[tici_88]

Travelling in the US or with US airlines is not looking very good right now. Not just the United incident(s) but also TSA, Trump travel restrictions, flights constantly overbooked, massively late etc.

I wonder if it will start impacting traveller and tourism numbers at some point. I think anyone who doesn't really need to be in the US and/or is planning travelling with kids is likely to have some second thoughts at this point.

Recently Canada's girl guides cancelled all trips to the US: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/14/canadian-girl-gui....

I wonder if this is a first step of a large trend yet to develop.

[tyfon]

The company I work at (in Norway) had planed to take all 70 employees to NYC this summer to celebrate a milestone reached.

We just moved the whole thing to Paris instead as we had issues with all of the above, including employees that have visited "dangerous" countries.

The thing that pushed everyone over was when our former prime minster was harassed[1] at the border for having been to a meeting in Iran. It says in his passport that he was a former prime minster, but apparently none is safe from the US border guards.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norwa...

[Freak_NL]

It seems that the rules have become a lot stricter recently, and it looks like American citizens might end up feeling the consequences as well. This week a Dutch journalist wrote about being rejected by the ESTA visa waiver application because of a previous visit to Iraq as a journalist. So to travel to the US he gets to pay almost $200 and formally apply for a visa — for accredited journalists this is unheard of. Similarly Dutch with roots in Iraq or Iran are completely banned from the US simply for being born in the 'wrong' place.

This is all within the rights of America as a sovereign state of course, but it does mean that the call to cancel or limit the visa-free travel agreement that currently allows US citizens to visit the EU without a visa is gaining momentum (tit-for-tat politics).

[posguy]

Hey now, inferring that some journalists deserve protection because they may have credentials with a company or govt is both silly, and very dangerous. It creates a situation where you literally strip protection away from most journalists and put them in harms way.

Jake Appelbaum had a sendoff speech where he covered how his fellow journalists were putting him in grave danger when calling him an "Internet Activist" meanwhile he was publishing in the same paper as they were. He also covered how The Guardian left Julian Assange out to hang, allowed known compromised systems to remain in day to day use, and banned fellow journalists at other news orgs from writing about quite a few papers/topics from the Snowden archives.

[Freak_NL]

> Hey now, inferring that some journalists deserve protection because they may have credentials with a company or govt is both silly, and very dangerous.

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment with respect to what I wrote — I'm not inferring anything. The ESTA visa waiver program allowed for some leeway in granting people who visited certain countries (e.g., Iran, Iraq) access in certain cases. This seems to have included politicians and journalists. I expect that the US government did limit this to accredited journalists.

Personally I agree with those critics who point out that the whole ESTA program is effectively a thinly disguised visa program. It is a shame that it exists in the first place.

[wolfd]

It's not nearly as bad as that, but when I traveled to Canada recently, and was crossing the border back into the US (as a lifetime citizen), I was asked about why I traveled to Turkey and the U.A.E. in the past two years. It was a bit weird, but I guess I'm not sure how routine it was.

[mnm1]

US border guards don't even know what a prime minister is. There's no way they know about diplomatic passports. They have no idea about the laws they are supposed to enforce. They think they're supposed to enforce laws that don't exist. They are stupid idiots who exert their power randomly and wrongly. That's been my experience. Expecting anything else is unrealistic. What else do you expect from someone who probably barely graduated high school in the US? If these people were qualified to work at McDonalds, I assume they would.

[slumberlust]

Are you confusing Customs with the TSA? In general, customs agents are much better trained and there is a lot of former military. TSA on the other hand is as you a low requirement job as you described.

[mnm1]

No. I'm talking about the border guards who check passports when flying back into the country. The one I talked to did not understand the concept of dual citizenship and insisted that I get rid of my non-US passport as soon as I entered because it is illegal. This is after failing to find my stamp in my US passport that had all of three stamps in it and trying to claim that I didn't have one! Talk about stupid! This borders on retardation! I assume this is the norm and the other concepts I mentioned are also beyond their meager understanding simply because this guy was so stupid that if he made it through the hiring process, plenty of other idiots have too. Hell, compared to this, the TSA employees are courteous and generally at least do their job properly.

[formerminister]

Good to see that former politicians are also being treated as badly as the rest of us. The sooner they all start realizing they aren't going to get special treatment the sooner they'll start actually representing everyone.

[nojvek]

I'm actually glad that they are treating everyone like shit.

[086421357909764]

It's sad to see that you've had this experience, but the Prime Minister specifically, that was a policy enforcement for a policy that was put in place with the previous administration. So sadly, it's not as new an issue as people think, it's been an issue for over 6 years.

[landryraccoon]

Do you have a source for this? When did the previous administration put this policy in place? I am skeptical that this was happening under the previous administration.

[shimon_e]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_System_for_Travel_A...

[4ad]

He was travelling on a diplomatic passport, that doesn't apply to him.

[shimon_e]

Apparently he wasn't at the time. News reports I read at the time said he applied for ESTA but was found to be in violation of ESTA terms at the boarder.

[davidf18]

Well, I'm very sorry your employees missed out on visiting NYC. As a NYC resident and as someone who has been to Paris many times, Paris is very nice.

But people that come to NYC have a much greater experience. In the past month I met both an Italian who came here for the first time and an Israeli and both of them were so happy to be here.

I think your employer should schedule a trip to NYC for these 70 employees -- they must deserve it!

[barking]

A recent story in Europe was that travellers entering the US could be forced to reveal social network passwords. No idea if that is true or not but it was a headline.

[davidf18]

What do they call it now? Fake news?

But here is a real story. I'm American and "member of the tribe" who has been to Israel many times as shown by the passport stamps, speaks Hebrew and I didn't arrive at Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv to a Turkish Air flight to Istanbul 3 hours in advance of the flight. My take-on was packed away and I was strip searched down to my underwear.

I was amused and happy for the security, but some people might be bothered by that.

