Sweet Chaos
Android Enthusiast
I have seen how they've failed. The problem is that no one goes around posting all over the internet when they DO catch stuff so you only see the negative.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Anyone boycotting the TSA scanners tomorrow?
- Thread starter A.Nonymous
- Start date
- Status
I have seen how they've failed. The problem is that no one goes around posting all over the internet when they DO catch stuff so you only see the negative.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Please feel free to post instances where the scanners have caught contraband. I think a lot of people would be very interested in seeing that. I would love to see what these scanners have caught that a conventional metal detector would not catch.
Your argument that people would not put so much of our tax dollars into something that is ineffective is a ridiculous argument and borderline laughable. Governments (on every municipal level) are well known for pouring money into things that are ineffective.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Agreed.
Sweet Chaos
Android Enthusiast
Let me say again because apparently you completely ignored what I said the first time. People do not run around yelling when the scanners catch stuff. Did you read it that time? Honestly, I'm sure I could find something if I REALLY wanted to take the time to find it, but I don't really care that much. If you want to believe the scanners have never caught anything at all then that's your deal, and really doesn't affect me at all. The "proof or it didn't happen" argument isn't going to get me on this one because it is meaningless to me what you believe. So again I'll state that this is something we will never begin to agree on and that's cool with me.
Yeah - I dunno, SC.
At one airport, they have a big board visible to the lines that shows all of the weapons confiscated since 9/11 and playing things up.
Course - they're all guns and knives so the old pre-9/11 magnetic jobs could've caught those.
And do you really believe that TSA would have caught any bombs or other airplane-killers in these magical scanners and NOT had it trumpeted from mountains to the valleys?
TSA is a political animal.
If they'd have caught something - anything at all, you wouldn't need wikileaks to find out about it.
These are not coolios with tight lips, individually or organizationally.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
It's not a matter of what you or I believe. It's all about what can be proven. You can't make arguments about somethings effectiveness based on what you "think" or "feel". You've got to have facts to back up your arguments.
You argue that these scanners are worth giving up privacy for because they give us security in exchange. If you're going to make that argument, then you have to prove that they give us any security at all. There's no evidence for that. All I'm asking is for you back up your argument.
I can argue that terrorists have been able to smuggle explosives on to planes right through these scanners. They haven't done anything with them because they're just dry runs right now. Now, I have no evidence to back that up. In fact, I have just as much evidence to back that up as you have evidence that the scanners have caught stuff. I guess that proves that my argument that terrorists are beating the scanners every day is 100% as accurate as yours right?
This has nothing to do with belief. It has everything to do with what you can prove. I'd challenge you to go to court and claim that these scanners are effective because you "believe" that they are.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Despite the scanners being PROVEN to NOT WORK?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZrL5qdnRDI
I'm sorry, what security are these offering again? Oh right, none.
Great vid, IOWA, truly spectacular.
Especially because it helps prove one of my points. (rotf) OK, seriously:
From 4:40 to 4:55 the talking head says that it will serve to throw the terrorists off of their game - implying all is not lost.
Again, with the lame analysis from someone who has no clue about security - or terrorists. Again, referencing the underwear bomber - fighting yesterday's war.
Anybody wanna fight yesterday's war, on the theory that we can only learn from the past?
Boooookay - I'll play, too.
On 9/11, multiple terrorists were involved.
If they have a flight in particular that they want to bring down, then they send thru 3 or 5 or 6 bombers on the same flight. This not only decreases detection chances, it increases chances of success in detonation.
At one of my high-level security briefings to the USAF back in the early '90s, I opened with this anecdote:
So, The General's about to board his plane when his aide rushes up and says, "Sir, you have to carry this briefcase with you!"
"Why?"
"Well sir, our analysts have calculated that there's a 1 in 10 chance that there's a bomb on your plane and that you're being targeted. However - we've further calculated that there's a 1 in 10-million chance that there would be two bombs on this flight.
So - I've taken the liberty of packing this briefcase with C-4 and a timer-controlled detonator."
The brass howled their butts off.
Too bad the aides are doing all of the analysis on this one - in the media, and at TSA.
Especially because it helps prove one of my points. (rotf) OK, seriously:
From 4:40 to 4:55 the talking head says that it will serve to throw the terrorists off of their game - implying all is not lost.
Again, with the lame analysis from someone who has no clue about security - or terrorists. Again, referencing the underwear bomber - fighting yesterday's war.
Anybody wanna fight yesterday's war, on the theory that we can only learn from the past?
Boooookay - I'll play, too.
