Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 April 8

= April 8 =

Airport questions
Been a lot of questions about airports/flying lately so I'll add one I pondered while on a recent trip. First off, I hate flying, to the extent (and much to my wife's dismay) that whenever driving is feasible I'll opt for that. BUT, I find airports fascinating for the "people watching" aspect. It's a fascinating mix of people from different parts of the world all crammed into a high stress environment...like a big social experiment. Anyway, these days you have to have a ticket to get inside the terminal, so going there to just hang-out or shop/eat, whatever, is not allowed. But was that always the case, i.e. pre-911 did you need a ticket to access the terminal? Also, do employees of the airport that access the terminal for their jobs (but are not flying), have to go through security as well? And what is up with the private lounges for frequent flyers? What is the criteria for getting into one? Can I join even though I don't fly much? And what goes on in there? Quinn ☂THUNDER 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the airport employees working in the terminals are screened each time they enter. This has been raised as a serious security vulnerability by some commentators: Qrsdogg (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Before the 9-11 changes, anyone was allowed to go through security and right up to the gate. I served a two-year mission in Spain for the LDS Church, and when I departed from Salt Lake International, almost my whole family was there at the gate to see me off.  Incidentally, they were almost all there again when I returned.  Also, there was an episode of Seinfeld where George and Kramer are picking up Jerry at the airport, and they stop at the Duty-free shop.  (They sing a cute little song: "I love to stop at the duty-free shop....")
 * I would hope airport employees have to go through security. If not, what would prevent them from sneaking < > onto an airplane by giving it to a friend?  Ugh.
 * A little reading on Delta Sky Club, for example, might answer your last question. Basically it's a place to relax and refresh, have a snack and a beverage, and make some calls or check some e-mails.   Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't buy duty free if you aren't travelling - that's why they check your boarding pass when you buy something. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [ec] To answer your unanswered questions in order: There was a time, before the 1980s, when non-passengers had easy access to airport gates.  My family used to meet relatives at the gate when they came to see us by plane.  During the 1980s, airports began to limit access past security to passengers only.  This was the rule in many European countries at that time.  This became the rule after 2001 in the United States as well.  Private lounges at airports are not for frequent flyers but for airline club members.  See this article.  Club membership criteria depend on the airline.  Many airlines allow you to purchase membership even if you don't fly often or even if you fly coach.  Other airlines restrict access to first-class or business-class passengers.  The lounges are just more comfortable places to wait for your flight, with some complimentary alcohol and wi-fi.  I've never been inside one of these lounges, but I suspect they are mainly occupied by corporate executives doing business on their laptops and cell (mobile) phones or perhaps relaxing with a cocktail with a colleague.  Marco polo (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The people who work at the airport get to participate in the security theater. Googlemeister (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember when my dad lived overseas in the 90's and when my sister and I went to visit he would come through security with my sister and I to see us safely to the gate (we were too young to go through on our own). He needed a special pass from check-in, though. I don't think they even let you do that now. I'm pretty sure staff go through security. I remember one of the staff members at security having to go out of the secure side in order to grab a child that had run through and even he had to take his jacket off, put it and all the metal items in his pockets through the x-ray and then go through the arch in order to get back to his post. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologise if I have missed the point here in Scotland - but it's late and I have had a few whiskies. But I am not aware when I fly from Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Prestwick Airports of the need to have a Pass of some kind to allow me to pass into the relevant Terminal. I park - or get dropped off, I lug my bags into the Terminal, I check-in my bags, and then proceed to passport control and security - as I have always done. But I have always been aware that after checking in my bags, I could quite happily leave them in the care of the ground staff - and bugger off home again - thus causing imeassurable discomfort and inconvenience to everyone else, as seems to be evidenced by the number of times my flights have been delayed by people not appearing at the departure gate on schedule. So the concept of requiring everyone entering the terminal to "check-in" and pay some kind of a fee is quite novel and appealing to me. Thanks for the informative notion. 