3 ms·

Regarding convenience, just travel internationally and you will see just how "convenient" and "enjoyable" the USA is to get in and out compared to other countri

Regarding convenience, just travel internationally and you will see just how "convenient" and "enjoyable" the USA is to get in and out compared to other countries. As for the machines and process themselves, there are plenty other complains that are far more important than speed, convenience or how much the UI shows. Sadly, usually and kind of ironically the only TSA agent that treats me as anything else than a piece of meat is the guy doing a pat-down, and that guy has me literally by the balls.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Air/Train/Bus travel in China during the 2008 Olympics wasn't as troublesome or degrading as in the US (but was still more than it ought to be).
peferron 13y ago
I travel internationally and do not notice a stark difference between the security checkpoint procedures in the USA and in other countries. The only difference I can recall is having to stop for a few seconds in the millimeter scanner instead of just walking through a traditional gate, but this is hardly a major difference. Can you mention anything else?
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  I mainly use Narita these days. It doesn't have any scanners at all except for metal detectors (or didn't; I haven't flown for a couple of years). Security checkpoints are very quick and efficient. The staff seem very competent and quick. Lines are usually short, but even when they're long, things move along very quickly, so there's really no sense of security as being anything more than a minor bottleneck. [This is sort of how security was a long time ago in the U.S.] In the U.S. airports I usually use, O'hare, JFK, and sometimes other airports for stopovers, things are slow and chaotic. The lines are always huge and move slowly, the required scanner procedure very slow, other rules slow things down (everybody's taking off and putting on their shoes and belts, and despite exhortations to do it in advance, this really bogs things down), and the staff seem to often be inattentive and inefficient. Where exactly the main problem is, I'm not entirely sure, but I do know that I dread going through security in the U.S. these days...
pekk 13y ago
I don't like the scanners. But if you think America is the worst, I wonder if you have traveled through Schiphol. Or Israel. Getting the verbal third degree is also quite invasive and uncomfortable.
- estebank 13y ago
  Actually I went through Schiphol-USA and back over the weekend. I compared directly between them. Schiphol->: Got questioned for about 30 seconds before going through the scanners. I have dual nationality so the guy was extra thorough with me. No delays (good), no opt-out possible from millimiter-wave scanner (bad). Scanners just before boarding gate. Get on plane. ->SFO: Half an hour queueing while looped video of a cute puppy about it being bad for everybody if you bring carrots numbed my higher brain functions. Finally in front of customs, guy takes about 4 minutes checking my passport and visa, taking pictures and fingerprints of me. Get on BART. SFO->: 20 minutes queueing. TSA guy questions me while drawing nonsense on the boarding ticket (psych technique to distract you while they look at your reaction?). TSA guy in the background screams "Keep your belongings in sight! We are not responsible if you lose something, but I don't want to fill the paperwork!" (not paraphrasing, those were the words used). I Opt-out, TSA guys screaming between each other "We have an opt-out! Male!" several times until another agent comes by. Instructed how pat down is done, get groped, get tested for explosive residue from the agent's gloves(do they think that an opt-outer is more likely to be "bad"?). After 30/40 minutes of the TSA dance, get on plane. ->CDG->: Get out of plane. Go through customs (<1 minute queue, <30seconds with officer). Get on plane. ->Schiphol: Get out of plane. Go through automated customs (5 minutes queueing, 30 seconds with the machine). Get on Train. All and all, although I think the mandatory scanners in Schiphol are unnecessarily invasive, there was nothing shittier in that entire trip than TSA, may be the exclusion of the schizophrenic woman that threw a soda can at me when walking by...
  - peferron 13y ago
    If we're comparing TSA-like procedures between countries, we should: 1. Keep customs out of the picture. At CDG, automated customs sometimes take me less than 20 seconds; at SFO, the visitor queue is sometimes more than 1 hour long. But TSA has nothing to do with this as far as I know. 2. Keep queuing out of the picture. Multiple things can affect queuing times, such as the terminal having not enough parallel security checkpoints and/or a higher traffic, which TSA has again nothing to do with. The only things we should pay attention to are the quality and duration of the experience, from the moment you start unloading your bag into the plastic bin, to the moment you put it back on your shoulder and walk away. If I keep myself to that honestly I've never seen much of a difference between countries, and it seems that the only reason why Schiphol was better for you is because they didn't let you opt out of the millimeter scanner at all :/ it would have been a more legitimate comparison if you hadn't opted out of the SFO scan either, in which case I suspect it would have gone the exact same way it did in Schiphol. (Not that it makes it ok to treat badly people who chose to opt out.)

