> There is an official way for travelers to bypass long TSA waits if they’re willing to spend: hiring concierge services to escort them through security.
> Perq Soleil is an airport arrival and departure assistance service that can help travelers through TSA in about a minute flat by accessing alternative lines usually reserved for airport staff and airline personnel. The company — which operates in more than 300 airports and 150 countries — charges a base rate that varies by location.
Talk about burying the lede. Apparently the airports “highly discourage” line-sitters, but if you use services that pre-bribed airports you can skip the lines entirely.
Why should private plane passengers be subject to TSA? TSA (paid for by you and me by the way, not for free) exists to protect the public from harm, on public flights by common carriers. It used to be contracted by airlines themselves. Unless you are the most extreme of pro-seatbelt law people, it would make little sense for TSA to screen anyone on a private plane manifest unless the client asked them to.
No, the TSA exists because 19 people hijacked 4 flights and succeeded in crashing 3 of them into various important buildings in the US on 9/11/2001.
Private planes are just as capable of crashing into buildings as commercial jets. The TSA has picked up some ancillary public safety functions over the years, but their raison d'etre is to prevent hijackings.
No, the TSA exists because politicians felt they needed to be seen doing something after 9/11. If there were actually much political will for it to fulfill actual security purposes, it surely would’ve been reformed after it’s continually abysmal performance on security audits.
In terms of menace potential, any private plane will lose to a van full of fertilizer and a baddie intent on causing destruction. It's a matter of scale.
Little planes, like this one [1] just don't do damage on the same scale as airliners.
No argument though, just saying it's a hard problem, and the scaling issue makes it somewhat awkward to deploy security resources in proportion to the threat.
I don't have a solution. I'm not exactly thrilled with the current setup, but I try to stay quiet since I can't think of anything better.
Lots of things can crash into buildings. Should they all be screened by TSA? Drones and their operators prior to every launch? 30 minute helicopter tours and high-rise HVAC drop offs? Private satellites?
Or is licensing and registration (of pilots and aircraft and manifest and flight plan) enough?
Governments are reactive. So if any of these other things ever successfully destroy a building then you can absolutely count on new rules and laws that, at a minimum, will include screening.
So it’s complete building destruction that is the protective mission here? Not loss of life or general terrorism or something else? I’m glad we are clarifying
I wasn’t aware that DJI drone with 60lb payload was subject to more regulations than a Citation leaving TEB but I guess I’m open to learning what those are.
Hell the TSA doesn’t do much to prevent that on commercial flights, but requiring private flights to start going through commercial security would be completely pointless
The danger of Steve Jobs hijacking his own private plane was obviously quite high! We can only thank the dutiful TSA officers for their brave service. I’m sure they risked their lives averting this danger. Have they been awarded any medals yet?
I don’t even understand why this is an issue, because TSA screening is funded through user fees. There’s a line item of $5.60 per one-way ticket for exactly this that’s separate from airfare and other fees. (https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees)
If this is so, why does Congress have to fund the program? Why not pass the funds through directly to the agency?
The question itself feels like it calls for "Schoolhouse Rock" level basics about how the federal government works.
The federal government does not work like a private escrow account where a fee collected for X automatically goes to Y. Tax revenue comes in to the Treasury, and Congress decides what agencies are allowed to spend. So even if TSA screening is funded in part by a per-ticket user fee, TSA still does not get to just collect that money and use it directly. Congress has to authorize and appropriate it.
On a practical level, imagine the chaos if every federal department acted as its own tax collector and then set its own spending priorities. That is basically an argument for gutting Congress's oversight of TSA and treating it like an independent agency, just because Congress and the executive branch invented the modern shutdown in the 1980s.
Keep in mind shutdowns are a fairly new concept, that nearly no other country has. The US also didn't have it for most of its history. Congress could stop at any time it wanted.
SFO doesn’t use TSA for security and works like this with whatever contractor it hire. I wish all airports would just use private security funded via usage fees, then we would never be held hostage because some whacko wanted to use masked thugs to beat up and shoot Americans.