[Daishiman]

Unlike the US, Israel and Turkey have been actively targeted by real, no-BS terrorist activity and their security measures are not the security theater that is the TSA, nor are their policies inspired by underlying racism but actual evidence-based security policy.

I'm 100% sure it's unpleasant, but their motives are far more trustworthy than the TSA's.

[davidf18]

I would have been subject of a terrorist attack in Jerusalem in 2008 except that I bought a chocolate bar in a tiny store at the last minute. I picked up the chocolate bar and before I could give the cashier the money, .....

> I'm 100% sure it's unpleasant,...

Well, for me, I am only too happy when there are these kinds of security measures....

Also, the screeners are all former military (even women in Israel are drafted) and have been trained to screen according to emotional response. (emotional prosody).

[InitialLastName]

Amused and happy seems like a misnomer when applied to overwhelmingly invasive, unnecessary procedures. Have they actually convinced you that this is improving security?

[davidf18]

Well, I don't believe the procedures to be unnecessary. Also, I am not a citizen of Israel but rather a guest, so anything to protect the citizens and other guests from terrorism.

In my opinion, if US airport security was run according to Israeli standards, 9/11 would have been less likely.

[jrnichols]

True, and social media seems too quick to blame Trump for it. But a Democrat senator has been pushing for it for a while now.

https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/news/press/shaheen-leads-lett...

[e28eta]

As far as I can tell, that's something the Trump admin has suggested would be a good idea, but isn't policy yet. However, they do conduct other electronic searches.

https://www.eff.org/wp/digital-privacy-us-border-2017

[irrational]

I have no social media accounts. I would love to know what their protocol says to do if someone claims to not have any social media accounts.

[plandis]

Yet here you are posting on a public message board under (I'm assuming) your account :)

[eCa]

> But people that come to NYC have a much greater experience.

That's quite a statement. I certainly enjoyed my NYC trip a couple of years ago, but there are many european cities that I rather (re)visit before going back to the US. This is not only because of the current administration (though that doesn't help). People have different preferences.

[davidf18]

NYC has a 24/365 hour Apple Store which reflects the vibrancy of the city 24/365. Need I say more?

Europe is very beautiful. But for the creative energy and vibrancy NYC is the place to be.

[irrational]

This has to be a joke. You can't seriously be toting the availability of a 24/365 store (even an Apple store!) as some sort of benefit.

[davidf18]

A 24/365 Apple Store is a signal about how cool and new technologically vibrant NYC is ...we need it and use it 24/365. Repairs as well as purchases 24/365.

Number of Apple Stores in Manhattan = 7 (incl. one 24/365)

Number of Apple Stores in NYC 5 Boroughs = 10

Number of stores Paris (incl. La Defense) = 4

Number of stores London = 5

Number of stores Berlin = 1

Jazz/Blues/all kinds of music, a city open 24/7 full of creative vibrancy. 40% of New Yorkers not born in USA. We don't do BrExit here forcing (legal) residents out.

NYC has a 24 hour subway system which costs about $120 / month for unlimited rides. London and Paris shut down their subways at 12:30 AM. Thus, NYC is more committed to green, not forcing people to use gas guzzlers at night.

[btowngar]

Yes, I really do think you need to say more. I'm certainly not convinced by the appeal of a 24/365 Apple Store...

[dkersten]

Its a negative to me because it highlights the consumerist attitude that seems to be prevalent in many parts of the US. The places that I personally felt where most culturally vibrant and interesting were typically the ones that are the least consumerist.

But thats just me! Everyone has their own preferences.

[dmode]

Different strokes for different folks. I find NYC extremely overrated.

[brightsize]

"'We're Getting The Hell Out Of This Sewer,' Entire Populace Reports"

http://www.theonion.com/article/84-million-new-yorkers-sudde...

[tripzilch]

NYC was easily the worst part about visiting the Greater New England area, but to each their own. I mean sure it's interesting to see that world-famous city and spend a week in it. But that first breath of fresh air in a week, as we stepped out of the train in Beacon, that was really nice too (not the only thing I didn't like about NYC, compared to the surrounding area, actually I only noticed it as I stepped out, after a week).

[Klathmon]

Anecdotally I've noticed that for like 5 years now my friends and family have a pretty severe aversion to flying anywhere for anything.

From needing to show up hours before the flight, to the invasive screenings, the insane restrictions on what you can and cannot bring, the sentiment that if you check any baggage it's basically as good as gone, the ever increasing cost, the delays, and even things like the worry about if your ticket will actually get you on the damn plane!

If I have to choose between a 3 hour flight, and a 12 hour drive, the 12 hour drive is what I pick almost every time now. Ignoring "disasters" (massive accident, theft, etc...) I'm going to have all my stuff, I know i'm not going to waste hundreds of dollars on a ticket that will get "rejected" at the last second, i'll have a car when I get to my destination, i can bring whatever the fuck I want, and it's a fraction of the cost.

[manyxcxi]

Man, I'm not sure if your home airport is not very good, you don't travel that often, or if you just have a higher base level of anxiety or what- but any drive over 4 hours and I'm on the lookout to see if I can fly there.

I frequently go from Portland to San Jose and back in the same day- I get meetings done and am home in time to put my kids to bed. I also just generally fly pretty frequently. I've got an Arab name and my dad comes from 'one of those countries'. I lived in that country for a few years as a child, and I've visited a few of 'those countries' in the last three or for years. I've literally not been hassled beyond the occasional extended screening XXXX on my boarding pass- like, maybe 2 times in the last three years. I have been bumped from a flight zero times in my entire life.

150 years go if you wanted to travel from California to Oregon you'd be going up the Applegate Trail and the TSA wouldn't even be top 10 annoyances along the way for travel. I say that semi in jest, nor am I endorsing the TSA in anyway shape or form. But frankly, if you're worried about getting bumped or hassled by the TSA I think you're worried about the wrong thing or you've got a very peaceful life that hasn't got many things to worry about.

