The difference is all about cost benefit. A business traveler is going to decide if the combined cost in time and expense against the risk of losing a sale, by going with a combination of phone calls, shipping samples and lack of face to face time. A large reason the US has been able to constantly improve employee effeciency is by quickly responding to opportunities and problems. I have reduced my attendence to some minor trade shows and the frequency of some sales calls from 3 times to 1 or 2. The risk in lost sales is smaller than the lost sales from being out of touch for a longer period of time. To just travel to a 1 day show I have to assume atleast 1 problem on the way. That means leaving not on the last flight of the day but atleast one earlier so that I can hopefully survive a flight cancelation or delay due to rescreening. I also have lost at a minimum of 2-3 hours of work time because of the need to arrive earlier on bothe ends.

With a tightening economy and the drive to reduce employee labor costs means that an employees time is more important and cannot be wasted in additional days/nights in travel for short meetings. A leasure traveler might choose other options but if he wants to travel will put up with some inconviences.

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

Well, you know what, United and the Star Alliance have a pretty extensive route system, too. Except I can't get to either place that I need to go to next week on them. And it's not even a question of non-stop or connections, it's not a question of whether I'll have to be on United Express or the mainline, it's a flat out lack of service to the cities that I'll be travelling to. And it's not like these are tiny little towns in North Dakota, either -- they're decent sized cities with 100K+ people.

Sooner or later, because of price considerations, or because your preferred airline or partners simply do not fly to a specific location, you're going to have to fly on an airline that you don't have status on.

And then the obsession with getting elite lines will do you, well, nothing. Instead of worrying about that, we should be focusing on getting everyone through security quickly.

When I'm on vacation, I care more about waiting in line than I do when I'm travelling for business. It's MY time then, not my company's, and I'll be ****ed if I'll waste two hours of my vacation time waiting in line. That's two hours I could be spending having fun.

If I have to waste two hours in line while travelling for business, well, at least I'm out of the office so I don't care as much.

IMO, to answer the question posted to the thread: totally fair. And see how UA markets it ...

http://www.ual.com/site/primaryPR/0,...8_1065,00.html

Yes I think this is fair. I guess I look at the time as more biz completed rather than standing in line and because status flier DO fly all the time they are Prepared to go through security.

How many times have you stood behind Joe Leisure and family why they dig for tickets, unload the household & kitchen sink from the stroller, herd the kids through and repack?

I have a suitcase and a breifcase ready with coat off and items out of pocket before even getting to the point I need them.

Airline recognize biz $ we spend with them, biz I am able to complete by not standing in line and the fact I know how & what can go through security.

You wouldn't say that if you were in your own business as I am, or if you were a commissioned salesman. Time is money!

Shorter lines for frequent flyers are not only fair, but good business for both the airlines and the national economy. Compare the experience of the average vaction-traveler with the average business traveler. Assume that an "average" security wait time is one hour (therefore two hours on a roundtrip). The person who never travels on business, and takes only two to three flights per year on vacation, therefore spends 4-6 hours PER YEAR in security lines. Now thinkg about the business traveller who flies often enough to qualify for, let's say, Delta's Gold Medallion level, by flying 60 segments per year. That person spends 60 hours per year checking in for flights, versus 6 hours for the vacation traveler. Is THAT fair? Now think about the value of those 60 hours to the national economy. Think about an engineer who spends 60 hours in security lines instead of 60 hours preparing blueprints for a new factory? What effect do you think that has on our national economy? And what about the effect on the airline's profitability (and therefore the airline's contribution to the economy). Do you really think that engineer is going to fly as much as he or she would fly if the lines were shorter? Of course not. And when the airline loses THAT person's business, it is probably losing expensive Y-class or other unrestricted fares. So, in summary, is it "fair" for an elite frequent flyer to have shorter lines than an occasional vacation traveler? Well, is it "fair" for Americans to lose their jobs in a recession which is further deepened by an avoidable loss of airline revenue? And what about the loss of productive working time on the part of business travelers? Multiply that one engineer's wasted 60 hours per year by the tens of thousands of professional people who travel on business. You have hundreds-of-thousands of hours that could be spent productively contributing to our economy, that are instead wasted on security lines waiting behind infrequent travelers. Is it "fair" for Americans to lose their jobs in a recession that is further deepened by the avoidable loss of otherwise productive working hours? And finally, is it "fair" for someone who travels twice a week to wait in shorter lines than someone who travels twice a year? Come on, people. What IS our government thinking???