On 9/11, multiple terrorists were involved.
If they have a flight in particular that they want to bring down, then they send thru 3 or 5 or 6 bombers on the same flight. This not only decreases detection chances, it increases chances of success in detonation.
At one of my high-level security briefings to the USAF back in the early '90s, I opened with this anecdote:
So, The General's about to board his plane when his aide rushes up and says, "Sir, you have to carry this briefcase with you!"
"Why?"
"Well sir, our analysts have calculated that there's a 1 in 10 chance that there's a bomb on your plane and that you're being targeted. However - we've further calculated that there's a 1 in 10-million chance that there would be two bombs on this flight.
So - I've taken the liberty of packing this briefcase with C-4 and a timer-controlled detonator."
The brass howled their butts off.
Too bad the aides are doing all of the analysis on this one - in the media, and at TSA.
lordofthereef
Android Expert
I am reading a lot of people saying that flying is a necessity because it is cheaper and faster. IMO your argument is flwed. Your statements only make flying a greater convenience, but still not a necessity. You have other, more expensive and more time consuming options.
Please understand I am not picking sides here, just stating that flying is a necessity for THOSE reasons is quite the flawed argument.
Please understand I am not picking sides here, just stating that flying is a necessity for THOSE reasons is quite the flawed argument.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
From the TSA website - Things caught 12/06 - 12/12:
-- 5 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints
-- 14 firearms found at checkpoints
-- 5 passengers were arrested after investigations of suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents
I am sure the TSA tracks this closely. It is to their benefit to do so.
Bob Maxey
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I have no idea what the 5 prohibited items are so I can't comment on whether they'd be caught without the new scanners or whether they pose a threat if they weren't caught. In fact, we don't know if these things were caught by the scanners (which are controversial) or the metal detectors (which are not). The firearms would be caught by a metal detector and the passengers were caught by (shocker) profiling (zomg111). The TSA agent determined they were acting suspicious and took action.
And as a testament to the effectiveness of our current system, I point to an Iranian businessman who unknowingly got on a plane with a loaded gun that he didn't realize he had. Was in his carry on and went right through the x-ray machine. Source: ABC News.
Which is more profitable for airlines, passengers, or cargo?
Cargo.
So, changing it up like this would make them MORE profitable, not less profitable.
Fortunately, it doesn't really matter. Whether or not it is a necessity doesn't play into whether or not the Constitution protects your rights.
Driving isn't a necessity. But driving doesn't relieve you of your constitutional rights.
Eating at Taco Bell isn't a necessity, but eating at Taco Bell doesn't relieve you of your Constitutional Rights.
I'm sure you see where this is going.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
It will actually make them less profitable IMO because revenues will go down. They would have to either double up on the number of planes in their fleet or halve the number of flights going out. This means they'll have either extra expenditures (more planes) or less revenues (less seats to sell). So they're going to charge more for a plane ticket. It'll probably double. You can bet that they'll sell less tickets.
I'll go over this again...
They will be able to fly twice as many passengers per flight after modifying planes... this will mean fewer flights, but more passengers.
They will also be able to fly three times as much cargo per flight... which is hugely profitable for airlines. Airlines will sometimes fly cargo for UPS and Fedex. This will give them much more available room to sell to UPS and Fedex.
So, let's recap...
Same number of passengers.
Same number of planes flying.
Much more cargo being carried.
It's a win.
However, for this to work, we have to trust that airlines can actually get our cargo there... that's not something that's easy to trust them with, hence the fine.
It's possible you're unclear that seats are removable and airlines fly cargo in normal passenger planes fairly often.
It's also not clear that you've taken expedition into account at all.
Luggage has to be routed (expedited) with passergers - few fly point to point.
Cargo has to be expedited as well.
Your plan would have cargo expedition mixing with passenger expedition.
The logistical nightmare resulting from this plan would lead to delays and much higher costs than you're considering.
And your plan still doesn't attack the issue with people, unless you're going to fly them naked.
And I for one do not want to see the people I've been seeing fly naked. Nope.
It's also not clear that you've taken expedition into account at all.
Luggage has to be routed (expedited) with passergers - few fly point to point.
Cargo has to be expedited as well.
Your plan would have cargo expedition mixing with passenger expedition.
The logistical nightmare resulting from this plan would lead to delays and much higher costs than you're considering.
And your plan still doesn't attack the issue with people, unless you're going to fly them naked.
