[Italics mine]

Sorry Robvberg, I was thinking of this post, from the original thread... I think you can make just about any argument you want to the effect that if Person X, whatever her or his status, wastes Y amount of time in security lines, it will be harmful to the economy. The case of frequent fliers is no more compelling than anyone else's.

Furthermore, Airships wonders if it is unfair that the engineer spends 60 hours in security lines, compared to the vacation traveler's trifling 4-6 hours. Presumably, however, that engineer is paid to wait in line, accrues well-deserved FF miles and status for all that business travel, and has accepted that condition of his/her employment. I have a hard time seeing him or her as a victim. As others have pointed out in both security line threads, economic forces will adjust the model (and business traveler's decision-making) when security lines become a significant enough factor in weighing travel costs & efficiency.

Convincing arguments can be made about both sides of how to deal with post-9/11 security measures. Like customs and immigration, security lines (as a federal mandate) fall outside of the purview of the services provided by airlines. Clever (and more competitive)companies will do their best to find an edge in those domains as well (currently, certain airports and airlines have found a way to offer immigrations line fast-track services to premium customers, but these are not widespread outside of the U.S. and Britain, and are far from a divine right).

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a convincing argument for expediting elite security processing -- preferably one that doesn't betray self-interest more than anything else. I'm not at all convinced by claims that business travelers are more vital to the economy, or contribute disproportionately to security upkeep, or most absurdly, are unduly victimized by the increased inconvenience.

I had just about finished my answer to you when I get a power surge and lose my comments. So short version now. Doppy, The mall and airports are basically the same. Sears can not decide where your tax money goes but if Sears feels that the mall needs more security than what they can get from calling the police they can use marketing or other budget money to hire off duty police.

As I said before, the government is really no different from the current contractors. They are slowing taking over control, but the staffing and current equipment is being paid for by the airlines. I doubt that in any current contracts, are the security costs being paid for by a per person basis. Actually I believe that any increases in lanes that the airlines have opened to improve speed has been paid for by those airlines. Most security contracts(not airline specific) are bid out. The company that solicits the bid asks for recomendations on what is needed and then most contracts have clauses for additional staffing and equipment. Much the same way that the current airport contracts were let.

What the government is slowly working towards is they will set the security standards, but staffing will have to be coordinated with the airlines based on schedules. I really think that the best analogy is what is happening in the Dept of Defense. In many support areas the government is bidding out operations. What they are allowing is for the current federal employees to make their own bid. If they can show a cost effective way of running the ops they are granted the bid. While they are still federal employees they operate the same as contractors would, sometimes under different procedures than the same type of federal employees at a similar installation. I guess that is confusing but what it comes down to is that this situation is not the same as the IRS or INS. I believe most posters now understand that the $2.50 per segment fee will not be able to pay the bills for a long time. Even if you just take out money for the new Federal Airport Security Directors and the cost of the new scanning equipment. I really don't see why it matters if the money is from a fare based system or not. Either a airline budgets and pays for the special treatment or not. I also belive it is actually kind of a joke for the government to say that they are deciding how many lanes are open and at what times.

Also pareedave, I don't think that the business traveler is more important. I do believe that if marginal trips are canceled because of the additional costs and delays from security we will lose as a country productivity. I do agree that as this continues, business will turn to new technologies to decrease the requirement for business travel. It would have happened quicker if the leadership felt comfortable with the technology or it was a little more advanced. The business traveler, that has to travel might not care about delays but it does not mean that does not become less efficient. The person traveling for leisure is no less important but he has the ability to decide for himself whether he wants to put up with the hassles and delays.

Finally I do not believe that special lanes are the answer to the current long lines. I do believe that the airlines have the right to have control of anything that they pay for that does not effect government policy. I know that when I fly an airline that I don't have status with, that I will be with the unwashed masses. So pareedave, my reasoning is not from self interest. I don't believe that a business should be required to pay for property that they have no control over. If the government wants to say that everyone is the same, release the airlines from there current contracts. They should not be required to pay for areas that the government then controls.

