Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 512 posts

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#71

Post by peterwwillis »

jsnell wrote: post #3

How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem? Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports,…

They're trying to transfer a large file by 3:00 PM. They used to have an ISDN line, and now they have a 56k modem. If they used to be able to transfer it starting at 2:00 PM, now they'll start the process at 1:00 PM, and it should still get done. You trade bandwidth for time.

Show up earlier, and if they process everyone earlier, everyone will get through in time.

Of course, this does not help you get to your connection on time.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#72

Post by bkor »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #27

I love how this process was reengineered in London Gatwick airport. Each scanner has 6 pods where you can pack and unpack your stuff; you've got a dedicated person assigning you to the pod. The process felt much more parallel rather than serial. Edit: managed to find more info on it http://airlines.iata.org/analysis/smart-security-getting-sma...

That sounds like how AMS works since a year or so. I managed 4 minutes from sitting on the train to being after security (I timed it :-P). This includes: getting off the train, walking to security and opening up my backpack (no clue why it went off and they spent maybe 45 secs to verify this).

Unfortunately this is not as quick anymore because more of the security people have now been diverted to do border checks. E.g. Ferry to England, highway checks, etc. Less people, bigger queues.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#73

Post by jschwartzi »

frogpelt wrote: post #15
esoteric_nonces wrote: post #11

Why not give a 'security line' time (like the current gateline time). If the passenger is there before that time, then the flight waits for them, or they're put on the next flight. That seems to sidestep the issue neatly. As a passenger, security is not a discrete part of the process. I'm actually surprised that airlines haven't done more to make the security experience more streamlined.

Do you know if the airlines pay the TSA for the security? It seems like adding some direct private funding and influence would help alleviate some of these issues. Of courses that would affect ticket prices, but an extra hundred per passenger wouldn't be such a bad thing if it drastically improved the situation.

The airport contracts wee with the TSA. US airports can contract with private security as long as the procedure is TSA-approved.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#74

Post by MichaelBurge »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #59
MichaelBurge wrote: post #39

I think Trump would abolish the TSA. Cruz has said he would, too. I'd like to see either one get in, though I wonder if the President should be able to just decide on his own to shut down an agency that Congress has approved. Why has Congress not shut it down? I don't think anybody really likes the TSA, so I can't imagine there'd be too much opposition to a bill abolishing them. It affects so many people you could pr…

Ok, the TSA sucks big time and should be abolished. I get that. But what about the alternatives? In this day and age it's just not thinkable to let people enter a plane without a security check. So you need some entity performing it. I think one factor on providing successful and to the passenger acceptable (they will never be pleasant) security checks is adequate funding and employing adequately compensated professi…

I think the original plan was that the TSA would set some rules and make the airports comply with them, and the airports would be responsible for doing screenings. Somehow that got warped into government agents doing the work.

Why is it 'unthinkable' to let people enter a plane without a security check? We let people get on a bus without a security check. If you're worried specifically about someone taking over the plane and crashing it into a building, you can protect the pilots separately from the people.

International flights are a little different, because someone already needs to verify a passport. Even there, I don't think the security checks are actually necessary.

I'm definitely opposed to classifying this as a 'funding issue' and giving the TSA even more money.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#76

Post by jowiar »

harperlee wrote: post #18
jsnell wrote: post #3

How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem? Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports,…

If everyone comes a minute before departure, all lose the flight, whereas if everyone comes 24 hours earlier, none will miss the flight, so there is obviously a change. Plus you get people to sit in a huge store without any means to leave. So the airport doesn't have a throughput problem! They don't have a problem at all, as there is also no clear alternative - normally there is only 1 airport to choose from. So peop…

Well, the effect is that the airport needs to open earlier in the AM, so anecdotally it just shifts the entire dance an hour earlier. The problem with saying "everyone come 2 hours early", is that now, if you show up 1 hour early, you have traffic from later flights. Anecdotally, when I've flown on evening flights recently, the security line is 2 minutes long (because nobody is showing up early), whereas the 6am line takes an eternity.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#77

Post by js2 »

hashkb wrote: post #30
sneak wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Body searches to travel without suspicion of wrongdoing are absurd, period.

Just go get pre check?

Not a gaurantee. Literally my first time through security after I got PreCheck, I was randomly beeped by the metal dectector and told I could either go through the scanner or opt-out and get a pat down instead. I opted out, like I've always done and got yet another pat down. Since then, I've had the metal dectector randomly beep a second time but was only asked to swab my hands to check for explosives.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#78

Post by knz »

hashkb wrote: post #30
sneak wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Body searches to travel without suspicion of wrongdoing are absurd, period.

Just go get pre check?

My objection to precheck is that I question how effective it really is. Not to dive into another controversial topic, but it reminds me of proponents of gun control who think that background checks will solve mass shootings. Passing precheck doesn't stop people who appear to have a normal background and doesn't stop people from being radicalized after they get precheck. Perhaps a better solution would be somewhere in the middle? All travellers are subject to precheck type screening (shoes and belt stay on) but go through a more thorough electronic background check prior to each flight? Or our society could have an honest debate about about the risk of terrorism and the most effective ways to stop it...

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#79

Post by coldcode »

Hondor wrote: post #35

If a terrorist wanted to kill a lot of people confined into too small space to run away, what better target than these densely packed zig-zag queues? Really, what's the point of protecting a plane carrying hundreds of people by putting those same people into harm's way like that? It already happened in China - Muslim terrorists killed dozens of people waiting in a ticket hall a couple of years ago.

They have no plan what to do when that happens? Do you start the line at your house, pick you up in a prison van and deposit you in the airplane after 24hours? Anything that creates a choke point creates an incentive point.

Re: Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security

#80

Post by geerlingguy »

freehunter wrote: post #8
jsnell wrote: post #3

How is coming to the airport earlier supposed to solve what's obviously a throughput problem? Sure, for an individual it reduces the chances they'll miss their flight. But if everyone does it, there's obviously no change. The only way showing up earlier would help with throughput is if there are periods of time where the security is under-utilized with absolutely no queues. Which, from my experience with US airports,…

This is one of the reasons I love the Midwest and living in smaller cities. My airport is international and flies just about anywhere you want to go, but 90% of the time I walk up to an empty line and I'm told "we don't have a precheck lane open, just walk on through". As a consultant, I fly the busiest times (monday and thursday), but the only trouble I've ever had was in Denver where I waited almost an hour and a h…

With the exception of Chicago, I agree. St. Louis, Indianapolis, KC, and many other airports have direct flights to most parts of the US (or connect through Chicago almost anywhere in the world), and I've never waited more than 20 minutes in the TSA lines.

Due to the frequency of travel, I do have Pre-Check, but I hate that I had to pay extra money to get what I think should be the normal experience for all domestic travelers.

Post reply on HN