18. August 2008 by Ben.

The downside of flying through Atlanta is that I had to fly through Atlanta.  This is an experience that everyone who’s ever flown will find familiar.  I remember doing it at least as young as 13 or 14 on the now defunct Trans World Airlines.  I was flying from Denver to Boston then too, but living in the other city.  (Life is oddly circular that way.)

Sorkin’s West Wing even wove it in:

Josh:  Did you get me a flight?
Donna: Yes.
Josh: One that gets me there in time for dinner?
Donna: Yes.
Josh: And I don’t have to change planes in Atlanta?

Donna: No. Even better: you do have to change plans in Atlanta.
Josh: I told you…
Donna: You have to change planes in Atlanta.  Deal with it.

(later)

Donna: You don’t know any special, secret flights to Palm Beach today, do you?
Sam: Yeah, but you gotta change planes in Atlanta.

The upside is that the flight from Atlanta to Boston offers a gorgeous view of New York City.  At night in particular, it’s clear that Brooklyn has some very orderly-looking streets.  Oh, and Manhattan looks pretty good too.

Posted in Journies | No Comments »

18. August 2008 by Ben.

Denver International Airport has a distinctive way of paging passengers on its concourses:

Mr. Smith, Mr. Charles Smith; Mr. Atkins, Mr. Derek Atkins; Mr. Sorkin, Mr. Aaron Sorkin – please dial zero on an airport courtesy telephone.

The familiar rhythm is oddly comforting.

Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport also demonstrated a distinctive way of paging passengers during my layover there:

Charles Smith, please go to the nearest phone and dial 911 for a very important message.

I’m not sure how Charles Smith reacted, but I sure didn’t find it comforting.

Posted in Aaron Sorkin, Anecdotes, Journies | 1 Comment »

17. August 2008 by Ben.

Which of the following seems stranger?

1. A person sits on an airplane and reads Playboy magazine.
2. A person leaves behind their copy of Playboy magazine in the seat-back pocket for the next traveler to enjoy.

(Yes, there was really a copy on board.  No, the airline had not just generously provided it.)

Posted in Quips, Journies | 1 Comment »

11. August 2008 by Ben.

I’ve upheld the Washington Metrorail system as something of a paragon of a good subway system since I first visited the city in 1999.  Washington needs to fix some basic faults, though.

Let’s start with an easy one.  Directional signs are prone to showing an arrow beside words like, “For (dot) service,” where the “dot” is actually a colored circle – to those who aren’t color blind, at least.  To those who are, it’s as descriptive as me writing “dot.”  Signs on, say, the Green Line in Boston are all colored a bright green, but then in black-on-white lettering underneath we see the words, “Green Line.”

I applaud wholeheartedly the words printed at the bottom of the Metrorail system map “Metro is Accessible.”  In Boston the system map carries footnotes like (I swear I’m not making this up), “State: Blue Line wheelchair access outbound side only.”  We absolutely should do everything we can to allow wheelchair users full access to our transit systems (and other places), but why do all the hard work to support wheelchairs and then blow it on color blindness by not adding some simple words to the signs?

What’s worse, station signs seem to be deliberately hidden.  They’re poorly lit, and almost impossible to see from inside the trains.  I ride the T every day and I’ve never had trouble navigating the New York City subway.  When I find myself sitting in a train thinking, “I wish I knew which stop this is,” something has gone wrong.

Compounding this problem, station announcements are still made manually, even on a system whose trains themselves can be operated by computers.  Even Boston’s Green Line, built (in part) in 1867, now features clear, enunciated, automated station announcements.  What keeps Washington from adding this technology?

Washington, you’ve lost my vote in the transit wars.  Sure, Boston could benefit from signs counting down the minutes until the next train’s arrival, but at least we know where our stations are.

Posted in Essays, Journies | 1 Comment »

3. August 2008 by Ben.

A collection of events from Washington DC:

First, a scene at the Lincoln Memorial: A girl sits on the massive steps holding a camera in either hand, with her friend holding a third in front of her face.  “What are you talking about?  I’m smiling in all of these!” she insists in a thick Brooklyn accent.