From like the way it is and has been for many years?
From their website:
Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage screening at SFO.
Visit Covenant Aviation Security to learn more about security screening at SFO.
I thought it was common knowledge, but anyone who has been through SFO in the last decade should know that they aren’t using TSA for the checks to get to gates. Always seems fast.
You’re right that that’s the default state. However, Congress could have set things up such that the fees would pass through to TSA’s budget (i.e. earmarked) but chose not to.
AFAIC there's no good reason for airport security to be a federal jobs program in the first place. The airports and/or their contractors are perfectly capable of operating x-ray machines and metal detectors on their own, and from what I understand are even still permitted to but all choose to let the government do it and pay for it.
What the fuck is the TSA even supposed to be doing? The 9/11 guys supposedly used box cutters. Does anybody seriously think you can't get a little blade like that onto an airplane in your carry on luggage? I bring double sided razor blades with every time I fly and they have never flagged it. And more importantly, does anybody actually believe you could still hijack a plane with a pocket knife? All the other passengers now know the score, they all die unless they throw themselves on you which they will and have done many times since. What's more, you won't get into the locked cockpit anyway. Airport security is solved. Basic bitch scanning for guns is all you need and we had that solved in the 90s which is the reason the hijackers used pocket knives, which no longer works. Disband the TSA.
I'm not the first to suggest this, but I think "fly at your own risk" airlines would be popular with some people. Keep the cockpit door reinforced, and maintain a gentleman's agreement among travellers on what to do if a passenger threatens a flight. Airport security is now reduced to 10 seconds.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 5.60 per person per flight doesn't cover the cost of TSA airport security operations leaving congress responsible for the gap.
If you are wondering how that could happen, it starts with no-bid contracts and ends with inefficiency and has been heavily influenced by a guy whose name sounds a lot like Schmical Schmertoff.
Because the fee revenue was created by congress, so the money goes 1/3 to Treasury to help pay national debt (doesn't really make a dent), about $1.6B goes to the government general fund. But FY24 collected $4.5B in fees, but the budget was almost $9.5B.
So even if all the money went to TSA, less than half their budget is covered. There is inherently bloat in that, but that is for a different discussion.
But bigger still, if Congress didn't reappropriate that money from TSA, they'd either have to spend less (less likely), raise taxes (not likely), or go deeper in debt (very likely) in order to cover whatever they are currently covering with their 70% share of the fee.
It seems that SFO's policy of having an intermediate company that buffers salaries is working well because I flew through there to Taipei after this whole situation and there was no wait.
I _just_ went though the line. It wasn't too bad (5-10min, despite having bio ID), but it was by far the worst I've encountered at SFO in the decade I've been flying out of there.
P.s.
And as usual, TSA doesn't understand anything about queueing theory and doesn't implement round robin / starvation prevention. Global services and clear get absolute priority over other queues.
No, it's accurate, because TSA (or at least the feds) ultimately pay for it, but the company has some runway it can spend to keep the employees working on the assumption it'll be paid later, I.E. a buffer.
Edit: Newspapers have a long history of using headline editors who add “spin” otherwise reasonable stories handed in by journalists. This story was built by talking to a few entrepreneurs who offer line-sitting to see if they’d served any customers for airport security waits. Only one had.
I have been kind of experimenting with using single archive pages for archive.is /.ph/.today links and then experimenting with either putting these on my github pages (and then archiving) just for more preservation purposes.
Today I wanted to try something different so I used singlefile to make a html and then make pdf file from that html and uploaded it to archive.org
I don't wish to have news articles in my github as it clutters or I am not sure how these laws might follow (there is definitely a reason as to why archive.is creator is anonymous) and so I am looking for more anonymous ways to upload (my main intentions are that archive.ph can be nice but I feel like its not validated within wikipedia/all the controversies it has and I am just experimenting with things right now)
I have also uploaded this on catbox.moe (https://files.catbox.moe/mt9sus.html) but it has plain/text content-type, does anyone know a more anonymous content-type plain/text -> html where I can upload things perhaps, I have thoughts about creating something like this (where people can give links to text .html files and I can then display the html) but I am also a bit worried that it might be used for nefarious purposes.
