When a man’s down on his luck it is kind to offer him a helping hand back up. However, it is rare for a company to do this in their campaign slogan.

Yet that is precisely what tour operator H.I.S. is doing for its spring vacations campaign, currently being heavily advertised on TV. It proudly announces “We support JAL” (H.I.S.は日本航空を応援しています), over images of JAL jets soaring phoenix-like into the skies. The bankrupt airline is in need of friends, having some 2.3 trillion yen ($25.4 billion) in debt as of late September last year.

H.I.S. points to five reasons to use JAL: their trustworthy network of routes; delicious meals; good in-flight entertainment; its safety with children; and their air miles system.

Now this is clever for several reasons: it latches H.I.S.’s seasonal promotions onto the slightly nationalistic sentiments that Japanese might feel for their troubled original carrier, and certainly pulls moral and emotional strings (we all want to help victims, right?). Also, people who might be concerned that the prices of the packages are TOO cheap will be reassured — oh, it’s that low because it’s through JAL, not because quality (or safety) has been jettisoned.

Like to check e-mail or surf the internet while traveling? You may want to take the Megabus rather than JetBlue, says a study.

The availability of free Wi-Fi and power outlets in inter-city buses and trains, coupled with increased security around air travel, is spurring more people to take the longer road home.

“Technology is changing how people approach travel,” says Joe Schwieterman, a professor at DePaul University who worked on the study. “For many travelers, the ability to seamlessly use portable technology offsets the disadvantages of longer travel times.”

Schwieterman and his colleagues collected information from 7,000 passengers on intercity bus, train and airline trips in 14 states. They found that at randomly selected points during trips, nearly 40 percent of passengers on buses were using some form of portable technology such as a laptop or a phone. It is two percentage points more than on conventional Amtrak trains and more than twice that on commercial flights and Greyhound.

That’s translated into growth for bus and some train services. Intercity bus networks grew 5.1 percent in 2009, a rate of growth higher than all other major modes for the third straight year, says the study.

It also marks the end of Americans’ love affair with the car, says Schweiterman.

“Earlier people would get into the car, drive have their cellphones with them and listen to their music systems,” he says. “But now you can’t text while driving, can’t surf the net so for young people, driving is no longer an attractive idea.”

Buses have been quick to give in to the consumer desire to stay connected most of the time. The DC2NY Bus, a service that runs between Washington, D.C., and New York started offering free on-board Wi-Fi in 2007.  Other services such as BoltBus and Megabus did the same. Even the “Chinatown buses”–lines that link the Chinatown districts of major cities–spent an estimated $5,000 per vehicle to equip their buses with Wi-Fi, says the report.

Airlines are trying to fight back. Wi-fi is now being offered on a number of most major long-distance flights in the U.S.

Still with ever-changing security restrictions including the recent temporary restrictions on the use of electronics in flight means the Accela looks like a better option than ever.

“The hassles of flying and limits on technology use has made people move away from flights for short distance trips like New York to Washington D.C. or Chicago to Detroit.

Photo: (Salon de Maria/Flickr)

US citizen Lily Sussman took a vacation in Israel, to visit extended family there and see the sights — all the usual tourist things. On the way in, though, the security forces got rather serious.

After pulling her aside for questioning, reading her journal and even flicking through her camera to check the photos (hint: don’t take snaps of “graffiti, which read “Fuck” scrawled next to the Jewish star of David”), she was left alone. An announcement was made over the airport speakers, which Lily remembers as something like “do not to be alarmed by gunshots because the Israeli security needs to blow up suspicious passenger luggage.”

In fact they didn’t blow anything up. Instead, they put three bullets through the MacBook, gave it back to the now rather upset Lily and let her be on her way. The security forces didn’t even ask for her password.

The amazing part is that not a single piece of information was destroyed: The bullets miraculously missed the MacBook’s hard drive. And despite the holes rent on the casing, the body of the MacBook has kept together quite well. If it worked, it would be the ultimate case-mod. So what should we take away from this incident? Back up your files. If your computer gets shot by airport security, you may not be as lucky.

I’m sorry but we blew up your laptop [Lily Sussman’s Blog]

Christmas is coming, so it won’t be long before you’re walking barefoot through spilled soda and children’s vomit at a security checkpoint in some godforsaken airport. Fortunately, the TSA has leaked a sensitive document explaining how to avoid all that.

Well, not quite. But the Transportation Security Administration has placed its standard operating procedure manual for screening supervisors online—the document is marked “Sensitive Security Information” and is supposed to be distributed on a “need to know” basis, but what the hell, right? Transparency!

