8 ms·

I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. Let people run through the airport right to the g

by glenra 12y ago

I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. Let people run through the airport right to the gate without having to stand in a line at all. Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. Here's all we should do: leave security policy up to the airlines themselves. Then there won't be the sort of single points of failure we have now. If one airline wants to reinforce the cockpit doors or arm the pilots they can just do that without getting permission from a central authority and making that the new mandated standard. Get rid of one-size-fits-all security. Let "convenient security" be just one more attribute that airline companies compete to provide, along with "comfortable seating" and "frequent flights".

jimmaswell 12y ago
How exactly has airport security caused any deaths?
- glenra 12y ago
  Airport security makes flying much more expensive (both in time and in money) and inconvenient and generally unpleasant than it would otherwise be. So many people who otherwise would take a plane on a short trip choose to drive instead. Some of those people die needlessly in traffic accidents, since driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying. That's the primary mechanism of harm. A common estimate I've seen is that roughly 500 extra people a year die due just to the added security costs post-9/11. A little googling finds a few relevant popular-press articles including these: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-... http://www.wired.com/2012/04/is-airport-security-killing-500-people-a-year/ http://www.wired.com/2012/04/is-airport-security-killing-500... One of the relevant academic papers is by Cornell University researchers Garrick Blalock, Vrinda Kadiyali, and Daniel H. Simon, “The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel,” published in The Journal of Law and Economics in November 2007. (pdf here: http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf )
  - a_c_s 12y ago
    I seriously doubt that a $5.60 fee has a significant effect on demand for $200-$500 plane tickets. If that were the case, one could argue that the overpriced food at the airport also kills people. As for your sources: The paper linked by Business Week doesn't say anything about the price of airport security deterring people, rather it is about the aggregate group that substituted driving for flying after 9/11, which has a myriad of causes. It does not support the assertion that the price of the TSA kills people. The second link asserts that the time spent due to TSA procedures puts more people on the road, but I doubt this for two reasons: 1. security has been quick and efficient in my 2x-4x flights per year experience and 2. the rule of getting to the airport 1 hour before domestic and 2 hours before international flights existed before 9/11 too. So if somebody spends 30 minutes in a security line or 5 minutes, that affects their time twiddling their thumbs at the gate and not their travel time (and therefore doesn't really impact the decision to fly or drive).
    - Canada 12y ago
      Personally, I don't fly if I don't have to. The cost of flights has nothing to do with it. The way things are now, I feel threatened in an airport. Especially a US airport, though Canadian ones aren't much better. I feel a heightened possibility that my valuables be stolen from me. That it's done under the color of law makes it even worse than being in a rough neighborhood. Some may say this is unreasonable, but I know two people who've been stolen from by TSA. I'd rather drive 8 hours than be subjected to a warrantless search.
      - nhstanley 12y ago
        Do you know they were stolen from by the TSA, or by baggage handlers? Getting rid of the TSA wouldn't solve the latter problem.
        coldpie 12y ago
        TSA theft happens all the time. They have the ability to take stuff from passengers basically with impunity. What are you doing to do, start a row in the security line? http://rt.com/usa/tsa-stealing-from-travelers-358/ http://rt.com/usa/tsa-stealing-from-travelers-358/
nfoz 12y ago
Why would the airlines have incentive to provide good-quality security? Terrorism events are rare and it seems unlikely that a reasonable amount of security infrastructure that the airline could provide would result in a substantial decrease in the probability that a sufficiently-motivated terrorist would be successful with an attack against that airline. I just can't imagine we would get anything more than the airlines putting in a minumum amount of security theatre to meet appearances for the customers and appease the local regulations.
- glenra 12y ago
  What airlines are doing now amounts precisely to "a large amount of security theatre to meet appearances for the customers and appease the local regulations." I want to decentralize for two reasons: (1) it removes single points of failure. For instance, post-911, airlines needed to GET PERMISSION to make changes such as strengthening the cockpit door or changing the protocol for opening it. Being more flexible means being able to quickly adjust to changing security circumstances. (2) It gives customers the OPTION of purchasing LESS security. So far as I'm concerned, the airlines I fly are already far more "secure" than they need to be - I would pay extra to fly on a plane with NO security, one where people could just walk on openly carrying a rifle if they so desired. Were it left up to the airlines, they would have to make tradeoffs between security and every other value customers have including cost and convenience. We then wouldn't get somebody's idea of "the best possible security no matter the cost". Instead we'd get "the best possible security consistent with not spending too much money and not inconveniencing or annoying passengers very much." Which is what we really want.
  - vacri 12y ago
    one where people could just walk on openly carrying a rifle if they so desired So you also want airlines to modify cabins to handle oversized carry-on luggage? Nevertheless, the amount of people who would pay more to do this would not be commercially viable - you yourself state that cost is a significant factor for users. Keep in mind also that your security-free airline would have to have its own terminals, as its customers wouldn't be able to mingle with existing airline customers. Also, why would you pay more for an item that's better off in checked luggage anyway? It's not like you can use the rifle between luggage drop-off and pick-up, and it's irritatingly large to carry around a cabin. It sounds like sacrificing pragmatics for pointless idealism, to me.
jonlucc 12y ago
I'm not sure if it's true, but I've read that the airlines didn't want to have any part in security after 9/11 because of the liability.
thaumasiotes 12y ago
> I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. You could do this in the 90s. It still boggles my mind that someone thought it should be stamped out.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  It's also a bit surprising that meeting people at the gate is thought of as some bizarre behavior that only happened in ancient antiquity. All of these restrictions, and all of these new bureaucracies are brand new, completely created and maintained over the administrations of only two presidents.
- cgio 12y ago
  You can still dos it in Australia, for domestic flights (albeit you have to pass the security check.) Still, I was quite surprised the first time I noticed so.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Methinks he was referring to not what we think of now as the "gate" (the extended building reaching to the plane), but in fact walking right out on the tarmac.
  - glenra 12y ago
    Nah, I meant what we think of now as "gate". For instance, I remember going out to meet people at the gate at SFO in the 1990s. I'm not quite old enough - or perhaps didn't grow up in a small enough town? - to remember routinely walking out on the tarmac to greet a plane.
JackFr 12y ago
> Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. Even if I grant that it saved no lives, it's not obvious to me how it caused any. > Here's all we should do: leave security policy up to the airlines themselves. Airplanes filled filled with thousands of pounds of jet fuel hurtling overhead create externalities, with costs borne by the community. While customers certainly would consider safety and security in choosing an airline, those killed on the ground in Lockerbie and in the WTC and at the Pentagon did not make that choice.
- glenra 12y ago
  > > Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. > Even if I grant that it saved no lives, it's not obvious to me how it caused any. This is discussed elsewhere in the thread, mainly here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8220129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8220129 When you make flying less attractive, people are more likely to drive. Driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous, so people die in car crashes who wouldn't have if they had flown. Security makes flying less attractive because: - higher monetary cost for the flight (some of this is reflected in explicit "security fees", some not) - bigger time commitment due to having to arrive early to allow for security - bigger chance of missing the flight (if you're the sort of person who tends to cut it close on time) - less flexibility. For instance, before the modern security era you could just buy a ticket and then if it turns out you couldn't use it you could sell it on craigslist. Or if the flight was overbooked you could directly sell your ticket to somebody on standby - the airlines didn't care. - greater chance of being stolen from because you are forcibly separated from your valuables which are accessed out of your sight. - greater stress due to the fear of losing one's valuables. - more stress due to fears related to dealing with security personnel, long lines, being treated like sheep, having one's personal space invaded and more. The most DIRECT way all this translates into extra deaths is that fewer people fly so more die on the road. One INDIRECT way it translates into extra deaths is that fewer people travel at all (or do so more expensively) which damages economic growth; economic growth tends to promote health.

