Would you fly tomorrow?
January 23, 2019 6:45 PM   Subscribe

I’m supposed to fly to JFK to Oakland tomorrow evening. I’m hearing some stuff on the news about the safety of flying right now that doesn’t exactly make me feel good about this. If you were me, would you fly on a nonbusiness trip right now?

This is purely a pleasure trip that could be postponed easily, except it would probably wind up costing more because right now is an inexpensive time to fly and get hotel rooms. Other than that, there would be no repercussions to changing my plans (other than disappointing a couple of friends, I mean, but they’d get over it, I think). What would the hivemind do?
posted by holborne to Travel & Transportation (31 answers total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
I work with a bunch of neurotics who fly constantly and I've not heard about safety issues. Absolute tire fires at TSA for sure.

I wouldn't hesitate. But I would brace myself for a terrible security line.
posted by JPD at 6:52 PM on January 23, 2019 [2 favorites]


Fly. The TSA is and has always been security theater, more form than substance, and in any event they've had some callouts but are still there to hassle you about your shoes and a randomly selected innocent item inside one of your carry-ons. You will be no less safe than usual.
posted by killdevil at 6:58 PM on January 23, 2019 [8 favorites]


The TSA is and has always been security theater
Nobody is worried about the TSA. The concern is about air traffic controllers, who are also working without pay. Having said that, I'm neurotic as all get-out, and I would definitely go ahead and fly. I think the danger of anything happening is probably less than the risk of you getting in an accident on your way to work if you stayed home.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:08 PM on January 23, 2019 [27 favorites]


You could still get hurt by an air traffic accident on the ground so you might as well live your life.
posted by bleep at 7:15 PM on January 23, 2019 [4 favorites]


The TSA is and has always been security theater,

I believe the OP is talking about the joint statement by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) warning of “growing concern for the safety and security of our members, our airlines, and the traveling public."

"Staffing in our air traffic control facilities is already at a 30-year low and controllers are only able to maintain the system’s efficiency and capacity by working overtime, including 10-hour days and 6-day workweeks at many of our nation’s busiest facilities.

I believe they're incredibly dedicated people doing the best with what they've got, but I've also heard of Air Traffic Controllers having to work for Uber before or after work to make ends meet on top of their incredibly stressful tough jobs. I probably would fly tomorrow but we really need to get these people paid.
posted by bluecore at 7:15 PM on January 23, 2019 [13 favorites]


Pilots have strong unions. If the pilots felt it was unsafe, the unions would help ground the aircraft. This hasn’t happened, so the pilots must still be comfortable with the safety situation. Fly away
posted by crazycanuck at 7:15 PM on January 23, 2019 [8 favorites]


I wouldn’t. Air traffic controllers are working second jobs to pay bills. Those are people who shouldn’t work when they’re exhausted.
posted by MexicanYenta at 7:19 PM on January 23, 2019 [7 favorites]


I flew BWI-SFO last Thursday, and back last night (via ATL both times). If anything, the security lines were surprisingly shorter than average*, and the employees seemed pretty much the same. All flights were on time, and honestly, nothing felt different about the entire experience. At all.

(* nb: I have both CLEAR and TSA PreCheck, but that doesn't mean I'm blind. I could clearly see that even the regular security lines were unusually short. Like, to the point that I wouldn't have minded the 5-7 minutes I estimate it would've taken me to be in them, if I had to.)
posted by CommonSense at 7:22 PM on January 23, 2019


I would. Your flight could be 10x more risky than usual and you'd still be in a lot more danger in the cab from the airport to your hotel.
posted by escabeche at 7:44 PM on January 23, 2019 [7 favorites]