I'm not saying commercial air travel isn't without its issues, it's generally just kind of annyoying to stand in lines, stand in more lines, then get crammed into a metal tube with my knees smashed against the seat in front me. It's just that the likelihood of some catastrophe (drunk, mental issues, etc.) that isn't self imposed is quite low.

My n=1 anecdote is just that, but I would wager I'm more likely to be hassled or be hit by airline failure given all of my variables AND the sheer number of flights I take compared to the average person. Yet hear am I saying the airlines and TSA aren't really THAT bad. Talk about playing devil's advocate.

[scriptkiddy]

>Man, I'm not sure if your home airport is not very good, you don't travel that often, or if you just have a higher base level of anxiety or what- but any drive over 4 hours and I'm on the lookout to see if I can fly there.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I do have something to say about this.

Your situation is a bit different in that you need to be able to get from Portland to SF and back in a single day. Some people, myself included, don't have that restriction and value the journey as much as we value the destination. Personally, I absolutely LOVE long road trips. Seeing sites, eating at cozy roadside diners, listening to super loud music and sleeping in my car are all things I look forward to.

[manyxcxi]

That's a good point, I do enjoy road trips for the purpose of a road trip. I usually take two or three on my motorcycle every summer. But if I'm just trying to get somewhere (work, family for the holidays, etc.) I'd be happiest if I could just teleport. Until we all have a personal Scotty beaming us around, I guess I'll have to settle for Alaska Airlines.

[nojvek]

I love Alaska. Its the least evil of all domestic airlines. I once had a supper shitty experience when Microsoft flew me in for interview with United. Since then I don't even go 100ft near United. Alaska all the way!

I really hope Microsoft doesn't fly their candidates with United anymore. A couple of big companies cancelling their corporate contracts might give them a reality check.

[foepys]

Maybe they are just not white and have to endure a lot of "random" searches every flight.

[indemnity]

Pretty sure this is it. I hail from a third world country, but I have never faced any issues since I'm European, and have since "whitewashed" my passport into a Five Eyes one.

Have even cracked a joke or two with TSA agents & gotten a "Welcome to America, enjoy your holiday" at LAX.

[manyxcxi]

My point is that I'm the exact demographic of people who should be getting hit by "random" searches and I've got the volume of travel where it should be happening to me somewhat frequently if it is a widespread issue that occurs with any regularity. I'm 24-34, 1/2 Arab, have a beard, book a lot of flights on short notice, sometimes just one way, and NEVER check a bag.

I don't get ever get bumped from flights and I get pulled out for "random" searches on average of 1 times per year for the past 5 years.

Again, all anecdotal, but I'm the definition of the guy who should hate the airport. I only just dislike it.

[dawnerd]

I do the pdx to lax route a lot and end up showing up under an hour to the airport most times. Pdx tsa is probably the nicest batch I've run across. Of all my flying I've only had one bad time through tsa anywhere. People just like to play into the joke about how incompetent they are. Now, MCO on the other hand is a complete joke and tsa there all need to be retrained....

[yodsanklai]

You're painting a darker picture than what it really is :) Most of the time, things go smoothly and flights are very affordable. I find it amazing that as a middle class person I can fly pretty much anywhere in the world. I can live with the inconvenience of being scolded by the TSA and US customs officers.

Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

[linkmotif]

Eh I actually have developed this same attitude in the past few years. I'd rather drive NY to St Louis than fly because even though it's much shorter to fly, it's an uncomfortable reminder that the world is taken over by the lowest grade idiots and the highest grade capitalists. Probably nothing new, but somehow it feels different.

[posguy]

Gotta support the TSA make work program though, think of the poor, unemployed person who could instead be groping you in the name of security theater!

But seriously, flying sucks, I've driven 20+hrs to avoid it in the past. Usually worth it since I get to plan out stops and see old friends on the way down the west coast.

[logfromblammo]

Count me as another in the "Americans who avoid air travel" bin.

I'd rather rent a car and book overnight hotels than buy a US-based airline ticket, to the extent that I have driven (with another driver) 50 hours on the road to avoid 12 hours in the air. And with the prices of airline tickets, even renting the largest passenger vehicle for a week plus two weekends and staying in mid-range hotels was less than half the money cost for four passengers. Also, we got to see Oklahoma in its "everything is on fire" season.

That is the extent to which air travel has fallen. I would rather drive across a state that is literally on fire than fly an airline in the US. I would rather piss at a New Mexico low-water-use rest stop than in an airliner's toilet. I would rather be surrounded by an entire herd of leather-clad hog-riding bikers in the middle of nowhere than put a laptop or decent camera in checked baggage. And if I ever get forcibly dragged out of my seat by some thug, I'd like the cops to be on my side.

[linkmotif]

A state that's on fire? A herd of leather-clad bikers? That actually sounds cool :).

But you know what sounds not cool: being in an environment where you have no rights, and as you put it, are at the mercy of thugs.

[knownothing]

> Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

When I was flying back from Paris, I sat next to an Airbus engineer who was working on retrofitting jet engines to run on a biofuel produced via fermentation rather than normal fuel.

No clue how far along that project is or how promising it is, but there are folks in the industry thinking about this problem.

[ricw]

Given that we have likely hit peak demand for fossil fuel (the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply), this is unlikely. Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again. Or so goes the theory..

In short, flight prices are unlikely to be severely effected by oil prices again.

[bmh_ca]

> Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again.

Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary.

When the current supplies start to dwindle, I would not be surprised to see oil prices strike $200 or more a barrel.

The oil crash removed the cost of exploration from oil prices, so current prices are no longer a indication of probable future supply.

There's a multi-year lag between exploration and crude coming to market. While futures/derivatives can cover that exploration for future crude extraction, there's a growing spectre of competitive alternative energy that will likely reduce the attractiveness of crude – i.e. there being higher risk of relative oil obsolescence, the anticipated return on futures diminishes, meaning less money going into exploration, even with what will be present-day high prices.

Given the lag in investment, I suspect that when the "spike" comes people will look as much to ramping up more immediate alternatives (solar, wind) than exploring for oil.