And I for one do not want to see the people I've been seeing fly naked. Nope.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I don't know how familiar you are with airplanes, but I live in a town that manufactures them (half a dozen aircraft manufacturing plants in town) and I do work for a number of companies that make parts for said planes. I've been inside an unfinished plane fuselage more than once. There is not enough space in there to double your passenger space. Even if you got rid of cargo altogether, you couldn't double your passenger space. The plane is not big enough in most cases. You might be able to pull it off in larger planes, but it would never fly with the smaller puddle jumpers that have like 4 seats across. That style of plane it would never work on.
As mentioned earlier, the logistics of it would be a nightmare. You'd now have to fly two planes from NY to Philly instead of one. The planes would have to leave at about the same time and get there at about the same time. Flying two planes on a route is going to double the costs of that route. You'd have to charge a whole lot more for baggage or for passengers.
I'm familiar with planes ferrying cargo.
As far as expediting cargo with passengers, all that matters is getting the luggage to the destination when the passenger gets there. Nothing else really matters when it comes to luggage transportation. If the luggage follows a different route than the passenger, then fine.
Yeah... flying naked would be a bad thing most times, but it's the only way to ensure 100% safety.
And as a bonus, announcing with certain celebrities are flying (megan fox) would sell out the flight quickly... very quickly... and at high prices.
Looks can be deceiving, an engineering friend of mine did this as a study during college. The math is absolutely workable without compromising hull integrity (that's on about 85% of modern aircraft).
I guess we'll have to inform Fedex that what they are doing is a logistical nightmare where it is cheaper to fly than to ship packages... but then, they will probably just look at you and laugh.
That addressed the magnitude of the logistics problems not at all, you know.
Uh huh. Megan Fox + slathering fanbois - thanks, but include me out.
A lot of college-study calculations don't survive to the real world.
But - your friend might have been right. Hope he included enough toilets, flight facilities, host personnel and gate time additions in his calculations - because we're not widgets, you can't just pack us the way calculus says.
This doesn't address the main point that A.Nonymous also stated:
Your plan is a logistical nightmare and the costs are going to be higher.
Have you worked in air freight or shipping industry? Close friends there than can relate first-hand experience?
Respectfully, I can't get a handle on how you're sure that you've thought this through, so maybe background or something will help.
Have you done any work in queuing theory, traffic theory or theories related to multipoint aggregations and distributions - or do you have some practical experience I can take into account?
Shuttling luggage is less complicated than shuttling packages. Fedex has been doing that for quite some time with great efficiency.
It was a full on re-engineering of the plane. You would have the same room that you have now.
Shipping things from point A to point B is what shipping companies do all day every day with remarkable efficiency. Would it be complicated? Yes, it absolutely would be. Would it be a nightmare? No, I don't think either FedEx or UPS would call it a nightmare. It's just business.
Let me first ask a question that may clear this up:
What is different about shipping luggage to destinations from shipping packages?
Why would this be a logistical nightmare whereas FedEx isn't?
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Here's an image of a Boeing 737. This plane has had the top sheered off due to an accident so you can see just how much space is below the seating area. and how much space is above. The seating area probably takes up 60-70% of the height of the plane.
Now, not all of that space is cargo space. That's where your assumption that you can convert all that space to passenger space fails. In that space is the guts of the airplane - electrical wiring, plumbing, engine parts, etc..... The cargo area isn't that big of a section of the plane. I tried to look up pics and somehow came back with porn. No clue how that happened. Even if you could convert the cargo area into passenger space, like EarlyMon said you still have to add flight crew accommodations, lavatories, additional serving areas, overhead storage for carry on luggage, etc...... By the time you add all of that, you're going to have a very, very cramped cabin with very few seats.
You're missing the point of the logistics. If you Fedex a package and you send it two day mail, it has to get on the plane today. When today doesn't matter. The package getting on the plane this morning, this afternoon or this evening doesn't really matter. Shipping luggage is a completely different thing.
Let's say I take the NY to Philly flight. I check luggage. Under the current system, there's no problem. They tag the luggage so they know what plane it goes on and they toss it on the plane I'm taking. Luggage gets to Philly the moment I do. The only wait for me is the time it takes to unload the luggage and toss it on the conveyor.
Under the new system there are issues. They now have to have two flights that leave for Philly at about the same time. They have to tag the luggage appropriately and somehow have to sort out how to tell the cargo plane from the passenger plane. They would have to coordinate two planes taking off for Philly and landing in Philly at about the same time. The cargo plane can't leave until the passenger plane has left. You're not going to fly baggage when you don't have a passenger to go with it. That's how it's currently done and I don't see why that would change. Routing is going to be a PITA. Both planes have to get there at the same time. If the passenger plane lands, but there's no room for the baggage plane to land, passengers are going to be ticked as they sit at baggage claim and watch their baggage circle overhead.