I am not sure what I should do actually about it, I like thinking about archiving though, but anything other than archive.org like archive.is, can only function best if they are anonymous and I am not really anonymous/intend to be.
This makes me sympathetic of them against the journalist who tried to dox them but also I kind of understand that journalist tried approaching first from a more curiosity, maybe a threat-actor model, I had done something like this once to a service because I wanted to know if govt.'s would be able to catch them or not (they had a reddit proxy) and I found that they had their opsec secure and I was really impressed but I sometimes wonder, if the journalist also did something like this and the archive.is owner felt like it was a threat to archive and decided to ddos and all the things that followed, I sort of understand both the perspectives, so it just makes me sad as how this ended up folding up.
(This comment might've been more relevant within the archive.is drama hackernews thread but I think that its long gone and I was still forming my opinion on all of this which clearly has some nuance)
The archive.today domains have also poisoned DNS lookups from some privacy-preserving DNS providers, and in rare cases have been caught tampering the archive data. Make of that what you will.
I flew out of SeaTac yesterday (March 28th), and the TSA there were pretty well staffed. Took me around 6 minutes, and that was only because the person in front of me was talking to the agent about the tote bag they got from Trader Joe's.
I know it's bad, but yeah, I just hate waiting, it's stupid. So whenever I can I just go through "first class" security and nothing bad happens, just skipping the queue. Look decent, look busy, keep on walking and bam you're past the security in a minute compared to tens of minutes or hours. And don't ever remove that "short connection" or "priority" tag from your luggage, it indeed goes out first. Airports are so freaking annoying way to commute, take a bus/train/tram/taxi/car to the airport, figure out the maze, wait in queue, get bored after security (because you arrived to early not knowing how much you're going to wait in security), go to a gate, then a different gate, queue again, get inside, and wait again. Why did we do this to ourselves!?
Fascinating. Is there something specific about those temples that draws the crowds, like something akin to a famous cathedral? Must worship take place in a temple? I don't know how the religion works but did get to visit a local temple once with some coworkers and enjoyed the atmosphere.
Every family has a "kuladeivam" which is basically a temple for that (patrilineal) lineage. Every family has one. Every temple has few families.
Then it's special for people in the same town as the temple. Modern migration makes this a different set from the one above.
Then each temple has special events on specific days/week/month/year.
And then on top of that some few hundred temples are special in general and are crowded 365 days of the year with people from all over.
Adds up.
> Must worship take place in a temple?
Just my understanding. You can worship anywhere even in your head, but temples are one thing which improve "quality" of worship by a lot. The logic roughly goes - since most people aren't capable of high (enuf) quality worship in their head or at home, temples help them. More of a magnitude thing rather than a binary thing.
I wonder why Trump just doesn't sell this himself, like golden tickets that you can buy from ICE where they just push back the free-tier line enjoyers to insert the patriotic gold level travelers.
In Turkey people with connections to the government get strobe lights permit to skip the traffic through the emergency line. There's so many opportunities both for monetization and loyalty rewarding.
Due to lapses like that sometimes I question my theory that all those people(Erdogan, Trump, Putin etc) are in the same group chat.
It’s really just a handful that have long lines part of the day. LAX for example hasn’t has a line at all really. Takes longer for my bag to be secondary checked every time than it does to wait in line.
Essential Air Service travelers aren't seeing any major pain either traveling outbound. Fortunately (though kind of sadly) the TSA folks only work a couple hours a day at the checkpoint for the single flight in and out so most of them are working side jobs anyways as their day job from what I hear. Our checkpoint doesn't even open until ~45 minutes before boarding starts in the middle of the day.
From the last few paragraphs:
> There is an official way for travelers to bypass long TSA waits if they’re willing to spend: hiring concierge services to escort them through security.
> Perq Soleil is an airport arrival and departure assistance service that can help travelers through TSA in about a minute flat by accessing alternative lines usually reserved for airport staff and airline personnel. The company — which operates in more than 300 airports and 150 countries — charges a base rate that varies by location.