The above is all speculation of course, but the 5-10 year market forces at work are not pushing towards lower or even stable oil prices, but towards much higher ones – at least until demand drastically drops, which some figure is at least 15-20 years out.

Just my 2¢.

[davidf18]

> "Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary...."

The fracking technology for oil and gas is still on it's Moore's Law curve and is getting cheaper and cheaper so in fact more and more fracking is coming on-line so that we're unlikely to see prices much above $50 per barrel.

Mar 21, 2017 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-21/big-oil-s...

April 12, 2017 https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-12/u-s-shale...

[bmh_ca]

Good point. It just occurred to me that the spectre of shale that you highlight also counter-incentivises exploration, perhaps more so than alternative energy.

[protomyth]

> Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary.

I keep http://oilprice.com/ in my RSS feed to keep tabs on the subject. It looks like the shale exploration is kicking up again (from the site and from friends working in the western part of ND).

and this helps http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-Breakeven-Prices-A...

[Retric]

$100 per barrel is still cheap. It had minimal impact on usage, and with most of the world trying to ramp up to a western lifestyle demand is unlikely to drop in the next 20 years.

PS: Oil is 53$ per barrel right now, 2x price spikes in commodity prices are fairly common historically.

[marcosdumay]

> the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply

Demand == Supply

And that's even more true¹ for stuff like oil, that has a low volumetric price. Do you really think demand peaked because people could not find more uses for the stuff?

Oil is in a peak production crash. The prices volatility is a natural consequence of it, and will always stay as high as consumers' budgets allows.

1 - That means, it's true for almost any misleading definition of those terms you can come-up with.

[MarkMc]

> I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

Actually I think the cost of fuel to fly a passenger from New York to London will be cheaper in 30 years, for two reasons: (a) Motor vehicles will no longer be powered by gasoline; and (B) planes will continue to become more fuel efficient.

[gnode]

>Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

On the other hand, planes may become electric, and the cost of solar power is rapidly falling. If this trend continues, it will likely become cheaper to fly in the future.

Even if planes don't become electric any time soon, other demand for oil may be displaced, lowering its price.

[ferentchak]

Is it possible to make something like a jet electric? If someone knows of one I want to see a picture. Sounds like something from one of my dad's old sci-fi novels.

[gnode]

I've seen a few articles about electric aircraft on HN. In addition to the Boeing plane, there's Wright Electric ( https://weflywright.com/ ). Light electric trainer aircraft have already been built, such as the Pipistrel WATTsUP. Not a jumbo jet, but pictures like you asked for: http://www.pipistrel.si/news/wattsup-the-new-2seat-electric-...

[GFischer]

That Pipistrel airplane is very interesting. Not having fuel makes it better in a light crash I guess (no explosion).

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to piloting, but here on HN I've read other stories on light aircraft and training, and how forgiving it is and how it handles plays a very important factor in choosing an airplane as a trainer, no idea how that one does.

[Arizhel]

Yes, it's possible to make anything electric that currently runs on fossil fuel.

Making electric motors to spin propellers isn't that hard. We already do this for ships: any modern cruise liner has electrically-powered propellers (screws) that propel the ship. The challenge on a plane is getting the power to the motors. You could do a serial hybrid system, where a diesel generator makes power for the motors; this is what they do on cruise ships, but while it works well there for various reasons (including the variable-speed nature of running a cruise ship, and the usefulness of "azipods" for maneuverability), it's not likely to work so well for planes since planes in flight run their engines near full-throttle all the time (so you end up using more fuel, not less, due to conversion losses). So the idea is running the planes on batteries, like electric cars do now. The problem there is the weight of the batteries needed to store that much power is prohibitive. If someone invents battery tech that can store significantly more energy with the same weight, then the equation will change and we could very well see electric airplanes.

[bmh_ca]

Sure, Boeing's working on it now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-05/boeing-te...

[bm1362]

Is there any progress on electric aircraft that can match the durability and throughout of existing planes?

[mitchdoogle]

I really don't understand this. I've flown 3-4 times a year for the past 10 years and love flying.

At busy airports like JFK and NRT, I show up no more than 90 minutes before boarding time, which gives me time to check my bags and go through security, and still have time to grab a snack. At smaller airports, like MCI, I show up 30 minutes before boarding time and still have time to relax a bit.

I prefer to check bags. It's free on domestic flights for me and a passenger because I have airline-branded credit card, I avoid the pain of trying to find a space for my carry-on, and it just feels nicer to be able to walk through security and to my gate without dragging around a huge suitcase. I've never once had trouble with checked baggage - no valuables stolen, nothing lost.

And what's this about the "ever-increasing cost"?! Flights are cheaper than ever. If you're lucky enough to live near a hub, you can get anywhere in the world for a decent price. At smaller airports, the hubs are just one flight away and might not even cost any more. If they do it's only $100 or so.

A 3 hour flight is more like a 20 hour drive. Take Chicago to Miami for example. I just looked some flights. A nonstop flight is 3 hr 5 min and cost about $200 round trip. You'd spend more than that on gas for just the one way trip if you drove. Not to mention a hotel since you'd probably want to break it up to 2 days driving.

[nojvek]

Sometimes its about Flying vs not flying. I definitely have reduced all flying to absolute necessary. Not being white, I get treated differently by TSA at times. Flying is currently a very annoying experience.

[jghn]

This was me for a long time, but then I got precheck. It is such a night and day difference that I'm back to flying

[Klathmon]

Even with precheck (which i got as well), it didn't really change anything.

I still need to show up just as early (as my local airport often has a longer line for precheck!), i still can't pack more than some stupid amount of liquid, or have my shit thrown out because I used a X-oz plastic bag which is too big!!! I still can't check bags as they just won't ever show up, or will show up damaged, have items stolen, or completely trashed from being searched. It only makes the cost more expensive, and it doesn't really help with the "invasive screening" (oh, i don't need to take my shoes off any more... i'm still getting scanned or felt up)

Plus I had to take a day off of work to go answer a bunch of stupid questions, pay them $80-ish per person, and give my fingerprints.

