Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 23063425)

Hate to break up all the idle speculation with actual statistics, but ...

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts013_14

Short version:

• From 2007-2009, there was a big drop in US passenger traffic (roughly 50 billion passengers out of a total of 830 billion). However, that time period also coincides with the recession in the US, which might be seen as a better explanation for the drop than dissatisfaction with the airline industry.
• Since 2009, there has been steady growth in US passenger traffic (roughly 1-2% each year), to the point that current traffic loads are approaching the peak reached in 2007.

Of course, one could argue that this growth rate could have been higher with a better traveling experience. But that would be sheer speculation. One could just as easily argue that the imposition of "security theater" had an effect on increasing passenger traffic, since it provided emotional reassurance to those for whom security theater is designed to impress.

In short ... the raw data doesn't really support a conclusion that bad passenger experiences has lead to a decrease in passenger traffic.

Originally Posted by Blogndog (Post 23073410)

No, the RAW data does not, but it's pretty to easy to use regression analysis to determine what portion of the decrease is attributable to economic or other factors, and what portion of the variance is correlated with the level of TSA harassment. Of course there would always be some random element making it impossible to say definitively precisely what portion of the decrease arises specifically from the TSA, but there is certainly enough data available to enable one to definitively conclude what the minimum level of air travel avoidance arising from the TSA is.

Originally Posted by jkhuggins (Post 23073535)

I'd be interested in seeing this sort of regression analysis done. I haven't seen it. (Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course.)

Originally Posted by Blogndog (Post 23073585)

look at the study in my post above -- unfortunately, I don't know of any way you can view it without a subscription, which I believe is 55 USD

Originally Posted by Blogndog (Post 23073515)

Found the study -- it's by Blalock, Garrick, Vrinda, Kadiyali and Simon, and published in the Journal of Law and Economics, November 2007. The authors' analysis demonstrates that every 1 million trips shifted from air to road travel results, on average, in 15 incremental deaths. By controlling for other factors -- weather, economics, etc. -- the authors were able to calculate the number of trips shifted from air to surface travel as a result of TSA harassment, and then apply the mortality factor to conclude that approximately 500 deaths a year are attributable to the TSA. In contrast, an average of about 18 deaths a year are attributable to air travel related terrorist activities in the USA. It can, of course, be debated if it's actually 400 or 600 rather than 500, but it is not possible to reasonably contest the fact that the TSA is responsible for a significant net increase in mortality rates.

Originally Posted by WillCAD (Post 23076174)

Wait a sec - 18 deaths per year in air travel related terrorist activities in the US?

When did that happen, and why hasn't it been in the news?

Or, perhaps like TSA, the authors of the study used a ridiculously broad and nebulous definition of the term "terrorism" to include simple assaults, domestic violence, drunken/drugged behavior, and common "air rage" incidents, which are all crimes but definitely don't fit the definition of terrorism.

I'd love to see a list of these alleged air travel related terrorism deaths for the last five years or so. At an average of 18 per year, that would be about 90 deaths since 2009.

Originally Posted by petaluma1 (Post 23058257)

Sadly, it seems that more people are flying this year than in past years in spite of the TSA and bad treatment by airlines.

http://tsanewsblog.com/13856/news/su...e-despite-tsa/

Originally Posted by Often1 (Post 23058333)

1. Air traffic in and from the US is way up and it looks as though this will be a banner summer season. So, the answer is a resounding no.

Originally Posted by Markam (Post 23199769)

Not to be nitpicky, but out of occupational hazard, let me point out that your facts do not answer the OP's question, because we do not have information about the "counterfactual". For example, although traffic has increased, it may have increased more in the absence of the "hassles of flying", so that the answer to the OP's question may actually be a resounding "yes", for all we know. :)

Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much (Post 23200103)

I agree. There are way too many variables for any meaningful conclusions about anything. As a result, the statistics can be manipulated anyway you want them to turn out. A few general thoughts before trying out some specifics:

• On a macro level, many of us made decisions about reducing or completely stopping flying a LONG time ago.
• Many of us significantly increased our drive/fly perimeter. From Washington DC, I have driven to places such as Huntsville, Ottawa, Atlanta, and New Orleans on business trips. Until the TSA came out of the swamp, I would have flown to all those destinations without hesitation.
• The Pre Check extortion has simply stopped the bleeding.
• I personally do not believe that aviation accidents over the past 15 years have made a bit of difference.

