Airlines are the worst.

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:11 pm

All I can say is while RyanAir is cheap, it is an awful experience. Especially if you have an obnoxious European mother behind you that thinks it's ok for her child to kick the seat in front of him repeatedly.

To add, what is it with European airports and having to either walk a mile to the jetway or ride a bus to the plane? Lame.
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 55,664
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby Idoit40fans on Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:19 pm

TheHammer24 wrote:
IanMoran wrote:I never really understood the "huge hassle" with going through security either. OMG I HAVE TO TAKE OFF MY SHOES, and MY COAT???

As if that's some great hardship..

It's more than that. It deprives you of 30-45 minutes of your life. You can't take things with you. Questionable measures are used in terms of health risks. Nude scanners are entirely invasive. And all of this costs you $10 a round trip flight. It's a huge cost -- both tangible and intangible -- with absolutely no benefit.

Imagine driving on a road that lowered the speed limit 10 mph, and required you to stop for two tolls, and get out of your car. That's a huge hassle, and imagine further there's no appreciable difference in safety.

Louis ck has a lot to say to you.
Idoit40fans
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,495
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: No Reading, No Research, Just Strong Opinions

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby newarenanow on Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:44 am

I'm bowing out of this one. I just don't understand some of you.
newarenanow
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,172
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:56 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby IamtheWaris on Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:56 am

tifosi77 wrote:
newarenanow wrote:People like me will say that the reason it is so low is because there is security. Others will say the security is not necessary because the numbers are so low.

The numbers are low because aerial terrorism is, by its nature, not a super common thing..... especially if you live in Pennsylvania.

I cited in the previous comment that there have been 11 incidents of plane hijacking in the 13 years since 9/11. Well, in the 13 years preceding 9/11..... there were 9. And in that entire 26-year span of history, the four aircraft taken on 9/11 represent the only such incidents involving flights that originated in the U.S. of A.

9/11 was a singular event in the history of global terrorism. Yet our response to it has been to presume that such escapades are as common as fender benders.


Our response is to remove the possibility of it happening again. Maybe the relatively few events since then shows that the security measures are working. Lets not forget terrorists on two separate occasions tried to blow up planes destined for the US. It is no coincidence that the planes originated from foreign airports where the security is more lax.

9/11 was a singular event in global terrorism. That is only true because subsequent plots/attempts have been foiled.
IamtheWaris
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby shafnutz05 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:58 am

Osama NAN Laden
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 55,664
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby mac5155 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:55 am

When we were going thru security in Charlotte my wife hopped in one of those thermal scanner things and her chest lit up like crazy. The lady looked at her puzzled. She had sequins all over her bra that set it off. :pop:
mac5155
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 47,366
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:06 pm
Location: governor of Fayettenam

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby tifosi77 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:20 am

IamtheWaris wrote:
tifosi77 wrote:
newarenanow wrote:People like me will say that the reason it is so low is because there is security. Others will say the security is not necessary because the numbers are so low.

The numbers are low because aerial terrorism is, by its nature, not a super common thing..... especially if you live in Pennsylvania.

I cited in the previous comment that there have been 11 incidents of plane hijacking in the 13 years since 9/11. Well, in the 13 years preceding 9/11..... there were 9. And in that entire 26-year span of history, the four aircraft taken on 9/11 represent the only such incidents involving flights that originated in the U.S. of A.

9/11 was a singular event in the history of global terrorism. Yet our response to it has been to presume that such escapades are as common as fender benders.


Our response is to remove the possibility of it happening again. Maybe the relatively few events since then shows that the security measures are working. Lets not forget terrorists on two separate occasions tried to blow up planes destined for the US. It is no coincidence that the planes originated from foreign airports where the security is more lax.

9/11 was a singular event in global terrorism. That is only true because subsequent plots/attempts have been foiled.

You seem to be selectively ignoring the fact that since airport security measures have been beefed up there have been MORE hijackings. And, as I'll note below, those extra security measure are not just at U.S. airports.

