Airport security

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

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


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

While the ordinary goods of daily life receive exacting attention from
industrial designers, ergonomic experts and human behavior analysts,
airport security artifacts are the products of casual indifference.
The stuff is terrible.

The trays where you put your laptop or packages are off-the-shelf
products never meant for airport use. They are for busing dishes in
restaurants.

The plastic bowls for your coins and cellphone were meant for nail
salons and institutions serving people not to be trusted with ceramic.

The "recovery" tables where travelers retrieve their luggage on the
other side of the X-ray scanners are the fold-ups one finds in church
recreation halls.

Adapting goods for new purposes can be ingenious, but not in this
case. Coins tumble to the floor. People slow down the line as they
struggle to lift their suitcases onto the conveyor belt and into the
scanners. Strollers get tangled in equipment, worried people lunge for
film they fear will be radiated. Some travelers simply do not get any
instructions because they do not speak English. Some travelers come
undone. The mishaps distract the guards, forcing them to interrupt
their work and call for reinforcements.

None of this is good for passengers, for airlines, or for security.
There are alternatives, some of which are not rocket science.

The change bowls need some kind of funnel shape to help coins spill
back into a cupped hand.

The trays should have rubber linings to protect electronic goods
against vibration and to prevent gifts from breaking.

The platforms to the conveyor belts should slant down so that
travelers don't have to lift their luggage as high.

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

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

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

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

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

In article ,
Steve wrote:

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

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


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

I have flown four times in the past three months. All United States
domestic travel between Philadelphia and Salt Lake City. No problems on
either end, even with my name mispelled on my airline tickets and
two carry-on items.

"Steve" wrote in message
...

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

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


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

While the ordinary goods of daily life receive exacting attention from
industrial designers, ergonomic experts and human behavior analysts,
airport security artifacts are the products of casual indifference.
The stuff is terrible.

Terrible, maybe, but cheap. "Stuff" specifically designed for a purpose
means expensive stuff. Coin containers specifically designed for airport
security probably would cost 10 times the cheap stuff they use now, with not
much difference in functionality. Besides, any savy flyers would put their
coins (or other metal objects) in the carry on bag, not in their pockets.


The trays where you put your laptop or packages are off-the-shelf
products never meant for airport use. They are for busing dishes in
restaurants.

The plastic bowls for your coins and cellphone were meant for nail
salons and institutions serving people not to be trusted with ceramic.

The "recovery" tables where travelers retrieve their luggage on the
other side of the X-ray scanners are the fold-ups one finds in church
recreation halls.

Adapting goods for new purposes can be ingenious, but not in this
case. Coins tumble to the floor. People slow down the line as they
struggle to lift their suitcases onto the conveyor belt and into the
scanners. Strollers get tangled in equipment, worried people lunge for
film they fear will be radiated. Some travelers simply do not get any
instructions because they do not speak English. Some travelers come
undone. The mishaps distract the guards, forcing them to interrupt
their work and call for reinforcements.

None of this is good for passengers, for airlines, or for security.
There are alternatives, some of which are not rocket science.

The change bowls need some kind of funnel shape to help coins spill
back into a cupped hand.

The trays should have rubber linings to protect electronic goods
against vibration and to prevent gifts from breaking.

The platforms to the conveyor belts should slant down so that
travelers don't have to lift their luggage as high.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

No, I suspect the writer is an engineer who actually sat down and
thought about how things could be better. It's pretty bad, in fact if
it got any worse I would probably stop flying. Not because I'm afraid
of terrorists crashing my plane into a building (or even blowing it
up) but because I am only willing to put up with a certain amount of
inconvenience.

Consider my wife and I arriving at the airport for a cross-country
flight. We have three carry-ons on two luggage carts. I'm wearing a
back brace (middle age has made my back somewhat weak, but I'm OK as
long as I don't overstress it).

Why three carryons? One is a piece of medical equipment my wife needs
that is not packaged for shipment in the luggage compartment. One
contains books for us to read, because the movies airlines provide
don't come close to being interesting for us. The third contains food
and sodas, because the airlines no longer provide food (or if they do,
it's close to inedible).

My wife puts her purse on the belt and puts her watch and rings into
one of those trays. She steps out of her shoes and puts them in too.
Then she goes through and is waiting while the rest of the stuff comes
through.

Then I:
. Tighten the strap on my backbrace
. Unstrap the luggage carts
. Lift each carryon onto the belt.
. Place the luggage carts onto the belt
. Put my watch, ring, change, keys, pen(*) and pocket calendar
into a tray.
. Kneel down, untie my shoes, put them into the tray.
. Take off my back brace and put _it_ on the belt.
Now I can at last shove the tray onto the belt and walk through.

