MilesBuzz! - Will We Lose Elite Security Lines?

When the federal government takes over responsibility next month for airport security screening, top frequent fliers may wind up back at the end of long lines.

Officials at major U.S. carriers responded to the frustrations of their best fliers following the increased security measures since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In November, most of the airlines began offering special security lines for passengers with elite status in frequent-flier programs...

But that valve may be sealed on Feb. 17, when the newly formed Transportation Services Administration assumes responsibility for airport security screening. Airline officials decline to comment about the prospects for continuing elite lines past this date, except to say that they are working with the government to ease the transition.

http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB1011193353667000520.htm

If the airlines are still "paying" for the screening, wouldn't they still reserve the right to dictate who goes through which lines?

All travelers (not airlines) will pay the same $2.50 fee. If the airlines want to continue the elite lines, the only legitimate way would be for them to pay the government more money on behalf of us.

d

I would expect that's how the arrangement at airports like LHR work both for security and fastrack immigration lines.

At LHR, first/premium/business class passengers have to pay significantly higher taxes (even on award tickets). That's what justifies the premium security treatment.

d

I can't access this article. What does it say?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by chexfan:
If the airlines are still "paying" for the screening, wouldn't they still reserve the right to dictate who goes through which lines?</font>

I agree completely. The long line issue is a huge problem for frequent business travellers, and IMO if the airlines lose this option it will only spell more trouble and less business flying.

As I suspected, I was quoted in this article.

Thanks for the info doc.

I am quoted too -- thanks for bringing it to FTers attention doc

ALL the thanks should surely go to "wigstheone" who actually posted it! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
All travelers (not airlines) will pay the same $2.50 fee. If the airlines want to continue the elite lines, the only legitimate way would be for them to pay the government more money on behalf of us.

d</font>

Not to get off on a very Omni tangent or seem like I'm flaming anyone, but since when has the following been true with respect to government services in America:

Dollars in = services out

It mystifies me that people believe this. It should be obvious that very few pay disproportionately more than they receive in a whole range of government "services". There is no way to extract "legitimacy" from any of this.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tfjim:
Not to get off on a very Omni tangent or seem like I'm flaming anyone, but since when has the following been true with respect to government services in America:

Dollars in = services out

It mystifies me that people believe this. It should be obvious that very few pay disproportionately more than they receive in a whole range of government "services". There is no way to extract "legitimacy" from any of this.

</font>

Well, one of the people who is going to be in charge of the government security screening was quoted last month as saying something to the effect of, "I don't see how we could offer any preferential treatment to certain passengers. Everyone will be paying the same fee, so the government can't discriminate for or against anyone."

The gist was, as I said, that since we all pay the same fee, we all get the same services. If the airlines don't kick in extra money for elites, and the elites don't pay more than the standard $2.50 fee, there's no justification for the federal government to discriminate for elites and against other citizens. Elite status is conferred by the airlines, private companies.

The minute the feds start discriminating in the security lines without justification (i.e. more money), ever civil rights group will be filing suit in federal court.

With the exception of INSPASS (which is a trusted traveler program, not an elite program), tell me one situation where everyone pays the government the same fee, but some get better/faster service. I've never seen it at the post office or DMV. Or, explain to me how the government could justify discriminating for "elite" flyers, without any additional money being involved.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
tell me one situation where everyone pays the government the same fee, but some get better/faster service. I've never seen it at the post office or DMV.</font>If I had lived at my adress for more than two years, I could have filed my taxes via phone or the internet. Instead, I had to mail my my taxes in which meant my refund came slower.

This isn't fair to people who move around alot.

You would think that at $2.50 a pop ($5 if not exiting security in the connection), there would be no need to have segregated queues by status, because there shouldn't be any waiting.

$40,000 a year salary+benefits is $20 an hour. Let's say two security people per queue, that's $40 an hour. $2.50 will buy you 3.75 minutes of screening per passenger (lap babies excluded).

So, it's basically another tax.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JS:
You would think that at $2.50 a pop ($5 if not exiting security in the connection), there would be no need to have segregated queues by status, because there shouldn't be any waiting.

