doctorow at July 7th, 2014 21:00 — #1
cameronh1403 at July 7th, 2014 22:06 — #2
Unless I am going overseas, I see no reason to fly anymore. Between the airlines tacking on every fee they can come up with and the TSA groping me like we're on a Japanese train, it's not worth it anymore. I would rather drive and see some of the country.
sargemisfit at July 7th, 2014 22:10 — #3
Gee whiz, I wonder where else you can go to have your junk fondled and have to pay for it ...
newliminted at July 7th, 2014 22:44 — #4
Post deleted before posting.
therizz at July 7th, 2014 23:05 — #5
There are many places in the US, but it's only legal if the TSA does it or you're in certain counties in Nevada.
glitch at July 7th, 2014 23:10 — #6
Not everyone can afford to spend several days and several thousand miles on the road every time they need to cross the country.
If commute by train was more reasonable, it might be a good middle ground, but the US rail system is woefully inadequate for anything other than freight.
nezrite at July 7th, 2014 23:40 — #7
We probably would never have chosen the Great Smoky Mountains as a vacation destination, until we decided we wanted to avoid the airlines and the TSA. We set ten hours drive time as our limit, and thus we'll be there for our 10th wedding anniversary trip. Finances and a hoped-for return to sanity may let us travel farther for the 15th...
scooter at July 7th, 2014 23:44 — #8
Depends on where you are and where you're going. I've ridden the Crescent from New Orleans to NYC, and it took less time than driving (counting a nap because I'm not driving 20hrs straight each way) and cost a good bit less in gas, food, and lodging. I also got to get drunk, walk around to keep my legs limber, drink a little more, watch the countryside go by, see a beautiful sunrise, talk on my cellphone, bring 4 LARGE bags and not get charged a dime, and sit in an airline first class sized seat with multiple 120v outlets at it. Twice. All without getting fondled once, overcharged because my bag was 3 square inches too large, or sitting on a tarmac for hours; AND I got to keep my bottle opener, lighter, pocket knife and growler of great beer.
echolocatechoco at July 8th, 2014 00:05 — #9
Just think, with twice the money they can be a whole 50% as efficient!
davide405 at July 8th, 2014 00:14 — #10
2 × 0 = 0
glitch at July 8th, 2014 00:15 — #11
Sounds great - but just as you say, so long as you and your destination are anywhere near where the rail lines go.
The major problem is you pretty much have to go through or near Chicago for most everything involving long distances by rail. If you're going up the Mississippi into New England, well that works out fine, because that's where the rail centers are.
If you're going from Georgia to Nevada, however, things get a little wonkier. It really does depend a heck of a lot on where you want to go and where you start, because the rail system only really services a few portions of the country with any adequacy.
miramon at July 8th, 2014 00:20 — #12
Never before has there been an organization that combines such extreme levels of malice and incompetence in one place. Plenty of other groups are more evil, but few more stupid.
bobo at July 8th, 2014 00:23 — #13
Total agreement. It would be really nice if every time you needed to travel (for work etc...) one had the option to travel by car or rail, but oftentimes schedules can be tight, and the convenience of air transport is a necessary evil.
That being said, if everyone made a concerted effort to not travel by air unless absolutely necessary (i.e. the hit them in the wallet plan), then maybe some things would change. Unfortunately the average person regards invasive security and the corresponding corrosion of rights as less of a hassle than changing their lifestyle, so...
bolamig at July 8th, 2014 00:46 — #14
A few donations from the fear industry reaps big rewards. Political corruption is the number one problem we need to fix.
glitch at July 8th, 2014 01:40 — #15
If less people fly, all that is gonna happen is prices will go up, airlines will schedule fewer flights, and flights will be even more cramped and miserable than ever.
Meanwhile, the completely unrelated Security Theatre will continue in its absurdity, because it's all run by the government, not the airlines.
billstewart at July 8th, 2014 01:57 — #16
The TSA has been announcing that they're going to make people turn on their laptops to prove they're real, like they used to do in the 90s when laptops were newly becoming common. So of course they'll need to double the fees, to pay for all that extra service.
lemoutan at July 8th, 2014 03:10 — #17
One might almost be forgiven for thinking that this was part of a plan to encourage people to stay where they are, so they won't chase higher wages, whilst at the same time allowing money to go where it will, to chase cheap labour.
But that would be crazy.
georgauer at July 8th, 2014 07:08 — #18
this sounds perfectly reasonable. they have to pay somehow for the new additional searching procedure:
restless at July 8th, 2014 07:46 — #19
The Smokies are awesome! My wife and I got married there, and I've been there many times (I have family in that area). Gatlinburg is actually the second most popular wedding destination in the US, behind Vegas.
We had gotten addicted to cruising, but we've discussed going back to the Smokies because we haven't been in many years... it's a great place to spend some time, especially in the fall when the colors start to change.
walterplinge at July 8th, 2014 08:22 — #20
The TSA never ceases to amaze me. It provides an (arguably) unnecessary service, does it poorly, yet still has the gall to waste everyone's time and money. It is truly a master class in total incompetence.
next page →