Talk about burying the lede. Apparently the airports “highly discourage” line-sitters, but if you use services that pre-bribed airports you can skip the lines entirely.
The people arriving on private jets have always bypassed these bureaucratic procedures. Brotherhood and equality.
It's true equality: The rich and poor alike are allowed to fly on private jets or hire a departure assistance service!
As somebody who doesn't travel on private jets, I'm very, very happy that I'm not anywhere close to those people.
Imagine the pandemonium that would ensue if Taylor Swift were to enter an airport terminal through the normal entrance.
Why should private plane passengers be subject to TSA? TSA (paid for by you and me by the way, not for free) exists to protect the public from harm, on public flights by common carriers. It used to be contracted by airlines themselves. Unless you are the most extreme of pro-seatbelt law people, it would make little sense for TSA to screen anyone on a private plane manifest unless the client asked them to.
No, the TSA exists because 19 people hijacked 4 flights and succeeded in crashing 3 of them into various important buildings in the US on 9/11/2001.
Private planes are just as capable of crashing into buildings as commercial jets. The TSA has picked up some ancillary public safety functions over the years, but their raison d'etre is to prevent hijackings.
No, the TSA exists because politicians felt they needed to be seen doing something after 9/11. If there were actually much political will for it to fulfill actual security purposes, it surely would’ve been reformed after it’s continually abysmal performance on security audits.
No; the TSA exists because we needed a government jobs program that was easy to promote under the guise of terrorism.
It's not nearly enough jobs to be a jobs program
In terms of menace potential, any private plane will lose to a van full of fertilizer and a baddie intent on causing destruction. It's a matter of scale.
Little planes, like this one [1] just don't do damage on the same scale as airliners.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack
Most private planes taking off from commercial airports (the ones where TSA generally operates) are much larger than a Piper Dakota.
(But regardless, it’s not clear that the TSA is even performing that kind of calculus.)
A G650 still loses to a motivated U-haul. :)
No argument though, just saying it's a hard problem, and the scaling issue makes it somewhat awkward to deploy security resources in proportion to the threat.
I don't have a solution. I'm not exactly thrilled with the current setup, but I try to stay quiet since I can't think of anything better.
The TSA was created because a plane crashed into a building. Private planes can crash into buildings. Why should they be exempt from TSA checks?
Lots of things can crash into buildings. Should they all be screened by TSA? Drones and their operators prior to every launch? 30 minute helicopter tours and high-rise HVAC drop offs? Private satellites?
Or is licensing and registration (of pilots and aircraft and manifest and flight plan) enough?
Governments are reactive. So if any of these other things ever successfully destroy a building then you can absolutely count on new rules and laws that, at a minimum, will include screening.
Commercial drones can't bring down buildings. And they're still subject to an awful lot of regulations.
So it’s complete building destruction that is the protective mission here? Not loss of life or general terrorism or something else? I’m glad we are clarifying
I wasn’t aware that DJI drone with 60lb payload was subject to more regulations than a Citation leaving TEB but I guess I’m open to learning what those are.
Why are you spending so much effort helping the most privileged people on the planet? Makes no sense to be their white knight
Why are you wasting time here? Even a letter to the editor would be more effective than an HN comment.
Were you born after 2001? Did you remember those planes that flew into the buildings?
Private planes can do the same thing.
And the TSA wouldn’t do anything to stop that
Hell the TSA doesn’t do much to prevent that on commercial flights, but requiring private flights to start going through commercial security would be completely pointless
Inconveniencing wealthy people might create motivation to fix the problem.
It seems to me that the people flying private jets are the biggest threats to humanity.
This reminds me of when Steve Job's had his ninja throwing stars confiscated by (airport security) getting on his private jet.
Edited to clarify NOT TSA
The danger of Steve Jobs hijacking his own private plane was obviously quite high! We can only thank the dutiful TSA officers for their brave service. I’m sure they risked their lives averting this danger. Have they been awarded any medals yet?
https://techland.time.com/2010/09/14/steve-jobs-vows-to-neve...