$40,000 a year salary+benefits is $20 an hour. Let's say two security people per queue, that's $40 an hour. $2.50 will buy you 3.75 minutes of screening per passenger (lap babies excluded).

So, it's basically another tax.</font>

Not a bean counter but there's also cost of equipment such as x-ray, metal detector, wand, uniform etc, plus administrative overhead. So $2.50 may buy you a minute? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The equipment is already there. Yes, more needs to be purchased, but it seems that labor is more in shortage than equipment. Plus, labor is more expensive!

Administrative overhead -- well, if it were privately run (well run, not Argendumb), it would be negligible. But it's going to be run by the feds, so I guess 1 minute is right! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by chexfan:
If I had lived at my adress for more than two years, I could have filed my taxes via phone or the internet. Instead, I had to mail my my taxes in which meant my refund came slower.

This isn't fair to people who move around alot.</font>

I thought the two year requirement was some type of security policy, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, rather than putting a lot of effort into setting up elite line systems, which will either directly or indirectly cost us more money, let's just shoot for Minetta's goal of having a less than 10 minute wait for everyone to get through security. That's the best solution.

d

Frequent flyers will be screwed! Any time a bureaucrat and /or "simple service" gets involved prices go up and service evaporates. AND there is no accountability or responsibility. They are only obeying the orders of Congress and Mineta.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
The gist was, as I said, that since we all pay the same fee, we all get the same services. If the airlines don't kick in extra money for elites, and the elites don't pay more than the standard $2.50 fee, there's no justification for the federal government to discriminate for elites and against other citizens. Elite status is conferred by the airlines, private companies.

The minute the feds start discriminating in the security lines without justification (i.e. more money), ever civil rights group will be filing suit in federal court.

With the exception of INSPASS (which is a trusted traveler program, not an elite program), tell me one situation where everyone pays the government the same fee, but some get better/faster service. I've never seen it at the post office or DMV. Or, explain to me how the government could justify discriminating for "elite" flyers, without any additional money being involved.

d</font>

Here's a very easy one right in your own backyard. EZPass. Granted the parameters are somewhat different but what we've got there (thanks to the quasi governmental Port Authority of NY/NJ) is basically an elite line for the bridges and tunnels. I'm sure there was some limousine liberal cry about how only people with credit cards had access to it, but in the end convenience wins over "what's right".

I'm not sure why you set yourself up for absolutes. We could sure come up with plenty of examples of government preference. Face it, our government is not non-discriminatory. Just looked at our whacked out tax policy. If you fit some social class your taxes are different. To decide that elite frequent flyer lines represent some line in the sand is not realistic.

Everyone is going to be screwed by this and it has nothing to do with increased security. The only reason the Democrats pushed this Federal Screeners thing through was so they could add tens of thousands of Federal workers to the payroll thus increasing membership in the Federal workers' union which votes almost universally democratic...........why oh why do we all allow this............?

Again, EZPass is available to anyone. There isn't some third party coming in saying that some people should get preferential treatment, while others shouldn't. Everyone can sign up for EZPass, and everyone can benefit from it.

Elite lines, as I've said are different. American Airlines designating that Joe Schmoe can go through without a delay, while John Q. Public can't - that's a different story. If everyone is allowed to sign up for elite status and can get it for no or little additional cost, then there's a reason why the government can discriminate in favor of those people.

But, as I've said, for a third party to come in and expidite some people and not others - that won't fly. When's the last time that Verizon came in and told the DMV that you should be moved to the front of the line because you have voice mail and call waiting?

And, argue with me all you like, but one of the people who's actually going to have a say in this already said that there's no basis for the federal government to discriminate for/against anyone if everyone is paying the same fee.

As I've said, there's no point in complaining about your issues here on FT. We already got screwed with this federal government taking over security because we didn't get our voices heard. Now our only hope is to limit the damage by getting in touch with the powers that be, not just play the same violin on FT over and over again.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by pointman:
Everyone is going to be screwed by this and it has nothing to do with increased security. The only reason the Democrats pushed this Federal Screeners thing through was so they could add tens of thousands of Federal workers to the payroll thus increasing membership in the Federal workers' union which votes almost universally democratic...........why oh why do we all allow this............? </font>

Because the alternative was to use notsobright or people like. Hopefully the Governement will not stay in the security business too long. After 20+ years they are giving up on Amtrack, and you think that will run well in private hands? I would rather have the G provide security then notsobright, at least for a few years until they take a look at it again when they have a better understanding.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
Again, EZPass is available to anyone. </font>So is elite status.