OK, here is my short list of the variables I would like to see held constant, one at a time:

• If security was the same as it was on Sept 10, 2001, would the number of passengers be more or less than they are now?
• How much does the reduction in aircraft size and services affect a person's decision to fly or not to fly?
• Have government and corporate travel budgets increased or decreased over the past 15 years?
• If the budgets described above are fixed and only adjusted for inflation, are companies and agencies able to afford more or less trips per year?
• How does the cost of gasoline affect a person's decision to fly?
• What is the effect from companies who reduced or eliminated their corporate travel and invested in video-teleconferencing or permanently assigning staff to a remote location?
• What is the effect from companies who expanded or went offshore and now must travel?
• If technology improvements were not considered, how would the numbers change?
• If companies that outsourced were held constant, how would this affect the numbers?
• How has the availability of airline seats per person in the population increased or decreased?

Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much (Post 23200103)

I agree. There are way too many variables for any meaningful conclusions about anything. As a result, the statistics can be manipulated anyway you want them to turn out. A few general thoughts before trying out some specifics:

• On a macro level, many of us made decisions about reducing or completely stopping flying a LONG time ago.
• Many of us significantly increased our drive/fly perimeter. From Washington DC, I have driven to places such as Huntsville, Ottawa, Atlanta, and New Orleans on business trips. Until the TSA came out of the swamp, I would have flown to all those destinations without hesitation.
• The Pre Check extortion has simply stopped the bleeding.
• I personally do not believe that aviation accidents over the past 15 years have made a bit of difference.

OK, here is my short list of the variables I would like to see held constant, one at a time:

• If security was the same as it was on Sept 10, 2001, would the number of passengers be more or less than they are now?
• How much does the reduction in aircraft size and services affect a person's decision to fly or not to fly?
• Have government and corporate travel budgets increased or decreased over the past 15 years?
• If the budgets described above are fixed and only adjusted for inflation, are companies and agencies able to afford more or less trips per year?
• How does the cost of gasoline affect a person's decision to fly?
• What is the effect from companies who reduced or eliminated their corporate travel and invested in video-teleconferencing or permanently assigning staff to a remote location?
• What is the effect from companies who expanded or went offshore and now must travel?
• If technology improvements were not considered, how would the numbers change?
• If companies that outsourced were held constant, how would this affect the numbers?
• How has the availability of airline seats per person in the population increased or decreased?

Originally Posted by Blogndog (Post 23204357)

Quote:





Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much


I agree. There are way too many variables for any meaningful conclusions about anything. As a result, the statistics can be manipulated anyway you want them to turn out. A few general thoughts before trying out some specifics:
On a macro level, many of us made decisions about reducing or completely stopping flying a LONG time ago.
Many of us significantly increased our drive/fly perimeter. From Washington DC, I have driven to places such as Huntsville, Ottawa, Atlanta, and New Orleans on business trips. Until the TSA came out of the swamp, I would have flown to all those destinations without hesitation.
The Pre Check extortion has simply stopped the bleeding.
I personally do not believe that aviation accidents over the past 15 years have made a bit of difference.

OK, here is my short list of the variables I would like to see held constant, one at a time:If security was the same as it was on Sept 10, 2001, would the number of passengers be more or less than they are now?
How much does the reduction in aircraft size and services affect a person's decision to fly or not to fly?
Have government and corporate travel budgets increased or decreased over the past 15 years?
If the budgets described above are fixed and only adjusted for inflation, are companies and agencies able to afford more or less trips per year?
How does the cost of gasoline affect a person's decision to fly?
What is the effect from companies who reduced or eliminated their corporate travel and invested in video-teleconferencing or permanently assigning staff to a remote location?
What is the effect from companies who expanded or went offshore and now must travel?
If technology improvements were not considered, how would the numbers change?
If companies that outsourced were held constant, how would this affect the numbers?
How has the availability of airline seats per person in the population increased or decreased?





Not at all true that there are "way too many variables," the study by Blalock et al included an entirely credible, structured and methodical effort to control for all relevant variables, and their methodology was presented in detail in a peer reviewed journal. No other experts have challenged the study or its conclusions. If you in fact believe you have identified a specific flaw or flaw in the study, then please submit a paper yourself detailing your analysis to the Journal for publication and let the academic community debate which of you has a more robust analytical approach.

Originally Posted by brownie1967 (Post 23206135)

To be perfectly honest, I can't recall a single trip that I have cancelled, or have planned using some mode of transport other than flying where flying was the time efficient option.

Do I get irritated by airport security? Yes. Does it bother me in the greater scheme of things? No. And do I refuse scanners, refuse to state my name, or take any other actions of defiance? No.