Hacker News Reader

Comment by two2two | Hacker News Reader

TSA is the number one reason why I don't fly and drive instead. From my POV most of the world's industries have progressed positively, but not air travel. I took a train a couple of years ago and it was a beautiful example of old merging with new. Walking through an antique of a train station, iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant.

At that point I realized that air travel is by far the worst traveling experience money can pay for.

If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s., I'd happily take the "at your own risk" option rather than the TSA controlled situation we're subjected to currently.

View on HN

I arrive at the airport in a Lyft.

I walk up to the security checkpoint checkpoint, where I show the agent my phone. They see my boarding pass with the green checkmark and send me to the empty TSA Pre line.

I walk through the metal detector with no adjustments to my attire.

I am at the gate in 5 minutes.

I like how trains basically let you show up last minute, and a 3 hour train ride actually means a 3 hour train ride, compared to airport, checkpoints and boarding time, possibly waiting on the runway, and air time.

But you really just need to upgrade your travel accommodations to make your airport experience more seamless.

Agree. My $100 Global Entry (includes TSA Pre) fee is my hedge against the American public's apathy towards the TSA.

It's not just the TSA they are apathetic towards -- it is all government activities.

> My $100 Global Entry (includes TSA Pre) fee is my hedge against the American public's apathy towards the TSA.

I don't blame you for paying that fee, but doesn't that just feed the monster?

Starving the monster doesn't work.

Besides, "anti-TSA" is painting with too broad a brush. Air Marshals are part of the TSA, as are a myriad of other useful agencies.

Its really just the pre-screen and invasive checks that need to stop. I think we all can agree that a dedicated force of Air Marshals is a good idea, right? As is the "intelligence" unit who is looking for active threats vs Airports.

It's only been since 2005 when the TSA was reorganized under the TSA as part of the Department of Homeland Security. Before that, the Air Marshals were part of Immigration and Customs, if I'm not mistaken.

But aren't you just buying your rights back?

Not for nothing, but Nexus is $50 and including Global Entry and TSA Pre. Also gets you into Canada, though I've not used that perk myself.

Instead of paying to get my rights back, I make a point of calling the TSA's bluff. I always refuse the pornoscanner and wait for the in-person pat down. If more people did this, the system would collapse, because - last time I shuffled through some back-of-the-envelope calculations, anyway - even the TSA's monstrously bloated budget comes nowhere close to the cost of hiring enough screeners to pat everyone down individually.

Of course they'd just change their already-arbitrary rules and force us all through the X-ray machines anyway, if we started refusing to use them en masse; but that'd create its own kind of legal push-back, and hopefully something good would come of the resulting mess. In any case, I'm not putting up with their nonsense while there is some means left I can use to resist it.

And I always fly in a kilt, regimental-style. TSA training has improved over the years, but the handful of times I managed to utterly flummox a TSA screener, suddenly confronted with a man wearing a "skirt," went a long way toward making me feel better about the humiliation of the whole exercise.

What do you need to do to be able to get this convenience ?

Because it abstracts security to something that can be done in the weeks before your flight, instead of vetting a person in the hour and a half beforehand.

Most travelers are repeat travelers. Exactly what vetting is being done for Pre that can't be done once in person that sticks with the person for 1-2 years and is renewable in a similar way as Pre?

Sorry for the slow response. Just found this comment.

The first and most obvious response is that tsa-pre requires your fingerprints, and tsa does not. That obviously leads to an amount of pre-vetting that is never capable of being done in tsa.

In addition to this, I'd compare tsa to a blacklist and tsa-pre to a whitelist. Perhaps if your estranged ex-wife's crazy uncle goes to the same bar as a known terrorist suspect then tsa would prefer you go through the additional screening (and thus deny you to tsa-pre). However, the connection to the uncle is only made once you apply to tsa-pre (as its a whitelist), and thus more vetting is done.

> I like how trains basically let you show up last minute, and a 3 hour train ride actually means a 3 hour train ride, compared to airport, checkpoints and boarding time, possibly waiting on the runway, and air time.

Trains have their delays, too, such as long waits on passing sidings to clear the way for freight trains. Much of Amtrak's routes (72% by mileage) are on freight company owned rails that Amtrak pays for access to.

The freight companies gives their own trains priority over Amtrak. They are supposed to give Amtrak priority, but there is little effort spend on enforcement.

Amtrak gets priority when it is on time. The problem is that Amtrak is never on time. Don't blame the freight companies for that.

I've seen a couple sites say that Amtrak has priority only when on time, and others that say it doesn't matter whether or not they are on time. None of the former that I've seen have provided a cite for the on time claim, though.