[randallsquared]

I must fly into and out of only the best airports. I've only ever had one thing thrown out; I've never had anything in my checked baggage damaged (and if I'm going for more than overnight, I always check my bag, even though I could carry it on, to avoid fighting for space with other passengers' carryons); the scanning doesn't perceptibly affect me; and I regularly show up at the airport less than an hour before boarding.

I live 45 minutes from CLT, with an office 45 minutes by taxi[0]from JFK, and when I fly into JFK, I can leave the house at 5am and be at the office by 10am.

[0] account_banned on Uber the first time I ever tried to use it, so, taxi it is.

[meddlepal]

I've never had an issue at Logan (Boston), SFO, Seattle or Austin. Usually past security in 20 min and I do not use precheck.

[driverdan]

When are you flying? BOS and SEA have some of the longest TSA lines in the country. I've waited over an hour in line at both. I've gotten through BOS in 20 min but that's the exception, not the rule. AUS has gotten a lot worse too.

[linkmotif]

Yeah exactly they can just arbitrarily throw all your shit out, harass you, etc. Yeah it's rare for these things to happen, but my family immigrated to the US for freedom and civil rights and lol it's more Soviet here every day.

[wbl]

I fly approximately 3-4 times a year, possibly more, and have for the past 8 years. I've never had a checked bag go missing. Chances a check bag is lost (not just delayed) are vanishingly small.

[jghn]

I didn't say it was the greatest thing ever and yes it sucks to have to pay for the privilege of what just used to be normal. At least at my airport the whole process winds up being a lot faster.

However it did change my calculus when debating train vs plane for trips. It used to be anything under about a 10 hour train ride was a no brainer, now that's more like a 3 hour train ride.

[coldpie]

Some TSA clown once told me I had to throw away my water and we just stared at each other for a bit. "My water, seriously?" "Yep, your water." "Water." "Water."

Fuck the TSA and fuck the terrified Americans who keep voting to keep them.

[stuff4ben]

Why is that a big deal? You're warned not to bring bottles of liquids before you even get into the TSA line. Sure the TSA is bunch of security theatre in some cases, but if there's a rule there, why do you have to be a prick about it?

[coldpie]

Because it's a huge waste of time and resources. No one benefits. There's no reason for these clowns to be wasting my time and making people buy water on the other side of the checkpoint. It's just one huge welfare program for unemployable morons, and I have to waste two hours every time I fly to put up with their dumb horseshit.

I'm gonna throw a brick through your front window. No reason for it, just gonna do it. Hey, a guy's paying me to do it. Why you gotta be so upset about it?

Let me put this in perspective. The Twin Cities gained a new light rail passenger line a couple years ago. The construction cost for this new line came to about $1 billion[1]. I use this line every single day. It takes me to work and to home and out to dinner. I love this rail line. It makes my life better.

The TSA's annual budget is $8 billion[2]. For the cost of running the TSA for one year, eight metro areas could gain a new rail line. Every year! And what does the TSA do in return for this money? Waste my time. Waste your time. Piss me off. Humiliate me with pat-downs. Why the fuck are we paying for these clowns to do this instead of doing something useful with that money? Because of Americans who have never met a person of Muslim faith but are terrified because of the loud angry white man on TV.

Yeah, it's a big deal and I'm fucking pissed. Why aren't you?

[1] http://finance-commerce.com/2015/04/progress-mn-metro-green-...

[2] https://www.rt.com/usa/tsa-useless-airport-security-479/

[deong]

I was in line behind a girl flying from Schiphol to the US a couple of years ago, and they told her she needed to throw away the unopened bottle of water she'd purchased from a shop in the airport. She was arguing that she'd bought it right there and it hadn't been opened, and the guy said, "they're supposed to seal it in a bag. Maybe you can go get a bag?"

At that point, the rule isn't "you aren't allowed to bring liquids onto a plane because it might be a bomb". The rule is "you have to bring your bomb on the plane in a special bag".

[zzleeper]

I once had a tiny bit of water on my plastic thermos. The TSA guy said "throw the bottle or exit the line, walk to the bathroom and empty it there".

I just looked at him puzzled, opened the bottle, and drank the water.

Now that I think of it, I was lucky he didn't taze me for my 'insolence'.

[coldpie]

I usually dump it in the trash at the line. I feel sorry for the cleaning staff, but whatever, fuck it. Anyone with brains understands how useless all this is, but it's the TSA, so brains are not involved.

[late2part]

Next time try freezing it first.

[dawnerd]

Which is actually a suggestion tsa gives out. Just make sure it's completely frozen. Any floating water won't be allowed. Aka drink the melt.

[coldpie]

Woo, $100 extortion fees, all right.

[gm-conspiracy]

Ah, yes, being extorted to not remove your shoes.

[ChemicalWarfare]

Precheck is a must if you travel often. On the flip side - pre-check lines are sometimes longer then "regular", esp on Monday/Friday mornings when the frequent-flying business crowd is there.

[dawnerd]

I got global entry. Few bucks more and it covers me when I travel outside the states.

[mrbill]

The last time I flew was in 2009 when I had to go to Chattanooga for my wife's funeral (we buried her next to her mom). Before that was 2001 when we got married in the same city and then honeymooned in Baltimore & DC.

I don't plan on flying again any time soon.

[rconti]

I love flying AND driving. I used to regularly do Seattle->SJ by car (did it 4x in 4 weeks one time) and really enjoy the drive.

Flying commercially sucks, of course, but the security line concerns are overblown. They've been saying "3 hours before departure for international, 2 hours for domestic" for decades, but I just ignore it. I routinely show up 30min before boarding for domestic flights (so, 55-60min before departure) and never have an issue. Worst security line I've seen at SFO was 25min. I was sweating it a bit, but I got to my gate exactly at boarding time, and it was a ghost town.. they hadn't even bothered to get the gate agents there yet!

