Are shorter lines for special fliers fair?
 

I think so http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

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?

You could rephrase the issue another way:
Are Express lines in supermarkets fair?
Are EZPass lanes at highway tolls fair?

IMHO, these other options exist for the consumer who is quick and efficient in their transaction. Why are ff travelers(who know what to do at checkin & security) considered different?

To quote (or paraphrase--it's been a long time since I read the book) Animal Farm "all animals are created equal...some are more equal"

The bottom line here is that at some point in the near future everyone has to get through the line quickly.

Eventually there's going to be a lawsuit or leisure travelers and frequent travelers who split up their travel between a few airlines are going to stop flying, or fly less, or something else...

The point is, while the special treatment for elites at some airports is good for elites who use those specific airports and have status on those specific airlines, it's not a solution to the problem.

You don't solve the problem with this "solution."

d

I think that when I pay for First Class (whether paid or with miles) I deserve First Class Treatment from the Airline. This starts from the time that I arrive at the "line" for Checkin. If I do not want to pay for First Class, then I have no problem waiting. But if I am paying, I am paying for additional service above and beyond what is considered normal service. This also includes being able to move between the Checkin and the Gate with service above and beyond normal. That is what First Class is all about.

Coming to think of it, with the amount of gold cards I have nowadays I hope to see the first elite lines at the theme park and supermarket real soon http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Disneyland has it already...its called the fastpass http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Without a doubt, yes they are.

Given the new paradigm of government-run security, the question is inevitable.

The answer the airlines have come up with: same security checkpoints but different LINES to get to them is perfect.

While I agree that there should be fast lines for everyone, after being searched for 15 minutes at the stair-line at LAX yesterday morning, I fail to see how a thorough search could be any faster.

Yes.

(Although I agree with the poster that says that the quality should be increased across the board, reducing wait times for all travelers.)

That's exactly it! People here get so fixated on their perks as an "elite" flyer that they forget that someday, they're going to have to fly on an airline that they don't have status on. And then all the status in the world on your preferred airline ain't gonna mean jack. You can be 1K on United, but do you think that American's going to give a flying [expletive deleted] when you have to take them for that one trip to some place where United doesn't go, and vice versa? Oh, sure, I know that people will say, well, just ask for a matching comp on that other airline.

That's fine if you're travelling for a vacation and you've got time to plan ahead. But if you've got a business trip and you've got to be in that non-United city by the end of the week, you ain't got time to play that game. Plus, it only works one time anyway!

Yes, without a doubt.

Let's stop for a moment and ask ourselves, just what in life is truly fair.

Is it fair that the employee with children has less hassle taking time off, and gets more insurance coverage (i.e. greater compensation) than the single employee.

Is it fair that the person that works harder and makes more money is expected to pay a greater percentage of that income to the government, yet the welfare recipient who effectively pays no taxes to the government get the same voice (i.e. vote)?

This is one of the rare times that those of us who contribute more to our society and government can see a tangible benefit. And it's about darn time!

And why is it that everyone "has" to get through the lines quickly? I have yet to hear a viable argument why everyone should be treated equally at the security lines. Yes, everyone should be subject to the same security procedures and inspections, but I don't see how different lines affects the level of security? Lets face it folks, not everyone is treated the same in this world. Those who moan and complain about the elite security lines appear to have accepted the different elite check-in lines. And what about the different check-in lines at the hotels? And what about the car pool lanes?What is the difference? "Perks" are provided to entice people (who have a choice of what they want to do) to do something different, be it fly AA instead of DL, carpool and save our precious resources instead of driving alone, etc. Elite level FFrs don't get a separate security machine or a different level of security scrutiny, just a shorter line.

The airlines value my (frequent) business and so recognize my patronage by providing shorter check-in lines, and by providing me with a shorter line to get to the (government controlled and operated) security machines.

Does (fill in the name of the airline here, AA, UA, DL etc.) necessarily care if an infrequent flyer is pissed off because the check-in line is two hours long. Shorter lines for FF elites are a competitive area, just like how much legroom FFrs get, what type of caviar is served in the F cabin, who gets to board the plane first (and so more than likely never has to worry about overhead bin space), complimentary upgrades, limo transportation to/from airport for premium cabin passengers, etc.

