As Security Tightens, the Race Goes to the Savviest
Jan 24, 2002, 7:51 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
...It's not fine for the government to give some people VIP treatment and others no special treatment when everyone is paying the same $2.50 fee.
d</font>
...It's not fine for the government to give some people VIP treatment and others no special treatment when everyone is paying the same $2.50 fee.
d</font>
life isnt fair, get used to it
------------------
f
Jan 24, 2002, 9:31 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,763
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fparker1:
life isnt fair, get used to it
</font>
life isnt fair, get used to it
</font>
Good goal to shoot for.
d
Jan 24, 2002, 10:00 am
#18
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 2,055
** Beginning of OMNI rant **
Doppy, really, get over it. Our government discriminates in more ways than you can imagine. I so wanted our earlier discussion to go away because it was sooo OMNI. You keep sticking to this rediculous DMV analogy. Look, here at the DMV office at Deer Creek in Maplewood, MO, there is a main line for the hoi polloi, there is also a line for handicapped who get served first, there is also a separate line and counter to service dealers and commercial accounts. There you go, a plain, blatant example of the government, of Missouri granted, discriminating. Call out the ACLU!
Look, I know you're in New York. I know that despite the attacks there are still plenty of folks living in la-la land. But please, let's get realistic. Our government, does discriminate everyday in every imaginable way.
Look at it this way: before the Law, we are all equal. We all have equal Rights (though I'm loathe to capitalize that one since they are limited much to the consternation of folks like Billery). But nowhere does it say or does the spirit exist that says the government entity must not descriminate in the way it enforces social policy.
** End of OMNI rant - apologies to all **
Doppy, really, get over it. Our government discriminates in more ways than you can imagine. I so wanted our earlier discussion to go away because it was sooo OMNI. You keep sticking to this rediculous DMV analogy. Look, here at the DMV office at Deer Creek in Maplewood, MO, there is a main line for the hoi polloi, there is also a line for handicapped who get served first, there is also a separate line and counter to service dealers and commercial accounts. There you go, a plain, blatant example of the government, of Missouri granted, discriminating. Call out the ACLU!
Look, I know you're in New York. I know that despite the attacks there are still plenty of folks living in la-la land. But please, let's get realistic. Our government, does discriminate everyday in every imaginable way.
Look at it this way: before the Law, we are all equal. We all have equal Rights (though I'm loathe to capitalize that one since they are limited much to the consternation of folks like Billery). But nowhere does it say or does the spirit exist that says the government entity must not descriminate in the way it enforces social policy.
** End of OMNI rant - apologies to all **
Jan 24, 2002, 1:13 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
"I want a government that discriminates."
Good goal to shoot for.
d</font>
"I want a government that discriminates."
Good goal to shoot for.
d</font>
------------------
f
Jan 24, 2002, 1:37 pm
#20
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 432
*beginning of MY Omni rant*
It puzzles me when people say "life isn't fair" or "society already discriminates" as an answer to everything, as it implies that we shouldn't actively try to make life MORE fair or that a society that discriminates MORE is just as good as a society that disciminates LESS. If, as tjfim claims, there is neither a law or a spirit of non-discrimination in this country (which, in itself, is a false claim) why don't we just go back to segregation? After all, if anyone complains, fparker1 can just tell them to get used to it because life isn't fair.
Granted, something trivial like elite security lines are nowhere near the seriousness of segregation, but the point is the same. Just because life isn't fair sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make it less unfair.
It puzzles me when people say "life isn't fair" or "society already discriminates" as an answer to everything, as it implies that we shouldn't actively try to make life MORE fair or that a society that discriminates MORE is just as good as a society that disciminates LESS. If, as tjfim claims, there is neither a law or a spirit of non-discrimination in this country (which, in itself, is a false claim) why don't we just go back to segregation? After all, if anyone complains, fparker1 can just tell them to get used to it because life isn't fair.
Granted, something trivial like elite security lines are nowhere near the seriousness of segregation, but the point is the same. Just because life isn't fair sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make it less unfair.
Jan 24, 2002, 1:49 pm
#21
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD USA
Posts: 2,802
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by robinhood:
Just because life isn't fair sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make it less unfair.</font>
Just because life isn't fair sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make it less unfair.</font>
Jan 24, 2002, 2:01 pm
#22
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 2,055
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by robinhood:
If, as tjfim claims, there is neither a law or a spirit of non-discrimination in this country (which, in itself, is a false claim) ...</font>
If, as tjfim claims, there is neither a law or a spirit of non-discrimination in this country (which, in itself, is a false claim) ...</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Just because life isn't fair sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make it less unfair.</font>
I go to the DMV once a year. When I see the car dealer representative walk straight up to the next open window even though there is a line of people 20 long does that irk me. Sure, from a very selfish perspective it does. But that person is there probably almost weekly fixing title problems and registering cars. If they didn't offer expedited service what do think the chance is that the dealer might cut service somewhat, ignore problems, pass the buck? The State, by discriminating, improves the overall process.