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

FRA has government-run security lines dedicated "first/business" and "economy" for a long time already and nobody complains. Generally they also are very efficient, maybe the U.S. agents could learn something, because at the end the solution has to be to get everybody cleared within an acceptable time frame. In the meantime the elite-line system is better than nothing at all.

So, let me get this straight. You concede that there will be times that you will be forced for one reason or another to fly on an airline that you do not have status on.

Yet you continue to insist that the solution is not to solve the problem of the long lines but to continue with the special lines.

I sure as hell hope that you never have to fly on an airline that you don't have status on when you're running late. I sure hope you don't miss a flight or two because your meeting with your client went long and you had to travel on a different airline than your preferred one and you didn't get your little perk.

Because then, you will realize that your little perk doesn't mean squat, and you're still stranded at the airport, and the airline you're on doesn't have to do squat for you.

And then maybe your focus on what is at best a solution for a tiny part of the problem will broaden to solving the problem for everyone.

Now MDTony, I think you and I have discussed issues before and I am sorry you have misread my comments. I have said several times in this topic and the other one that the special lines have nothing, again nothing to do with the possiblity that the government will learn to accept that there will always be imperfection in the security system and decide what is actually appropriate and necessary procedures. That is the only time when we will solve the overall situation. I say this again, it is impossible to create a system that does not have flaws and weakenesses that can be exploited and the worse thing that you can do is make the system so complex that you cause people to either ignore them or cause them to stop using air travel.

Now as to your wish that I get F***ed over several times because I don't believe that the government should be able to take from businesses without compensation. The difference between you and I is that I realize that things happen. I have had times where I have been delayed by business or unexpected traffic. What is the difference between when I am just late enough to get through security and when I am caused to be just late enough to not even check in before a flight. That has happened to me on UA and AA even when I have had status. I guess I am intelligent enough to know that, when I am flying on an airline without status to allow extra time. Before the flame, I am not saying you are not. I just don't believe that I have a right to blame the airlines for my problem!!!

If you want to talk about what would be the best solution to the overall problem, I am more than happy to. I actual believe I have posted on numerous security related threads since 9-11. I also believe that I have posted specific reasons why I believe something not, just that I hate the system. That though is not the topic of this thread. Maybe if people would realize that this issue has nothing to do with the the ability to solve the other, they would start threads that discuss an overall solution.

My fear is that no logic can be applied to the government when airline security is discussed. The congress and even TSA keeps passing rules that they have been told are impossible to meet and then complaining that they are not being done. The media then goes out and gets a yokel to say how afraid they are and asking why the government can't protect them. The easiest example is that during the last couple of days congress has been screaming that we had not placed an order for explosive scanners. To have placed orders before negotiating the proper expansion of the manufactures production capacity would have been like giving someone a blank check. In a year or so we would have had the stories about how badly the new TSA was taken on the purchases. The only reason we wont see that type of story about the cost of the CIA quickly arming predators is that it was a black program expenditure.

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

Wait a minute. I said I sure as hell hope you do not get screwed and you're turning it around as me saying that I want you to?

If you truly believe that, then I am done with this discussion. Enjoy your little perk and hope to God that you do not ever have to fly on an airline that you do not have status on.

As for the government taking business away from the private sector, well, when the private sector companies hire thugs who have been convicted of felonies, I don't know why anyone would defend those companies.

Mdtony, First I guess I miss read your comment, as I thought you were being sarcastic, and hoped it happened to me. I did think that was out of character based on previous comments. Though you are still missing atleast some of what I am saying.

I know that I will fly on airlines without perks including elite check in and security etc. That is a fact of life and will happen without regard to what finally happens about this discussion. So why that matters I still don't ubderstand. Because if I miss the flight because the line for regular check in is a mile long versus the non elite security it is the same. And this is the last time I want to say it, !!!!!Elite security lines does not prevent the airlines/government from solving the other.!!!!!!!!!