Customer service, customer service, service, service, service. I have always wondered why people expect or want government to be run like a business. If it were, it would cater almost exclusively to the rich, since that's the biggest source of income...no, wait, governments around the world do that already, don't they?

Well, then, they should mass-market, since if you get some money from the middle and lower classes, you can make as much money as if you got larger amounts, but only from the rich...no, wait, governments around the world do that too, don't they?

Look. The purpose of airport security screening isn't "customer service". They're not there to make life more pleasant for you, the person at the security gate, they're there to make air travel safer. If it means they have to inconvenience you as a individual to protect the hundreds of thousands of passengers travelling, then so be it. They can try to make it a little more convenient, but not at the expense of increasing risk.

One of the reasons government is taking over security screening is because with the airlines responsible, it hasn't worked. Airlines sue each other over what size carry-on luggage is allowed to go through the machines. They hire people at near minimum wage to search for life-threatening items. Things that get confiscated or checked out at one airport get waved through at another. All of this is despite federal standards, which don't get enforced. Would you rather pay for the government to do it directly, or pay for them to hire a whole bunch of inspectors to go out and supervise other people, whom you're paying for indirectly, who do the job? I'd rather pay for one person than two, myself.

Oh, and we have the same sort of debate up here in Canada, by the way.

islandcub

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by chexfan:
(Originally posted by Doppy: Again, EZPass is available to anyone.

So is elite status.</font>

I disagree. Getting EZ-Pass is very easy. All you need is a credit card. No time or money is necessary, beyond that needed to get a credit card, which most people already have.

Getting elite status, on the other hand, is not easy at all, unless you fly frequently for business, or you have enough time and money to fly for leisure on one airline enough to get status. Getting elite status requires a significant amount of both money and time, something that most air passengers do not have. Elite status must be renewed every year (except for the few people with lifetime status), whereas a credit card pretty much lasts forever once you get one.

As nice as it is to be on a special elite, or just a faster line, don't we still actually need to get everyone through airports expeditiously in order for the carriers to profit and for "matters" to return to some semblance of "normal?" I think so! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I don't agree, Doc. My reasoning is simple:

Taken in the aggregate, a frequent flyer will contribute much, much more in the form of this new tax on an annual basis than an infrequent, non-elite.

So the elite flyer is entitled to special treatment.

On a pure macro-economic basis, it makes sense to expedite frequent (elite) travellers who are mostly travelling on business. They are conducting commerce, making a living, as opposed to the leisure infrequent travellers who are visiting family and friends and who can afford an extra wait.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
I don't agree, Doc. My reasoning is simple:

Taken in the aggregate, a frequent flyer will contribute much, much more in the form of this new tax on an annual basis than an infrequent, non-elite.

So the elite flyer is entitled to special treatment.</font>

I don't agree. It is a per pax fee, it is not a yearly fee to work averages over. Maybe the government will let you pay more and stand in a shorter line. But if I fly as much as you do, pay the same for my security fee, but fly in coach, we should be standing in the same $2.50 (or what ever it cost) line!

I'm with JRF, it's a per-use fee. If you add up all the $2.50 fees you pay for the year, then divide it by the number of times you go through security, it's still $2.50. Same as with the post office. If you send one first class letter a year or 100, the post office will still deliver the letters at the same speed. There's no expidited first class (34 cent) mail for people who send a lot of letters.

And EZPass isn't a good example. It's basically available to 99.9% of the population. Everyone can get a credit card (a secured one with a $100 credit limit, if need be). There's little in terms of extra cost associated with getting EZPass. But, for the casual flyer to fly an extra 20,000 miles a year? That's a big hurdle. The airline equivalent of EZPass would be a free trusted passenger program, similar to INSPass, available to everyone. The aviation security bill allows for this, so we'll see if it ever materializes.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
And EZPass isn't a good example.</font>So I'm confused, according to your beliefs is EZPass a legit example? The way I read it, you seem to contradict yourself.

