming that ice is not a liquid. I don't remember if she was allowed through or not, but looking it up, apparently it works now: > Frozen liquid items are allowed through the checkpoint as long as they are frozen solid when presented for screening. If frozen liquid items are partially melted, slushy, or have any liquid at the bottom of the container, they must meet 3-1-1 liquids requirements. https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/items/ice https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...
    - yunwal 3y ago
      I’m not sure how making a bomb out of liquids works, but could you not just freeze all the necessary liquids and then hit them with the hand dryer in the bathroom?

saurik 3y ago

They are a bit higher, sure; but there is still quite a bit of competition inside the airport: surely, one of those vendors would defect to get a ton of surplus business... unless they are illegally colluding; so, we should expect most of the floor in pricing is coming from some external shared pricing irregularity (aka, the sky-high rents).

kortilla 3y ago
There is not enough actual competition for this to happen. Take a major hub like LAX which is already segregated by groups of airlines across subsets of terminals. How many options do you have to choose from post-security for something as simple as burgers or pizza? Let alone something like pasta or something like Indian or Chinese food. “We have both Panda Express and McDonalds” is not a sign of competition.
crote 3y ago
Collusion is quite hard to prove, though. A big problem is that it often isn't a free market. Joe The Sandwich Guy can't just randomly decide to open up a store inside the airport. There's a limited amount of space, a lease can easily last a decade, and any that come up are usually granted rather than auctioned. The airport is actively trying to provide a varied selection of products, which inherently means competition is limited: someone complaining about the price of a turkey sandwich isn't going to get a Big Mac solely because it is a few dollars cheaper. All of this is often made even worse because they aren't actually different vendors. Multiple stores are often owned by the same vendor, the different stores are just "exploiting various retail strategies". Nothing is actively illegal. Everyone just independently realized they could make a shitton of money because travelers are forced to either pay their prices or starve.
- junofan 3y ago
  The airport is owned by the government. The buck stops there. This is a clear case of corruption.
  - throwawaybbq1 3y ago

vegetablepotpie 3y ago

But not all goods. If you need something to eat in an airport, there’s a bunch of snack options you can bring in. It’s not a movie theater. I’ve brought in Nuts, sandwiches, home baked bread wrapped in tinfoil. TSA just doesn’t want you bringing in the liquids. Am I going to get a warm meal with a drink on the side? No. Will I be full? Yes. Will is save $15. Yes. Will it take some planning and prep work? Yes.

safeimp 3y ago
Absolutely. I always buffer my time to the airport so I can stop off somewhere like a Whole Foods and load up on some food prior to the flight. Salad bar is typically my go-to. A. It’s less expensive B. It tastes 100% better
- BostonEnginerd 3y ago
  You know that the system is screwed up when you can hold up the Whole Foods salad bar, as being the bargain option! I’ve found the dine-in restaurant options at EWR to be of reasonable quality, at least pre-pandemic. The food court areas are very hit or miss, even with the price gouging.
elgaard 3y ago
I have a bunch of 100 ml bottles (with "0.1 liter" stamped in the bottom). You can fit about 5 or 6 of those in a 1 liter plastic bag. That is enough to keep you hydrated and getting a drink while traveling.
schwartzworld 3y ago
They will even allow liquids in small containers. I've taken a bag full of nips on plenty of flights.
dustedcodes 3y ago
In London the have abolished the rule on liquids now: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65163418 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65163418

dsfyu404ed 3y ago

Regulatory capture in one of the most literal senses.

closeparen 3y ago

It’s usually a big production to get from the terminal to the nearest building that’s not airport property. Especially with hand luggage. Even if you could waltz in and out, I don’t see it.