by glenra 12y ago

jimmaswell 12y ago

How exactly has airport security caused any deaths?

glenra 12y ago
Airport security makes flying much more expensive (both in time and in money) and inconvenient and generally unpleasant than it would otherwise be. So many people who otherwise would take a plane on a short trip choose to drive instead. Some of those people die needlessly in traffic accidents, since driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying. That's the primary mechanism of harm. A common estimate I've seen is that roughly 500 extra people a year die due just to the added security costs post-9/11. A little googling finds a few relevant popular-press articles including these: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-security-is-killing-us http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-18/how-airport-... http://www.wired.com/2012/04/is-airport-security-killing-500-people-a-year/ http://www.wired.com/2012/04/is-airport-security-killing-500... One of the relevant academic papers is by Cornell University researchers Garrick Blalock, Vrinda Kadiyali, and Daniel H. Simon, “The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel,” published in The Journal of Law and Economics in November 2007. (pdf here: http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf http://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty_sites/gb78/wp/JLE_6301.pdf )
- a_c_s 12y ago
  I seriously doubt that a $5.60 fee has a significant effect on demand for $200-$500 plane tickets. If that were the case, one could argue that the overpriced food at the airport also kills people. As for your sources: The paper linked by Business Week doesn't say anything about the price of airport security deterring people, rather it is about the aggregate group that substituted driving for flying after 9/11, which has a myriad of causes. It does not support the assertion that the price of the TSA kills people. The second link asserts that the time spent due to TSA procedures puts more people on the road, but I doubt this for two reasons: 1. security has been quick and efficient in my 2x-4x flights per year experience and 2. the rule of getting to the airport 1 hour before domestic and 2 hours before international flights existed before 9/11 too. So if somebody spends 30 minutes in a security line or 5 minutes, that affects their time twiddling their thumbs at the gate and not their travel time (and therefore doesn't really impact the decision to fly or drive).
  - Canada 12y ago
    Personally, I don't fly if I don't have to. The cost of flights has nothing to do with it. The way things are now, I feel threatened in an airport. Especially a US airport, though Canadian ones aren't much better. I feel a heightened possibility that my valuables be stolen from me. That it's done under the color of law makes it even worse than being in a rough neighborhood. Some may say this is unreasonable, but I know two people who've been stolen from by TSA. I'd rather drive 8 hours than be subjected to a warrantless search.
    - nhstanley 12y ago
      Do you know they were stolen from by the TSA, or by baggage handlers? Getting rid of the TSA wouldn't solve the latter problem.
      - coldpie 12y ago
        TSA theft happens all the time. They have the ability to take stuff from passengers basically with impunity. What are you doing to do, start a row in the security line? http://rt.com/usa/tsa-stealing-from-travelers-358/ http://rt.com/usa/tsa-stealing-from-travelers-358/

