Guillotine watch: LAX's new one-percenter luxury terminal -- UPDATED with veiled legal threats!, AND MORE LEGAL THREATS!


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/05/13/schadenfreude-air.html


#2

Shit, us plebeians don’t even get cake. We just get groped.


#3

And they said that the revolution wouldn’t be televised.


#4

I don’t get the outrage. No one is being taken advantage of, and everything was paid for apparently with no shadiness. How is this different than buying a first class ticket, just moreso?


#5


#6

One need not be outraged to guillotine people, it can be a matter of general principle.


#7

Sounds like a perfect application for butyric acid.


#8

“touted as a way to lure the super-rich into flying commercial”

does this mean I can pay $2700 per flight to board into my coach seat? because really it’s all about those sweet sweet instagram photos in the lounge first…ahhh ya…stroke that fragile fragile ego


#9

For a little extra they might allow one of the plebes from the regular terminal to dress up as TSA and sneak them over and declare a fully invasive pat-down. Just a thought.


#10

Honestly. If they have the cash to pay for this. And it lessens the number of people going through the main terminal. Yeah. Go for it. Just gets more out of my way while I go through.

This is capitalism in action in a good way IMO. Let the wealthy elite pay for private service and reduce the crowd by a handful at a time. #workingasintended


#11

For $15,000.00 they offer you access to a cushioned red velvet button that allows you to target individuals in the public terminal to be bumped from their flight.


#12

I dunno, I give it … two years, tops, before they’re just routing regular flights through it because they desperately need the terminal space. LAX is not a well-planned airport. Burbank is probably 1/3 the size and much more pleasant.


#13

#Late-stage Capitalism

ETA: Sorry, didn’t mean to shout; I was trying to make a hashtag…


#14

Most of this doesn’t bother me – if it’s supported by the fees of the users, let them pay for it. A major benefit I can see is for celebrities who want to avoid the paparazzi. Anyone who goes through LAX could do without those scumbags lurking around trying to get photos.

But why on Earth would they be so stupid as to publicise the video feeds of the misery in the public terminals? That’s a “feature” designed by and for arseholes. Engaging in that mockery and bragging about it is exactly what Daniel Handler (“Lemony Snicket”) described when he said:

Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.


#15

You’re making the assumption that the cost of this service is borne only by those using it. Typically that’s not how these things play out.


#16

Well. If we find out that there is some funny business surrounding the funding of this. Then I’ll find outrage. Otherwise it appears right now that it’s a luxury space and service for those who choose to pay for it.


#17

I know when I think about airports and flying, my number one complaint is always those annoying paparazzi scrums.


#18

It can’t - not appreciably, anyways, otherwise it ceases to function as intended; it doesn’t scale, because otherwise it stops being special treatment. It must also slow up the boarding of commercial flights, as you have a few people coming onto the plane via a different path that now has to be taken into account. The only potential benefit is clearing up runway space otherwise used for private flights (assuming there actually is a reduction in private flights), which hopefully would allow commercial flights to take off more quickly.


#19

  #LateStageCapitalism


#20

It cost taxpayers nothing and would generate $34m for LAX over the next nine years, he said. Plus it would make his clients likelier to use commercial flights rather than charter private jets. “It’s all about the airport, about predictability. When you charter you can buy your way out of the line.”