One time I was using a self-serve check-in kiosk at LAX, and I happened to notice that the guy at the kiosk next to mine entered the name JUDD APATOW. (This was back when some kiosks were right next to one another.) I wondered how many people in the U.S. have that name, as this man was not the Judd Apatow.
Soon after, I was heading to the security screening area, I saw the Judd Apatow waiting along the sidelines. I’m guessing that the guy at the kiosk was an airline employee who was doing the check-in for him, and would soon be escorting him thru the TSA line.
I give Burbank points for lighter traffic and ease of parking, but deduct them for these reasons:
Higher ticket price
Limited number of airlines/flights
Open-air luggage carousels with a particularly chaotic atmosphere, and inadequate signage about what flight’s luggage is coming up (last time I was there, at least)
Well the first two are kind of a given with a smaller airport. It’s definitely worth the ticket price for me to not have to fly into the existential horror that is LAX. Hell, if I could afford the price bump I’d fly into Santa Barbara, which has like … 4 gates (I’m usually going to Thousand Oaks/Ventura, so SBA and BUR are more or less equidistant)
Yeah, the part that did stand out about this story was the video of the other terminal. Beyond that it reads as basically any other VIP waiting area; it may as well be about the Amtrak Metropolitan lounge.
A live feed (denied by the terminal mouthpiece) has the potential of showing slow terminal traffic, while the YT clip compilation will ALWAYS show what the terminal mafia wants the passengers to see, over and over again. Am I missing something? What’s the mouthpiece’s excuse for the compilation?
The video was the one item that many people here were angered about more than anything else, saying that they understood the desire for a private terminal, but the video gave them “permission to burn it down” and that it was “sick as fuck and whoever came up with the idea should be sent for a total body cavity search”. Even though the “video” in question does not exist and was described in the linked article as just some images on an iPad posted at the entrance, likely just to show the press during the tour.
I don’t see any “content that is sarcastic and malicious” here. Come to think of it, don’t think I’ve ever seen anything “sarcastic and malicious” on BoingBoing.
You mean that it neither absorbs nor emits light, does not interact with ordinary matter, and its only property is mass? But if the law ceased to exist, things would fall apart.