I don't know how much you travel internationally by air, but you should be aware that there is a fairly pronounced difference between what you perceive as 'lax' security and the reality which is 'less visible and ostentatious security'. I mean, you can go the El Al route and require all passengers be at the airport three hours before boarding, and that each passenger be interviewed individually prior to being allowed to the gate area, and have armed security guards (both uniformed and plainclothes) swarming the terminal.... but that makes sense for El Al, as there is a history of Israeli jets being hijacked. Prior to 9/11 the last time a commercial aircraft was even subject to an attempted hijacking out of a U.S. airport was 1987. That's 5,357 days - presuming 80,000 flights a day, that's over 400,000,000 individual flights - between incidents. Four. Hundred. Million. Flights.

And it should also be pointed out that the TSA requires security measures taken by operators conducting flights from foreign points of origination to U.S. destinations meet with TSA approval. Which begs the question: if the TSA approves the security screening methods for an ANA flight from Narita to LAX, why are the same protocols not sufficient for a United flight from LAX to DCA? I assert that's because the ANA flight is less likely to be populated by skittish, easily impressed travelers desperate to feel 'safe'.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,663
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby PghSkins on Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:22 am

I once had to get patted down because there was a dark spot on my lower back on the x-ray. I was running late and had to run from the rental car to the baggage check in to the security. It was a sweat spot.
PghSkins
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,290
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:36 pm
Location: Beaver

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby tifosi77 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:23 am

IamtheWaris wrote:Lets not forget terrorists on two separate occasions tried to blow up planes destined for the US.

Two occasions. Let's count them...... one, two. Out of over 300,000,000 flights since 9/11.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,663
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby pensfan1989 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:57 am

I just don't understand some of the stuff they do. Like screening drinks that people buy in the sterile area and take on the plane.
pensfan1989
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,165
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Ponakronkoski

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby ExPatriatePen on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:13 pm

tifosi77 wrote:
IamtheWaris wrote:Lets not forget terrorists on two separate occasions tried to blow up planes destined for the US.

Two occasions. Let's count them...... one, two. Out of over 300,000,000 flights since 9/11.


While I see both sides of this discussion, let's not forget Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and Richard Reid.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby itissteeltime on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:15 pm

Do you think there are any foiled attempts that we simply don't hear about?
itissteeltime
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,295
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:53 pm
Location: Raven/Capital Land

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby mac5155 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:28 pm

itissteeltime wrote:Do you think there are any foiled attempts that we simply don't hear about?


No. This is terrorism, not gun control. :pop:
mac5155
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 47,366
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:06 pm
Location: governor of Fayettenam

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby IamtheWaris on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:33 pm

What is an acceptable number of terrorist attacks per 300,000,000 flights? Just curious what the number should be.
IamtheWaris
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby ExPatriatePen on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:41 pm

IamtheWaris wrote:What is an acceptable number of terrorist attacks per 300,000,000 flights? Just curious what the number should be.


So... I'd like to rephrase that.

What's an acceptable number of lost lives?

I believe the number on 9/11 is 2,752

Count from 1 to 2,752 and each time that you say a number, recognize that that represents a life lost. :(
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby shmenguin on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:49 pm

i can see why people would just be plain bothered by rude TSA agents. but like it's been said - it's a crap job that pays little, and the majority of people they deal with are either a holes or ignoramuses that waste their time and your time. so i don't really care if they're butt wads. i'll just enjoy responding to them with snarky comments that go over their heads.

as for the TSA in general, it's largely a pointless collection of policies intended to satisfy an ignorant constituency and make money for their buddies who are selling them snake oil. but such is the U.S. government. maybe, at some point in my life, this would have bothered me a great deal. but i don't have the energy to worry about that crap. i only fly a couple times a year anymore, so whatever. i pick days that aren't busy, i get to the airport early, i wear pants that don't need a belt and shoes that slip on and off easily.

the real villains here are the obese who spill into your seat and parents who let their turd kid wreak havoc on your personal space and your ear drums.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,361
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby IamtheWaris on Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:53 pm

All things considered, air travel provides way more convenience than inconvenience.
IamtheWaris
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby tifosi77 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:56 pm

If you are going to posit hyperbole ("acceptable number of attacks" and "acceptable number of lives lost") then just suck it up and realize the only way you can mollify your paranoia is to not fly.