Infrequent travelers know that they have to show up hours and hours before their flight to give themselves enough time to check-in. FFrs know that a perk they have as a result of thier patronage of the specific airline is the ability to show up at the airport a few hours less than Joe Leisure. If I am elite on AA, but decide to use UA (where I am not elite), then I understand that in UA's eyes, I am the same as Joe Leisure. Shorter lines are just another mechanism that the airlines can employ to guarantee my continued loyalty and patronage.

Airlines are a business who, just like all other business, must compete with other companies for their customers. When the day comes that AA is not allowed to compete for my business via FF programs, elite level perks, short check-in lines, upgrades, etc., then they know that I (as will all other frequent travelers) will chose which airline to fly based on price and schedule.

[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 03-12-2002).]

Well put, onedog. And I think recognition of that argument is exactly what caused the review of where in the line "first come, irst serve" begins - which is now in the lane, not the line. As it should be.

I don't have a problem with F and C class pax or elite FF's getting better service than others. On the other hand, I do have a problem with horribly poor service. Anyone, elite or not, who has to spend hours waiting in line (check-in or security) is getting horrible service, and that sucks.

MDTony, I feel your pain, man, I really do. When you need to go to Baton Rouge or Biloxi, do what I do and fly into New Orleans, spend the night, then rent a car and drive (or if the hang over it TOO bad, take one of those shuttle vans either direction) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Coming out of ORD last week, the CO/NW "elite" line into security was just as long, if not longer, than the regular line. It was open for "elites" of all airlines and the gate staff were pushing all sorts of people in (late for flights, etc.). Until the regular flying public gets back into the air (hopefully May or June) it's not going to make a real difference in which line you are.

Uh, because if the airlines don't fill up their seats with a profitable mix of both business and leisure travellers, they'll fail?

Uh, maybe because Mineta said that everyone should be able to get through security in no more than 20 minutes?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that not every city is served by each airline. Sooner or later, if you travel for business, you will have to go to a city where you cannot take your preferred airline for whatever reason. Hell, if you travel for leisure, sooner or later you will have to fly on an airline that you don't have status on because of fare differences. And then you will be one of the masses that has to wait two hours to get through the line.

So, can we stop obsessing about what perks elite flyers get and start focusing on the real problem?

Re check-in lines and pre-boarding perks for FF:

I don't have to wait in line at the ticket counter, as long as I don't check luggage (which I normally don't). Normally I use a kiosk or check-in at the gate.

I don't have to pre-board. My carry-on can fit under the seat in front of me.

I don't have to have a First Class meal and free drinks. I can eat before and after the flight, and I can drink some other time.

But, I absolutely MUST go through security.

MDTONY: I disagree. I fly mostly on AA and its OW partners. It is not too hard to route yourself through their network. There are very few places on this planet that I need to go that I can't go on a OW airline. I always have the choice of flying a more direct route but choose not to for obvious reasons. American treats me better with status than the other airlines do without status--even on a full fare ticket.

Last January I waited over three hours in Line at LAX waiting for my CX departure to Hong Kong. Did I like it? Heck no. Did I put up with it? You bet. Would I trade a shorter line in LAX for a longer line at SEA?---NO WAY.

SEA is my home airport and they do have an elite line for American. Every single time I start a trip, I save anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours waiting in line. I can put up with a long wait elesewhere from time to time. I would rethink my flying schedule if I had to wait in line every single time I left SEA and I fly over 180k base miles a year.

If they can keep the lines down to 10 (even 20) minutes maximum at all times then they can do away with the elite security lines and everyone will be happy--until then, the elite lines are one of the few things that keep the frequent flyers flying.

I believe that Joe Leisure will still fill seats even if they have to wait in line 2 hours. But, Joe Business will not purchase high revenue seats (the type that airlines really need right now) for a quick (day trip etc.) trip if they have to spend more time waiting in lines than conducting business. Think about it. Two hours waiting in a line before embarking for a week vacation means much less to Joe Leisure than waiting two hours in line before a two hour meeting for Joe Business.