I could clearly see that even the regular security lines were unusually short

Prob because everyone is showing up super early to flights. I flew twice last week, once at 6:45AM and another at 7:25PM. The airports both time was jammin'. And since my local airport (SNA) has a morning curfew as not to disturb the beauty sleep of the rich folks in Newport, the extra people meant lots of flyers must have been showing up early as it's not like they were there for earlier flights. I overheard someone while waiting to fly home at SJC say they came 3 hours early because they thought TSA lines were going to take hours.
posted by sideshow at 8:02 PM on January 23, 2019 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I wouldn't, but not because of safety, more because I don't want to put pressure on people who aren't currently being paid to do a very stressful job. I know, the plane is going to fly with or without me, but I just wouldn't feel right about going.
posted by WalkerWestridge at 8:06 PM on January 23, 2019 [2 favorites]


As others have pointed out, the OP probably has air traffic in mind, rather than the TSA , but since people are getting into TSA line anecdotes here, it might be useful to link to the page where the TSA releases maximum regular and precheck wait times at the top 20 airports each day. There are a few 30+ minute outliers each day (often Atlanta is one of them), and it seems like lines are getting longer on average, but to me these are short waits.

I'm flying tomorrow FWIW.
posted by caek at 8:11 PM on January 23, 2019


Response by poster: Yes, I was more concerned about the statement bluecore linked to above. The security lines I’m not so worried about.
posted by holborne at 8:18 PM on January 23, 2019


would you fly on a nonbusiness trip right now?

Yes. I don’t think flying right now is less safe than any other mode of transportation I would be taking anyway.

If someone convinced me that my not flying would give some people who need it the day off, that would sway me. But with the info I have now, I don’t see how my cancelled ticket would help anyone.
posted by greermahoney at 8:27 PM on January 23, 2019 [3 favorites]


One reason not to go is that if a strike happens you could wind up stranded.
posted by bleep at 8:43 PM on January 23, 2019 [1 favorite]


Response by poster: That was a concern as well, but I have family where I’m going so it’s not a disaster if it happens.
posted by holborne at 9:27 PM on January 23, 2019


I flew PHL->SFO and back this past weekend, so yeah, I would fly. I see a lot of media frenzy and fear mongering, but the point of all of these sternly-worded statements is to put pressure on the government to prevent a scenario where the choice is between systemically compromising safety beyond reasonable risks, or preemptively grounding flights.
posted by desuetude at 9:38 PM on January 23, 2019 [2 favorites]


Nobody knows how to think about these risks. We're in unknown territory.

That said, it's hard to imagine that even extraordinary risks would be large enough to make a difference in your decision.

There are something like 30,000 commercial flights in the US per day. The rate of crashes is something like 0.03 crashes per day (and btw on average only a handful of people dies in each such incident). So the rate of crashes per flight is something like 0.000001 (10^-6, or one in a million). The rate of death is something like 10^-7 per person-flight, one in ten million.

If we bump this up by 100x, you're looking at a 1 in 100,000 rate of deaths per person-flight. Still very low -- it is likely of the same order as your mortality risk on an arbitrary day. (Maybe you can think of it as taking about a day off your life in expected value terms.)

A 100x boost, by the way, would mean there would be about one crash on the day you fly. If a personnel disaster triggers a crash, maybe extra precautions would be taken to prevent further crashes. (In an extreme case, maybe an especially stressed ATC would be shut down and flights canceled or re-routed.) This suggests I think that the risk couldn't go much over 100x.
posted by grobstein at 9:51 PM on January 23, 2019 [3 favorites]


My partner is a former air traffic controller who is still in touch with lots of current controllers. He says he would be 100% comfortable flying right now.
posted by mjcon at 10:31 PM on January 23, 2019 [21 favorites]


Anecdata: I flew through two major airports last week and the week prior, when all the TSA-call outs were first making the news. I never encountered a line. TSA was pleasant and operating in a manner that at least appeared par for the course (however they did go through my carry-on luggage for both flights; apparently hardcover books are now a red flag! If anyone can decipher this for me I'd appreciate it, although TSA looked just as confused as me when they learned that the object in question was, in fact, a mere hardcover book). Don't take any of that for granted, of course. Right now I wouldn't blame any of them for being less-than-pleasant.