49 USC 24308 (c) says:

"Preference Over Freight Transportation. - Except in an emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this subsection. A rail carrier affected by this subsection may apply to the Board for relief. If the Board, after an opportunity for a hearing under section 553 of title 5, decides that preference for intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation materially will lessen the quality of freight transportation provided to shippers, the Board shall establish the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on reasonable terms."

>I arrive at the airport in a Lyft.

That costs money. Many people take the train or a shuttle or lean on a friend.

>I walk up to the security checkpoint checkpoint, where I show the agent my phone. They see my boarding pass with the green checkmark and send me to the empty TSA Pre line. I walk through the metal detector with no adjustments to my attire.

You paid for that TSA PreCheck privilege which, while not in the grand scheme a large amount, is technically something.

It's also beside the point. TSA PreCheck is the result of a careful plan:

1. Make everyone undergo an intrusive, invasive, and time-consuming process that provides little to no additional security.

2. Allow people to pay for the privilege of not going through that procedure.

3. Profit!

I don't do PreCheck because buying your rights is not something we should be able or have to do. It's a perversion that leaves us happy to pay for something that was commonplace until 9/10/01.

> 3. Profit!

The Department of Homeland Security (of which the TSA is a part of) has a budget and its priorities are set in Congress. There is no "profit" motive here.

The US is throwing money at this problem, and money that only creates inconveniences for us.

There is definitely a personal profit motive for the people involved, i.e. promotions and raises, having more reports (huge in the government sector), not to mention to crony pork handed out to companies providing the xray/detection and other equipment.

How does avoiding xrays and registering in pre-check create more reports and support pork-barrel contracts to x-ray scanner manufacturers?

They're two separate concerns but they both contribute to the bloat and scope creep of this farce of an agency.

The 2nd US Secretary of Homeland Security and co-author of the Patriot Act is the founder of a lobbying front for the the manufacturers of the body scanners.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff

I'm still not seeing how registering for pre-check benefits this guy.

Apologies to all for posting this 5 times. Each time I hit reply it was giving me an error.

Over a long enough time frame, all bureaucracies become institutions whose only goal is the continued growth and accumulation of resources ( to be used for the continued growth of the bureaucracy itself), not for the original purpose of the bureaucracy.

Yup. Be it government or business, no difference there. Of course, in both cases a cleanup is possible- and occasionally happens. But then you need a proper market for business or a working democracy for government and those are frequently missing.

You forgot to add having all the personal data and fingerprints that you provide for PreCheck being divulged in a data exposure incident.

Thats cute but I just like privileged treatment. I would be pissed if TSA Pre had more people in it.

I also consider my time to be more valuable.

> I don't do PreCheck because buying your rights is not something we should be able or have to do.

The standard answer is that airplane travel, just as being able to drive on public roads is not a right. Founding fathers apparently failed in their inability to predict we'd be able to amazingly fly through the air one day. So it is not in the Constitution. Therefore please step right into the Rapeyscan machine if you want to make it to your job interview, or to see your family across country.

It seems to claim a right to travel unimpeded you'd have to walk, on public land, or ride a horse or bicycle. Basically what you might have done 200 years ago.

> Founding fathers apparently failed in their inability to predict we'd be able to amazingly fly through the air one day.

I think a traditional interpretation of the constitution is that unenumerated rights are reserved for the people, so this shouldn't be an issue, as designed. In reality, we can't even seem to maintain the rights that are explicitly reserved for the people (cough4th amendmentcough).

Found fathers did a fine job, by not enumerating rights and giving them to the people. But ignore that for the moment. TSA's mandate is "Protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." TSA's mandate is not limited to the airports. So no, the TSA doesn't believe you have a right to travel unimpeded (even if by walking or riding a horse or a bicycle)

I should be TSA Pre the first time I went through their procedure and so should everyone else. Rather than going through the arduous process and paying money for it, what's different from your screening from the one that people go through daily?

edit: deleted a word

I was flying with my wife, and we did a controlled experiment, since the Pre line and regular line both looked daunting. We got on different lines at the same time. We both took about 45 minutes to get through, but the Pre line was actually a bit slower.

But the person in the Pre line got to keep their shoes on!

I also get to keep my shoes on while I drive.

I'm often asked to remove my shoes before intercourse, but I found out you can opt out of both this AND the cavity search.

In no other country that I have flown from did I have to take off my shoes to go through security.

Although on my last flight I did learn that Nutella is a liquid. Maybe I should have frozen it?

We used to have to in the UK for a while.

