Choose the plan that’s right for you. Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Flying is more popular than ever. Last year alone, worldwide passenger traffic jumped to 8.3 billion – a 7.5 percent increase from the year before – and aircraft movement rose 3 percent in the same period. With travel becoming more common around the world, airports are facing the difficult challenge of accommodating more travelers than ever before while avoiding investing in larger spaces or purchasing additional aircrafts. Physical infrastructure expansion is often not an option due to lack of land; not to mention large-scale construction projects take up valuable time, during which travel needs continue to evolve and expand.

The answer to moving a higher volume of passengers at faster speeds is to simplify the traveler experience. From walking into an airport, to arriving at a destination, technology will make the future of travel an easy and simplified process, allowing passenger traffic to flow and profits to roll in. While every airport recognizes this need to streamline, some fear easy airport experiences will come at the price of decreased safety. But security and simplicity do not have to be mutually exclusive for long. We are rapidly moving toward a future in which emerging technologies are solving the tug-of-war between the desire for simple, intuitive experiences, and increased security. These technologies are currently being rolled out around the world and will soon be a fundamental part of every airport, altering the way we experience air travel.

Here are the three areas of air travel that will be most affected by technology that ensures simultaneous passenger ease and safety:

Disrupting Security Lines with Biometric Scanners

Security lines are the number one way airports keep people safe – and slow them down. Airport security check points, while the most time-consuming and unsavory part of flying, serve a valuable purpose in ensuring all travelers remain safe from harm. These checkpoints cannot be removed entirely, but they must be reimagined if airports are going to continue increasing customer volume. TSA PreCheck has made a significant impact on efficiency in recent years, but the inconvenient process to achieve this status deters many passengers from taking advantage of the system. The solution in redesigning security check points is replacing the current system with biometric scanning technology.

Biometric technology offers facial, fingerprint, palm, voice, iris, and retina recognition capabilities that identify passengers with hyper accuracy. Combined with a database of biographic information on travelers that will flag any suspicious activity, these solutions allow people to step through security lines in literally a blink of an eye. Companies like CLEAR are already putting this technology to the test at over 30 airports worldwide, simultaneously improving safety measures and increasing checkpoint speed. The reliability of biometric scanning makes scanning IDs and boarding passes obsolete, opening up the possibility of airports eliminating the requirement for passengers to carry them completely.

Prioritizing Flight Landings with Voice Technology

Scheduling flight landings and take-offs is complicated business, involving many oscillating factors from the wind speeds to fuel levels. Luckily, automation technology is simplifying the process by proactively evaluating and ordering each flight. By deciphering all the data points involved with each flight, automation technology determines which flight can leave and arrive on which runway and at which time, cutting down on bottlenecks and unnecessary taxing on the ground. Besides speeding up the process and decreasing delays, this technology greatly enhances the safety of passengers just by analyzing the pilot’s voice.

Due to weather, scheduling, or personal reasons, pilots can experience high levels of stress in the air.

According to a recent account, pilots can even go without eating between back to back flights or work over 13-hour days. Using natural language processing (NLP) technology, solutions are actively being discovered that prioritize flights based on the tone and perceived anxiety level of a pilot’s voice, giving landing preference to a plane that may be at higher risk.

Navigating Baggage Claim with IoT Tracking

Anyone who has checked a piece of luggage knows the feeling of anxiously staring at the conveyor belt, waiting for the right suitcase to appear. But worrying about baggage safety will soon be a thing of the past. By retrofitting checked luggage with Internet of Things (IoT) enabled tags, passengers will be able to see exactly where their bags are moving from an app on their phones, tracking them from the moment they are out of sight, to picking them up at baggage claim. Imagine the peace of mind for passengers in being able to pin point their luggage, and decrease the time spent crowding around the conveyor belt.

IoT technology also has the power to help airport officials keep track of cargo, streamlining the ground handling system with greater visibility into the moving bags. Last year alone, cargo traffic rose 7.7 percent worldwide – making IoT solutions more needed than ever as airports manage a high volume of moving pieces on the ground. The sensors will also be able to detect temperature and humidity of these bags in transit, quickly identifying any luggage that could pose a threat.

