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

131–140 of 512 posts

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

#131

Post by grecy »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #24

This, in combination with American airports being completely ignorant to the transit concept must cost American airline companies dozens, if not hundreds of millions a year in lost revenues. Case in point: if I want to to fly from Zurich to Lima I have essentially two choices: I can connect either in Amsterdam, or in Madrid. Madrids legal connection time is 55 minutes max (on Iberia). In AMS on KLM it's a maximum of…

While living in South America I talked to hundreds of travelers from Europe who were forced to connect through the USA on their way south, and they all had to clear customs, even if for just a one hour layover.

The hoops they had to jump through, and the stories they told. 99% vowed they would never again board a plane to the USA.

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

#132

Post by grkvlt »

velox_io wrote: post #122

I really do wonder how many terrorist plots have actually been foiled by TSA/ security staff. They seem to just be following guidelines with ZERO common sense. E.g. most screw drivers ok, but not safety scissors. My biggest pet-hate is the ban on liquids over 100ml, anybody with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows that explosives (by their very definition) are volatile and you really do not want to start drinking an…

I don't think the prospective terrorists would be chugging away at their bottles of Exploditall (tm) liquid though. The fear is that the smarter terrorists (i.e. the ones that didn't start the day with a celebratory shot of Exploditall) will put their volatile dangerous liquid explosives in harmless looking bottles of Irn-Bru or Vimto or something.

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

#133

Post by knz »

spdustin wrote: post #109
knz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My "favourite" part of the TSA line is how business and premier customers often have access to a shorter regular TSA line (not precheck, just a separate entrance to the normal TSA line). My understanding is that the TSA is partly funded by a FIXED fee on every ticket so I can't see any logical reason as to why they get sent to the front of the line.

This is a non-issue. First class flyers pay for a ticket that allows them shorter lines, not expedited screening. They're still subject to being randomly flagged, and they will go through the same screening process as everyone else. That's why first/business class tickets cost so damn much - to blind the traveler into believing that they're actually paying for something worthwhile. As it turns out, for many of them,…

My point was more that everyone pays the same fee to be screened by the TSA but by purchasing a more expensive ticket from the airlines you can avoid the long wait to be screened and therefore increase the wait time for most people. To be clear, purchasing a higher fare ticket does not mean you are paying the TSA for better service.

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

#134

Post by spdustin »

grkvlt wrote: post #125
spdustin wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No retina scan for PreCheck, that's for Global Entry / Nexus.

No retina scan for anything, actually. NEXUS uses iris scanners [1] for biometric identification. In fact, pretty much anything that is reported as using a 'retina' scan is probably not, and is also an iris scan. Retinas are pretty useless as a biometric, and are quite hard to scan without opthamological equipment. Irises have the dual benefits of being unique to the individual, and visible on the outside of an indiv…

Thanks for that clarification! I honestly never considered that technical aspect of the scans, as I do not have Global Entry, and I didn't know that retina scans are technically infeasible to utilize for ID purposes. You've given me something further to research: are iris scans harder to defeat with false information (like specialized contacts) than fingerprint scans (with whatever the hell they can be falsified with). There goes my morning! :)

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

#135

Post by firebird84 »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #88
tehwebguy wrote: post #25

Here's an awesome TSA story for you: Late last year while trying to fly out of LAX a TSA employee thought I was carrying a throwing star. They called the police, who correctly identified as a toy in seconds. I thought the whole ordeal was over until I got a "notice of violation" in the mail from TSA 45 days later. Now I'm banned from pre-check for three years, even though I have global entry and even though the fine…

The USCIS (the former Immigration and Naturalization Service) is a US government agency that functions without funding from the government - it gets all of its money from the fees and penalties paid by the people who require its services. Based on your story, I'm wondering if the TSA has a similar business model.

That sounds about right. I married a foreigner - costs $1500 and about 6 months to process the paperwork that lets her stay. I got sticker shock when I first learned that. I've never before seen government fees that high.

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

#136

Post by Havoc »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #24

This, in combination with American airports being completely ignorant to the transit concept must cost American airline companies dozens, if not hundreds of millions a year in lost revenues. Case in point: if I want to to fly from Zurich to Lima I have essentially two choices: I can connect either in Amsterdam, or in Madrid. Madrids legal connection time is 55 minutes max (on Iberia). In AMS on KLM it's a maximum of…

What is this "legal connection time"? Never heard of it before - despite being in Europe.

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

#137

Post by CaptainZapp »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #124
CaptainZapp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then we probably have to agree to disagree. Air travel is in that sense special that you and up to 500 of your fellow passengers are in a metal tube in 12'000 metres height, which makes it conceptually a bit different from a bus, or even a train. Cockpit doors are already re-inforced, but the cockpit is not the only sensitive part of a plane when a passenger wants to cause mayhem with a high powered rifle, or a - pis…

A normal metal detector will deter the open carry zealots. What's wrong with pre-911 security + reinforced cockpits?

Nothing, except that bags where scanned prior to 9/11.

What was essentially added was prohibitions to take a nail clipper onto a plane (which, of course is utterly ludicrous), the rules regarding liquids and the whole cowboy attitude (apparently mostly in the US).

Reinforcing the cockpit doors was actually one of the better ideas. Unless, that is, you have a psychotic, suicidal first officer. But that's a whole different story and anyway couldn't have been caught by airport security.

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

#138

Post by tgb »

raldi wrote: post #53
harperlee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The airport can't hold that many people.

The number of people in the security line is dependent only upon the rate at which they are processed and the total number arriving for their flights, doesn't depend upon how early people get there. And once people get through the lines, there's no change from before so there'd be no large increase in how many people are in the waiting areas. (Except for the increase in uncertainty in how long the lines will take, that will cause some extra people in the waiting areas. I see no reason to expect this to be a large enough effect to be problematic.)

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

#139

Post by messick »

tehwebguy wrote: post #105
crispyambulance wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, the whole point for why pre-check exists is to allow frequent travelers who will always pass screening to get through the security clusterfuck faster. pre-check is for people that know how to travel and are willing to observe the rules. A grown man carrying a "throwing-star" toy through pre-check SHOULD BE banned from this privilege and feel the scorn of other pre-check folks who just want to go through smoothly…

I hope you never find yourself on the other side of someone with the badge, even though these people don't even have the power to arrest me it was very scary feeling like they thought I was a criminal and nothing I could say could convince them otherwise. "Did you know what you did was a felony? Did you know it's illegal to possess one of these?" - that's what I had to endure until the police arrived. For the crime o…

If happened in California, and since you at a LoL con it sounds like you were, the TSA officer was correct. Possessing throwing stars (shrunken) can get you up to a year in prison:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr...

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

#140

Post by spdustin »

grandalf wrote: post #60
danieltillett wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best solution is to have everyone go through it. No fast lane, no special categories, just eveyone lined up including those in private jets. If the powerful had to stand in line with the plebes then the TSA would be history before the end of the month.

Excellent point. I forgot that private aircraft travelers get to skip it.

As much as I despise the whole TSA process, it is ostensibly to prevent terrorists from using an aircraft as a weapon, or destroying it and killing hundreds of passengers. I don't know of any private jets with the amount of chemical or kinetic energy necessary to destroy a skyscraper, nor would the bombing of one result in the deaths of hundreds of passengers.

In other words, private jet passengers are not covered under their mandate because their ability to cause harm is limited by the diminutive size of their aircraft.

Post reply on HN