It still happens. I always seem to get asked.

Heathrow's FAQ: "Do I need to remove my shoes at security? Only if you’re asked. Some passengers will be asked to remove shoes in order for them to be x-rayed."

Gatwick's FAQ: "You may be asked to remove your shoes and belt before going through the security archway."

I flew last November, from Trondheim (Norway) to Amsterdam, round trip. Both times I had to take my shoes off. But the rest of the screening process is much quicker, and the lines aren't as long. I even got extra searching when I arrived back home and it was quicker than the waits in the US - and that dude went through all of my stuff. I happily travel lightly, but still not bad at all.

I do the same, but some airlines don't participate in TSA Precheck (like Frontier), and it's not uncommon for the Precheck lanes to occasionally get shut down, especially later in the evening. It's also possible to randomly NOT get Precheck, even though you're flying with a participating airline and you are in the program.

On top of that, I've seen a number of recent reports from people who said that the Precheck lanes were randomly shut down at peak travel times, forcing Precheck members to get stuck in the regular lines with everybody else. Others report that large numbers of non-Precheck people are getting randomly sent through that lane, dramatically slowing things down and causing wait times of 30-60+ minutes.

Precheck is great, but even those of us who have a relatively privileged flying experience need to stay involved and aware about the monster that is the TSA.

Can someone explain this - occasionally the TSA will put people who are not pre check into the pre check line. Sometime s they will randomly select people to use the precheck line and sometimes they do this to expedite long lines. So if they can selectively flout their own rules why have them in the first place? Isn't security an all or nothing proposition?

Sure, why bother building a scalable system when you can build a classist one?

The easiest way for the government to acquire biometrics on every citizen is to make non pre-check so painful that people willingly go the pre-check route. What's next? Don't want to wait 5 hours at the DMV for a license? Just let us inject this little tracking chip in your neck.

Good news, everyone! TSA and DMV lines now reduced for owners of Amazon Echo or Google Home! Because {REDACTED}

For naturalized citizens, this is a non-issue as they've had to undergo this process already, FWIW.

Oh wow and each of those things are a premium service that costs money. There are many people who can not afford those, oh but tough crap to them right? How about all the people not in the same income bracket as you? I guess that's their fault in your opinion? That is just elitist.

Premium services often cost a little more money, it's a trade off between money and time. There's nothing stopping people flying if they can't afford the PreCheck, it's just a little longer. Anyway the regular line actually gets shorter when more people use the PreCheck line. Disclaimer: I'm a frequent traveller to the USA but I'm a UK citizen so I cannot use PreCheck.

TSA Pre is not what it used to be. It used to offer two advantages: Less-invasive screening, and mostly frequent fliers in the line. Over the past year or so, the second advantage has evaporated in many large airports I've traveled through. The airlines seem to be handing out Pre chits like candy now, and the Pre line is full of little kids, baby strollers, and people who have never been on an airplane before. It still saves time, just not as much as in the early days.

I always thought being a natural born citizen with no criminal record, with all the rights and privileges afforded therefore, would count as a "Pre-Check."

Silly Me.

> iPhone in hand, with my digital ticket ready to board; so easy and pleasant.

Most airlines provide the same digital boarding passes, I often travel with my pass added to Apple Wallet.

> If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s., I'd happily take the "at your own risk" option rather than the TSA controlled situation we're subjected to currently.

The problem here is that it's not just "your own risk" if that plane is directed at a populated area.

Directed by whom? There is no conceivable threat that would make a pilot agree to fly their plane into a building, and reinforced cockpit doors make it implausible to enter the cockpit without damaging the airplane past the point of flying - and passengers wouldn't stand for it anyway.

It's a crap comparison, anyway - the TSA is better at finding toys than they are at finding bombs and weapons. Dogs and x-ray detectors could do just as well, and "alternative airports" could choose to have those.

> and passengers wouldn't stand for it anyway.

This. We live in a different world now. I find it very difficult to imagine a plane full of people not standing up together to take down a threat.

A term I have coined: "TSA Radius" -- the distance below which you would rather drive than fly. For me this is currently about 600 miles, but may increase with the news about spectacularly long security lines.

Sounds like there's a fascinating differential equation in there somewhere. The TSA uses as much money as possible and provides as little service as it can get away with because it has essentially zero accountability.

The wait times and hassle increase until its easier just to drive so people fly less, reducing wait time, allowing the TSA to do even less brining wait times back up...

The whole system balances at some convergence point. A really sucky convergence point.

It is funny that the article is about people like you.

