Airport security

Andrew White wrote:

Steve wrote:


Some excerpts from a recent NY Times article, maybe food for thought?

=====================


For anyone who has flown recently, chances are that the airport
security checkpoint didn't provide a very nice experience. Surely
there has to be a better way for the paraphernalia on one's person to
mesh with instruments and instructions that are supposed to ward off
trouble.
[moronic drivel deleted]

This article must've been written by a 10 year-old who has NEVER
traveled on an airplane before last week. Most of the things he
describes as new have been around for decades. And most of the things
that are new and are criticized by him are perfectly fine. So what
that the laptop trays were originally designed for bussing dishes?
That doesn't diminish their usability for passing laptops through
X-ray!

I was in one airport where the laptop "trays" were cat litter pans. The
dish trays are a big improvement!

Larry


--
Larry Finch

N 40° 53' 47"
W 74° 03' 56"

S More ambitiously, the whole operation needs systematic analysis - just
S like one that an industrial designer would conduct for a car model or
S can opener. The result could be a radically different configuration of
S apparatus, queues, and sensibilities.
S The personnel also need a rethinking.

Probably noone's conscience allows to apply such serious things as
systematic analysis to all this paranoia. So, probably, everybody just tries
not to think about it at all.

(Barry Gold) wrote in message ...

I have just a few comments to make about your plane vs. car
comparison. I also make the Bay Area to L.A. trip quite often, when I
visit my parents, but I prefer the plane.

Flying: I leave home at 7 AM, get to the airport at 7:20 (I live much
closer to LAX than most people). Wait in line for a skycap, then stand
around while the security drones x-ray my bags. Then wait in another
line to get into the "clean" area where the gates are. If I'm lucky,
I'm at the gate by 8, but 8:15 is more likely. My plane "departs" at
9:20, so I sit around until about 9:00 before I get to board.

I'm with you so far. I live about 20 minutes from Oakland airport.

After the plane "departs", it will probably take about 20 minutes
before we actually get to take off. Then we spend maybe 45-50 minutes
in the air and land at SFO. It's now 10:30 or so.

Yep.

I get off the plane, head off to baggage claim. Wait another 15
minutes or so and finally get my baggage. Wheel everything out to the
curb and wait for a shuttle to (e.g.) Hertz.

Well, I actually fly into Burbank Airport, and I don't rent a car. My
Dad picks me up. He usually arrives just as I've gotten my baggage.

11 AM: I'm in line at Hertz.

11:15 AM: I have my car. We load the luggage into the car and drive
north on the 101.

Noon: I'm checking into the hotel.

I'm at my parents place by 11:15 AM. They're a very short drive from
BUR.

Total elapsed time: 5 hours.

Because of the time savings near the end, my total elapsed time is
4:15.

I saved 1 to 1 1/2 hours. And spent over $200 on airfare alone, not
counting the price of a rental car.

I save somewhat more than that, about 1 1/2 to 2 hours.

And had to keep the airline's
schedule, instead of getting up when I felt like it and just driving.
And got to spend the time in airports and in a crowded airplane seat,
instead of in my car. Some of the scenery on the way is even somewhat
interesting.

Well here's where we differ greatly. When I was a graduate student I
used to make this drive several times a year, and I HATED it. To me,
it was annoyingly boring. I'm not crazy about driving generally (I
can barely tolerate my commute to work), and I detest long-distance
driving. I'd much rather sit in an airplane seat and be able to read,
sleep, or do a crossword puzzle.

And if I need a car in L.A. I just borrow my Dad's!

Ed

(Ed) wrote:
Well here's where we differ greatly. When I was a graduate student I
used to make this drive several times a year, and I HATED it. To me,
it was annoyingly boring. I'm not crazy about driving generally (I
can barely tolerate my commute to work), and I detest long-distance
driving. I'd much rather sit in an airplane seat and be able to read,
sleep, or do a crossword puzzle.

What would solve this problem is a high-speed train system like they
have in most of Europe. Except of course for the security issue...

"Steve" wrote in message
...

Some excerpts from a recent NY Times article, maybe food for thought?


The personnel also need a rethinking. The government employees now on
duty have better training and demeanors than the hapless private
contract workers they replaced, but they are still set up to control.
They engage in a regime of instruction, prohibition, and surveillance.

And that is exactly as it should be.


The security personnel are not there as helpers. So old people
struggle by themselves to get their luggage up, parents herd unruly
toddlers through the metal detectors, and novice flyers worry about
which of their things go where and just when and how they will be
retrieved.

