I think so

From Slate:

Equality at the Airport
Are shorter lines for special fliers fair?
By Michael Kinsley

In the War on Terror, waiting on long lines for security checks at airports is the major war effort imposed on civilians. Though it beats trying to pry martyrdom-crazed al-Qaida fanatics out of caves, trying to get yourself and your luggage from an airport entrance into an actual airplane can be a pretty hellish experience these days. What the demands of security have done since Sept. 11 to make you miserable while heading to the plane nicely complements what the airlines have done in recent years to make you miserable when you're on board.


Unless, of course, you're traveling first-class, or you're a plutonium-level member of the airline's frequent-flier program. In that case your way is eased by, among other perks, special lines�not just at the check-in counter run by the airlines, but at the security checkpoints run by the government. As they inch down endless corridors toward a row of metal detectors shimmering on the distant horizon, juggling possessions and documents according to mystifying rules (laptops must be out of the suitcase � cell phones and PalmPilots must be in the suitcase �), the flying masses have both the time and the inclination to wonder: Is this fair?

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2062915

Yes

The problem is not that frequent customers get preferential treatment. The problem is that some people have to spend unreasonable amounts of time waiting in line.

The solution is not to make everyone waste equal amounts of time, but rather to get to where security check is reasonably quick also for the non-privileged...

What the whole Slate article misses of course is the fact that frequent flyers are inconvenienced much more often by airport security than infrequent flyers. In the name of Equality elimination of "special" lines for Frequent Flyers results in an UNEQUAL sacrifice of time out of the Frequent Flyer's life compared to the infrequent flyer. The only thing I have a problem with is that at each airport ONE airline can decide to give "special line" perks for its OWN Frequent Flyers but NOT for those of OTHER airlines that happen to share the same security entrance. When the individual airline was directly paying for the security expenses that I not seem as onerous as it does now when the OTHER airline's customers are paying equitably into a Federalized security system without getting equal benefits.

You got it. Sometimes, you will need to travel to a place that your preferred airline does not fly. For example, take my upcoming trip. United does not fly to Shreveport or Baton Rouge, so I have to fly American. My status on United doesn't mean squat for this trip, and that means that I don't get the benefits of the elite status lines.

Do you feel the same way about check-in lines?

NO!

Check in lines are based on what the airline decides to offer you. Secuirty is a flat fee paid to the feds.

Yes, the same goes for check-in lines.

I think "Are shorter lines for special fliers fair?" is the wrong question to ask. The answer is an obvious "yes."

The relevant question to ask is "are lines that reach 'down endless corridors toward a row of metal detectors shimmering on the distant horizon' reasonable for anyone, elite or not?" to which the (obvious) answer is "no."

From the article, something I didn't know and find very interesting:

[This message has been edited by flipside (edited 03-11-2002).]

OK then I have the solution that should please everyone. If you want to use elite security lines you pay a government tax of let's say $100-200 a year (and do not pay the $2.50 per flight tax). Therefore any schmuck can do it and there will be no more complaining. The leisure traveller will never go for it, while the elite traveller will be only to pleased to do so.

Anyone who believes that just because the US government runs something that it should be "even" access for all has NO idea how the government truly works. A few examples.....

You have a small company, let's say in the Agricultural field that wants to do business abroad. Besides some literature and advice, you will get very little help from the US government...... Good luck in even being able to have a timely meeting with an embassy official in a foreign country.

If you book more than $1 mil in exports last year....... The government will cover half your sales expenses, the government will finance/guarantee your exports, the government will even help you set up a foreign trade company as a subsidy to avoid taxes and the embassies will kiss your ....

another example.....

If you want a passport, it can take weeks, If you pay an expedite fee you can have it as fast as the same day (depending on location and circumstance).

Some animals ARE ALWAYS more equal than others.

Again if I pay $250 a year as opposed to $2.50 and will lose 100 hours a year rather than 1 hour I both demand and expect faster service.

Oh, and one other thing, rarely mentioned. As an elite pre 9/11 I quite often was able to cut lines (often an airline official bringing me to the front) No one even thought to complain back then.

I think that people are missing one large point. The $2.50 security does not pay all of the costs for security screening. The airlines pay rent, landing and gate fees. Some of which pays the cost above the new tax. The airlines have been able to reduce their liability by not being the contractor for security services but have not been offered any reduction in costs. So I do agree that airlines should have input into expedited security lanes.

------------------
Robert

There was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle this past Sunday regarding elite lines.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...10/TR55219.DTL

robvberg: You are correct.

On top of all the fees you mentioned, the Transportation Security Act requires the airlines to pay to the TSA this year the same amount of money as they spent on security last year. On top of the $2.50 segment tax collected from us.

If the airlines are still paying for the security checkpoints (and they are), then the airlines should have the final say over how long I wait in line.

If it makes the bureaucrats happy, the current setup with elite lines leading to common metal detectors is ok with me.

good customers get treated better.

occasional customers get treated "normally."

What's unfair about that?

Arithmetic:

I fly 20 times per year X $5.00 = $100 in taxes paid.

Someone else flies twice 2 X $5.00 = $10.

I pay $100, they pay $10.

I am a very regular, good customer. They are not. I get treated "special."

I am not "equal" because I am flying more.

The fact that I pay the same per unit as the infrequent flyer has nothing to do with it.

In theory, I should pay $4.00 or $3.75 per security check, if life were really fair. But since I pay the same, I get a shorter line as "compensation" for my being a "good customer."

Okay?

I love using the special lines because they are very convenient to me even though I am an infrequent flyer. I really don't see the issue as being fair or unfair. Controlling the real estate that leads up to the checkpoint is the airlines choice. Walking through the checkpoint is the governments choice.
I think the lines are very unnecesary given that they could expand the security lanes. I think it is retarded to try and screen +400 people through 3 detectors that go off if u breathe on them and then calling over a supervisor to check every other bag going through the x-ray. The process is very inefficient, costly and time consuming.

I wonder why the "equal access to lanes" coalition are not making noise about handicapped or elderly people getting special treatment? Same principle, am I right?