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
>>(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.<<

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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/busin...1-32817256.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