For reference
"Update: Apple called Techland saying that the story is “pure fiction.” According to the New York Post, Steve Jobs himself has told them the same."
HN can always be counted on to have a good contingent of temporarily embarrassed billionaires ready to stick up for them at the slightest provocation.
You don’t have to be a billionaire to fly out of an FBO and you don’t have to fly out of an FBO to be interested in freedom of movement. No Kings.
I don’t even understand why this is an issue, because TSA screening is funded through user fees. There’s a line item of $5.60 per one-way ticket for exactly this that’s separate from airfare and other fees. (https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees)
If this is so, why does Congress have to fund the program? Why not pass the funds through directly to the agency?
The question itself feels like it calls for "Schoolhouse Rock" level basics about how the federal government works.
The federal government does not work like a private escrow account where a fee collected for X automatically goes to Y. Tax revenue comes in to the Treasury, and Congress decides what agencies are allowed to spend. So even if TSA screening is funded in part by a per-ticket user fee, TSA still does not get to just collect that money and use it directly. Congress has to authorize and appropriate it.
On a practical level, imagine the chaos if every federal department acted as its own tax collector and then set its own spending priorities. That is basically an argument for gutting Congress's oversight of TSA and treating it like an independent agency, just because Congress and the executive branch invented the modern shutdown in the 1980s.
Keep in mind shutdowns are a fairly new concept, that nearly no other country has. The US also didn't have it for most of its history. Congress could stop at any time it wanted.
SFO doesn’t use TSA for security and works like this with whatever contractor it hire. I wish all airports would just use private security funded via usage fees, then we would never be held hostage because some whacko wanted to use masked thugs to beat up and shoot Americans.
Where did you get the information that SFO doesn't use TSA?
From like the way it is and has been for many years?
From their website:
Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage screening at SFO.
Visit Covenant Aviation Security to learn more about security screening at SFO.
https://www.flysfo.com/about/airport-operations/safety-secur...
More coverage here: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5759273/not-all-airport...
I thought it was common knowledge, but anyone who has been through SFO in the last decade should know that they aren’t using TSA for the checks to get to gates. Always seems fast.
https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/screening-partnerships
> The Screening Partnership Program contracts security screening services at commercial airports to qualified private companies.
You’re right that that’s the default state. However, Congress could have set things up such that the fees would pass through to TSA’s budget (i.e. earmarked) but chose not to.
Many are run by user fees, such as USCIS that keeps operating during shutdowns.
If you scroll down on the page, it'll show that the user fees only offset ~20% of the overall security expenses.
In addition, most fees (including most of the TSA fee) collected by the US Federal government isn't earmarked - it just goes into the general fund.
More breakdown here: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/23/us/tsa-funding-security-fees-...
Thanks!
The same article you linked has a chart that shows that actual expenses are around 4x the fees that are collected.
AFAIC there's no good reason for airport security to be a federal jobs program in the first place. The airports and/or their contractors are perfectly capable of operating x-ray machines and metal detectors on their own, and from what I understand are even still permitted to but all choose to let the government do it and pay for it.
What the fuck is the TSA even supposed to be doing? The 9/11 guys supposedly used box cutters. Does anybody seriously think you can't get a little blade like that onto an airplane in your carry on luggage? I bring double sided razor blades with every time I fly and they have never flagged it. And more importantly, does anybody actually believe you could still hijack a plane with a pocket knife? All the other passengers now know the score, they all die unless they throw themselves on you which they will and have done many times since. What's more, you won't get into the locked cockpit anyway. Airport security is solved. Basic bitch scanning for guns is all you need and we had that solved in the 90s which is the reason the hijackers used pocket knives, which no longer works. Disband the TSA.
I'm not the first to suggest this, but I think "fly at your own risk" airlines would be popular with some people. Keep the cockpit door reinforced, and maintain a gentleman's agreement among travellers on what to do if a passenger threatens a flight. Airport security is now reduced to 10 seconds.