The only thing you have to be careful of is, if checking a bag, to have it checked 45 or 50min before departure, that's the the tricky one.

[rdiddly]

And you get at least a fighting chance at experiencing/appreciating the places you pass through. And in a pinch you've got a place to sleep. And no inane announcements to sit through and no inane in-flight movie to avert your eyes from!

[douche]

Your door-to-door time with those two trips is probably not that far apart, when you factor in time getting to and from the airport, waiting for security, waiting for luggage, and delays.

Plus driving is cheaper and less stressful...

[Klathmon]

But am I wrong in thinking it shouldn't be that way? Why is the "really fast bus in the sky" so much worse in just about every way? Is it like this in other countries?

[piva00]

At least here in Europe when I fly inside Schengen it's not like that at all.

My experience going through security has always been much smoother than when I traveled to the US. Lines are smaller, security is more relaxed (never had to take my shoes off for example) and the security staff for the most part are much kinder.

When I flew through the US (arrived at DFW to connect to SFO, drove to LA and went from LAX to JFK) I think the only airport that everything was smooth was SFO. DFW was meh-ok but I had to go through immigration so don't want to consider it. But oh my fucking god, I pray to never have to go through LAX again, never expected to be treated like cattle with rude agents everywhere. JFK was a little bit better but not by much.

So yes, comparing my experience between LAX, SFO, JFK and DFW against ARN, MUN, TXL, SXF, BCN, FRA, CDG, AMS, ZUR and DUB... There's really no comparison, never felt mistreated or had any kind of problem with security staff or time in the queues in any of the European airports.

[rangibaby]

As a western person, the lack of invasive checks and procedures etc in Asia (live Japan, have travelled PRC HK Indonesia and Malaysia) was an eye opener for me.

In every case the security involved an X-ray for luggage and walking thru a metal detector. That was it.

Australia in 2014 otoh was nuts. I was taken aside and magic wanded at one airport, subject to a personal body scan (???) and patdown at another, and interrogated on my way out (apparently "company employee" was not an adequate description of my occupation).

Combined with other security theater like police leading dogs around at the gate, it made me not want to visit there again. It was scary!

[talmand]

Asia hasn't discovered, or have the need for, the security theater jobs program.

[posguy]

Seriously, instead of a New Deal with public infrastructure projects, we're spending to create make work jobs with the TSA.

[yardie]

The U.K. London Heathrow takes a close second. No, other countries do not put on a security theater show where you are the spectacle.

[throwaway049]

I always feel like LHR security checks do their best to keep the lines moving and have a neutral or even friendly manner. I find the process to be of about the same format and duration as other airports I've passed through in ME and East Asia.

[Cthulhu_]

Is driving really cheaper? I mean I'm pretty sure the margins are pretty thin, if it's just you at least - they should balance out the more people you need to transport.

Mind you I'm from Europe, our gas prices are 4x as high and for trips to e.g. the UK or Scandinavia we have to cross a body of water. There's some toll roads too in e.g. France, and Germany wants to introduce those too.

[Klathmon]

We just recently drove from Pennsylvania to Florida, cost us about $150 in gas round trip (ignoring wear-and-tear on the car)

The cheapest we could have flown is about $200 per person (2 people), not to mention taxi/uber costs.

So for one person, it might be a wash, but for 2+ people its very much cheaper to drive.

[RightMillennial]

It really depends on the location of departure, destination, and how valuable your time is.

For example, I can fly round trip from Chicago, IL (ORD) to Miami, FL (MIA) for $325 per person (tax included, no checked luggage) taking about 7 hours each way (45 minutes to airport, arrive 2 hours early, 3:15 hour flight, 15 minutes to get situated, 45 minutes to destination). To drive that would take 21 hours and 1,400 miles each way which would cost about $300 in gas for my vehicle. This is really a best case scenario for flying being potentially as cheap as driving. If you want to fly to any smaller international or regional airport without frequent direct flights, the cost can easily be a couple hundred dollars more per person.

[throwaway2048]

$325 is a lot for a flight to miami, you can easily find flights that are half that.

[driverdan]

A 3h flight is going to be much faster than a 12h drive. It may be cheaper if you fill the car with people but will cost more if you do it alone. That's assuming you consider your time to be worth nothing.

[douche]

Unless I'm flying a RyanAir flight that's under $100, a tank and a half of gas to go 700-800 miles is going to be cheaper, if we're sticking in the 12-hour drive frame. And that's driving a not-particularly fuel efficient pickup truck. Gas is only $2.09 this week.

[_red]

IF the VLJ (Very Light Jet) segment would ever fully blossom a major Uber-style disruption would be possible.

The biggest thing that could prevent this welcomed development? The government. Specifically that the FAA is likely to clamp down on "Uber Air Taxi" market and declare them common carriers.

Got to protect those monopolies.

[peckrob]

> Specifically that the FAA is likely to clamp down on "Uber Air Taxi" market and declare them common carriers.

The FAA has some really arcane rules, which is why aviation law is an actual speciality. Like, for instance, as a private pilot I can't fly a coworker with me to a conference and be reimbursed by my employer, but I can fly just myself and be reimbursed. There's a lot of subtleties to the FARs.

But if you're talking about private pilots flying people around like Uber drivers do, I can understand why they would clamp down on that.

Commercial and Air Transport pilots have much more rigorous standards than private pilots do, including stricter medical requirements and more thorough yearly medical exams. Private pilots will soon be able to get by with just an annual physical at a family doctor after their initial medical, whereas ATPs have to have a yearly EKG done, for instance. There's also more thorough training, higher hour requirements, etc.

Basically, people and equipment flying passengers are held to the highest standards (sometimes, maybe too high) which is one reason commercial aviation is so safe, and the FAA does not want private pilots who may not meet those standards running underground, fly-by-night airlines. All it takes is one crash wiping out a family in an "uber air taxi," and maybe a few people on the ground if it hits a house or something. In addition to being a tragedy the people involved and aviation in general, it would bring a ton of negative publicity to the relevant licensing agencies followed by mountains of lawsuits.

