Shorter lines for elite flyers ARE fair
 

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???

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

The ONLY good, long-term solution is for everyone to get through security quickly.

The guy who flys 100,000 miles between 4 airlines should be forced by the government be loyal to one airline so that he can get through security in a reasonable amount of time. Eventually, he'll stop flying.

The business and leisure travelers who fly 20,000 miles a year shouldn't be forced to fly an extra 5,000 miles, and do all of their travel on one airline to get through security in a reasonable amount of time. Eventually they'll stop traveling.

I maintain 50,000 mile status on AA, but I have to fly 5,000-10,000 miles on US because AA doesn't serve certain markets. Why should the government be screwing me when I fly US?

Isn't it better for everyone to get through security quickly? Since that's obviously the best solution for everyone (any elite who flys regularly will eventually have to fly an airline he doesn't have status on), why don't we work towards that goal?

I understand most elites have a big ego that needs satisfying, but elite security lines are just bad business. Leisure travelers contribute a lot of money to the bottom line, and coincidentally, the most profitable airlines right now are Southwest and Jet Blue, that cater almost exclusively to the bottom line.

The more leisure travelers switch to these airlines, and the more leisure and infrequent business travelers stop flying, the more the majors are going to be hurting. That's going to translate into reduced service levels, cutting routes and higher airfares.

d

I guess I don't see how implementing express lanes for security right now stops us from working towards the goal of speedy security lanes for everybody. An express lane for elites will not slow the progress towards a faster experience for everyone. In some ways the procedures that are implemented to speed frequent flyers will become applicable to the broader population.

The government is not forcing the infrequent flyer or the flyer who does not reach a premium level with any one airline to change their habits anymore than the current system does. The express check in, better phone line service etc. is based upon catering to the airlines best customers. The same occurs in security, as many of us have pointed out the $2.50 fee does not cover all security costs. The airlines are still paying a large portion of that cost and should have a say on how the airport is laid out.



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

Just think of all the security fees a frequent traveler pays. A separate line has been paid for and should be utilized to get a return on the business person's investment. Why do airlines have different check-in lanes other than to reward and service their best customers? Security is just another step in the process of transporting people from one place to another.

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

So all frequent travelers should get through security more quickly, not just ones that the airlines have decided should get VIP treatment, right? The guy who flys 50 round trips of 500 miles or less, but on three airlines isn't an "elite" but he has paid a lot of security fees, $250 of them. Shouldn't he get a special line, not the guy who flies around the world, only paying one $2.50 fee, but who attains airline elite status? So, the government should set up a separate system for determining who gets elite status at security, so that the right people get it.

Both the first part of your quote above and the second part support my assertion that the government, not the airlines, should determine who gets to use the short line at the airport.

United gets to decide who uses its short check-in lines, American decides who uses its lines too. So the government, not the airlines, should decide who gets to use the short lines.

d

The obsession with elite lines is, well, cute. But completely silly.

Look, folks, I had to fly down to where I'm at now on an airline other than my preferred one because my preferred airline, which is a pretty big one with a very extensive route system and a very extensive alliance, flat out does not fly to to the cities that I need to be at.

My wonderful gold colored card on my preferred airline doesn't mean SQUAT to the guys that I flew down on. Now, fortunately, since I flew down on a Saturday afternoon, there wasn't much a line for security screening. But what if there was? Do you think they'd have given a rat's ... that I've got a nifty gold card on a different airline if there was a long line for security and I had to wait? Hell, no!

It's time for us to stop obsessing over something that's quite frankly trivial and focus on the real problem -- long lines for everyone.

MDTony, I have to disagree. I am sorry that you had to fly an airline other than one in which you had status. I am sure you are correct about them not caring too much about your gold status card if it is from another airline. Just as they did not care about making you wait in the normal check in line.

As we all realize, the current situation has led to alot of stupidity. Until the US grows up and develops some logic with regard to security, the only recourse we can even hope to have is small perks from our main airlines. I don't think that takes away from the discussion about speeding everyone through the security. It is just another issue in this transition period.

I also do not think that the government should become more involved than it is now. The main reason the airlines have been able to set up the special security lanes is that they pay the rent and control those areas of the airports. If the government takes over this part, it will just mean more fees and more headaches for questionable results.