Next I guess you have never read about the felons that have been hired by Miami and Wash. DC. as the best examples. The paper has had several reports about the bad hires in the 80s especially. DC actually sent hire letters to people in jail on murder charges. Federal agencies have also been know to fail in the backround check dept. So I guess that a private company has done the same is not hard to believe. Especially since before 9-11 backround checks on school bus drivers, day care workers, and others were hard to get the public to accept because most people and even some state laws give a large nod to privacy. Also even felony convictions are poorly documented and hard to find. See the inability of Fl. to disqualify convicted murders from voting or even knowing that dead people have voted and collected benefits for years after they died. So I guess I try to take that into consideration when I study security solutions. I also guess I am unsure that with all the problems and complaints that have been lodged against Argenbrite, where one terrorist succeeded because of it. All reports I have seen says that the 9-11 hijackers exploited the system that allowed the knives on board. If the government had been incharge that day we would probably be seeing a desire to privatize. See the cry to eliminate the INS because of them sending out a letter 8 months after.

Finally I was not actually talking about the gov taking over the contracts being bad because it punished the security firms. I said I felt that if the government was going to bill the airlines as basically as a contractor for labor etc then the airlines should have input into how the system works. Especially if it has nothing to do with security concerns.

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

I brought this topic back up because of a thread on the UA board about RCC access. These type of issues need to be considered in our discussion no matter on what side people are on security lanes as the answers that the airlines, airport authorities and even the TSA Directors must be in agreement on. I am copying the important parts of my response from the other thread. It really throws the arguement about there being a specific cost attached to each ticket holder clearing security. There is another related issue we have never discussed. Some members take the position that because of fairness, the $2.50 per segment tax should relate to a specific amount of service. Since the screening of checked bags is also covered in the security procedures, should we allow each passenger one bag as part of the base cost and then people who have more than that pay an extra fee. The logic is the same, why should I pay for the cost of some customers checking three bags per person and the additional time it takes security to clear them. Same for people who carry a bag through carry on security check? I am being sarcastic but the arguement seems as valid as the other view.

1K-SFO, The other posters are correct. The original reasoning was that by limiting passengers beyond the security check point, was to limit the number of people going through security. That would allow a more intensive set of checks with the same staffing (they hoped). I remember seeing a couple of comments by security officials right when they were discussing what was needed to reopen the airports.

This goes to the same part of the arguement about elite lines. The federal government is basically assuming the position the old security companies provided by contract. In this case, it is in the interest of the airport authorities, as well as the airlines, to have Club members have access. As this will insure that the airlines/clubs will stay viable and keep paying rent. Many of the airports are afraid that they will lose alot of vendors because of the reduced traffic flow. That is both from people unable to shop while waiting for freinds and reduced passenger traffic. The only exception seeems to be in food sales, because people have been stuck arriving early. That surge will probably go away as the time the airlines require customers to arrive before departure continues to decrease. So the feds can either work with the airlines and airport authorities over these type of issues or make more entities prone to bankruptcy.

I think we will see this become a major marketing tool. They will say set up your appointments at the airport club. That way you only clear security in the morning and can save up to 2+ hours because you will not have to leave the secure area. Conceivably the clubs will need to look at expansion of atleast the meeting room areas. The next thing will be for the clubs to come up with a system that you would be able to mail? a pass to the people you want to meet so they can clear security and get to the club. Just thinking, does the new policy mean that someone that wants to meet someone arriving/departing needs to just buy or get a one day pass. As long as they don't actually go into the actual club they can keep using it as it would only need to be surrendered when they entered the club. So what $50 gets you access to the airports for 1 year or more?



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

Shorter check-in lines for First Class and business class has been with us for many decades. There is no public debate about that. You may more, you fly more, you get treated better, surely?

wingtips, I agree and simply don't understand the other perspective at all. (Not meant to be a flame, it's just that normally I can appreciate, yet disagree with someone on the opposite side of an issue from me. In this case I simply can't understand, and no one has been able to explain in the slightest their opposing position.)

A) I don't believe for a second that the government has an obligation to treat everyone the same. We regularly complain that our government should act more like the prviate sector, and yet somehow some people think we should aspire to the DMV model when it comes to airline security.

B) This concept of someone who splits their business over several airlines being screwed also makes no sense. Does the fact that an airline offers preboarding and upgrades to their elite members somehow obligate them to extend it to the elites on other carriers out of a sense of fairness?