------------------

I don't agree with this at all. First of all, most leisure travelers check most of their luggage, while FFers bring everything they can carry through security. Not to mention laptops, which have to be taken out of their carrying case.

Second, in my experience with elite lines, elites are just as stupid as non-elites. Both show up at the magnetometer with a "oh, I have to go through security?" look on their face, then start to take off jackets, take metal out of their pockets, etc. I've seen an equal number of elites and non-elites pull this move. I've even seen two AA flight attendants do it, when they decided to jump in line in front of me.


You guys need to put your self-important status aside and realize that if we don't get to the Minetta 10 minute proclaimation soon, we're all going to be in trouble.

Frequent travelers eventually will have to fly outside of their elite status airlines, it happens to me pretty regularly.

The government also shouldn't be in the business of forcing people who fly 40,000 miles on two airlines to fly it on one airline to get through security in a reasonable amount of time. It's anti-competitive.

For those of you who think only business travelers contribute to the bottom line, look at the two most profitable airlines at present - Southwest and Jet Blue. Southwest has consistently been profitable for what, 30 years? Both these airlines cater to leisure travelers.

If we don't get to the 10 minute wait for everyone, eventually a lot of people are going to stop traveling. Business and leisure. That's the only long-term solution, and no one has come up with an argument that it isn't. That's what we need to work towards, it should be the only goal.

d

Ah, but I am in sales, and I make most of my money on commission. It's still my employer's time, not mine, and I'd much rather waste his than waste my vacation time.

United's hype is slightly misleading here. UA *is* opening "expedited" security lines at DEN on Monday, but the DIA airport authority would allow them to do so only if they allow other airlines' frequent flyers to use them.

The Denver Post stated that the lines will be open to "Mileage Plus 1K and Premier Executive members as well as other frequent fliers". I'm not sure how they will work this out. Apparently airlines will have to "sign on" and set the criteria for being in the fast line. Unless they issue some kind of pass (Like a Fast Track sticker) I don't know how the security people could ever sort out who goes where. (Will I be able to show a Sam's Club Priority Card or something and get into the special line?)

Many are missing the question (with the exception of a few)here? Is it Fair?

NO, it's not.

Thats not an opinion, but a fact.

But that does not make it wrong or ill-advised, just unfair.

The simple answer is the capitalistic one and the same as they use in the U.K., Germany, etc.

Let the First and Business class passengers pay double the security fee, which will justify a separate security screening facility for those pax. If the airlines want to have their elite pax use the F line, then they can pay the extra cost. I'm sure they would be happy with this.

I used the expedited line at DEN recently. It was open for all travelers and the only sign was that people with no bags could use this line. I was on a day trip with no bags so I used this line with no questions. However I saw people with backpacks using the line so perhaps there is other criteria.

Stimpy,
See my post on the other thread. The airlines are already paying that extra cost in paying rent and extra security costs at the airports. I wish people would get over the belief that the $2.50 tax pays for screening costs now. It does not, and was never even purported by the government to do it. That is also why the government said that airlines were required to keep paying the same security costs as before 9-11.

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

I don't know about extra rent as I don't think that is the case at LAX for instance. But the security fee is the same for all. My suggestion is doubling that fee for the elite line.

And the reason the fee isn't really enough for the job is because Security people have drastically overstated the requirements of the job. I'm considering that the baggage scanners are independent of this since we may never get them to do %100 percent of the bags despite Mineta's ridiculous claims.