92.4.38.97 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have missed the point - we are talking about the airside part of the terminal. That is, the bit after security. You can't get through security without a boarding pass. --Tango (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking only to the US situation, prior to 9/11/01 anyone could go through security and meet or see off their party at the gate. Obviously, that came to a screeching halt. But I recall another time when only ticketed passengers could go through, and that was during the Gulf War, roughly 1990 and 1991. I don't recall when they began and ended that first restriction, but it was during that time perid. Then things went back to normal for about 10 years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by editors referring to 911 as the trigger for restricting access to non-flyers. 911 involved "genuine" passengers with malicious intent, people who would obviously have access anyway, then and now. Are the restrictions on access for others due to something else, or just general paranoia after 911? HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're asking the same question most of us did in the months and years after they imposed these restrictions. The one thing that current procedures might have done was to discover the box-cutters those guys had, and thus take away their ability to threaten the personnel with anything except their bare hands. But you're right, the hijackers were legitimate ticketed passengers, and it does seem like paranoia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think the restriction that only ticketed passengers could go through security was at least partly a measure to keep waits manageable when more stringent security measures turned screening stations into bottlenecks. Before they tightened security, letting grandma and grandpa through the metal detector to meet their grandchild at the gate wasn't likely to make anyone miss his flight.  When everyone had to remove change from their pockets and shoes from their feet, and when the conveyor belt for hand luggage slowed down so someone could actually take a look, letting non-passengers pass through the gates could have caused intolerable delays.  Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's likely. In 1990-91 it was more directly about security concerns, as they didn't really change the procedures, they simply restricted entry. With all the extra steps now, they had to cut back on the traffic. To be sure, though, it would be necessary to find a timeline (if there is such) for the rollout of the restrictions and the additional security measures. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Laserdisc
Is there any point to owning a Laserdisc player anymore? It seems most of the movies that 10 years ago, were only on Laserdisc and VHS, are now on DVD. So has the Laserdisc become obsolete or are there still pros to owning one?--ChromeWire (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems rather obsolete to me. If you have laser discs, then it might make sense to keep an existing laser disc player.  But spending any more money on that format doesn't make sense, unless you want them just for the novelty/collector value. StuRat (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This could be wrong but I've read that the Laserdisc versions of a few movies are preferred by fans over their DVD counterparts, as the DVD versions have updated CGI which people don't like. 82.43.90.38 (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By comparing school library and publishers' catalogs, it would be possible, but to my mind not very enjoyable, to investigate whether there are educational titles on Laserdisc but not DVD that are unique or valuable in some way that justifies retention. My suspicion is that perceived uniqueness and value would derive from individual teachers/professors who show the video year after year because it's on the syllabus and has been forever, and changing the Week X class session this close to retirement would be a headache and a hassle.   --some jerk on the Internet    (talk)  21:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say there's not a lot of point in buying one, unless you're a real collector. However indeed some collectors do maintain their laserdisc players and discs, for reasons such as special features with movies that are unavailable on DVD. --jjron (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know how common this is any more, but I've often seen lots of good movies on laserdiscs for sale practically free (like $1 a disc) at video store closeouts, sidewalk sales, etc. There's also some laserdisc movies that never made it to DVD release.  And if it's an issue to you (e.g. if you want to pull fair-use clips for some reason), laserdiscs are free of any form of DRM.  75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Where can I purchase strong, thick 3-strand cotton rope?
Specifications: thicker than 1" (ideally 1.5"), and must have a tensile strength of at least 2000 lbf. It's okay if it has more than three stands, but it can't be any other style, such as diamond braided, etc. I am yet to find anywhere online that sells rope like this. Thanks! — Trevor K. — 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakeyglee (talk • contribs)
 * This UK company sells cotton rope up to 48mm diameter (nearly 2"). There's a "comments" box where you can ask about tensile strength. Alansplodge (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)