Without massive changes to the current aviation legal system, I can't see any way an "Uber air taxi" could work. Unlike a lot of cities which may not fully enforce a prohibition on services like Uber, the FAA will bring the wrath of God down on anyone they find willfully breaking the rules.

[rohit89]

For something like "Uber Air Taxi", they should probably do away with pilots altogether and have it work on autopilot.

[nradov]

Nonsense. The FAA actively encourages general aviation and small air charters. They bent over backwards to help the VLJ manufacturers through the certification process. The VLJ segment failed (so far) because they're still too expensive, too slow, and too dangerous. But perhaps further improvements in engines and lightweight materials will eventually make it viable?

[dmitrygr]

The operating costs of a VLJ are still insanely huge. Example: a piston plane - SR22 can fly 200mph for 1200 miles on one tank of fuel. Approximate cost of that flight including amortised repair and maintenance costs: $1000. A VLJ, like SF50 can do that same flight at 320mph, but at an amortized cost of about $2600. Mostly it is due to engine overhaul costs. Overhauling a piston engine like in an SR22 is about $40k and done about every 2000 hours. Overhauling a jet like the in the SF50 is about $700k, and done every 4000 hours.

Until that comes down, jets will simply not approach uber-useful affordability for even people who buy full-fare first class seats.

(Fuel consumption is also much higher both in gal/h and in $/hr for jets compared to pistons)

And piston planes are not nearly as useful for air taxi due to them being unable to fly high enough to avoid most weather. Oh and in general turbines are an order of magnitude less likely to fail per hour.

[rdl]

I'm surprised turbine costs haven't fallen -- maybe we need more cruise missiles and jet-powered drones to raise the volume and lower per unit costs.

[nradov]

Cruise missile turbine engines have a design operating life of only a few hours, use special stabilized gel fuel, and optimize for performance over cost. I'm skeptical as to whether those will prove to be a good basis for developing cheaper VLJ engines.

[throwaway2048]

pilots not licensed for commerical people transport are forbidden from taking money to fly people places. Planes that do fly people places from money are either forced to use the TSA or provide "equivilent security".

[nxtrafalgar]

I am constantly surprised when reading about the US. You would think that there would be more similarities with New Zealand, my home country.

Anecdotally; I flew to Australia a few months ago on an economy-class ticket purchased at very short notice. My trip through both Auckland and Melbourne airports was very pleasant, and I had no need to even interact with any of the personnel the whole way through. The flight was full but not overbooked and we arrived early.

Reading the stories about travel to the US is very discouraging and erases any desire I had to visit. I suppose there isn't much of an incentive to improve anything in the US, because the economy doesn't rely on tourism to the same extent we do here.

[pcmonk]

If it helps, I've flown many dozens of times in past few years, mostly in the US, but also on at least a couple of dozen international flights across four continents. I've never lost my checked baggage (I often check one or two bags), and I've never missed a flight, or even gotten particularly close to it (I do show up 2 hours early to avoid that), and I've never been bumped off a flight for any reason.

In the USA, you do have to accept that they're a lot more picky about liquids, and they do make you take off your shoes, but seriously, just read the signs and you won't be surprised.

[hackermailman]

NZ and Australia have open skies agreements though, the airlines actually have to compete with each other instead of being granted monopolies.

[mkl]

Technically, yes, but there's very little actual competition on many routes. Domestically in NZ between the main centres there's Air New Zealand and Jetstar. I doubt I'll ever fly Jetstar as I know too many people who've had Jetstar flights cancelled on them at the last minute. Ten years or so ago it was a different story, with more airlines competing.

[nxtrafalgar]

On minor routes Jetstar is bad, but I flew domestically with them half a dozen times last year.

The worst problem I experienced was a 30-delay one time.

[inopinatus]

United have always stunk. I'm thinking back about two decades on what was practically my first long-haul international trip. The return leg BOS-AMS on UAL was delayed due to equipment, then cancelled, then the replacement also delayed & cancelled, and so on, always with limited information and brusque, disinterested customer service. No apology, no compensation, and rerouting requests consistently denied. This continued for three days, and after three days of wandering the dreary halls of Boston Logan Airport my fellow detainees were on first-name terms.

Being a wet-behind-the-ears youth I had little idea of how abnormal this was, or how to properly and successfully complain to a gigantic company, and was also secretly enjoying my extra time in the US exploring the hidden places in and around an airport.

But some of the other passengers were frantic. Three days stuck at '90s-era Logan, because United couldn't get their act together and compounded their engineering & operational failures with dismally bad customer service. Some of them were missing major life events as a result.

Twentyish years on I have Legendary frequent flyer status, and exactly no dollars whatsoever were spent towards it with United. I choose to spend extra on friends and family routing with other airlines simply that they may avoid UAL. "Never again". Vote with your wallet.

[hackermailman]

It's never been easy to get into the US though, long before Trump they've been handing out arbitrary bans or doing nonsense like extraordinary rendition to 3rd world countries not respecting dual citizenship with Canada/Europe. I suspect nothing will happen because I can't remember a time where I didn't dread crossing the border all the way back to the Bush 1.0 presidency.

There's a NAFTA tribunal held once a week at major border crossings with Can/US not many people know about that can overturn the overzealous authority of border guards if anybody receives an arbitrary ban from entry I've had to use it a few times.

As for United Airlines monopolies allow this behavior to happen because where else are you going to go. United holds 73% of slots at Newark for example

[welly]

> Travelling in the US or with US airlines is not looking very good right now.

As someone not living in the US, travelling to the US is not looking good either. I know of many, many people who have written off visiting the USA for the foreseeable future.

I'm one of those and I've spent many years in the US in the past (lived in NE and VA for 5 years in total and visited over 30 states). Sadly, as much as I enjoy visiting the States, it simply feels like too much of a liability to visit at the moment. I'll reconsider in 4 years if it hasn't got any worse.