nfoz 12y ago

Why would the airlines have incentive to provide good-quality security? Terrorism events are rare and it seems unlikely that a reasonable amount of security infrastructure that the airline could provide would result in a substantial decrease in the probability that a sufficiently-motivated terrorist would be successful with an attack against that airline. I just can't imagine we would get anything more than the airlines putting in a minumum amount of security theatre to meet appearances for the customers and appease the local regulations.

glenra 12y ago
What airlines are doing now amounts precisely to "a large amount of security theatre to meet appearances for the customers and appease the local regulations." I want to decentralize for two reasons: (1) it removes single points of failure. For instance, post-911, airlines needed to GET PERMISSION to make changes such as strengthening the cockpit door or changing the protocol for opening it. Being more flexible means being able to quickly adjust to changing security circumstances. (2) It gives customers the OPTION of purchasing LESS security. So far as I'm concerned, the airlines I fly are already far more "secure" than they need to be - I would pay extra to fly on a plane with NO security, one where people could just walk on openly carrying a rifle if they so desired. Were it left up to the airlines, they would have to make tradeoffs between security and every other value customers have including cost and convenience. We then wouldn't get somebody's idea of "the best possible security no matter the cost". Instead we'd get "the best possible security consistent with not spending too much money and not inconveniencing or annoying passengers very much." Which is what we really want.
- vacri 12y ago
  one where people could just walk on openly carrying a rifle if they so desired So you also want airlines to modify cabins to handle oversized carry-on luggage? Nevertheless, the amount of people who would pay more to do this would not be commercially viable - you yourself state that cost is a significant factor for users. Keep in mind also that your security-free airline would have to have its own terminals, as its customers wouldn't be able to mingle with existing airline customers. Also, why would you pay more for an item that's better off in checked luggage anyway? It's not like you can use the rifle between luggage drop-off and pick-up, and it's irritatingly large to carry around a cabin. It sounds like sacrificing pragmatics for pointless idealism, to me.

jonlucc 12y ago

I'm not sure if it's true, but I've read that the airlines didn't want to have any part in security after 9/11 because of the liability.

thaumasiotes 12y ago

> I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. You could do this in the 90s. It still boggles my mind that someone thought it should be stamped out.

pessimizer 12y ago
It's also a bit surprising that meeting people at the gate is thought of as some bizarre behavior that only happened in ancient antiquity. All of these restrictions, and all of these new bureaucracies are brand new, completely created and maintained over the administrations of only two presidents.
cgio 12y ago
You can still dos it in Australia, for domestic flights (albeit you have to pass the security check.) Still, I was quite surprised the first time I noticed so.
ctdonath 12y ago
Methinks he was referring to not what we think of now as the "gate" (the extended building reaching to the plane), but in fact walking right out on the tarmac.
- glenra 12y ago
  Nah, I meant what we think of now as "gate". For instance, I remember going out to meet people at the gate at SFO in the 1990s. I'm not quite old enough - or perhaps didn't grow up in a small enough town? - to remember routinely walking out on the tarmac to greet a plane.

JackFr 12y ago

> Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. Even if I grant that it saved no lives, it's not obvious to me how it caused any. > Here's all we should do: leave security policy up to the airlines themselves. Airplanes filled filled with thousands of pounds of jet fuel hurtling overhead create externalities, with costs borne by the community. While customers certainly would consider safety and security in choosing an airline, those killed on the ground in Lockerbie and in the WTC and at the Pentagon did not make that choice.

glenra 12y ago
> > Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. > Even if I grant that it saved no lives, it's not obvious to me how it caused any. This is discussed elsewhere in the thread, mainly here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8220129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8220129 When you make flying less attractive, people are more likely to drive. Driving is orders of magnitude more dangerous, so people die in car crashes who wouldn't have if they had flown. Security makes flying less attractive because: - higher monetary cost for the flight (some of this is reflected in explicit "security fees", some not) - bigger time commitment due to having to arrive early to allow for security - bigger chance of missing the flight (if you're the sort of person who tends to cut it close on time) - less flexibility. For instance, before the modern security era you could just buy a ticket and then if it turns out you couldn't use it you could sell it on craigslist. Or if the flight was overbooked you could directly sell your ticket to somebody on standby - the airlines didn't care. - greater chance of being stolen from because you are forcibly separated from your valuables which are accessed out of your sight. - greater stress due to the fear of losing one's valuables. - more stress due to fears related to dealing with security personnel, long lines, being treated like sheep, having one's personal space invaded and more. The most DIRECT way all this translates into extra deaths is that fewer people fly so more die on the road. One INDIRECT way it translates into extra deaths is that fewer people travel at all (or do so more expensively) which damages economic growth; economic growth tends to promote health.