As noted elsewhere, that approach doesn't stop someone flying the plane into a building.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 5.60 per person per flight doesn't cover the cost of TSA airport security operations leaving congress responsible for the gap.
If you are wondering how that could happen, it starts with no-bid contracts and ends with inefficiency and has been heavily influenced by a guy whose name sounds a lot like Schmical Schmertoff.
Because the fee revenue was created by congress, so the money goes 1/3 to Treasury to help pay national debt (doesn't really make a dent), about $1.6B goes to the government general fund. But FY24 collected $4.5B in fees, but the budget was almost $9.5B.
So even if all the money went to TSA, less than half their budget is covered. There is inherently bloat in that, but that is for a different discussion.
But bigger still, if Congress didn't reappropriate that money from TSA, they'd either have to spend less (less likely), raise taxes (not likely), or go deeper in debt (very likely) in order to cover whatever they are currently covering with their 70% share of the fee.
It seems that SFO's policy of having an intermediate company that buffers salaries is working well because I flew through there to Taipei after this whole situation and there was no wait.
It’s an odd list of airports which contract their own security screeners. I’d bet a lot of places are going to consider joining that program:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/21/us/airports-without-tsa
I _just_ went though the line. It wasn't too bad (5-10min, despite having bio ID), but it was by far the worst I've encountered at SFO in the decade I've been flying out of there.
P.s. And as usual, TSA doesn't understand anything about queueing theory and doesn't implement round robin / starvation prevention. Global services and clear get absolute priority over other queues.
yeah SFO seems to be completely uneffected
buffers salaries?
A strange way of saying, not TSA at all, and handled by a private for-profit company instead.
No, it's accurate, because TSA (or at least the feds) ultimately pay for it, but the company has some runway it can spend to keep the employees working on the assumption it'll be paid later, I.E. a buffer.
Only FOUR people actually used these services?
Edit: Newspapers have a long history of using headline editors who add “spin” otherwise reasonable stories handed in by journalists. This story was built by talking to a few entrepreneurs who offer line-sitting to see if they’d served any customers for airport security waits. Only one had.
https://archive.ph/cwDaq (No account needed)
I have been kind of experimenting with using single archive pages for archive.is /.ph/.today links and then experimenting with either putting these on my github pages (and then archiving) just for more preservation purposes.
Today I wanted to try something different so I used singlefile to make a html and then make pdf file from that html and uploaded it to archive.org
https://archive.org/details/tsa-lines-are-so-out-of-control-...
I don't wish to have news articles in my github as it clutters or I am not sure how these laws might follow (there is definitely a reason as to why archive.is creator is anonymous) and so I am looking for more anonymous ways to upload (my main intentions are that archive.ph can be nice but I feel like its not validated within wikipedia/all the controversies it has and I am just experimenting with things right now)
I have also uploaded this on catbox.moe (https://files.catbox.moe/mt9sus.html) but it has plain/text content-type, does anyone know a more anonymous content-type plain/text -> html where I can upload things perhaps, I have thoughts about creating something like this (where people can give links to text .html files and I can then display the html) but I am also a bit worried that it might be used for nefarious purposes.
I am not sure what I should do actually about it, I like thinking about archiving though, but anything other than archive.org like archive.is, can only function best if they are anonymous and I am not really anonymous/intend to be.
This makes me sympathetic of them against the journalist who tried to dox them but also I kind of understand that journalist tried approaching first from a more curiosity, maybe a threat-actor model, I had done something like this once to a service because I wanted to know if govt.'s would be able to catch them or not (they had a reddit proxy) and I found that they had their opsec secure and I was really impressed but I sometimes wonder, if the journalist also did something like this and the archive.is owner felt like it was a threat to archive and decided to ddos and all the things that followed, I sort of understand both the perspectives, so it just makes me sad as how this ended up folding up.
(This comment might've been more relevant within the archive.is drama hackernews thread but I think that its long gone and I was still forming my opinion on all of this which clearly has some nuance)
Doesn't this guy's server just DDoS some dude's blog with your own browser? Didn't click.