Anyways, if we go back to the original reason for these examples, it was to show "one situation where everyone pays the government the same fee, but some get better/faster service." EZPass doesn't float b/c it actually offers people a discount- people aren't paying the same!

It is Economics 101 that the frequent customer gets a lower price, better treatment, etc.

The post office *does* charge its best customers less. When you mail in quantity and follow certain rules, you can get a much lower first class rate.

The National Parks Service has a pass that lets you accesss any national park for one yearly fee.

There are numerous examples where a frequent user pays less per-use than the infrequent user, even for "public" services.

I fly United frequently, so I get better treatment, upgrades, etc. Why shouldn't this apply at the airport? I'm going through the checkpoints frequently and shelling out my $5.00 to $10.00 per trip (when you take connections into account r/t), so why shouldn't I get better treatment each time?

The most frequent users should have more say than the infrequent ones because as I said, in aggregate they pay more. That is hard to argue with except on "fairness" grounds, whatever that means.

The new Aviation and Transportation Security Act provides the secretary of transportation with the authority to
&gt;&gt;(3) Establish requirements to implement trusted passenger programs and use available technologies to expedite the security screening of passengers who participate in such programs, thereby allowing security screening personnel to focus on those
passengers who should be subject to more extensive screening.&lt;&lt;

These trusted passenger programs could presumably allow persons meeting certain criteria who have preregistered to go through an expedited security process. I assume that it could be something like INSPass. Of course the security act only says that the secretary of transportation may establish such programs. People wanting such programs would be wise to write to the secretary and encourage him to establish them.
jerry

[This message has been edited by jerry a. laska (edited 01-18-2002).]

EZPass, as I said, isn't a good example because it's not the same thing as having a special line for elites. Elite status is conferred by a third party (the airlines), and is relatively difficult for the average traveler to get. EZPass, on the other hand, is available to everyone, with almost no additional expense. While most people can front $10-20 extra to get set up with an EZPass, it's unlikely that the average traveler has enough time and money available to fly an extra 20,000 miles. As such, I think it would legally be viewed as unfair/discriminatory. The government is not supposed to be discriminating against people.

Additionally, there are people who might travel 75,000 miles, but spread out on four airlines, so they don't achieve any elite status (some people have already posted on FT that this is the case for them). Should these people, who travel 3 times as much as bottom-tier elites, be penalized for not giving all of their business to one airline? From the airline perspective this would be good because it would force people to be loyal to one airline so that they can get elite status for shorter security lines. That's an anti-competitive practice.


The post office gives discounts for bulk shipments, providing certain requirements are met, like the mail is sorted, pre-stamped, has the full zip+4 barcode printed on it. The airport equivalent would be setting up a security screening line for people who don't have any carry-ons, or charging these people a slightly lower fee.

An elite line is not the equivalent of a discount for a bulk shipment at the post office. Elites bring tons of carry-ons with them and rarely check baggage. This slows down the line, and is the opposite of the optimized shipping process for bulk shipments (presorted, barcoded, etc.). Same thing with EZPass. A toll discount is offered to encourage people to get EZPass because it speeds up the process at toll plazas. Again, I think that's the equivalent of setting up a no-carryons line, or a presorted, barcoded shipment discount at the post office. It's not the equivalent of an elite security line.

The National Parks yearly pass is a financial decision. In exchange for paying a high fee at the beginning of the year, you get free access for the rest of the year. That makes financial sense for the Parks Service, because they get a big chunk of money at the beginning of the year they can invest, regardless of whether you use the parks or not. It's the same reason why prepaid phone cards are usually cheaper than pay as you go long distance rates. The company gets your money in one big chunk in advance. The equivalent here would be for you to pay one big security fee at the beginning of the year, then get faster service at the screening checkpoints. In effect, you'd be paying more than the average user, since you would have paid up front (time value of money). If the airlines or their elites want to chip in a few extra dollars per airport visit to get an elite line set up, that's a fine justification for setting one up. But, without the extra money, there's no justification.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
The government is not supposed to be discriminating against people.
</font>

You keep saying this, but again, it simply is not true. The government does and can discriminate. Affirmative action and all that jazz. Righting past wrongs. Our income tax system is nothing but one giant discriminatory tangle.