Having employees help people with their luggage could have security
advantages. The security workers could see the stuff and feel the
goods - their heft, sounds and textures. They could observe the faces
of the owners and how those faces respond to offers for help.

The presence of helpers would also reassure and increase the
confidence of those who fumble, causing them to fumble less. And,
hardly a small matter, people have a better time.

Ed wrote:
[quote of my post with differences at various points snipped]
Well here's where we differ greatly. When I was a graduate student I
used to make this drive several times a year, and I HATED it. To me,
it was annoyingly boring. I'm not crazy about driving generally (I
can barely tolerate my commute to work), and I detest long-distance
driving. I'd much rather sit in an airplane seat and be able to read,
sleep, or do a crossword puzzle.

If you can sleep in an airplane seat, you're a better sleeper than me.
Once on a time, when airline fares were regulated and airlines
competed on service instead of price, I would sometimes find myself on
a widebody (anyone remember widebodies?) with whole rows in the center
that had nobody in them. Then I could put a seat belt loosely
around my waist and go to sleep in comparative comfort.

When you drove between LA and SF (or SJ) did you drive alone. That
_would_ be boring. I'm married, so I have somebody to keep me
entertained with conversation while I'm driving. And of course to do
half the driving, although driving is a lot easier now that my car has
cruise control.


And if I need a car in L.A. I just borrow my Dad's!

Right here is the biggest difference. If I were going somewhere and
staying with relatives or friends, I also wouldn't need a rent-a-car.
They would pick me up and maybe even lend me the car -- or drive me
around as a way of spending time together.

But when I go to SF I'm usually going to a hotel, either for business
or for an SF (this time SF = Science Fiction) convention. Then I get
a choice:
. only eat in the hotel or at places within walking distance
(and forget about sightseeing)
. take a cab whenever I want to go sightseeing or eat out
. rent a car
. drive my own car

Of those four, I usually choose the last. I hate rental cars. There
was the time I had to call them up to find out how to open the trunk
(lock was hidden somewhere). And the time I just parked the car with
the key in it until I could phone the rental place and find out how
to get the key out of the ignition (there's this little hidden lever
you have to flick). Not to mention the cars that hurt my shoulder if
I have to drive more than 1/2 an hour.

Thanks, I'll drive.

Of course, some places are just too far to drive to unless you're
retired. When I go LA to Boston, I take de plane. And put up with
Boston cabdrivers half of whom don't speaka de Engliss so good. (Last
time I got two whose native language appeared to be some form of
French that isn't the French I learned at UCLA. Haitian maybe?)
Oh, and the cab that just stopped running on the way to the airport.
Luckily on city streets, so I just paid the fare (no tip for
such service!) and caught another cab.

I keep taking planes because there's just too much I'd miss out on if
I didn't, but I will *always* take another alternative if I can find
one that will get me there in a reasonable period of time. AmTrak
wins to Albuquerque, frex.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

(Barry Gold) wrote in message ...
When you drove between LA and SF (or SJ) did you drive alone. That
_would_ be boring. I'm married, so I have somebody to keep me
entertained with conversation while I'm driving. And of course to do
half the driving, although driving is a lot easier now that my car has
cruise control.

That's true. The vast majority of my road trips were made alone, in a
car that didn't have cruise control. Just keeping the proper pressure
on the accelerator pedal for hour after hour was tiring.

Ed

"Marie Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Mark Hewitt" wrote in
message
...

"Steve" wrote in message
...
People slow down the line as they
struggle to lift their suitcases onto the conveyor belt and into the
scanners.

Why does anybody who passes through security have a suitcase which they
would be stuggling to lift?!

If you can't lift it easily it should be checked baggage. If you can't
lift
it up easily to place it through a scanner.. then you aren't going to be
able to lift it up easily when you get on the plane!



Some people are either old or infirm (or both) and need help even in
lifting
bags which would be nothing to a healthy/young person. They use bags with
rollers
.
In Europe at least, other passengers seem very willing to help at check
points and on the plane.

It ain't just Europe. I often see and help the proverbial 'little old
ladies' (or shorter young women) who can't get their maximum-allowed-size
roller bag into the overhead. I always offer to help, and often see others
doing the same. Some of it is politeness, and some just to speed up
boarding/deboarding, or to get access to/protect one's own stuff that is
already up there. Most of the wear on my 20+ year old hard shell briefcase
is from getting crushed in overheads.

aem sends....

Peter L wrote:

Terrible, maybe, but cheap. "Stuff" specifically designed for a purpose
means expensive stuff.


Shut ... up!

Some cash-strapped Pentagon contractors and their lobbyists
might be reading! (-;

gld