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

The, in my opinion, only real solution is to organize things (security and check-in-lines) much better, for everybody.

Most arguments for seperate fast security lines for status holders don't take into account that many heavy business-fliers will just take/book with the airline that offers the most convenient connection to their next destination (and often, they have no status with that specific 'next' airline).

At check-in (depending on size of operation at a location) most airlines offer coach, elite and first class check-in, sometimes business class, lower/higher elite counters etc. are added. For years everybody seems to be accepting / content with that system. Now the airlines try to at least partially apply that tier to the security screening procedure. IMHO there is no difference and I strongly support it.

There IS a difference. All airlines have the opportunity to implement priority check-in lines for their First Class and elite members at there check-in counters, but in many/most airports, only one airline has the opportunity to offer First Class and elite lines for the security check stations.

At the risk of being unpopular:

Um, you buy a ticket, you pay for a service: the essential service, as Foolish indicates, is to get you from point A to point B. You pay more, you get there in slightly better style.

No one, I think, would blame the airlines for testing the market to determine what price folks are willing to pay to travel with a little more service & comfort, not to mention the most important aspect of premium classes: more space and fewer people around you. Who would blame them, moreover, for encouraging loyalty, with FF perks and premiums?

It does seem a bit outrageous, however, to start speaking of the business traveler's "investment." After all, elite travelers (or more likely, their employers) pay for a service, they don't make an equity stake. By taking the effort to stick with one carrier as much as possible, one is already rewarded with status, perks and free travel. That used to seem like a fair return on the "investment."

As for arguments about the lost productivity of business travelers stuck in security lines... What special talent does it take to be a business traveler? Has there been any study about the greater contributions of frequent fliers to the overall economy, compared to employees (or employers, artisans, educators, entrepreneurs) who never board a plane?

The only downside of all systems of elite perks and consideration, unfortunately, is that people who benefit from them begin to believe they deserve such treatment at some broader level, one that goes beyond their favored-customer status.

For those who insist on evoking the purely economic bottom line, do elite travelers pay more now (compared to pre 9/11) for any extra travel benefits? If not, why the belief that in this new climate, the same first/biz class fare should now also extend its favors to priority security clearance?

It seems to me that security fees are a per-use charge, and that everyone pays (identically) in proportion to their travel. Or are these fees higher on premium cabin fares? As for the argument that the fees don't begin to cover airlines' security costs, or more recently, their increased costs, I wonder if there's any evidence that last Fall's congressional bail-out of U.S. carriers disproportionately taxed the pockets of frequent fliers?

I suppose it all depends on which line you're waiting in. No one questions the rights of airlines to offer extended privileges to customers who pay premium prices, as far as they may go. And to be fair, few would begrudge elite travelers their dedicated check-in counters and lounges (assuming, of course, a reasonable amount of efficiency with standard tourist check-in).

To go from there, however, to a sense of entitlement about every aspect of the flying experience is a bit of a leap, to say the least.

I have'nt determined where I stand on this arguement.

I recently read one of the briefs filed on behalf of a jilted flyer. He made a hell of a case.

In terms of actual fairness, it is inherently UNFAIR to allow others to bypass (or better put take cuts) in security lines.

The crux of the biscut is however, the airline industries and governments ability to improve conditions.

The difference is quite clear. The airlines are private companies, and hence they can take care of their better customers. The government, on the other hand, is supposed to treat everyone fairly (that's the ideal, whether it happens in other cases isn't really relevant).

There's no reason for the government to treat AA's fliers better than Jet Blue's. Unless you're saying that the government should be treating some companies better than others; and some citizens are worthy of better treatment than others.

Why should the government help a flyer who has been comped elite status to get through security quickly, when they don't help the guy who flew 100,000 miles between 5 airlines get through security quickly?

Why should third parties (the airlines) be dictating who gets VIP treatment. Do you want Ford to dictate who gets fast service at the DMV? Is it OK to wait in line at the DMV for an hour if you buy a GM car, but 1 minute if you buy a Ford?

If you stay at Starwood hotels 40 nights a year, should the US post office deliver your mail more quickly?

d

Maybe we all need to analysis what is really happening. At this point in time, the government is in effect taking over the contracts that airlines had with private companies. That is crucial to understanding this arguement and what can and needs to be done. I said it in the beginning of the congressional discussion that they would be muddying the waters if they took action without looking at the long term.