These are just a few of the ways emerging technologies are greatly impacting both the safety and ease of air travel, making it possible for airports to continue to meet the demands of the growing number of passengers. Not only will IoT, NLP, and biometric solutions accommodate the already increasing passenger traffic, they will make flying so simple that it will attract new customers. In the future, it may even be considered easier to fly than take a train or car for mid-range distances. The future of technology-enabled, passenger-centric security and simplicity is on the horizon – and it will transform the way we think about flying for the better. 

In December 2017, Kaushik Kumar Majumdar, a person with 85% orthopaedic disability, was not allowed to board the Air India flight from Bengaluru to Kolkata. Why? He refused to remove the batteries from his electric wheelchair before putting it in the cargo hold.

In a petition to the Supreme Court, Kaushik pointed out that firstly, there was no specific guideline or legal requirement to remove all the wires since he had already disabled the battery from the main panel, and also that no one would be able to put the wires back together on reaching the Kolkata airport. He also said that the airline staff did not pay heed to his request and reportedly humiliated him for delaying the flight.  

On Friday, a Supreme Court bench has directed the central government and Air India to submit a response within eight weeks, framing appropriate policies to ensure people with disabilities (PwD) are able to use air transport with dignity.

The fight continues

While this directive is a welcome move, it brings to fore the same set of existing guidelines and concerns that people with disabilities and activists have been fighting for years.

In September 2011, GoAir offloaded a blind woman and her two children from boarding the flight from Mumbai. In May 2011, a blind woman was asked to disembark from a Mumbai-to-Goa Kingfisher Airlines flight.

In 2012, Jeeja Ghosh, who has cerebral palsy, was forcibly deboarded from Spice Jet as the crew feared her disability might pose a health risk during the course of the flight. “I was seething. I have never felt so insulted. The sheer insensitivity made me cry,” she had told The Telegraph then.

Following this, the Ministry of Civil Aviation constituted the Ashok Kumar Committee on March 22, 2012, to look into various issues relating to improving air travel for persons with disabilities and reduced mobility.

It observed that the 2009 Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) for Persons with Disability (PwD) and/or Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRMs) should be amended further to ensure they have access to, and enjoy air travel on an equal basis, without discrimination, with dignity, and in safety and comfort.

The Committee recommended certain measures, including allocation of responsibility between airports, airlines and other stakeholders to avoid delays and hardships to PwDs, standardising the equipment and other facilities in consultation with the Department of Disabilities Affairs, accessibility of the ticketing system and complaints and redress mechanism, and a Complaints Resolution Officer to hear grievances of persons with disabilities.

These guidelines, in fact, are what Kaushik has reiterated in his suggestions to the SC, to ensure the rights of a PwD are not violated: Framing appropriate policies, rules, guidelines, dedicated bodies to hear their grievances and to sensitise the authorities and staff members of airlines and airport.

While the report was meant to be the basis for the 2009 Civil Aviation Requirements of the DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation), the agency accepted only a few recommendations, points out Amba Salelkar, a disability rights activist and lawyer in Chennai. “The DGCA contended that they were coming up with a new CAR. But the activists on the panel pointed out that it was not in consonance with the Committee’s report,” she says.

Despite the clear set guidelines, the airlines, security services and the airport often pass the buck in instances involving PwD and PRMs, she says.

“The staff are not sensitised towards certain procedures. Instead of making access to airport and flight facilities a tedious process, policies should be formulated from the perspective of PwDs. Awareness, training and accountability by the airlines and aviation agencies are equally important. A person with disability cannot run to the Supreme Court every now and then, and the court cannot adjudicate the same direction each time,” says Amba.

The passenger jets that recently crashed in Ethiopia and Indonesia had something in common: They lacked safety features that could have helped prevent the deadly accidents, which Boeing charges extra for, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

Both upgrades were related to the plane’s angle of attack sensors, devices that read whether a jet’s nose is pointing up or down relative to oncoming air. One upgrade, called the angle of attack indicator, displayed the sensors’ readings; the other upgrade is a light that is activated if the sensors interfere with each other. The disagree light alone cost $80,000, according to CBS; the jet’s list price is roughly $120 million.