(*) The detectors are now so sensitive that the spring in my
retractable pen, or the paperclip that I use to mark the current
date in my week-at-a-glance, will set it off.

Meanwhile, the line backs up behind me. So, how could things be
better, aside from my sacrificing my comfort just so the line will
faster for those behind me? (Of course, nobody in front of me is
altruistic enough to do that for me.)

Well, let's see...

How about...

. Some chairs for people to sit in while they take their shoes off?
. A longer section leading up to the belt, that starts at nearly
floor level? If I don't have to lift the bags, I don't need the
backbrace. That's one less thing to fool with.
. Besides, if the table leading to the belt is longer, people with
less stuff can go around me and I won't be holding up the line.
. Better yet, a few skycaps who will help me do all the unhooking
and lifting of carry-ons for a tip. And maybe a few more at the
other end who will help put it all together.

Airlines are banking on cut-rate fares, but I don't care if I can go
from LA to NY for _free_, if my 5 hour flight actually takes over 7
hours because I have to allow for a long line at the security station
_and_ have to be at the gate well before the flight leaves or lose my
seat. The shorter the flight, the worse (proportionally) this effect.

I wouldn't even consider flying from LA to San Francisco or Phoenix.
It's only 6 or 7 hours to drive, and when I get there I'm _there_,
with my own car, not at an airport where I have to take a cab or
shuttle to my hotel. Or take a shuttle to stand in line to rent a
car...

Lets take LA to SF as a good example.

Driving: I leave home at 9 AM. At 3 or maybe 3:30 I'm in front of the
hotel, ready to let a bellman take my luggage.

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

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

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

11 AM: I'm in line at Hertz.

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

Noon: I'm checking into the hotel.

Total elapsed time: 5 hours.

I saved 1 to 1 1/2 hours. And spent over $200 on airfare alone, not
counting the price of a rental car. And had to keep the airline's
schedule, instead of getting up when I felt like it and just driving.
And got to spend the time in airports and in a crowded airplane seat,
instead of in my car. Some of the scenery on the way is even somewhat
interesting.

No wonder the airlines are dying.

Interestingly, I used to do something like that trip in the 80s,
except I traveled much lighter. I'd leave home at 5:50, get to LAX at
6:10, go through the (uncrowded) carry-on inspection, and get on my
6:30 flight. At 7:30 I'd be in San Jose. Maybe a 5 minute walk to
the Hertz counter and a short wait, so at 7:40 I'm out in front with
the contract and the keys. A short shuttle hop and at 7:45 I'm
driving out of the airport. I'm at the place where I'll work for the
week at 8:10. Total time, 2 hours 20 minutes. A lot better.

Of course, that was before they decided that SJC needed remote car
rental lots, just like all the other awful airports in the country.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.

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

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

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

"Mark Hewitt" wrote in message
...

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

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


Because in many US airports you have to take your checked luggage
to a scanner to have it X-Rayed before it gets sent to the aircraft

I had this happen at JFK and SEATAC last year

Keith

(Barry Gold) wrote in message ...
[snip]
I saved 1 to 1 1/2 hours. And spent over $200 on airfare alone, not
counting the price of a rental car. And had to keep the airline's
schedule, instead of getting up when I felt like it and just driving.
And got to spend the time in airports and in a crowded airplane seat,
instead of in my car. Some of the scenery on the way is even somewhat
interesting.

No wonder the airlines are dying.
[snip]

It's an issue that's been building for the better part of
the last decade or so. I can remember a good 10+ years ago
the pilot announcing we were passing over Nashville and were
about an hour from arrival. I suddenly realized that it was
going to take about an hour to cover the 500 miles left to
arrival, and another hour to go the 15 miles from the gate to
my door. Security issues have only magnified the problem,
while also interfering in any ability of the airlines to address
it.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Mark Hewitt" wrote in
message
...

Because in many US airports you have to take your checked luggage
to a scanner to have it X-Rayed before it gets sent to the aircraft

I had this happen at JFK and SEATAC last year

At SEATAC you turn around and plonk your checked luggage in a pile behind
the checkin desks and the bloke puts it through the scanner. There is no
lifting up of baggage onto anything. Not by passengers anyway. Dragging is
sufficient.

Can't comment on JFK.

"Mark Hewitt" wrote in message
...

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

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

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



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

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

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

It's not a suitcase. It's a carry-on. It fits under the seat, so I
don't have to lift it more than a few inches. If I didn't have to
lift it up for the scanner, I could leave the backbrace in the carry-on
until I'm ready to board.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.