Please note that access is still available to everyone. Not so the case in affirmative action, college admissions, etc, which are all highly discriminatory state-sponsored activities. Liberal quarters croon at the importance of improving minority access to these facilities (thus denying access to more qualified applicants), they claim it's for the "good" of society. The Supreme Court has not agreed.
Wow, this is fun...
Jan 24, 2002, 2:14 pm
#23
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 432
"I did not say that. Please read my post carefully."
So what exactly do you mean when you write "nowhere does it say or does the spirit exist that says the government entity must not descriminate (sic) in the way it enforces social policy?"
Car dealers do different things than you at the DMV. They presumably also pay different fees. Elite travelers are just going through security like everyone else, and paying the same fees. If you want an elite line, then pay the government a different fee. Don't ask everyone else to subsidize an extra line just for you simply because you happen to give a private company a lot of business.
And I hardly think that not having an elite line constitutes harm and pain to the whole of society. Harm and pain to YOU maybe. But no more harm and pain than anyone else is suffering. In fact, by having an elite line, you can argue that you are causing MORE harm and pain to society through inefficient use of available resources and creating longer non-elite lines.
I'm not going to be baited into debating affirmative action with you. Suffice it to say that if the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the "liberal quarters" they certainly don't agree with you either. Perhaps you should look at Bakke v. Regents again.
So what exactly do you mean when you write "nowhere does it say or does the spirit exist that says the government entity must not descriminate (sic) in the way it enforces social policy?"
Car dealers do different things than you at the DMV. They presumably also pay different fees. Elite travelers are just going through security like everyone else, and paying the same fees. If you want an elite line, then pay the government a different fee. Don't ask everyone else to subsidize an extra line just for you simply because you happen to give a private company a lot of business.
And I hardly think that not having an elite line constitutes harm and pain to the whole of society. Harm and pain to YOU maybe. But no more harm and pain than anyone else is suffering. In fact, by having an elite line, you can argue that you are causing MORE harm and pain to society through inefficient use of available resources and creating longer non-elite lines.
I'm not going to be baited into debating affirmative action with you. Suffice it to say that if the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the "liberal quarters" they certainly don't agree with you either. Perhaps you should look at Bakke v. Regents again.
Jan 24, 2002, 3:55 pm
#24
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 2,055
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by robinhood:
So what exactly do you mean when you write "nowhere does it say or does the spirit exist that says the government entity must not discriminate in the way it enforces social policy?"</font>
So what exactly do you mean when you write "nowhere does it say or does the spirit exist that says the government entity must not discriminate in the way it enforces social policy?"</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Car dealers do different things than you at the DMV. They presumably also pay different fees.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Elite travelers are just going through security like everyone else, and paying the same fees. If you want an elite line, then pay the government a different fee. Don't ask everyone else to subsidize an extra line just for you simply because you happen to give a private company a lot of business.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">And I hardly think that not having an elite line constitutes harm and pain to the whole of society...In fact, by having an elite line, you can argue that you are causing MORE harm and pain to society through inefficient use of available resources and creating longer non-elite lines.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Perhaps you should look at Bakke v. Regents again.</font>
Jan 24, 2002, 4:46 pm
#25
Join Date: May 2001
Location: omaha,Ne,usa
Programs: UAL, AA, Hilton, Marriott, and Northwest
Posts: 465
I think many people are missing a vital point. All of the initial comments from congress and the government say that the airlines are going to be required to still pay what they were originally paying for security. I have not seen a specific breakdown as to how they are going to be paying that amount, but the government has said that they will be collecting less than a billion dollars from the new tax which will not pay for all security costs. So if the airlines are paying an additional fee then they should have the ability to influence security layouts. The new inspection service is still only part of the new security procedures, and the only part that is exclusively handled by federal employees.
------------------
Robert
------------------
Robert
Jan 24, 2002, 8:22 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,763
Aside from all of the fairness discussions, why do you folks still want to push for elite lines?
Minetta promises a less than 10 minute wait for everyone. Let's hold him to that.
Instead, people here want to create security lines for elites, which will be inefficient by design. That's great if you have elite status and only fly one airline, but if you really are frequent flyers, you should have experienced many cases in the past where (1) you're forced to fly another airline because of route or fare issues or (2) the flight on your preferred airline (the one you have elite status on) got canceled for whatever reason and you're forced to fly another airline.