These features are considered optional and aren’t required by most airline regulators — but, according to the Times report, they could have helped the planes’ pilots realize something was amiss earlier, and some flight safety experts say they never should have been optional in the first place. “They’re critical, and cost almost nothing for the airlines to install,” Bjorn Fehrm, an analyst at the aviation consultancy firm Leeham, told the Times. “Boeing charges for them because it can. But they’re vital for safety.”

(Of the three US airlines that have Boeing 737 Max 8 and 9 jets in their fleet, only two — American and Southwest — paid for these upgrades, the Times confirmed. A United Airlines spokesperson told the Times that its jets don’t include these upgrades because its pilots use other data to fly their planes.)

According to the Times report, Boeing also charges for things like backup fire extinguishers in the cargo hold, another feature the Federal Aviation Administration considers optional, despite past incidents showing that a single extinguishing system isn’t enough to put out in-air fires. According to the Times’s reporting, airlines have paid for items like extra oxygen masks for crew members.

Due to the proliferation of budget airlines, air travel has never been cheaper — or more accessible to the average person. But air travel has become a race to the bottom for airlines, which try to save money by passing on costs to consumers by charging for features that used to be considered standard, like seating choices, checked bags, and even carry-on luggage. The news that both the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air jets were missing certain safety features raises a more troubling question: Are airlines putting a price on safety? Consumers can choose which airline to fly with, but they have no say in — or, in many cases, knowledge about — whether that airline purchased specific safety upgrades.

Mark Goodrich, an aviation lawyer and former engineering test pilot, told the Times that charging extra for non-mandatory safety features has become “a great profit center” for Boeing. But this phenomenon isn’t limited to the aviation industry.

In 2015, the consulting firm JD Power released a study revealing that most car owners are willing to pay for ostensibly optional safety upgrades, like blind spot detection, night vision, and collision avoidance systems — to a point. According to the study, buyers ages 38 and younger said they’d spend no more than $3,703 for new technology, and older buyers were willing to spend even less. But as the Associated Press noted at the time, some safety features can cost much more than that, and many aren’t available for cheaper or older models at all.

In 2015, when the JD Power study was conducted, Toyota only offered automatic braking on its Prius cars, and only as part of a $4,320 package, according to the AP. This feature has become standard on new cars in recent years, and the cost has gone down as a result, but it’s still primarily available for new cars. In other words, you have to be able to buy a new car to get upgrades like this in the first place, a luxury many people can’t afford. (US News compiled a list of the cheapest cars with automatic braking last year, the cheapest of which costs $16,900.)

Offering safety features at an additional cost essentially creates a system of haves and have-nots; it transforms safety into a luxury, not a necessity. Consumer watchdogs say this is a problem.

“Consumers shouldn’t have to pay extra for safety features, because paying extra means that they are not available to everyone and they’ll cost more than they should,” Jack Gillis, executive director of the Consumer Federation of America, told the LA Times. “By simply incorporating the latest safety features into a product, two things happen. They are available to everyone, thus everyone benefits, and they become cheaper due to economies of scale.”

Whether people can afford to buy individual safety upgrades is just one part of this problem. As last year’s wildfires in California showed, the ability to prepare for — and, if necessary, flee — hazards like natural disasters is also divided along class lines. Last fall, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West were criticized for reportedly hiring a team of private firefighters to save their $60 million home from the blazes that were tearing through Southern California. (The firefighters were actually deployed by the Kardashian-Wests’ insurance company, not by the famous couple themselves; according to NBC News, these private firefighting teams are primarily available for those whose properties are valued above $1 million.)

Similarly, more than a million people were given mandatory evacuation orders in the days before Hurricane Florence hit the Carolinas — thousands refused to leave their homes because they couldn’t afford to leave or, in some cases, because their employers refused to give them time off.

These aren’t one-to-one comparisons: Buying a new car is different from buying a plane ticket, deciding where to live, or being unable to leave your home in the event of a natural disaster. But looked at together, these examples point to a two-tiered system where safety is only guaranteed to those who can afford it, often with deadly consequences.

