One more thing that shut down the Concorde was the post-9/11 increase in security procedures at airports, greatly diminshing the relative advantage of supersonic flights. If getting on the plane takes an extra (unpleasant) 45 minutes on each end, then the percentage time savings from supersonic flight is reduced.
The other thing for the super-rich is fractional jet ownership. If your flying to dinner in London from NYC, Your concierge experience at Teterboro to hop in a Gulfstream with nominal security is way more pleasant than facing the masses of wannabe VIPs at the big airport.
Is that it, though? I was under the impression that the rich flew private for time savings not because they actually enjoy the flight that much. Put me in a cattle car for an hour over a private jet for seven hours any day.
What do delays at the arrival end of your trip have to do with 9/11? Customs screening for international flights has always existed; only security on the departure side has gotten slower, and this is a problem you can solve with not very much money by enrolling in pre-check.
Your air travel experience will be much more pleasant if you exclusively do carry-on. I've never needed more than a backpack and a suitcase. Most destinations have laundry machines.
My understanding is that weather, taxi gridlock, and under-provisioned gates are the primary drivers of slowness in airports.
From memory at LHR Concorde had dedicated check in and lounge (this was in 2003). I'm pretty sure we went through dedicated security for Concorde (might have been VIP) I certainly don't remember hanging around much.
Can't say what JFK on the way was back like as I flew to Barbados, where facilities were a little more basic.
There are still ways to get faster through security, London City airport always feels fast when I fly through it and one day I will do the BA001 flight (Concordes old number) to JFK where again I suspect time spent in security theatre will be small.
Are post-9/11 security times really longer? Security screening actually seems pretty efficient (i.e. quick) to me. Even before 9/11 we had baggage x-ray and passenger metal detection. These measures were introduced in December 1972.
Adding to what the other comments say, these days a lot of the time through security is wasted on the multiplicity of items that have to go through the scanners.
Instead of just chucking your hand luggage on the conveyor belt, you have to take out your laptop and tablet, you have to take off your jacket, belt and shoes, and assorted metal things (keys, etc.) -- I usually end up having to use four trays for all my stuff when traveling internationally.
I remember the 90s well, when the security gate took less than 20 seconds -- you walked through the metal detector and then waited for your bag. Since the queue wasn't jammed up with people, your bag usually came out at the same time that you were done walking through the detector. Occasionally something set off the detector, of course, but then they just made you go through again without the offending item.
I've never spent more than ~30 seconds actually being screened. The delay, if there is one, is waiting to get to the front of the line to be screened. This is an embarrassingly parallel problem and security at every airport could be trivially brought down to 60 seconds maximum by operating more lanes.
Uh, yes? Versus literally just walking from the taxi at the drop-off curb to your gate, it is quite a bit longer. As you mention, there were some checks added over the years, but it was lightning fast compared to the current system.
Ever notice how older airports don't have the huge snarled lines of TSA checkpoints worked into their design? Instead they have disabled escalators that the line snakes down or a ton of stanchions forming waiting areas down side hallways and such. It's because there were no huge snarled lines at a few choke points when they were designed.
Not only that, but the checkpoints didn't even start until just in front of the boarding area. I remember the huge stink (although it may have been pre-911) when O'Hare decided that no one would be allowed in the concourse unless they had a ticket. Whereas I remember my mom taking a couple flights to my grandma's back in the mid 80's, and watching her board the plane and watching it take off from the terminal window.
The baggage screeners just plowed bags through and looked for a guns, cartoon style time bombs and knives. I recall rushing my aunt to JFK as a kid and literally getting to the terminal 5 minutes before takeoff -- and she made it! Consultants who had to swap gigs for whatever reason would physically exchange tickets at the airport, no problem.
Given the discussion about Concorde (and the fact that it practically had two routes), it's probably worthwhile to point out that the UK has long had a very strong distinction between landside and airside, and airport security didn't change anywhere near as much here as it did in the US after 9/11: the risk of terrorist attacks on aircraft had long been around in the UK. The big change was not being allowed sharps in the cabin, from memory.
Security didn't deter from the LHR–JFK route before with security at the UK end, and I doubt it'd deter from it at the US end.
At London Gatwick you know first have to present your boarding pass at a first set of gates. They're horrible - travelling with children you easily get in a position where your child is on one side of the gate, and you can't get to them. Last time the gate refused to open for me after I'd sent my 6 year old through, and I had to walk off to the side with a supervisor while my son was alone on the other side, for the security guy to check my boarding pass details and let me through manually (the reason they refused to open, apparently, was that my son stood too close to the other side; my boarding pass was then marked as having been used to pass the gates, even though the gates never opened, so next try it was being rejected regardless)
Then there's the baggage x-ray and metal detection, after which my son routinely (this has happened every time at Gatwick) gets pulled aside for extra screening, which involves x-raying his shoes, and passing him through an extra scanner, and then patting him down. I usually don't have to, but if I don't it means I won't be able to accompany him through a process he already finds uncomfortable and scary.
Nobody has been able to explain why he always gets pulled aside, and it doesn't happen on the return journey from Oslo (most of our foreign trips are to visit family in Norway).
(Meanwhile we routinely forget to take bottles of water or juice out of our carry on, and nobody has ever noticed it until I've realised afterwards; in other words, the fluid restrictions only work on people who voluntarily hand it over and doesn't put it in their bags.)
So while security can be quite efficient now, for a substantial number of passengers it's gotten to be a real pain, and it's pretty much unpredictable enough that you have to plan for it to take time just in case.
It's $85 for 5 years, and realistically, yes, most of that money just goes to line the pockets of the politically connected. On the other hand, you can pretty consistently go from curb to club in 5 minutes, and you bypass the nude-o-scope.
I'm all for standing up for principle, but this one is already lost. TSA doesn't care if 10 ppm of the traveling population opt out. Google "managed inclusion" if you want to understand why organizing an opt-out protest on Thanksgiving (or generally encourage people to opt out) won't change anything.
The paper you referred to doesn't make any claims with regards to ionization - the effects considered are mainly having to do with the molecular dynamics behaviors of DNA.
Some airports have special priority lines for the business and first-class passengers. There are no security wait times if you have the money to skip the lines.
A background check and your fingerprints, because ..?
I recently landed in Heathrow after a looong time staying in Europe (yes, England's not Europe) only. I was literally shaking when I saw all the people going through a random scanner, looking into a camera, providing their fingerprints.
Ignoring that the system didn't even work half the time while I was watching and that it needed a supervisor that reset everything, brought the people back out of the 'check zone' to .. turn it off and on again: That's insane.
This is the amount I'm willing to pay to a crappy government to go easy on me:
This is the list of governments that are allowed to take my fingerprints outside of a criminal investigation(* ):
Again, I really really hope you were just kidding and making fun of a bad situation.
*: The next time my German ID runs out I _might_ have to do that for my own home country - and I still try to figure out ways to avoid that/let the ID run out (illegal) without a renewal etc. And I try to vote for the parties that aren't insane.
I can't speak for the poster, but I have global entry and share the same sentiment without sarcasm. The government didn't "take" my fingerprints, I gave them to it in exchange for skipping most of customs and domestic security screening. The interview was probably the most noninvasive interaction I've had with CBE. If you don't feel like s worthwhile for you, then don't do it. If the government gets a hard on for framing me, they have much more surefire and efficient methods than planting my fingerprints. Until they start making the normal screenings worse to try and force people into it (which I don't think is the case, the TSA has gotten a lot easier to deal with in the last few years) I don't see it as a miscarriage of justice.
My GE interview was a joke. The only question I was asked was about my move from Atlanta to SF. For some inexplicable reason, I was asked three or four times if there was any gap between living in the two cities, to which the answer was no: I moved directly from an apartment in one to an apartment in the other.
That was the full extent of the questioning, which lasted maybe 5 minutes.
Not sure if there are multiple models. The ones I saw had a gate (red/green, i.e. 'you can come in now' lights), and had you to put your hand down in a designated area / look into a camera.
Since I wasn't exactly able to move over and inspect the device from up close I admit that I just _assume_ that the hand thingy compares your fingerprints - I wouldn't know what else it could look at otherwise. Maybe it's just a bible and you have to solemnly swear not to be a terrorist, on camera. Looked weird from 10m away, everyone putting down their (right?) hand on the device, looking into the camera and waiting for the machine to say 'You are good to go'.
I don't plan to visit the US, ever. Personally I can easily state that I my desire to see some (probably) cool places over there isn't high enough to put up with the BS, professionally I am able to dodge any and all suggestions to go there so far - and will try to keep it that way (but that's the loophole: I won't sit on my hands and flat out refuse if my company forces me to go there. I will complain loudly and make sure that my unwillingness to go is heard though).
This does sound insane, and a bit different from my last experience, albeit 2007:
Get off plan, walk for a long way following signs towards arrivals exit, spot sign for UK residents/nationals, no queue, a sleepy fellow looks at my passport and face, then I walk through to the arrivals area and try to find the underground station.
It's those from outside the EU/EEA who have to do that. For those within, it's much the same, but also with e-Passport gates (that take a photo, compare with passport, etc.).
Great Britain lies on the European continental shelf, part of the Eurasian Plate. The United Kingdom is also culturally and politically affiliated with other European countries. Why is it not in Europe?
They are referring to Europe as a political entity not as the geographical feature. GB has generally considered itself separate from 'Europe' as a polity.
It would be like referring to someone from Cuba as 'American' because they are from North America. Technically true but people assume American means someone from the states.
In the UK, and particularly England which is a lot more euro-sceptic than the rest of the UK, it's a standing joke that the UK or England isn't part of Europe, and "Europe" is often used to refer to Europe or the EU excluding the UK.
Don't even bother visiting the US then. And no, even in VWP (Visa Waiver Program) and using a biometric passport, you still have to submit fingerprints and photo on the spot.
oh sorry I don't travel outside the eu (yet).
for the ID you CAN but it's not a MUST. currently not sure if it ever will be a MUST since the new id's feature still aren't there as promised. it's a complete failure. still I know have a way smaller format for my id which is great!