Yes, and: If I recall correctly, cloudflare is sinking all the extra traffic for him, so it doesn't actually impact him.
Last I heard it's a morally objectionable thing at this point rather than something that's having any practical impact.
(Which of course doesn't make it ok... I'm just a little less inclined to judge people that still use archive links when needed.)
Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805
The archive.today domains have also poisoned DNS lookups from some privacy-preserving DNS providers, and in rare cases have been caught tampering the archive data. Make of that what you will.
I flew out of SeaTac yesterday (March 28th), and the TSA there were pretty well staffed. Took me around 6 minutes, and that was only because the person in front of me was talking to the agent about the tote bag they got from Trader Joe's.
I know it's bad, but yeah, I just hate waiting, it's stupid. So whenever I can I just go through "first class" security and nothing bad happens, just skipping the queue. Look decent, look busy, keep on walking and bam you're past the security in a minute compared to tens of minutes or hours. And don't ever remove that "short connection" or "priority" tag from your luggage, it indeed goes out first. Airports are so freaking annoying way to commute, take a bus/train/tram/taxi/car to the airport, figure out the maze, wait in queue, get bored after security (because you arrived to early not knowing how much you're going to wait in security), go to a gate, then a different gate, queue again, get inside, and wait again. Why did we do this to ourselves!?
Some people are challenged by the choice whether to go without medication or food this week.
In Indian temples line-sitters are very common. Many queues are 5+ hours long.
Fascinating. Is there something specific about those temples that draws the crowds, like something akin to a famous cathedral? Must worship take place in a temple? I don't know how the religion works but did get to visit a local temple once with some coworkers and enjoyed the atmosphere.
maybe they are considered direct link between heaven and earth :)
Yeah each temple has its speciality.
Every family has a "kuladeivam" which is basically a temple for that (patrilineal) lineage. Every family has one. Every temple has few families.
Then it's special for people in the same town as the temple. Modern migration makes this a different set from the one above.
Then each temple has special events on specific days/week/month/year.
And then on top of that some few hundred temples are special in general and are crowded 365 days of the year with people from all over.
Adds up.
> Must worship take place in a temple?
Just my understanding. You can worship anywhere even in your head, but temples are one thing which improve "quality" of worship by a lot. The logic roughly goes - since most people aren't capable of high (enuf) quality worship in their head or at home, temples help them. More of a magnitude thing rather than a binary thing.
The basic competence of elected officials and they people they appoint matters.
I wonder why Trump just doesn't sell this himself, like golden tickets that you can buy from ICE where they just push back the free-tier line enjoyers to insert the patriotic gold level travelers.
In Turkey people with connections to the government get strobe lights permit to skip the traffic through the emergency line. There's so many opportunities both for monetization and loyalty rewarding.
Due to lapses like that sometimes I question my theory that all those people(Erdogan, Trump, Putin etc) are in the same group chat.
The reverse applies: if you protest against the regime, your TSA pre can be revoked. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
If some of his minions gave him this idea he’d probably do it.
we already have this with TSA Pre
The TSA Pre lines are often as long as the standard lines.
Where does the money go? With ICE implementation they can split the proceeds and the customers can enjoy seeing people pushed around on prem.
I keep hearing about these long lines but I literally went to a major airport the other day for a flight and got through security in minutes.
It’s really just a handful that have long lines part of the day. LAX for example hasn’t has a line at all really. Takes longer for my bag to be secondary checked every time than it does to wait in line.
That's why anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much.
They are both anecdotal
I’ve heard this is very airport dependent
Essential Air Service travelers aren't seeing any major pain either traveling outbound. Fortunately (though kind of sadly) the TSA folks only work a couple hours a day at the checkpoint for the single flight in and out so most of them are working side jobs anyways as their day job from what I hear. Our checkpoint doesn't even open until ~45 minutes before boarding starts in the middle of the day.
Capitalism works quite well at solving problems.
Efficiency is when you make a problem and then make people pay you to solve it. Or maybe that was some other word, I forget.