> there's other evidence that 9/11 led to an increase in driving, which cost at least a thousand lives

> If an alternative airport wanted to do things a little different, such as "fly at your own risk" "no lifeguard on duty", aka no TSA b.s ...

... that airport and flights emanating from it would be perfectly safe! Why? Because, like everyone, terrorists, too, would love this airport so much, they wouldn't want to do anything to prevent it from operating.

I like the idea of an "at your own risk" option, but it'll never happen. Since 9/11, a large part of the purpose of airport security is to protect uninvolved people on the ground (or at least in tall buildings), not just passengers. We can certainly debate whether that's necessary or useful (I'd argue that we could do far less than we currently do), but I don't think you'll ever get the public to agree to allowing airline flights with no security screening, even if you can convince everyone to take a libertarian approach to it.

To protect those on the ground, part of the option could be acknowledging that the military can take out your plane if it's hijacked.

That's far from guaranteed to work. And are you going to be paying for the F-16s on hot standby around the country?

Unless you don't live in USA or you don't pay your taxes, you already pay for it -- a.k.a Norad.

Besides, since 911 the doors of plane cockpits are almost like a bank vault.

Yes, even to the point of locking out the co-pilot for a suicide mission.

Europe didn't (doesn't?) have the 2 person rule like the US does.

Paying for some F-16s on standby at certain points around the country seems reasonable to me. I mean, the TSA costs us ~7 billion a year anyways.

I agree, but if some people are going to cause a disproportionate need for them, then those people should pay for it more than the rest.

Really, though, that was more of a glib remark. The more salient point IMO is the fact that the military is far from guaranteed to succeed in bringing down a hijacked airliner before it hits its target, or without killing other people on the ground.

This already happens. WADS, EADS, etc.

> To protect those on the ground, part of the option could be acknowledging that the military can take out your plane if it's hijacked.

Destroying an aircraft over potentially populated areas can be useful to shift who and how many people are at risk when it hits the ground, but its not really (even if you can reliably destroy it when you need to, which -- absent a highly-reliable remote destruct device built into the plane [0], is hard to guarantee) a great way to "protect those on the ground". Because the wreckage is going to hit somewhere, and you don't really have precision control of that.

[0] which raises its own problems, of course

At least you can prevent the wreckage from landing in the side of a building with controlled demolition charges in it.

Look at the timeline of the 9/11 attacks:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_Se....

Flight 11 was crashed 30 minutes after hijacking, 175 20 minutes, 77 about 45 minutes, and 93 about 35 minutes later. Even if you tighten the loop between a hijacking and getting a fighter jet in the air to counter it, it will still take you about 15 minutes at best to do it.

Then you're left with the problem of figuring out which one of the contacts on your military radar doesn't have a transponder. Go to a map like <https://flightaware.com/live/> and observe the Ohio/Pennsylvania airspace in the middle of the day. You have 15 minutes to figure out the hijacked flight, guess its flight path, and then order fighters to intercept it and shoot it down.

Quite frankly, if a plane gets hijacked in the Northeast, there is no way you can get a military jet to shoot it down in time.

a large part of the purpose of airport security is to protect uninvolved people on the ground

This was solved when they locked the cockpit doors. Every other airport security restriction has been an overreaction in my opinion.

I think you may be right. However, you'd have to convince the public (or at least Congress) before you could have "security free" flights even with secure cockpits.

We have "security free" flights today. The only difference is we will no longer have to wait in line.

There are also airplane bombings, weapon and drug smuggling, human trafficking.

I assume you didn't take Amtrak? My last straw with them was arriving at my destination nearly 24 hours late, after two separate breakdowns, and an accident involving a car at a crossing.

Independent of the security theater problem, we (collectively) beat the air travel system like a rented mule.

Do we? Because I feel like the airlines beat passengers like pieces of cattle. I know I'm not alone in that sentiment.

When I was a kid there was no security. My Mom and Dad would make us put on a tie to go get somebody at the airport.

And if you could afford it, they called you part of "the jet set." I bet this - where more people can use air travel - is better. It's just not special any more. UX is a secondary consideration.

We have "at your own risk" airtravel in the form of private and chartered flights.

There aren't enough people ready and willing to take that risk to make it a competitive business model for airlines. They are a business that only works at massive scale due to extreme competition on price.

Some of it isn't pure price competition; it's also actual economy of scale, especially with respect to financing of fleets.

It's regulations in large part that draw the line between chartered flights and heavily regulated common carrier flights preventing better air travel from growing.

The problem is that it's not "at your own risk," it's "at your own risk and the risk of anything that might happen to be underneath you at any point on the journey, or within range of your fuel tanks."