The problem here is with a flawed concept that the government is "in business" to provide "services". You run into this dilemma because it is simply impossible or desirable to provide "equal" services to everyone.

All the more reason to reaffirm the concept of "limited government". Amazing how many people are just too willing to toss in the towel and give in to big government and complete loss of self-determination.

Consider the following hypothetical. Suppose instead of the current proposal the government required the airlines to buy screening from private companies. And suppose that the price these companies charged was $2.50 per person. Would people then have a problem with the airlines setting up elite lines? I suspect not.

How is the scenario different from the current plan? Is it because the government is providing the services rather than mandating the purchase of those services? I'm not sure why that matters. (Tax incidence theory also suggests it shouldn't matter whether a tax is assessed directly on the consumer or on the firm.)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JRF:
Because the alternative was to use notsobright or people like. Hopefully the Governement will not stay in the security business too long. After 20+ years they are giving up on Amtrack, and you think that will run well in private hands? I would rather have the G provide security then notsobright, at least for a few years until they take a look at it again when they have a better understanding.</font>

No JRF, the alternative was to get rid of all those losers running security and get rid of all those companies that hire them. Then we could have established new rigorous standards, a compliance testing department at FAA, and provided for enviable annual contracts to private industry to compete for. Competition for earning these contracts every year would produce the best companies, hell bent on providing superior service and performance (so they can maintain their contract). You'll get the exact opposite results with government employees...........

I totally agree, tfjim.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tfjim:
You keep saying this, but again, it simply is not true. The government does and can discriminate. Affirmative action and all that jazz. Righting past wrongs. Our income tax system is nothing but one giant discriminatory tangle.

The problem here is with a flawed concept that the government is "in business" to provide "services". You run into this dilemma because it is simply impossible or desirable to provide "equal" services to everyone.</font>

Why does the ACLU get into a law suit every time the government discriminates for/against people without justification?

Why did one of the people who will be in charge of the federal security screening say that since everyone is paying the same fee, the government couldn't arbitrarily discriminate in favor of "elites?"

How would you solve the problem of people who travel 40,000 miles, but on two airlines? Should the government be in the business of forcing people to only fly one airline, so they can get elite status and not have to wait in line all day? I thought the government was supposed to be working for the people, not for the airlines.

The airlines are a third party. Should Xerox go around telling the government which citizens should get the royal treatment, and which should not? Should Disney go into the DMV and move some people to the front of the line, and some to the rear? Paid Mickey Mouse club members get priority access to the eye chart at the DMV?

Having a security line for only certain VIPs and making everyone else wait in a longer line isn't fair. Each time you go through the checkpoint, you're paying $2.50. It doesn't make a difference if you go through once a year or every day, you're still paying the same fee. Hence, you get the same service. While the government may discriminate in some cases, that's not the ideal situation, nor in this case do I believe that it would be legal either.

From an operations standpoint, we want to shoot for quick lines (under 10 minutes, per Minetta) for everyone. That would be the most efficient, much more efficient that having elite lines which might not always be fully utilized.

Furthermore, I'm an elite on AA. Several times a year I have to fly US because of cost or route issues. Ideally, with all lines under 10 minutes, I wouldn't mind flying US, because I wouldn't expect to wait in line very long.

You guys have this ideal of having elite only lines. In this situation, my AA Platinum status means nothing in the US terminal at LGA, so I'm back to waiting in line 2 hours. What a great situation.

