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

431–440 of 512 posts

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

#431

Post by kreneskyp »

mikeash wrote: post #370
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…

The President clearly does not have that sort of power. The power of that office has been exaggerated to a crazy degree. Regardless of what he wants, President Trump can't shut down the TSA, or for that matter deport Muslims or build a wall on the Mexican border. I can't see Congress abolishing the TSA. Just bringing up the idea will give a representative's opponents tons of ammunition to paint them as "soft on terro…

Abolishing the TSA doesn't mean ending airport security. It would mean replacing it with privatized security. The TSA is universally hated so it wouldn't be that hard to find enough Democrats to go along with it.

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

#432

Post by mac01021 »

mindcrime wrote: post #265
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.

Exactly. The goal of a terrorist isn't to "blow up an airplane" per-se, it's to, well, cause terror. The TSA lines do NOTHING to fix the problem, they only move the problem. Any terrorist with half a brain can see that you now just blow your bomb up in the security line. So what do you do, put a security checkpoint in front of the security checkpoint? It's TSA checkpoints all the way down...

> The TSA lines do NOTHING to fix the problem, they only move the problem.

Detonating a makeshift suitcase bomb in a security line, you'd be lucky to kill 10 people.

Crashing an airliner in the proper fashion, you can kill hundreds or thousands.

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

#433

Post by aianus »

MichaelGG wrote: post #387
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The unique thing about airports is their access to airplanes and their capacity to be used as weapons. That problem was solved on 9/11 the instant the public realized the possibility. Before people wouldn't fight back because they would rather be ransomed than killed. Now that everyone knows their choices are fight or die, every person on the plane would fight to the death to prevent a terrorist from taking control…

It shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. In many cities, you cannot access the driver's portion of a taxicab. Yet airplanes had less separation. Pilots should never give controls over, and there should be strong, locked, doors. The lack of toilet sorta ruins the whole design. There's still a critical window where the door is open to the cabin, even though blocked by a food cart. But I suppose you'd need t…

> Pilots should never give controls over, and there should be strong, locked, doors.

They have that now; it resulted in a pilot deliberately crashing his own plane into the ground while the co-pilot banged futilely on the door outside. [0]

Unintended consequences and all that.

[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1149...

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

#434

Post by URSpider94 »

uremog wrote: post #330
lettergram wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't get a warning, but I did have my bag opened, all my belongings thrown out on the ground, and was delayed for 30-45 minutes... All this because I had a box of poptarts that apparently looked like a bomb.

Last time I came back to the US, customs stopped me before leaving the airport because I had "undeclared food items". Yes, I had a bag of snack sized Oreos and nothing more.

... which is an undeclared food item. It's a simple question, and you answered it incorrectly.

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

#435

Post by URSpider94 »

fapjacks wrote: post #323
RyJones wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to take my CRKT M16-14 knife on the nerd bird SJC SEA round trip twice a week. Nobody cared. This was mid-90s until just before 9/11. I didn't try to hide it - just tossed it in the bin with my keys etc. https://www.copsplus.com/prodnum4396.php

Well, before 9/11 you didn't have to check your firearms. You could carry them on as long as they were in a case. Things were more reasonable back then.

Absolutely not true. You haven't been able to carry a firearm onto an airplane for, pretty much, forever.

You always could, and still can, check a firearm into luggage on a flight.

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

#436

Post by mac01021 »

borvo wrote: post #152
intrasight wrote: post #101

I rarely fly, so consider my statement in that context. I actually approve of the TSA making flying more onerous. Flying comes at a very high environmental and economic cost to society. We need more trains, more hyperloops, and more VR.

Not going to work in low density regions like all of the USA aside from the coasts. Flying is less polluting per mile than driving btw. Also, why don't the rest of us get together and punish your choices?

> Flying is less polluting per mile than driving

Flying emits less CO2 per passenger mile than a person driving a car without any passengers, but more than a car with one passenger in addition to the driver[1]. But if people can't fly then they probably just won't travel very far, which is even better.

> why don't the rest of us get together and punish your choices?

Perhaps you should, in cases where the GP's choices impose a significant cost on you. In general, it is absolutely in everyone's best interest for everyone else to fly less often.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transp...

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

#437

Post by mindcrime »

mac01021 wrote: post #432
mindcrime wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The goal of a terrorist isn't to "blow up an airplane" per-se, it's to, well, cause terror. The TSA lines do NOTHING to fix the problem, they only move the problem. Any terrorist with half a brain can see that you now just blow your bomb up in the security line. So what do you do, put a security checkpoint in front of the security checkpoint? It's TSA checkpoints all the way down...

> The TSA lines do NOTHING to fix the problem, they only move the problem. Detonating a makeshift suitcase bomb in a security line, you'd be lucky to kill 10 people. Crashing an airliner in the proper fashion, you can kill hundreds or thousands.

Detonating a makeshift suitcase bomb in a security line, you'd be lucky to kill 10 people.

Maybe. I feel like you're underestimating how many people a bomb in the security line could take out. But, I'm no explosives expert, so you may be correct.

And yes, the worst-case scenario is worse for the airplane, but if you're Joe Terrorist, you don't have to achieve the worst-case scenario to be successful. Terrorists commit all sorts of acts that only kill / maim 10s of people. Apparently terrorists believe those acts further their agenda nonetheless.

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

#438

Post by jessaustin »

crispyambulance wrote: post #82
coderdude wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A standard-issue toy throwing star that every adult has on them when trying to get through security checkpoints.

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…

The first time I read this I thought it was satire.

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

#439

Post by aninhumer »

WildUtah wrote: post #362
JimboOmega wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Narita is the main airport for international flights to Tokyo. It's a bit of a hike to Tokyo proper, but there's a dedicated train. Anyway, I would imagine there are a lot of travelers (business, in particular) sensitive to time but not so much to price, for whom a direct flight is worth a few hundred $ - there was a solid market for the concord, remember. Anyway saving the connection, and a "normal" customs/security…

Tokyo International Airport at Haneda is the main airport for international flights to Tokyo -- at least for Japanese carriers. Foreign carriers are exiled to Narita -- a US$200 cab ride away -- as a protectionist measure. Haneda is right next to downtown Tokyo. --- The price difference persists for connecting flights from airports outside MEX and to destination airports outside NRT and Shanghai so it isn't based on…

>a US$200 cab ride away

It seems a little disingenuous to quote the taxi price when there are numerous train services available, of which the fastest still only costs ~$25.

I'm not disputing your wider point, but it's not helped by throwing in misleading facts like that.

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

#440

Post by fapjacks »

URSpider94 wrote: post #435
fapjacks wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, before 9/11 you didn't have to check your firearms. You could carry them on as long as they were in a case. Things were more reasonable back then.

Absolutely not true. You haven't been able to carry a firearm onto an airplane for, pretty much, forever. You always could, and still can, check a firearm into luggage on a flight.

Absolutely true. In the 90s, I went to a regional shooting competition with a handful of other high school kids, and we brought firearms onto the plane.
Post reply on HN