The TSA did have the good sense to redact all the stuff they though terrorists might use to game the screening system and get through with weapons, but because they are stupid federal bureaucrats they simply drew little boxes over the secret stuff in the pdf files. So “hackers,” by which we mean “people with Acrobat Professional” simply removed the boxes and looked at what was underneath. (The stuff the TSA tried to redact is outlined in red below.)

You can read the whole thing at Cryptome. But we’ve distilled the unredacted manual with an eye toward whatever tricks we could find to avoid getting pulled aside for special screening and missing your flight. With that in mind, here are Gawker’s rules to infiltrating our nation’s airports on your way home this Christmas:

1. Don’t Be From Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, or Algeria

If your passport has any of those countries’ names on it, you’ll get pulled aside as a “selectee” for special one-on-one screening. So if you are from Pakistan, move right on ahead!

2. Pack Your Ammo Carefully

If it’s in your checked luggage, feel free to bring along any ammunition up to .50 caliber, as long as it’s inside a box.

3. If the Airline Ticket Agent Wrote “SSSS” on Your Ticket, Just Turn Around and Go Home

The industry lingo for people who get pulled aside and questioned at airport security checkpoints is “SSSS,” for “Secondary Security Screening Selection.” We figured that airlines would use some sort of secret code to communicate to the TSA that a given ticketholder was due for the third degree, but nope—it looks like they literally just write four S’s on your ticket. So now you know.

4. Be a Minor, Member of Congress, Uniformed Military Member, or All Three

If you’re unlucky enough to have been tagged with the dreaded “SSSS” code, all is not lost: Members of Congress, children under 12, and uniformed military servicemembers are exempted from special screening even if they’re marked for it. Which is great, because we know that, say, Army officers can’t present a special security threat that might merit scrutiny. The manual also helpfully shows TSA supervisors what a congressional ID looks like, so you might want to forge one before you head to the airport, just in case.

5. Better Yet, Be a Foreign Dignitary in CIA Custody

One of the best bits that the TSA tried, and failed, to redact from the manual reveals the existence of the CIA’s Worldwide Operational Meet and Assist Program (WOMAP), whereby the Agency will apparently dispatch a CIA agent to ferry foreign assets to the U.S. When they do, the subjects are fully exempt from screening—no magnetometer, no bag search, no nothing. So if you know anyone at Langley, they may be able to hook you up. Again, the TSA has helpfully presented an example of a CIA ID card—doesn’t carrying one of these defeat the purpose of being a CIA agent?—so you should set yourself up with a fake before you try the WOMAP route.



Oh, and if you get caught, just run: TSA officers are instructed not to “detain or delay” anybody they suspect has presented them a fraudulent ID if they’ve already gotten past security.

But if you travel at peak times, the chances they’ll spot the fake will go down to 25%, because regulations permit the TSA to examine IDs with a black light or loupe on only one in four passengers if traffic backs up.

6. Make Yourself a Diplomatic Pouch

Diplomatic pouches are exempt from security screening. You’ll still have to go through the checkpoint, but you won’t be slowed down by the x-ray machine. The manual helpfully explains how to make one, with a description of where the seal could be. Don’t worry about getting caught with this one—have you ever seen a diplomatic pouch before? Neither has the 19-year-old TSA officer you’ll be presenting it to.

7. Be Disabled

The explosive trace detection (ETD) process, when a TSA officer swabs your bag and runs a sample through a machine to look for trace amounts of explosives, can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Wheelchairs, orthopedic shoes, and prosthetic devices are exempt.

8. If You’ve Got Explosives In Your Checked Luggage, There’s Only a 20% Chance They’re Going to Actually Open It to Conduct a Test On It

So there’s that.

9. Just Skip the Checkpoint and Go In through the Exit Door—They’re Not Monitored by Trained TSA Officers

It looks like they let just anybody monitor the exits. You could probably sneak by them.

10. Print Out the Supervisor’s Standard Operating Procedures Manual and Show it to the TSA Officers

They’ll get distracted because that stuff’s supposed to be supersecret, and while they’re busy e-mailing their supervisor to report a breach, you can just walk right through.

Listening to an iPod or reading a Kindle during takeoff isn’t dangerous. It’s time the airlines stopped pretending that it is.

For years we’ve been told that gadgets produce EMI—electromagnetic interference—that cause glitches in an aircraft’s avionics. A cellphone could interrupt communication between pilots and the tower for a crucial second, or a child’s Game Boy could cause a light on a flight computer to go on the fritz.

We can’t take excess liquids on a plane on only the slimmest evidence of any real threat. If gadgets were such a threat to safety, they’d be banned entirely.