The government is not nationalizing the airports and taking over complete control of all functions. They are expanding the security policies that they have set and will when their are no more non-federal employees have direct oversite over a very small part of airport operations. What has been the case before and is still the case is that airlines, like stores in a mall pay rent and the equivalent of triple net. In most cases, especially around hubs the dominant airline pays for hallways etc. They in many cases helped design the concourse to their desire and paid a premium for that right. Just as in a mall, the Sears store has more input in mall hours etc than a short term kiosk owner does. The kiosk owner (read airline without dedicated concourse) gets certain advantages in price and flexibility that the long term lease holder does not. Those extra costs are part of the reason that we have low cost/start up airlines possible. The long term lease holder allows a cheaper price to be paid because he still gets the advantage in setting policy. Those additional costs are part of the reason why UA, AA and other majors are generally higher priced. Therefore to answer the question, yes the airlines should have the right to set up special lines/lanes. I will have the inconvience of flying without privelege on airlines and understand that going into it.

So this situation is different than a toll booth where the government owns the road, or any other situation that most of the posters have mentioned. If you want the system to be different, nationalize the airports and charge a flat fee to every airliner that lands. Then the costs would truly be the same and you might have an arguement. Otherwise that is the equivalent of stationing troops on private property without compensation because the airport authorities are still charging the airlines the rent in their original contracts. I also don't want to hear about the bailout. That was a seperate issue and has as much to do with the disruption of setting down planes everywhere and then closing airspace. I also don't believe that the airlines were neglegent. The policies they operated under were based upon what the public would accept. If several FAs and passengers were killed with knives and the pilot had landed without giving up control pre 9-11, he and his airline would have been vilified and subject to lawsuits. Because nearly every other time giving in to the demands resulted in a delay but less loss of life. Similarly, SWAT members/sheriff dept is being sued about columbine. Policy prior to that point was to secure scene and then try to open dialogue. We can quarterback the situations after the event and decide what they did wrong but if the first police had rushed in, they would now be sued over killing innocents in the cross fire because they would not know who they were searching for and for having caused kliebold et all to detonate additional bombs. The reason is confusion and past event history dictating actions. All that can be done is for us to now do the proper after actions and then base future policy on what you now know. Just as we should not have rushed in with a federal takeover without knowing the facts. The main fact is that the airline security that has been taking all of the hits for 9-11 did not breakdown, but was exploited.

pareedave, no one has said that the frequent flyer makes a bigger contribution to the economic well being of the US than the non flyer. What we are saying is that you will cause economy damage if it now becomes impossible to make many of the deals that are facilitated by flying. The US growth has been fueled by constantly improving our individual effeciency and if business travel that used to take less than a day now requires an overnight on each end then that person will be less effecient. The person who does not travel is not effected by this arguement either way, except possibly in a negative way because of somebody else being less effecient.

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

Your mall analogy is good, except that malls are private property. Private companies can be influenced by any entities they choose.

The government, on the other hand, is charged with the task of treating everyone equally. Just because the airlines pay rent to whomever owns the airport (which isn't the federal government), it doesn't give them any special privileges to tell the federal government how to treat citizens.

How are the airlines paying for security? Are they paying the government a percentage of their ticket sales at XYZ airport that is specifically earmarked for security? Or are they paying a flat rate, or a flat rate based on the number of pax?

That's a critical distinction, one that can't be glossed over in the discussion.

If the airlines are paying a flat fee, they shouldn't get any more say than I should; I pay a flat fee too. If they're paying based on fare price - specifically for security, not just going into some pool of tax money - then you might have a case.

But that only holds up if the government gets a cut of the actual base fare for security purposes. The additional taxes on tickets are _collected_ by the airlines for ease, but they are _paid_ by the pax. Sears doesn't get to decide where my sales tax dollars go; Sears is just collecting the tax, it has no claim to it. If you want to suggest that we operate like the BAA and charge higher taxes on business and first class tickets, that would also help the case. But keep in mind that the BAA, for instance, charges those higher taxes based on the class of service you're flying, not based on your ticket price (i.e. someone upgrading with miles still has to pay the higher tax), so full Y fare paying business travelers still don't get any special treatment.

d