I think that the joint union statement should be taken in earnest, on its merits. In this particular case, I also think these specific unions have a duty, which they are fulfilling when they make such statements, to proactively identify potential public safety issues and bring them to the public's attention - as well as to the attention of those who have the power to end the shutdown. Is there right now more than the usual risk when flying? Yes, but it's neglible- see grobstein's comment. The reality, though, is that the TSA and Air Traffic Controllers need to be paid for the work they are providing. I would surmise that the purpose of that statement was to alert the public, yes, but to also publicly advocate on behalf of the safety, health and rights of their union members. A joint public statement like that can and may serve more than one purpose.
posted by nightrecordings at 11:23 PM on January 23, 2019


I went in and out of JFK last week and the security lines were no worse than usual. It depends a bit on the terminal you're going through. JFK put the wait times for different terminals on their web site (scroll down a little). There's been nothing outlandish when I've looked recently. No idea on Oakland atm but it's a small airport and I've zoomed through security there in the past.
posted by humuhumu at 3:08 AM on January 24, 2019


I would fly, because individual people deciding not to fly isn’t going to make a difference in the shutdown (and I’m not concerned about safety at this point). If there was some kind of collective action strike or if the TSA were asking that people not fly, I would stay home - but that’s not the current situation.

You already addressed it above but the one thing that would keep me from flying in the current situation is if being stranded was a problem; there’s a small but real risk that the situation will change while you are in California and you won’t be able to fly home as scheduled.
posted by insectosaurus at 5:09 AM on January 24, 2019


I flew (for work) yesterday, and if anything, it seemed more pleasant than usual, even departing at 6am. Both TSA and other passengers in line were actually friendly, and this was at Logan, so that's quite an achievement. The flight crew was also cheerful. Obviously passengers don't interact with ATC, but one of the things that helped me get over my fear of flying was realizing that if the highly-trained flight crew isn't worried about something, I shouldn't be either. As others upthread have said, if pilots are willing to keep flying, it's safe.
posted by kevinbelt at 5:34 AM on January 24, 2019


I would fly and make it rain for the local TSA with gift cards to tons of places. Same on the way back. Grocery stores, restaurants, WalMart, Target.
posted by Don Pepino at 6:11 AM on January 24, 2019


I would fly and make it rain for the local TSA with gift cards to tons of places. Same on the way back. Grocery stores, restaurants, WalMart, Target.

It's a kind thought, but TSA agents cannot accept gifts.
posted by FencingGal at 7:16 AM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]


Patrick Smith, a pilot who used to write on air travel for Salon and now has a blog called Ask the Pilot, has written a post on his issue. As of January 14, he believed the shutdown was not a "measurable safety issue." He also said he would revisit the issue later if needed.
posted by FencingGal at 7:23 AM on January 24, 2019 [3 favorites]




Ultimately, pilots are the ones responsible for the safety of an aircraft. When the pilots refuse to fly, that's when I'd be worried.

I don't hang out on pilot forums (not being a pilot and all) but I'd be curious if these sorts of discussions are happening over there, or if there have been reports of unsafe ATC situations, reported by actual pilots.
posted by bondcliff at 8:19 AM on January 24, 2019 [1 favorite]


James Fallows (who's a general aviation pilot) wrote about the shutdown and its effects on ATC a couple of weeks ago. tl;dr: he sees the effects mostly in terms of delays, not safety (since as the stress ramps up on ATC they add more buffers in to avoid accidents)
posted by asterix at 10:18 AM on January 24, 2019


Response by poster: Thanks, everyone — I decided to fly and am currently boarded. So far so good. I appreciate everyone's input. I thanked the TSA guys for working and expressed solidarity — not much, but better than ignoring the situation, I guess.
posted by holborne at 3:48 PM on January 24, 2019 [4 favorites]


Hope you're able to make it back, as nyc airports are closing down to incoming flights as of this morning.
posted by poffin boffin at 7:07 AM on January 25, 2019


« Older Where to buy Italian foodstuffs in the Seattle...   |   Adventures in analogue annotation? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.


Tags

Share