There is risk when flying, unquestionably. However, the risks posed by terrorism are so far down the order of things that can go wrong on an airplane that it simply doesn't bear thinking about. In the single calendar year following 9/11 there were more airline accidents than there have been attempted hijackings in the combined 13 years since. The security measures in place since 9/11 do eff all to reduce those risks. It's like getting on a riverboat in New Orleans and going "Gee, I sure hope we aren't attacked by hippos.... perhaps we should spend severalty billion dollars on anti-hippo defenses, like Pogo sticks and fly swatters. If our passengers see the Pogo sticks and fly swatters, they'll be reassured that we're on top of the hippo threat." One could even argue that the mad focus on security theater drains resources away from tangible things like maintenance facilities and protocols; there's only so much money to be spent.

We are admonished to remember Abdulmutallab and Reid...... two guys who made it aboard aircraft with explosives that they tried to detonate in-flight...... post-9/11. If anything, those references bolster my argument that Security Science Theater 3000 doesn't do any more good than throwing a coin into a fountain and making a wish. Along those lines it harks back to a post I made the other day noting that there have been something like 25,000 documented security breaches at American airports since 9/11. Yet there has not been another 9/11.

Everyone says that the fact that there hasn't been another 9/11 is proof that the security works. Well, the fact that there hadn't been a 9/11 prior to that also shows that those measures worked pretty well, too. What allowed 9/11 to happen was a wild confluence of eff ups and oversights by the intelligence and law enforcement communities in ways that have not really been rectified since, nor are the addressed by making people take off their shoes.

Should there be security at airports? Of course. Does it need to be as obtrusive and inconvenience making as it has been the past decade? Not by a long shot.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,663
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby IamtheWaris on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:02 pm

Two of the measures people seem to take issue with the most, taking off shoes and full body scans, came about as a direct result of the two failed terrorist attempts.

How would you handle security at the airport
IamtheWaris
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:41 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby newarenanow on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:05 pm

tifosi77 wrote:If you are going to posit hyperbole ("acceptable number of attacks" and "acceptable number of lives lost") then just suck it up and realize the only way you can mollify your paranoia is to not fly.


What about the people in the WTC and Pentagon that weren't flying?
newarenanow
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 41,172
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:56 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby shmenguin on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:19 pm

IamtheWaris wrote:Two of the measures people seem to take issue with the most, taking off shoes and full body scans, came about as a direct result of the two failed terrorist attempts.

How would you handle security at the airport


full body scans came about because someone wanted to pad their buddy's bank account
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,361
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby ExPatriatePen on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:20 pm

tifosi77 wrote:If you are going to posit hyperbole ("acceptable number of attacks" and "acceptable number of lives lost") then just suck it up and realize the only way you can mollify your paranoia is to not fly.


Hyperbole: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Just because you don't like the question doesn't mean it isn't supposed to be taken literally. What is acceptable to you Tif? It's an honest question. Peter King and Rand Paul have completely different answers, but it's still a valid question.

tifosi77 wrote:There is risk when flying, unquestionably. However, the risks posed by terrorism are so far down the order of things that can go wrong on an airplane that it simply doesn't bear thinking about.


Most of those 2,752 who died on 9/11 weren't even on an airplane that day. 9/11 was a significant event in many ways, one of those ways is that changed the way we think about hijacking. It's not a DB Cooper type event anymore. It's not some wacko with a gun demanding a free ride to Havana. There were a over two thousand people that day who died doing their daily routine. Waking up and reporting to work. The same office, the same desk, or the same broom they'd been pushing for years, only this time...

tifosi77 wrote: It's like getting on a riverboat in New Orleans and going "Gee, I sure hope we aren't attacked by hippos.... perhaps we should spend severalty billion dollars on anti-hippo defenses, like Pogo sticks and fly swatters. If our passengers see the Pogo sticks and fly swatters, they'll be reassured that we're on top of the hippo threat."