C) As for the dominant airlines, I have repeatedly taken the position that the government should operate elite lines that each airline has so many passes to hand out for. As long as you have an elite pass (ala LHR Fast Track) then you can go through the line regardless of who's the dominant carrier at that terminal.

It really is none of the government's business to decide how the airlines route their customers to the security lines. The government is there as a contractor to do the actual screening. How the pax get to the screeners is none of their business.

My company used to have a drug test vendor to whom we would send our employee's urine samples for testing. Their job was to test, not to decide in what order they were tested. Why is this any different?

Well, malls and airports are similar, but there are differences.

Virtually without exception, airports are public facilities and publically owned. The public spaces in malls are privately owned. In both malls and airports, businesses, such as airlines lease space subject to contract conditions. While leases may provide rights to airlines, they airlines never own the public areas, and certainly have no control over security areas in airports, which are now, by law, government operated. I can understand why the airlines want elite security lines; however, I find it impossible to believe that these lines can occur without at least tacit agreement of both security managers and of the Port Authorities.

Certainly, Port Authorities have been no less stringent than private mall owners in trying to limit certain activities - witness the court battles they have had with the Moonies. The crucial difference between mall owners and Port Authorities is that while both mall owners and Port Authorities can make business decisions on how to use space, Port Authorities are ultimately responsible to the public and economic 'fairness' has never been a hallmark of public voting - who ever said taxing the rich and giving to the poor was fair. But not many politicians run on programmes of letting the poor starve. At least here, I suspect that the public will not support a decision, economically justified or not, which can be framed as involving inherent unfairness.

Also here (Seattle), and most, if not all other airports, Airport or Port Commissioners are elected, and there are spirited election battles. It is reasonable to assume that Port Authorities have leaned, initially, to support the airlines who want to move business travelers as expeditiosly as possible. But that seems unlikely to be their long range position. With people like Michael Kinsley (Slate, Microsoft)and local newspaper's opinion and letter columns arguing that elite security lines are essentially unfair, if I wanted to be reelected as a Port Commissioner, I would be very careful in making support of elite preference lines a cornerstone of my reelection campaign. After all, I would notice that there are a lot more people going through the regular lines than through the elite lines, and they all vote.

Compare this to the mall where the public control is largely through economic volume, and is never up to a public vote.

Although I can understand why the airlines would like to keep elite security lanes indefinitiely, I predict they will be gone as soon as the regular security lines are reduced to anything like a reasonable time, and even with long lines, before the next Port elections.

Bruce

I had a nice response to all this last night at 2am and beloved AOL threw me off, oh well. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif (I went to bed)

Anyway. They need to do as our British cousins and use FastTrack. Business and First passengers, usually a sticker on your boarding card or in the case of American, on that plastic folder you carry, gets you through. The only difference, I would add elite level pax. to that which they don't do at Heathrow, Gatwick, etc. The passengers who pay way more or who travel way more ought to have some kind of a perk. Security lines/queues at LHR can be annoyingly long. Imainge waiting for 30 minutes for security clearance when it is a 45 minute flight to Paris. More and more are taking the train and will hurt the airlines.

I think FastTrack is a brilliant move and I am suprised(read shocked) that it hasn't been done around the world.

Also, I like the idea of the FastTrack Arrivals service, though I haven't to this day used it, usually arriving in the UK in pee-on class from the US or the Continent(and usually later in the day when it is a breeze through immigration).

Yes, elite lines are needed, no question. I am sorry if people find these to be unfair.
If someone travels 100,000+ miles a year and another travels 10K, I think that the road warrior ought to have a short cut.
My .02c.

------------------
Michael
AA PLT,1 MLN Miles+
HH GLD, SCI GLD, MM SIL
LE PRESIDENT ETERNEL DE CAMAIR-CAMEROUN AIRLINES http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Worldtraveler36 (edited 03-25-2002).]

To answer the last comment first, Worldtraveler36 is correct and for the many people that want to look to europe and especially Isreal do so with open eyes. Many things that they do will never work here in the US or we would not want to have it work that way. First the distances in europe between major populations are significantly shorter than in the US. The train system is very well developed and can provide air comparable service especially with the new longer security lines. Isreal really only provides international travel and so will never work as a template. What that means is that the airlines will become much more expensive. In the US we do not really have the train option so any changes to the airlines will hurt all people in the US not just business travelers, as the vacation traveler will not have trains as an option.