Second, a moment at the Air and Space Museum: a man asks someone else in his party, “What’s that?”  His companion answers, “I don’t know but it has something to do with Saturn.”  This occurs beneath the full-size engine bells from the Saturn S-1C – the first stage of the Saturn V rocket that carried Apollo the moon.

Third, a moment at the Air and Space Museum: a man says, “Hehehehehehehehe!” repeatedly the entire time he explores the Apollo to the Moon exhibit.  Wait, that wasn’t overheard; that was me (and I kept it mostly in my head).  Besides seeing Columbia itself in the main hall, they have the actual flight checklists from several flights, and all manner of other genuine artificats from the Apollo age.

Plus, in the International Spy Museum I got to crawl through an actual air duct and look down at unsuspecting museum visitors.  At the time I was focused on keeping quiet in my role as Peter Wozniak the spy, but in retrospect I should have said, “Come out to the coast!  We’ll get together, have a few laughs…”

Posted in Overheard, Journies | No Comments »

30. May 2008 by Ben.

The TSA has been experimenting with a setup that lets passengers self-sort into separate “expert traveler” screening lanes for travelers who are fluent in TSA procedures. If you don’t want to be rushed or need more time you can choose the slower “family” lane instead. Some airports also have an intermediate “frequent traveler” category.

The screening procedures are identical for all lanes; the theory is just that expert travelers will follow those procedures more efficiently. I’ve been caught behind idiots who don’t understand that keys are made of metal or that the rest of us took off our shoes for a reason, so I appreciate the potential value of this segregation. Moreover, I applaud the broader effort to try new ideas to smooth out the complex screening process.

In practice, however, this idea fails completely. I just saw it in action at DIA – one of a few airports in the pilot program – and it just didn’t work.

I saw only two lanes designated for the “family” category when I went through, yet both were completely empty – not a single person was in either line. All the remaining lines were designated “expert traveler” and were clogged seven or eight people deep. I forfeited my (deserved) “expert” title and breezed through the family lane without missing a step.

In one sense this was a fluke. Surely at other times the family lane has at least a few people in it, and one uncoordinated parent with a disobedient young child could shift the entire balance. However, it highlights fundamental underlying problems.

First, lots of people want to believe they’re experts when they’re really not. And even genuine experts can make mistakes. Normally I fly through security in a smooth anti-terrorism ballet. Then came the mishap a couple months ago when I waltzed right through still wearing my cell phone and keys. Sorry, folks. I just held up the line. I know keys are metal, I swear!

More importantly, the total wait time in the entire system is exactly the same; it’s just being redistributed. The slowpoke who takes five minutes to sort luggage and remove liquids will still take five minutes, he’ll just be holding up a different line. The assumption is that slow people will be more tolerant of other slow people.

The same theory went into the Box Office Babies program at the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline. Parents can bring their babies to the movies and let them cry as much as they want. Crying babies in these screenings are no less disruptive than in any other screenings; they’re just disrupting other people who happen to have babies themselves.  Some parents would still prefer to watch the movie uninterrupted, so they opt not to go to Box Office Babies (and presumably wait for the movie to be out on DVD).

At airports we don’t have the option of just bypassing the security line (perhaps a door marked “No Criminals Allowed” would work?), but some inexperienced travelers will still want to stand on the shoulders of experts before them and breeze through what was (until then) the fast lane.

Finally, this idea solves a problem many airports have already solved by just ushering those who fail the screening for any reason into a separate line to try again. A know-nothing novice with bottled water in his backpack and a knife in his pocket gets brushed aside, as does a seasoned guru who just forgot to empty his pockets this trip.

This system has TSA officials doing the sorting, so there’s no chance of someone being in the “wrong” line. And this way travelers don’t have to learn yet another policy on their way through the security maze. For me, choosing which type of line to join added a second or two of decision-making time, when I’d normally just glance around and hop into the shortest one.  (It doesn’t help that the “black diamond / blue square / green circle” designations, so obvious to those who ski, meant absolutely nothing to me until I read more about it.)

We should welcome new ideas from the TSA even when they don’t work out, but let’s scrap this one before it’s too late and we have to listen to a New Yorker with no luggage mouthing off to the foreigner in front of him who won’t take off his chain mail in the black diamond lane.

Posted in Essays, Journies | 1 Comment »