Hacker News Reader

Comment by foldr | Hacker News Reader

>And you fail on the "bit in the middle", because all the unpleasantness that I described in those earlier posts happens on a single flight.

You were talking about the start and the end of the journey in your OP. I assumed the "end" part referred to the return flight. Hence the holiday would be "the bit in the middle".

I'm know that people have bad experiences sometimes, but you're making an absurdly huge drama out of it. Refusing to fly is simply not a reasonable response to the typical level of inconvenience.

>Hundreds of people from my country have recently been held in hotels under armed guard

This has nothing to do with airport security, but rather immigration policy. You're going off on so many tangents here I'm not really sure what to say.

View on HN

> I'm know that people have bad experiences sometimes, but you're making an absurdly huge drama out of it.

The point is that almost everyone I know seems to be having a bad experience with flying these days, and almost all of it is directly due to the over-zealous security and related issues. Why should we "come quietly" and accept our quality of life being reduced in this way?

> Refusing to fly is simply not a reasonable response to the typical level of inconvenience.

I, and an increasing number of my friends and family, disagree with you. Fortunately, where and how we travel still remains our choice, so those modes of transport and destinations that offer a pleasant, efficient experience will benefit, while those that do not will suffer.

The point is that almost everyone I know seems to be having a bad experience with flying these days

Just as a counterpoint, almost everyone I know is minorly inconvenienced and continues on their merry way way when flying. Mainly grumbling about having to repack their carry-on and security theater jokes. And these are people flying into/out of major airports (SFO, LAX, JFK, ORD to name a few).

// edit: Include me in this as well. And I've flown into or out of ROC, JFK and SFO ~8-10x a year (4-5 trips a year) for the past 3 years.

Of course, this just illustrates anecdotes and that people view things differently. Shocking, I know.

Hundreds of people from my country

Out of curiosity, just what country are you from? Or your family? You haven't said. At least, not that I've noticed.

He mentioned living in the UK a few posts back.

You don't necessarily have to have citizenship of a country to live there. Nor do you have to live in the same country that the rest of your family lives in.

I'm just wondering how much (if any) of his/friends/families experience is due to something unfortunate (such as racial profiling) vs how much (again, if any) is simply being blown out of proportion.

I'm a British citizen and living in the UK.

I've met many people through the university in the city where I live, so they come from a diverse range of backgrounds. I have noticed no common racial or nationality elements in those who have mentioned having a worse time with airport security.

In the US, at least, airport security and immigration policy are both motivated by the same fears, and a large part of airport security is enforcing immigration policy.

The OP was talking about an exceptional case in which a number of people had to enter a country without visas. Not surprisingly, they weren't allowed to wonder around at their leisure. That has nothing to do with airport security -- they were not being held in the airport.

I didn't perceive that as the center of the argument, but perhaps I misinterpreted. I read it as saying that international airline travel in general is too invasive and inconvenient, with the ash-induced diversion just a worst-case example.

At any rate, my only point was that there is a connection between the motivations for border/immigration security and airport security. Addressing the deeper motivations behind the problems with both should make both improve.

> I didn't perceive that as the center of the argument,

Neither did I -- that's why I said it was a tangent.

Actually, there have been people who were held airside for an extended period, and weren't even allowed access to their baggage to get a change of clothes.

And we're not talking about wandering around at their leisure, we're talking about not even being allowed to get a train home. It's not as if someone is a serious risk of becoming an illegal immigrant, if they had no intention of being in the country in the first place. But there seems to be no concept of applying common sense and issuing emergency visas despite the unusual circumstances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com