ORD > MSP

[lsanderson]

Seated beside a baby.

Comments

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Oh. You're flying Montreal - Chicago - Minneapolis.

You'll have no trouble with liquids you buy at duty free after you clear security in Montreal. You clear U.S. customs in Montreal, and don't have to go through security when you land at O'Hare.

You can also buy duty free in O'Hare, I think, if you show them your international boarding pass.

B

[frostfox.livejournal.com]

Lucky you, don't eat it all at once.

FF

[sethb.livejournal.com]

Except if he buys it in Montreal, he can't get it through Security at O'Hare (so it has to get checked for that segment).

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I thought Canadian flights don't go through domestic security at O'Hare.

B

Security

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

No security after Montreal.

Re: Security

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought. Seth is confused.

B

[sethb.livejournal.com]

You're right; it depends on terminals. If you're not switching airlines, there's no further security. (Same thing here; we landed inside security, at a regular gate.)

Of course, you can't depend on a plane not being diverted, and then Ghu knows what will happen (including cases where you have to go through security and don't have access to your checked luggage).

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"Of course, you can't depend on a plane not being diverted..."

Really? I depend on it all the time. Constantly. Otherwise, I'd be scheduling all my trips to arrive a day before I have to.

But, given the percentage of flights I've been on that have been diverted, I think it's a reasonable thing to depend on.

B

[sethb.livejournal.com]

I think we're using different meanings for "depend on": assurance versus high probability.

If you being someplace at a given time were absolutely necessary, else the world would end, I think you'd travel earlier. For most things, the expected cost of (getting there late * probability of large flight delays) is less than the cost of (planning to get there way early).

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Agreed. The context I'm using is "missing an important speaking engagement." The context you're using is "having a $40 bottle of booze confiscated." Neither reaches "world will end" status, but I submit that my context is more critical than yours. I was surprised that you cautioned Larry about buying duty-free liquor because you can't depend on the flight not getting diverted, and illustrated that surprise by saying that I depend on flights no getting divered in more critical contexts.

I think if there is serious risk of the world ending, we'd both make sure we arrived a few days early.

B

[sethb.livejournal.com]

I agree your example is more important. But my point was only that it can happen, which should be taken into account.

I agree that the expected cost of (losing a bottle to Security * probability that happens) is probably a lot lower than expected gain of (buying a bottle cheap at Duty Free, or getting something not otherwise available).

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"But my point was only that it can happen, which should be taken into account."

If you say so.

I once saw a flight attendend give a first-class passenger a bottle of wine. But I don't think you should take that into account.

B