Now *that's* a great example of Hyperboyle.

tifosi77 wrote:We are admonished to remember Abdulmutallab and Reid......


You said "Two occasions. Let's count them...... one, two. Out of over 300,000,000 flights since 9/11.". I was just pointing out that was an incorrect statement. That there were more than two attempts. One could argue that because those two made it onto airplanes, that security isn't tight enough.

(I'm not making that argument, just pointing out the flaw in that debating point)

tifosi77 wrote:What allowed 9/11 to happen was a wild confluence of eff ups and oversights by the intelligence and law enforcement communities in ways that have not really been rectified since, nor are the addressed by making people take off their shoes.

Should there be security at airports? Of course. Does it need to be as obtrusive and inconvenience making as it has been the past decade? Not by a long shot.


There is a much better cross-agency communications protocol today than there was before 9-11. Is it perfect? No. In fact I think it's very intrusive and infringes on our right to privacy. But it has changed.

This whole TSA discussion is rather humorous. I probably have to deal with TSA as much as anyone on this board. I don't enjoy it. Sometimes it makes me extremely frustrated. (Especially when procedure very not only airport to airport, but agent to agent.)

However, I'm OK with the current screening process as long as it prevents even one more 9/11 type act.

You may not feel that way, and that's your right. Let's take it easy characterizing others comments as "hyperboyle" or "admonishing"

(Now *that* was an admonishment) :)
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby tifosi77 on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:30 pm

The problem of airport security is multi-faceted. There haven't really been two attacks that have been similar enough in their nature so as to lead one to think a security measure designed to stop one would have caught the other. One of the main criticisms I have of the TSA is that they are rearward facing in their strategy; they are always trying to prevent the last attack, not the next one. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. In terms of terrorism, I'm far more worried about someone compromising our outmoded and almost quaint air traffic control system than I am someone trying to use their underpants as an explosive. Making passengers remove their belts and get felt up by TSA screeners isn't really going to address that.

The one across-the-board measure I would be happy with would be to have between 1 and 3 uniformed air marshals on every commercial flight, plus a similar number of plainclothes marshals on larger aircraft. (It isn't really practical to have 6 marshals on a 12-seat commuter jet) I've heard some argue that this unnecessarily would make air travel feel intimidating, but I think I'd be okay with that.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,663
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby Sarcastic on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:34 pm

ExPatriatePen wrote:However, I'm OK with the current screening process as long as it prevents even one more 9/11 type act.


Maybe you should then insist these airlines actually protect baggage areas because, as it's been shown on various news shows and such, people can often just walk in and place a bag with a bomb in it either on a delivery cart or directly on the airplane. I guarantee it that if 'terrorists' wanted to blow up a plane, they would have. Same goes for a bridge or something. I honestly don't think you can truly prevent this sort of stuff if some people want to do it. Best plan, imo, is to get the hell out of Middle East and stop pissing those people off.

I personally worry about home-grown acts of terrorism at a workplace or school a lot more than an airplane attack.
Sarcastic
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,283
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:49 pm

Re: Airlines are the worst.

Postby ExPatriatePen on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:44 pm

Sarcastic wrote:
ExPatriatePen wrote:However, I'm OK with the current screening process as long as it prevents even one more 9/11 type act.


Maybe you should then insist these airlines actually protect baggage areas because, as it's been shown on various news shows and such, people can often just walk in and place a bag with a bomb in it either on a delivery cart or directly on the airplane. I guarantee it that if 'terrorists' wanted to blow up a plane, they would have. Same goes for a bridge or something. I honestly don't think you can truly prevent this sort of stuff if some people want to do it. Best plan, imo, is to get the hell out of Middle East and stop pissing those people off.

I personally worry about home-grown acts of terrorism at a workplace or school a lot more than an airplane attack.


As I said, I'm OK with the current screening processes. I'm have no desire to raise my profile with HLS/TSA by becoming an activist.
I will say that it would be hard to sneak a bag onto an airplane without it going through TSA. That is, unless your're an airline employee or a TSA employee. (See also the recent events at Wichita airport)
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

e-mail