Not that I'm a fan of the TSA by any stretch, but that's a pretty grievous misunderstanding of the root issue.

My wife drove up to a private jet this morning. Got on. Took off. No TSA.

Holding the "pleebs" to a higher standard than the rich is unconscionable IMO.

1. GA is not limited to the rich. Once you're at about the median US income (or 1/3 of what an SV developer makes, give or take), it is within reach. Slightly more than that and it's starts approaching "affordable," especially as a hobby and not a means of transportation.

2. Money buys you things. By definition people with more money will not be burdened by the same things as those with less.

Private jet travel is probably _not_ within reach for the average SV developer.

I know the poster specifically mentioned a jet but GA in general is absolutely within reach. With a license it costs maybe $150/hr to fly a Cessna 172 (and you're usually only billed for time the engine's actually running).

How much does it cost to get a license?

Can a Cessna 172 take me and my wife and child across the country to New York? Is parking a plane there free?

"Especially as a hobby" has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Horseback riding is also affordable as a hobby, but nobody's bringing it up in a thread about the TSA because it has just as much relevance.

It can range anywhere from $6,000 to $15,000 (at the extremely high end) to get your PPL. Ramp fees vary.. Usually free if you buy 10 gallons of gas while you're there, otherwise $5-$15 per day.

Can a Cessna 172 get you to New York? Sure, if you have the time. It'll be a long and monotonous flight though.

Now, with all of that said, your point still stands. GA flying is a hobby and almost always more expensive than hopping on an airline.

That's not really a good comparison. You might as well say driving is within reach for most people.

You can drive at 70MPH. Windspeed doesn't impact you. The Cesna will cruise at ~140MPH. Windspeed might delay your arrival to the point that it's much faster to drive for shorter trips though. The jet will do 530MPH.

Maybe the Cesna makes sense if there's no reasonably direct route by freeway. Or you're island hopping. It seems like a fairly small window where chartering a Cesna makes sense though (IMO). You can't transport a family of 4 with luggage. It'll be more expensive than the (commercial, not private) Jet, and take about 4 times longer. For every 1-1/2 hours of Jet travel, you'll have to refuel the Cesna as well. And if you though economy class on a commercial Jet was uncomfortable you're in for a rude awakening as well. ;-)

GA is also orders of magnitude more dangerous than flying commercial. Most life insurance specifically excludes it.

GA is also a great way to get yourself killed. Whereas modern passenger air travel is the safest form of travel known to man.

On a whim, I checked what the rate is to hire a private jet. Can't really do a prop as it'll take too long to get anywhere.

Rate for a Gulfstream jet was about $2500 per hour.

So, "for the rich".

Best estimate I can find, her flight cost her work about $20,000 round-trip.

I think we're upper-middle-class-ish, but there's no way we could justify chartering a jet for a family vacation if it costs as much as a car (a smaller jet might "only" be around $12,000 for the same trip AFAICT).

Can we also acknowledge that the average SV developer is probably in the upper quartile of wages in the US (if going by the median, not average)

> Money buys you things. By definition people with more money will not be burdened by the same things as those with less.

The commons are a superset of things provisioned by government, and we expect that the commons will be relatively unburdened and available equally to rich and poor.

Being unburdened by hunger and stress about paying rent is one thing; being unburdened by preferential treatment by the state is another.

> 2. Money buys you things. By definition people with more money will not be burdened by the same things as those with less.

Right. Like, laws and shit.

Private jets are typically much smaller and have a correspondingly lower potential for mayhem. Yes, there's overlap, there are small airliners and some big private jets, but overall the risk is different, so there's no reason to expect the security measures to be the same.

The Falcon 2000 she flew on this morning is about 1/3 the weight and fuel load of the SWA 737 she might have otherwise.

I'm not sure what's unreasonable about the comparison. If the TSA were actually necessary, it would seem like a huge gap in security to allow just anyone with the cash to charter a few private jets around the country.

And that 737 is in turn about 1/3rd the weight and fuel load of the 767s that crashed into the World Trade Center. That's about a factor of 10 difference in kinetic and chemical energy from that Falcon 2000. If 9/11 had been carried out with Falcon 2000s we'd be talking about good the repairs look and how you can barely tell where the holes were on the WTC towers.

I'm not calling the comparison unreasonable, I'm simply saying that the two are not the same, so it's perfectly reasonable for the security to be different too.

I'll take "Common Carriers" for $400 , Alex. Just holding GenAv to common carrier standards for a sense of a level playing field seems silly to me. Worse is still worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com