> She was anxious, because you instilled a sense of panic in her.

That's not why she was anxious! She was anxious because, according to author's own account, this is someone:

a) flying for the first time

b) hardly speaks English

c) is in a foreign country

d) solo responsible for 4 grand kids running around

etc.

Blaming the airport staff who have to optimize for the greater good is quite something.

Now boarding - remain seated. Gate closing!

The author gave plenty of other reasons why someone might be stressed out by what's communicated at the airport.

The whole point is that airport staff (and especially leadership) are maybe not so great at "optimizing for the greater good" always.

> Blaming the airport staff who have to optimize for the greater good is quite something.

I don't think it's actually as noble as "optimizing for the greater good", but rather "optimizing for getting through the day in one piece". Which, in my experience, is why (polite + friendly + reasonable + firm) is the right register to use in pretty much every interaction with airport staff. You're asking them to do something (not telling), but your presence is ideally vaguely net positive (friendly, smiling, relaxed), you're asking for something that's within their authority to do, and there's a vague threat that you're not going to back down if they say no off-hand (their day is going to have a larger hassle-increment if they say no vs. if they say yes).

Written out it kind of reads as cold and calculating, but I think every element of it is the best for everyone involved. You don't end up feeling like you just acquiesced to getting screwed by United or Delta, they get to have a nice friendly interaction that ideally makes those 10 minutes of their day suck less than it could have with an asshole customer.

> optimize for the greater good

Greater good my posterior. The grandma was in the wrong place at that time because they optimised the experience to extract the most money out of the flying public. They were boarding the people who paid extra, and since she didn't they couldn't let her board. Because if they do why would anyone pay extra for their "higher class" more expensive tickets. They could have said "passport?" and then pointed her towards the gate. But doing so as a policy would net the corporation less profit. So they don't.

In other words the grandma's distress was by design. You can avoid the indignity of turned away from the gate by coughing up more money. She quite literally "didn't know her place" both in the queue and in the hierarchy.

The fact that airport staff are forced to be cattle dogs given the lack of airport prior capacity planning is exactly what the author is trying to convey.

It touches on a “race to the bottom” that European low cost carriers have have shown that people don’t care about airport stress in the shadow of cost — which lends to the enshittification of the whole overall experience.

It’s so bad that people are starting to /pay/ to have less stress by visiting airport lounges, which are now starting to be, themselves, overcrowded due to the increase in demand.[1]

[1]. https://web.archive.org/web/20260714133432/https://www.globa...

while your ignorance is bliss for you, it is a punishment for the rest of us. now get in line and wait for your boarding group to be called.

I think the point is that they have zero empathy

Airports by nature of flying being expensive will always be filled with people with zero idea about how airports work.

> b) hardly speaks English

> c) is in a foreign country

So you don't want tourists to your Country? You do realize 95% of the World lives outside the US? and at least 80% lives in non-English speaking Countries? Creating a horrid experience for them would mean losing huge chuck of that wealth flowing into your Country. Especially so when their income levels are rising drastically compared to a US Citizen (in terms of % change in disposable income as many are from low cost of living countries).