Instead, an arbitrary set of rules established by the FAA and extended by the airlines prohibits iPods during takeoff, but explicitly allow electric shavers to be used during flight.

Hundreds of travelers at this very moment are using electronic gadgets during takeoff after the flight attendants have taken their jump seats. We’re told it’s dangerous. It isn’t. Let’s drop the pretense.*

The EMI Lie

In 1993, the International Association of Transport Aircraft (IATA) suggested that airlines prohibit the use of personal electronic devices during takeoff and landing, despite a lack of evidence that these gadgets had caused a single accident. The IATA’s Terry Denny then said, “We haven’t been able to trace an accident to the use of one of these devices…but we are convinced that this could happen.”

In the intervening decades, gadgets became something more than a toy for the rich or nerdy, but an intrinsic sidekick for nearly everyone. Especially the iPod.

In 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration commissioned a study to see if “intentionally transmitting” gadgets like cellphones and Wi-Fi caused interference with avionics. The final report “said there is insufficient information to support a wholesale change in policies that restrict use of PEDs.” (“PEDs” is FAA-speak for a gadget, or “Personal Electronic Device(s)”; a PED with a radio transmitter is a “T-PED”.)

Which is to say, they couldn’t find a reason to change their policy—but there hadn’t been a whole lot of evidence to begin with.

Yet the FAA has approved in-flight Wi-Fi service for a variety of airlines. While the routers and systems must undergo an FAA certification, there’s nothing magical about the onboard 2.4GHz signal broadcast that prevents it from interfering with the plane’s avionics. The thousands of flights completed safely each day—a marvelous and commendable record, it should be noted—clearly indicate that having activated gadgets on board aircraft does nothing of negative consequence.

So your laptop’s Wi-Fi won’t mess up the planes avionics, but your Kindle might? How fragile are these planes?

“But it’s about paying attention”

I’ve had conversations with pilots and other employees of airlines about this issue before, and after they realize the electromagnetic interference argument isn’t going to fly, they invariably change tack to “safety”. “Takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of the flight,” they say. “And it’s important that passengers be able to hear instructions from the crew in case something goes wrong.”

That’s a nice idea, but look around the cabin of an embarking aircraft. Parents are soothing cranky kids. People are asleep. Many passengers are drunk or medicated to help address anxiety.

If there were an accident, alerting an unaware person with headphones would take no more effort than nudging a sleeping person next to you. It’s not prohibited to sleep during takeoff, just as it isn’t prohibited to read a book or magazine or to be deaf. (This also presumes that a passenger could do anything to protect themselves or others during a takeoff accident, even though we all know that in a majority of incidents, there’s little to do except pray.)

Ah, but what about gadgets flying around the cabin as missiles if there is turbulence? It could happen, sure, but is a Kindle appreciably more dangerous than a hardcover book? If a Nintendo DS could hurt someone during an unexpected loss of altitude, why are they ever allowed to be unstowed? The answer is simply that the likelihood of these things happening is far less than the likelihood that customers will go absolutely apoplectic if they aren’t allowed some sort of inflight entertainment.

If the airlines are already able to make a judgement between ultimate safety and convenience, why not loosen up just a little more?

Little things matter

I have a lot of sympathy for flight attendants. Herding and soothing a few dozen passengers, many of whom are belligerent and rude, is a thankless job. Their jobs should be easier. They’re the ones who have to explain to passengers why the pilots were too busy playing with their laptops to land the plane.

But every time a flight attendant perpetuates the lie that these harmless gadgets are somehow a threat to safety, it erodes the faith that they should be cultivating with their customers. How are we to trust someone telling us that reading a Kindle during takeoff is dangerous as we stare across a field of EMI-spewing LCD seat-back screens?

Here’s a deal: I’ll listen attentively to the flight safety demonstration, make doubly sure to note where the exit doors are and who I’ll have to climb over to get to them—and you guys will let me listen to my iPod after the flight attendants are in their seats and I’m making peace with my god.

Trust me, I’ll be a lot more apt to listen to flight attendants commands if they don’t start the flight with a well-intentioned deception. And more likely to believe the FAA and the TSA when it comes to other security and safety concerns when some of their policies aren’t demonstrable half-truths.

* I’m not talking about using Wi-Fi or cellphones during takeoff. I’m in complete support of “Airplane Mode” during takeoff, if not the entire flight. What anecdotal evidence there is about EMI from gadgets is almost exclusively suspected to be from radios and other transmitters.

@joeljohnson deals primarily with first-world problems, but hopes it does not interfere with your pursuit of fixing third-world ones. This isn’t the last he’s got to say about this issue.