Now to brucemcal's comments. I do not know of anywhere to do a search, but I would think that the greater majority of airport authorities are apointed positions. Just like most other semi public boards. They are still subject to political influence but maybe not as direct as someone up for election. Lease holders in malls do not own the public areas in general either but pays for those areas through triple net or special assessment in its lease. The same seems to be true from the discussion of airports that I have seen in papers or online. Airport authorities seem to have leased almost every area they could. So, many of the areas your are calling common areas were actually paid for by an airline. For sure this was the case in the area were security checkpoints exist. It seems that every airport made the airlines directly responsible for manning those checkpoints and charged the airlines for rent for the area, including where the lines wrapped around. So now the government has taken over control of the people doing the checkpoints but has not relieved the airlines of paying rent. So my question to you is, will the federal government start paying that rent? Not from the very limited discussion I have heard. So far the TSA and Transportation dept has stated that the airlines will be responsible for paying all costs that are security related that they are currently responsible for. Actually the airlines have been forced to pay extra to increase staffing for even fewer people flying. While both the federal gov and airport authorities are public authorities, I doubt you will see the airports willing let the feds have that much area without paying anything. Atleast if they want to protect their residents financial interests.

Which campaign slogan is going to work better. An additional departure tax, landing fee or whatever that the passenger is going to pay or continuing the current contracts where the airlines pay for most of the open areas we see in an airport. The airlines are not going to lower costs even if they get out of some lease costs. I agree that it is not as easy to explain in 30 second sound bites, but thats life. I think we have also had many cases where someone runs for office and then learns that he has to change his stand when he learns the facts.

You are also correct that fairness is not necessarily that important to gov agencies, but all of these issues are governed by contracts, many of them very long term. I do not think many airport authorities will want to try and open these up for renegotiation at a period when the airlines are financially strapped. They might see some real problems develop. I believe that is why you saw Menetta change his tune so quick. He said no way and the transportation dept said well I guess the airlines do have the ability to influence how this works.

So while it might end up different in Seattle, I expect that elite lines will exist atleast until the lines have gotten reasonable the same as you. I also think that it is more than likely that it won't even change in seattle without some real risks as the airlines do have some rights under their lease contracts. Each Airport is going to be different. Now the new security directors will have to be consulted as they will have the same type of authority as health inspectors at a slaughter house. They can shut it down but they better have a good reason. Their authority is not really even fleshed out. They have control by congress over the same things the FAA had influence over, but the police that control the front enterance and perimeter do not necessarily report to him and he definitely has no budgetary influence over their staffing, salary etc. Actually the elected officials at the airport authority and the executive that actually runs the airport authority for them will not have final say over these lines either. The competing interests will have to negotiate or you will see constant problems.

The really sad part is that as of todays report, about massive failure to detect weapons through checkpoints since 9-11 will mean that the checks at airports just got longer. As long as people think it is possible to have a zero defect policy we are going to experience many more hassles than we ever thought possible. (100 % effectiveness is not necessarily the proper goal as the risk of being detected at a specific time is sufficient to deter a terrorist. The risk of detection actually increases significantly when more than one tries to get through.)

Just some thoughts.

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

Just watched a report on the NBC news about airport security. They confiscate tweasers, but many knives, fake explosives, and what have you have gotten through...CRINGE...

This story did not enhance confidence, and that by a longshot.

Well, ya knew they'd do away with the elite lines under federalized security. All arguments notwithstanding, it just LOOKS bad. Like special lifeboats for first-class passengers aboard the Titanic, or special lines at the post office. The feds just don't operate that way.

That said, if they ever get the trusted-traveler IDs off the ground they could justify special lines for those (since everyone has equal access to getting one). Kinda like the Blue Line at immigration, I'd imagine.

They'll have a rough time forumulating the trusted traveler thing, though. Some privacy concerns and lots of concern about what a determined terrorist might do to counterfeit it. Can you imagine being or looking Arab and trying to get through a trusted-traveler line quickly?