Rather than spending time working on getting elite lines, we should really be pushing the government to deliver on Minetta's promise of a 10 minute or less wait. That's better for everyone.

d

Received an e-mail form UA regarding New security measures. Part of the e-mail regarding Poriority Security Checkpoint Lanes as follow:

In addition to opening more security checkpoint lanes across many of our airports, we have expanded our Priority Security Checkpoint Lanes to more airports.
These lanes are available in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Newark, New York Kennedy and Boston for our Mileage Plus 1K(R) and Premier Executive(R) members,
United First(R) customers and Star Allianc (TM) Gold members. In Seattle, we offer a priority lane to 1K and Premier Executive members. To continue improving security
checkpoint efficiency, we plan on adding this service at more airports during 2002.

Please also see:

As Security Tightens, the Race Goes to the Savviest

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/006153.html

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
Having a security line for only certain VIPs and making everyone else wait in a longer line isn't fair. Each time you go through the checkpoint, you're paying $2.50. It doesn't make a difference if you go through once a year or every day, you're still paying the same fee. Hence, you get the same service. While the government may discriminate in some cases, that's not the ideal situation, nor in this case do I believe that it would be legal either.</font>

Let's say that you and I both have a $200 roundtrip ticket on AA and we both have a bag to check. If you are elite, and I am not, then you get to wait in a short line to check your bag, and I get to wait in a long line. This happens even though we have both paid the same "fee." However, we are receiving vastly different service.

Since the airlines write the checks to the security companies, the airlines can dictate how security is run.

Of course. The best customers pay the most, as I've pointed out, and their money must talk!

Although a frequent traveller might do, say, 24,000 miles on 4 carriers and never achieve elite status, that is his/her problem.

Elite travellers, and full fare travellers, should get special treatment because they are paying the bigger bucks.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by johnep1:
Let's say that you and I both have a $200 roundtrip ticket on AA and we both have a bag to check. If you are elite, and I am not, then you get to wait in a short line to check your bag, and I get to wait in a long line. This happens even though we have both paid the same "fee." However, we are receiving vastly different service.

Since the airlines write the checks to the security companies, the airlines can dictate how security is run.</font>

For now, and that's fine. But, when the government takes over, unless we or the airlines pay the fee, there's no justification for an elite line. Private companies are allowed to discriminate like this. The government is not.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
Of course. The best customers pay the most, as I've pointed out, and their money must talk!

Although a frequent traveller might do, say, 24,000 miles on 4 carriers and never achieve elite status, that is his/her problem. [B]</font>

What does the federal government care if you give all of your business to American, or split it between American and United? The government screeners should expidite you if you give all your business to AA and have elite status, but should make you wait in a longer line if you fly 20,000 miles each on UA and AA?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">[B]Elite travellers, and full fare travellers, should get special treatment because they are paying the bigger bucks.</font>

They're paying the airlines the big bucks. They're paying the government $2.50, same as everyone else.

If I buy a lot of expensive cars with Ford, should they expidite me at the DMV? Or if I get "white glove treatment" at Disney World by spending more money, should they expidite me at the post office?

d

http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20020131-32817256.htm


ID card for air passengers
By Tom Ramstack
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