What do you do if the baggage plane takes off with no issues, but the passenger plane breaks down? Now you're sitting in NY, but your luggage is on the way to Philly. Ain't that lovely. Does the airline just sit on your luggage in Philly and wait to see if you can get another flight out of NY? What if you decide that if you can't get to Philly that day, your business trip is wasted so you want to cancel it? Now the airline has to find just your bag out of all those bags and fly it back to NY. Will you wait a few hours for this to happen? How ticked are you going to be? What if it's the other way around? What if the passenger plane makes it, but the luggage plane has to make an emergency landing somewhere? Now you're in Philly, but your luggage is in Buffalo. And it's not just you, it's 200 people on your flight in the same boat. That's not a nightmare for an airline company. It's a logistical nightmare.
Airlines are desperate for revenue right now. If your plan makes so much sense and would increase their profits so much, why are none of them considering it?
jamor
Android Expert
Not true at all. It IS a necessity for those that need to fly for work or to get to a funeral, etc..
Fedex has standard container sizes, luggage, not so.
Remember what happened at Denver when it was new or at Heathrow's recent luggage-routing debacle?
That effects automated systems, sure, but there's a human element involved as well. I have a relative who works part-time in baggage, part-time handling air freight. He claims the former is always ranges from a low-level nuisance to the occasional nightmare while the later is his favorite job - the packages average heavier, but it's a cakewalk.
Here's an image of a Boeing 737. This plane has had the top sheered off due to an accident so you can see just how much space is below the seating area. and how much space is above. The seating area probably takes up 60-70% of the height of the plane.
Now, not all of that space is cargo space. That's where your assumption that you can convert all that space to passenger space fails. In that space is the guts of the airplane - electrical wiring, plumbing, engine parts, etc..... The cargo area isn't that big of a section of the plane. I tried to look up pics and somehow came back with porn. No clue how that happened. Even if you could convert the cargo area into passenger space, like EarlyMon said you still have to add flight crew accommodations, lavatories, additional serving areas, overhead storage for carry on luggage, etc...... By the time you add all of that, you're going to have a very, very cramped cabin with very few seats.
I'll see if I can find those prints for you.
Not really. With a FedEx package, it must go out at a certain time of day, or wait for tomorrow. The same is true of luggage. These shipments go out at scheduled intervals. Miss one, and take the next one.
Under the proposed system, you wouldn't have to wait for them to toss it onto the conveyor. There is no requirement that the luggage leave at the same time you do, or that it land at the same time you do. There is no requirement that the luggage makes all the same connections that you do.
If you can't imagine how it would be easily possible to figure out which plane the luggage goes on, then of course this system wouldn't make sense.
As far as the luggage staying lock step with the passenger... that's neither necessary nor productive. That's the way they've always done it and there's no reason it would change, unless of course you want to do something better.
Both planes do NOT have to get there at the same time. In fact, just because you took a three over layover, doesn't mean that your luggage did. Your luggage may be waiting for you in inventory for hours until you arrive. (Also, the carousel would have to go too). No more just throwing everyone's luggage out and hope the right people get it. They will need a state of the art inventory system to get everyone their luggage quickly and efficiently.)
Have you ever tried to get your luggage back after it's been loaded on the plane? It's not easy at all. Make it part of the agreement, that your luggage will be en route from the moment you give it over to the airline. Create a procedure for returning luggage, and let that be that.
Simple answer, don't board a plane you don't want to fly on...
Why didn't GM revamp their processes before they went into bankruptcy?
Companies do things the way they always have and expect things to get better. Sometimes radical thinking is scary and scary doesn't make investors happy.
Maybe they think there's a better path doing what they've always done, but nickling and diming their customers to death. Who knows.
FedEx has standard container sizes? You don't think you could do the same thing with Luggage? It's not like the packages that get sent through FedEx are all "standard sizes". They load containers with packages of all different sizes and shapes.
There is no benefit to putting resources into luggage handling. Hence the extreme fine. When it becomes worth it for the airlines to track their luggage like they should already be doing, then they will. Otherwise, it's more cost efficient to just lose luggage.
Luggage is closer to being uniform in size than freight is. If they shipped luggage like they do freight, then they would be shipped lighter AND a cakewalk.
There is no reason that airlines shouldn't have the delivery record of FedEx or UPS when it comes to luggage. They don't see any money in ensuring your luggage gets there, so they don't do it.
- Status