In the case of the Boeing jets, the New York Times reports that the manufacturer will soon make certain features like the disagree light standard on all new jets. If investigators determine that those missing upgrades could have prevented both the Ethiopian and Indonesian crashes, it may be way past time to start thinking of safety upgrades as a necessity, not a luxury.

Want more stories from The Goods by Vox? Sign up for our newsletter here.

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the price of the cheapest car on US News’s roundup.

(DOGS/PET TRAVEL) Traveling long distances can be much easier via air. But as a pet parent, you’ll need to know about certain airline policies when it comes to boarding the plane with your furry friend. This is especially true if you have a cat or a dog who is considered a Brachycephalic breed.

As early as 2010, many airlines like Delta, American, Continental, and United implemented pet breed restrictions, including banning pets who are likely to suffer from Brachycephalic Syndrome.

Airlines specifically targeted this issue when the U.S. Department of Transportation reported that a large percentage of the animal fatalities on-board flights were Brachycephalic.

You’re probably wondering why breeds with this syndrome are now banned from traveling on airplanes. Continue reading for more on how to plan your next air travel with your cat, dog, or even pet bunny as a well-informed pet guardian.

What Does ‘Brachycephalic’ Mean?

Brachycephaly means ‘short head,’ so Brachycephalic breeds carry this cute, but potentially deadly physical characteristic. There are plenty of cats and dogs who fit the description, but there are actually four anatomical abnormalities that could determine whether a pet has this problem:

• Stenotic nares or narrow nostrils
• Short or reduced trachea size
• Short or irregular nasal turbinate
• Elongated soft palate

There’s not one clear explanation as to how such genetic abnormalities came to exist, but there are some theories on why these breeds have short snouts or faces.

Some believe dogs with Brachycephalic syndrome were intentionally bred to have short faces as this characteristic would make them better fighters. Others suspect that short-faced pets were preferred by pet guardians because of their resemblance to a human baby.

Even though smaller-faced pets can be adorable, their short noses can cause a number of potential health problems.

What’s the Danger in Flying with a Brachycephalic Pet?

While a cat or dog with a normal-sized face and nose has enough space for the anatomical components of their noses (i.e. the nasal passages, hard palate, and soft tissues), Brachycephalic pets are often prone to respiratory problems.

So when these types of pets are boarded onto an airplane–specifically in cargo–they may have a difficult time breathing. Stress can cause their airways to tighten and lack of air supply can make them lose consciousness.

What’s more, Brachycephalic pets who are overweight are increasingly more prone to having breathing issues.

What are the Characteristics of Brachycephalic Breeds?

Aside from their small faces and short snouts, these breeds also tend to get tired easily when playing or exercising.

You might also notice they often wheeze and breathe with their mouths open–but don’t be alarmed as this still means they are breathing normally.

Brachycephalic breeds also snore and tend to gasp for air after running or walking. It could be a challenge to exercise this type of pet without over-exhausting them, but even if they display these characteristics, exercise is still equally important.

What Pet Breeds are Brachycephalic?

If you’re wondering which breeds are considered Brachycephalic, here’s a list of some of the more popular breeds on the no-fly list, as provided by Purring Pal:

Dogs:

• American Bully
• American Pit Bull Terrier
• Belgian Malinois
• Boston Terrier
• Bulldog
• Boxers
• Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
• Chow Chow
• Japanese Chin and Spaniel
• Mastiff
• Pekingese
• Pug
• Shih-Tzu

Cats:

• Burmese
• Exotic Shorthair
• Himalayan
• Persian

Some airlines also include short-faced bunnies on their no-fly list (i.e. Lionheads and Netherlands Dwarf rabbits).

If your pet is not listed above but exhibits the characteristics of a Brachycephalic breed, make sure to first check with the airline of your choice before booking a flight.

But there’s still hope if you absolutely must travel with a Brachycephalic pet. Luckily there are a number of airline carriers that will allow your pet to ride with you in the passenger cabin (if they weigh less than 20 pounds), but keep in mind there are typically added fees for this.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS: