more on Logan ... frequent fliers

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Dr. James J. O'Donnell" <provost () georgetown edu>
Date: September 29, 2005 7:34:41 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Logan ... frequent fliers



Dave, I incline to agree with Jean Camp's problem statement, but still
push it one step further.  Just how large is the problem?  Can we  
quantify
(a) number of people who will be able to participate, (b) measure of
anticipated benefit, and (c) cost of introducing and operating the
service?  Those seem to me the essential questions, unasked in public.
Shall we have the crowded search areas at airports rearranged to squeeze
in an "HOV Lane" that gets one passenger every 15 minutes at rush hour?
Who saves an average of two minutes waiting time?

Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, David Farber wrote:


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: jean_camp <jean_camp () harvard edu>
> Date: September 29, 2005 4:31:04 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Logan considers easing way for frequent  
> fliers
>
>
> What is the problem that is being solved?
>
> 1. finding terrorists who we presume do not fly often
> 2. making valuable business travelers happy
> 3. removing anyone with enough  power to contradict TSA from the
> search loop
>
> You cannot say if this is a good or bad idea without understanding
> the problem statement.
>
> thanks,
> Jean
>
> On Sep 28, 2005, at 7:16 PM, David Farber wrote:
>
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Richard Wiggins <richard.wiggins () gmail com>
> > Date: September 28, 2005 8:05:46 PM EDT
> > To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] more on Logan considers easing way for frequent
> > fliers
> > Reply-To: Richard Wiggins <richard.wiggins () gmail com>
> >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > Dr. O'Donnell raises a good point: is this just catering to an elite?
> > I think it's a little subtler than that.  There are a lot of people
> > who fly multiple times a week as part of their jobs.  Many of these
> > folks might decide to drive or take the train if the burden of  
> > airport
> > security is sufficiently onerous.
> >
> > If you fly over 200 times in a year and this is the difference  
> > between
> > a 5 minute security check and 30 minutes in line, that's 100 hours
> > wasted.  No doubt that won't evoke much sympathy from anyone who
> > travels a few times a year.  Still, I think a case can be made that a
> > program that eases the way for people who basically commute via the
> > commercial airlines is not just a paean to the elite.
> >
> > They will give up some cash and a little liberty for the  
> > privilege, so
> > cue that Ben Franklin quote....
> >
> > /rich
> >
> > On 9/28/05, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: "Dr. James J. O'Donnell" <provost () georgetown edu>
> > > Date: September 28, 2005 9:50:39 AM EDT
> > > To: dave () farber net
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] Logan considers easing way for frequent fliers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > We've seen these discussions of fast lanes for several years now.
> > > Could
> > > we ask the cost-benefit question?  (1) What would it cost to
> > > create this
> > > system?  (2) If it's really for people who fly once a week or
> > > more, how
> > > great is the benefit and is this really only for a tiny elite?
> > > (3) Just
> > > how bad is it going through security now?  I fly 100K a year,  
> > > through
> > > pretty busy airports (most regularly Dulles, National, Laguardia,
> > > O'Hare,
> > > SFO), and I have to say that I've adjusted to the basic hassles
> > > (laptop
> > > out, shoes off, jacket off) and the time-through-security is *not*
> > > a real
> > > problem at this point.  Among other things, I think it is the  
> > > regular
> > > fliers who have their personal drill down so they *don't* trigger
> > > extra
> > > searches.  (They're pulling bags over when they spot folding
> > > umbrellas
> > > now:  ok, dumb, but I get it, so the umbrella travels visible now
> > > and it's
> > > part of my drill.)
> > >
> > > So:  is this a problem that has solved itself *sufficiently* (to
> > > say 90%
> > > of optimum) that it's not worth putting resources into solving
> > > further?
> > > I'm not saying I like any of the extra layers that have been put
> > > on the
> > > system or that I agree that they are necessary:  I'm just asking
> > > the "how
> > > big is this problem *really*" question.
> > >
> > > Jim O'Donnell
> > > Georgetown U.
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > You are subscribed as galler () umich edu
> > > To manage your subscription, go to
> > >  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> > >
> > > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/
> > > interesting-people/
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > You are subscribed as Jean_Camp () harvard edu
> > To manage your subscription, go to
> >  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> >
> > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
> > people/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as jod () georgetown edu
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/