[Blahah]

I travel a lot internationally but won't visit the USA - I have no interest in putting myself through that.

By contrast, I've travelled to a lot of countries that the USA considers dangerous or extreme (e.g. Sudan), and have had nothing but pleasant and easy experiences.

[draugadrotten]

> I wonder if it will start impacting traveller and tourism numbers at some point.

According to some, it already has:

"All this has resulted in an estimated loss of $185 million in business travel bookings from January 28 to February 4, as calculated by the Global Business Travel Association. The drop-off in tourism is predicted to result in 4.3 million fewer visitors this year, which adds up to a staggering loss of $7.4 billion in revenue for the US."

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/trump-sl...

[teekert]

Imagine when they start asking for your passwords. Many of my colleagues said they really won't go anymore if that happens. It won't be long before conferences in the US will see diminished attendance from other parts of the world. In my field (biophysics) I'm pretty sure more local conferences are going to much more preferred in the future.

At Boston Logan airport me and some colleagues (+ the rest of the people on the plane waiting at customs) were once barked at: "The next person who forgot to fill out the back of his green form will be sent back to his home country!" No smiles, just a death stare while you put in your finger prints... It's a shame, it's such a beautiful country but I could do without.

[Markoff]

Aren't they doing it already? I was under impression from news you must already provide them at border with password or unlock your device for inspection when asked.

[shimon_e]

This is actually a really good thing if numbers are greatly hit. It'll hopefully lead to the entire US travel industry to focus on becoming the most travel friendly place it can be. But the hit needs to be big enough for shareholders to care.

[bigtimeidiot]

>But the hit needs to be big enough for shareholders to care.

Also time. Something like a fundamental travel industry shakeup could take decades. Here's hoping. As a Canadian, crossing that border is getting less and less appealing.

[janesvilleseo]

My wife and I just got back from a trip to Italy. The flight was full on the way there. We went from Chicago to Rome. However on the way back we flew from Venice with a stop over in Madrid back to Chicago. The plane was only 1/3 full at most. I remember commenting to my wife how empty it was.

[chimeracoder]

> My wife and I just got back from a trip to Italy. The flight was full on the way there. We went from Chicago to Rome. However on the way back we flew from Venice with a stop over in Madrid back to Chicago. The plane was only 1/3 full at most. I remember commenting to my wife how empty it was.

That's most likely just the normal variation in the flight schedules - they can vary dramatically not just by time of year, but also time of day.

For example, I just took a flight from Dubai to NYC (and this was after Trump's Muslim ban came into effect). The flight was packed, with nearly every seat full. Last year, I took the same flight but a few hours later, and it was nearly empty - almost every person in coach had the entire row to themselves (which, for a 15-hour flight, was great!).

Or put another way, if the flight on the way from Chicago to Rome was full and the flight from Madrid to Chicago was not, that doesn't really tell you much about aggregate tourism from other countries to the US, unless you're also making the assumption that there are literally planes full of people emigrating from the US every day.

[janesvilleseo]

True. I don't do enough international travel to indicate it one way or another. Just thought it was strange. This is only 1 small data point where many are needed in order to see any trending.

[phil21]

Load factors (both directions) are about as high as they ever have been.

In general terms, you can't really have a direction imbalance - especially due to the reasons you are positing. The vast majority of people flying (either direction) is on a tourist visa. Those people have to return as well as get there, so if a flight is full headed to Europe pretty much the same number of people must return. And vice versa.

Immigration/long-term business stays/etc. are a tiny fraction of the folks on the airplane. I suppose there could be an epidemic of US tourists overstaying their EU visas but I kind of doubt it :)

You'd see a reduction in load factor in both directions if there is a dropoff of EU tourism.

[lsllc]

"massively late"

This is a direct consequence of charging for checked bags.

Now every flight takes twice as long to board and disembark because everyone is carrying as much carry on as they can and trying to stuff them into the overhead bins.

Annoyingly, they usually start making announcements about gate-checking bags for free so they are not really reducing the costs and they're encouraging passengers to drag their bags through security (slowing down that line) in the hope they can gate check the bag for free (or not at all) in order to save $100/bag.

The airlines should offer free bag check and charge $100/bag per carry-on in the overhead bins (under the seat is free still).

[nojvek]

I would happily go for check bag in for free, but sometimes Airlines take forever to get the bag on to the carousel. Its much faster to get in and out with your bag as a carry-on.

I agree, One free bag check should be compulsory. They should also ensure that your bags arrive faster than you at the baggage carousel. May be one day with the advent of robots.

[dkersten]

Its much faster to get in and out with your bag as a carry-on.

This is the reason I do carry-on only if I can get away with it. I want to keep my airport-time as low as reasonably possible. I also try to optimise my seating for this purpose rhen its something I can do (without paying for priority stuff). For example, on a recent flight, I was the 3rd person through the passport checks and the first person (as far as I could tell) leaving the secure area.

[scriptkiddy]

> I wonder if this is a first step of a large trend yet to develop.

I sure hope not. Isolation only fuels nationalism. Nationalism fuels irrational decisions. Irrational decisions lead to fascism.

If you want your people to dehumanize a culture, the first step is to isolate your people from that culture. Don't allow your people any opportunity to empathize with that culture. If you continue to isolate your people, you can breed an "us vs them" sentiment. This is perfect if you want to start a war with popular support.

[exabrial]

No, it's just been slow news for a few weeks. United will be relieved once the media turns their magnifying-glass to burn other ants

[unixhero]

I never transit through the States any more. I prefer Canada or Mexico City.

[pkrawczykowski]

We just hired an Indian national at the startup I work for. He's on an h1b visa after finishing his masters in CS. Everyone at the company has to be registered with Homeland security. I'm so pissed. I think maybe we've convinced the CEO to just not and see what happens.

[njharman]

I really hope so. Cause in my country nothing improves unless doing so makes / saves money.

[gm-conspiracy]

It's only been ~15 years.

[Johnnybe]

I really hope so. We need less tourists here!