A U.S. Department of Transportation task force is moving forward with plans for a national transportation-worker identity card intended as a first step toward "trusted-traveler" cards for airline passengers.
The trusted-traveler card is part of the Aviation and Transportation Security signed by President Bush Nov. 19 that authorized the Transportation Security Administration to "establish requirements to implement trusted passenger programs and use available technologies to expedite the security screening of passengers."
Trusted-traveler cards would authorize passengers to bypass extensive security screening at airport checkpoints. The Israeli government instituted a trusted-traveler program five years ago in an effort to speed up long lines at airport security checkpoints.
The electronic card would have an encoded biometric description of the owner to ensure that the person using it is the same person identified on the card. Biometrics refers to computerized systems that identify a unique part of each person's anatomy, such as fingerprints, facial structure or irises.
Eventually, the Transportation Department task force wants the cards to be used throughout airports and transportation services internationally. The card is intended to shorten lines at airports, but FBI background checks would disseminate information about the owners to many law enforcement agencies.
Currently, the transportation-worker identity card is in a draft proposal that needs approval from the Transportation Security Administration and its new director, John Magaw.
The idea of expanding the plan from transportation workers to travelers has critics.
"This is a backdoor national ID," said Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "This so-called trusted-passenger card will become essentially mandatory for everyone to use not only on airlines but also buses, trains and perhaps drives over bridges and tunnels. The consequences of not having a trusted-passenger card is that you will be immediately suspect."
He said the card created additional privacy risks from identity theft, inaccurate information and giving information to foreign governments on political refugees.
Initially, only transportation workers would use the identification cards to control access to secure sites, such as passenger boarding areas or docks where freight is loaded, stored or received. It would be used for all transportation modes, including airlines, freight and passenger ships, railroads, trucks, buses and pipelines.
The draft proposal, developed by the Credentialing Direct Agency Group (CDAG), foresees wider uses for the cards that could include the trusted-traveler program.
"The focus of the CDAG's solution was on workers in the transportation system, while achieving sufficient flexibility to accommodate future needs to address identification of users of the transportation system," the draft proposal says. "The identification card system developed would apply to any person who has unescorted access to a transportation facility or who has access to control of a transportation conveyance."
CDAG is one of the task forces within the National Infrastructure Security Committee that Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta organized within weeks after the September 11 attacks.
The proposal recommends that the same card be used throughout a national, and perhaps international, network.
For transportation-worker identification, the cards would contain name, biometric information, date of birth, address, security clearance level, cargo authorization and an identification number. Details of the biometric information ? which most likely would be a fingerprint ? would be determined by the Transportation Security Administration.
"We're looking at all these kinds of issues," said Hank Price, spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration. "I think it would be premature to discuss any specifics at all."
Among its supporters is Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Republican who this week is soliciting signatures from fellow congressmen for a letter he is sending to Mr. Bush. The letter encourages the president to act promptly to develop the "smart cards."
"The program would allow airport security and law-enforcement personnel to focus their attention and resources on passengers who pose a legitimate hijacking threat and would help the Transportation Security Administration achieve its stated goal of screening passengers and baggage with no passenger delays greater than 10 minutes," the letter says.
Mr. Culberson also supports the preliminary step of the national transportation-worker identification card, according to his spokesman.


------------------
-Bob Mc

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:

If I buy a lot of expensive cars with Ford, should they expidite me at the DMV? Or if I get "white glove treatment" at Disney World by spending more money, should they expidite me at the post office?

d</font>

Your analogy is way off, in the first case the actions at the DMV are not an *integral* *ongoing* *significant* part of the opperation of your car. Standing in 2 hour security lines (on what for non-business travelers happens to be a holiday for example) for a 2 hour flight IS.

In the second case I don't know where disney got into the picture but do you think people who do mass business mailings stand in line to send their mail? No, the have door to door pick up and billing accounts

jcrb,
The post office analogy is absolutely perfect. When my companies mail catalogues, we merely fund an account. A special post office inside our printer accepts them and they are then trucked to special post offices throughout the country for sorting and delivery (at least that's how I think it works)? Now, if I could just get them to deliver my mail at home when it snows...

I don't understand the privacy issues related to having a "national ID card." I already have a driver's license and a passport. When directed to, I produce proper identification. If you're at the airport, you need ID. If you're driving a car, you need a license. If you're entering a country, you need a passport.

If you get pulled over by the cops for a traffic violation you need to show your license. If you're at a crime scene or in a bar, the cops might as you for ID. But I have never gotten stopped and asked for ID by the cops just for the hell of it. How does the ACLU make the jump from having a national ID card to the cops stopping people, asking them for ID, then collecting this information in a central database? Whether you're using a passport, license or national ID, you're still only required to show ID in a limited number of situations.

Having a national ID card doesn't automatically set up checkpoints on every corner where you're required to submit ID. National ID or not, there's no adult that doesn't have at least one form of government issued ID, nor should anyone really be traveling outside their home with ID. The cops aren't going to conduct random ID checks for no reason, but if you get hit by a bus, you're probably better off if people at the hospital know who you are and can contact your relatives.

d

I have not been to a DMV office in about 8 years. I am properly licensed, insured, & the car properly licensed. Our DMV does renewals by mail & my last drivers license renewal was done by mail. (I lived long enough at one address & had a clean driving record). The last time (in 1994), I made a appointment & only had to wait for a short while. (lines were long for walkins!)