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Air/Train/Bus travel in China during the 2008 Olympics wasn't as troublesome or degrading as in the US (but was still more than it ought to be).

peferron 13y ago

I travel internationally and do not notice a stark difference between the security checkpoint procedures in the USA and in other countries. The only difference I can recall is having to stop for a few seconds in the millimeter scanner instead of just walking through a traditional gate, but this is hardly a major difference. Can you mention anything else?

snogglethorpe 13y ago
I mainly use Narita these days. It doesn't have any scanners at all except for metal detectors (or didn't; I haven't flown for a couple of years). Security checkpoints are very quick and efficient. The staff seem very competent and quick. Lines are usually short, but even when they're long, things move along very quickly, so there's really no sense of security as being anything more than a minor bottleneck. [This is sort of how security was a long time ago in the U.S.] In the U.S. airports I usually use, O'hare, JFK, and sometimes other airports for stopovers, things are slow and chaotic. The lines are always huge and move slowly, the required scanner procedure very slow, other rules slow things down (everybody's taking off and putting on their shoes and belts, and despite exhortations to do it in advance, this really bogs things down), and the staff seem to often be inattentive and inefficient. Where exactly the main problem is, I'm not entirely sure, but I do know that I dread going through security in the U.S. these days...

pekk 13y ago

I don't like the scanners. But if you think America is the worst, I wonder if you have traveled through Schiphol. Or Israel. Getting the verbal third degree is also quite invasive and uncomfortable.

estebank 13y ago
Actually I went through Schiphol-USA and back over the weekend. I compared directly between them. Schiphol->: Got questioned for about 30 seconds before going through the scanners. I have dual nationality so the guy was extra thorough with me. No delays (good), no opt-out possible from millimiter-wave scanner (bad). Scanners just before boarding gate. Get on plane. ->SFO: Half an hour queueing while looped video of a cute puppy about it being bad for everybody if you bring carrots numbed my higher brain functions. Finally in front of customs, guy takes about 4 minutes checking my passport and visa, taking pictures and fingerprints of me. Get on BART. SFO->: 20 minutes queueing. TSA guy questions me while drawing nonsense on the boarding ticket (psych technique to distract you while they look at your reaction?). TSA guy in the background screams "Keep your belongings in sight! We are not responsible if you lose something, but I don't want to fill the paperwork!" (not paraphrasing, those were the words used). I Opt-out, TSA guys screaming between each other "We have an opt-out! Male!" several times until another agent comes by. Instructed how pat down is done, get groped, get tested for explosive residue from the agent's gloves(do they think that an opt-outer is more likely to be "bad"?). After 30/40 minutes of the TSA dance, get on plane. ->CDG->: Get out of plane. Go through customs (<1 minute queue, <30seconds with officer). Get on plane. ->Schiphol: Get out of plane. Go through automated customs (5 minutes queueing, 30 seconds with the machine). Get on Train. All and all, although I think the mandatory scanners in Schiphol are unnecessarily invasive, there was nothing shittier in that entire trip than TSA, may be the exclusion of the schizophrenic woman that threw a soda can at me when walking by...
- peferron 13y ago
  If we're comparing TSA-like procedures between countries, we should: 1. Keep customs out of the picture. At CDG, automated customs sometimes take me less than 20 seconds; at SFO, the visitor queue is sometimes more than 1 hour long. But TSA has nothing to do with this as far as I know. 2. Keep queuing out of the picture. Multiple things can affect queuing times, such as the terminal having not enough parallel security checkpoints and/or a higher traffic, which TSA has again nothing to do with. The only things we should pay attention to are the quality and duration of the experience, from the moment you start unloading your bag into the plastic bin, to the moment you put it back on your shoulder and walk away. If I keep myself to that honestly I've never seen much of a difference between countries, and it seems that the only reason why Schiphol was better for you is because they didn't let you opt out of the millimeter scanner at all :/ it would have been a more legitimate comparison if you hadn't opted out of the SFO scan either, in which case I suspect it would have gone the exact same way it did in Schiphol. (Not that it makes it ok to treat badly people who chose to opt out.)