Separate lines while waiting to visit with the Security Morons still means that all passengers need to get through security. All passengers do not need to get through at the same speed.

Good thing that the esteemed Mr. Mineta said that everyone should get through security in no more than 20 minutes. He didn't say that everyone will.

Absolutely correct. The day that I travel to a non-AA served city will be the day that I will wait in line with Joe Leisure. But the reality is, with all the global alliances, there are very few cities on this planet where I will have to wait in a longer check-in line than Joe Leisure.

Couldn't agree with you more. Joe Leisure should stop obsessing about the perks that elite glyers get and start focusing on the real problem. But, if we (Joe Leisure and Joe Business) wait for the esteemed Mr. Mineta and the Gov'ment to fix the "real problem," then IMHO we will be waiting a long, long, long time (maybe even longer than the lines everyone is "obsessing" about http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif). By coming up with simple solutions to issues they can control, the airlines are trying to do all they can to keep the public (and especially us high-revenue Joe Business types that they love to rip off) flying.



[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 03-13-2002).]

This almost makes my point that the current system gives large airlines and their partners an almost monopolistic advantage over smaller carriers that have been (so far) shut out of an alliance (for example: USAirways). By giving an artifical (non-market driven) advantage to the larger carriers in the current environment it has the effect of driving the elites of smaller carriers away from those carriers and into the arms of a larger carrier with global alliances. The end result will probably the and oligopoly of large airline alliances on which business travelers with status will fly and endure higher fares and a few discount carriers that don't depend on the high-fare business traveler (e.g. Southwest and JetBlue). That day may have been coming anyway, but this will certainly accelerate it.

I agree with you that alliances are not the best thing for consumers but lets not confuse the difference between alliances and anti-trust immunity. Northwest/KLM, UA/LH and DL/AF have immunity and can set prices together. AA and BA can't.

Even if US Airways does not join an alliance, there is no reason why they can't offer the same perks to their elites in their hub markets as the other airlines do.

I agree that US Airways could give there elites the same perks in THEIR hubs that OneWorld or Star carriers give their elites in their hubs - In fact the do in PHL. But they are newly disadvantaged by not being in an "alliance" because some other carrier has a "monopoly" on the lines in most of the other airports in the world. With the slowdown in security after 9/11, this monopoly has suddenly become a valuable commodity. Due to the "market dominance" other carriers have in this scarce resource, they can exercise there "monopoly power" to steal elites from other airlines that do not possess sufficient access to this commodity (i.e. few hubs and no alliance membership).


[This message has been edited by rtpflyer (edited 03-13-2002).]

I would disagree with you. I don't think the aliances are an "artificial non-market driven" advantage (IMHO, and I am not an economist, an example of non-market driven is a government awarded monopoly or some other artificial obstruction where potential competitors who are willing to compete are precluded from competing), but in fact the alliances are market driven. No one forced any of the airlines to join an alliance, they joined on thier own. As a further example of the alliances being market driven, just look at all the rumor of members threatening to leave one alliance and join the other, of airlines finally joining an alliance (The reconstituted SwissAir joining OW comes to mind) etc. The airlines are in an alliance as long as it benefits them, and not a second longer.

Are we sure that the reason USAirways isn't currently in an alliance is because perhaps they previously choose not to join an alliance on the misguided belief that they didn't need to? And of course now that they are in such distress and don't really have anything to offer potential alliance partners, they don't have the opportunity?

Basically USAirways is one of the few airlines without an alliance dance partner, not because the Gov'ment won't let them come to the dance, but because none of the other airlines wants to dance with them. USAirways is not exactly the beauty of the ball.



[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 03-13-2002).]

I didn't mean to indicate that I thought alliances themselves were not market-driven, but rather "ownership" of the security lines which seems to have arbitrarilly devolved to whoever was responsible for security in the past (and now no longer is). It's not like any airline explicitly "bought" the right to control the lines at an airport.


[This message has been edited by rtpflyer (edited 03-13-2002).]