In both of these cases, unless you have elite status on several airlines, you're going to have to fly an airline without elite status. What will that mean? Long security lines.
Since "we" have decided to divert resources away from making everyone's wait 10 minutes or less, the non-elite security lines will be as long, if not longer, than they are today. So, on these rare occasions when you're forced to fly an alternate airline, you could be facing a few hour wait to get through security. Is that the best solution?
In tfjim's DMV example, car dealers get to go directly to the front of the line. Is this the best solution? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if there was only one line, operating efficiently, and processing everyone in less than 10 minutes? Or should regular drivers have to wait 30 minutes, while car dealers have to wait 2? Which sounds better?
Let's face it, elite lines are not the answer to the problem. They're never going to be implemented at every airport, they screw you if you fly 40,000 miles on two airlines, and you get screwed if you have to fly a different airline for whatever reason. Nor do I believe that (without some additional money in there) it will be legal for the government to discriminate based on what a third party (the airlines) say.
And, let's not forget that as much business as we frequent flyers give the airlines, the regular traveling public still makes up a lot of revenue airlines bring in. If you want airlines to serve meals, provide a good frequent flyer program, have airline clubs, a large route network, frequent flights, etc., then you should want as many people to travel as possible.
If the 80/20 rule applies here (80% of airline revenue comes from 20% of the pax), think of it this way - if the 80% of the pax that makes up the last 20% of the airlines' revenue stop flying, do you think the airlines will continue to offer the same level of services to us? Will airlines keep their system timetables the same with the flights only 20% full?
Let's make everyone happy in the long run, not just ourselves in the short run. Minetta vowes that everyone will have a 10 minute or less wait - let's make sure it happens.
d
Minetta promises a less than 10 minute wait for everyone. Let's hold him to that.
Instead, people here want to create security lines for elites, which will be inefficient by design. That's great if you have elite status and only fly one airline, but if you really are frequent flyers, you should have experienced many cases in the past where (1) you're forced to fly another airline because of route or fare issues or (2) the flight on your preferred airline (the one you have elite status on) got canceled for whatever reason and you're forced to fly another airline.
In both of these cases, unless you have elite status on several airlines, you're going to have to fly an airline without elite status. What will that mean? Long security lines.
Since "we" have decided to divert resources away from making everyone's wait 10 minutes or less, the non-elite security lines will be as long, if not longer, than they are today. So, on these rare occasions when you're forced to fly an alternate airline, you could be facing a few hour wait to get through security. Is that the best solution?
In tfjim's DMV example, car dealers get to go directly to the front of the line. Is this the best solution? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if there was only one line, operating efficiently, and processing everyone in less than 10 minutes? Or should regular drivers have to wait 30 minutes, while car dealers have to wait 2? Which sounds better?
Let's face it, elite lines are not the answer to the problem. They're never going to be implemented at every airport, they screw you if you fly 40,000 miles on two airlines, and you get screwed if you have to fly a different airline for whatever reason. Nor do I believe that (without some additional money in there) it will be legal for the government to discriminate based on what a third party (the airlines) say.
And, let's not forget that as much business as we frequent flyers give the airlines, the regular traveling public still makes up a lot of revenue airlines bring in. If you want airlines to serve meals, provide a good frequent flyer program, have airline clubs, a large route network, frequent flights, etc., then you should want as many people to travel as possible.
If the 80/20 rule applies here (80% of airline revenue comes from 20% of the pax), think of it this way - if the 80% of the pax that makes up the last 20% of the airlines' revenue stop flying, do you think the airlines will continue to offer the same level of services to us? Will airlines keep their system timetables the same with the flights only 20% full?
Let's make everyone happy in the long run, not just ourselves in the short run. Minetta vowes that everyone will have a 10 minute or less wait - let's make sure it happens.
d
Jan 24, 2002, 8:47 pm
#27
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,335
As a not-so-frequent flyer (a couple of times a year between U.S. and France), what do you recommend I do in order to get through the line as quickly as possible and not cause any delays? The security personnel I've encountered weren't very helpful with advice in this regard.
I don't fly often, but I try to be a good flyer when I do. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
I don't fly often, but I try to be a good flyer when I do. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Jan 24, 2002, 9:25 pm
#28
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 432
"Simply that. Policy and implementation as opposed to laws and rights."
The distinction you make eludes me. So discriminatory policy is ok? Discriminatory implementation (whatever that means) is ok? Was "separate but equal" a "policy"? Or a law? When do you have policies without laws?
As for why we are paying the government for any of this: who would you suggest we pay? The airlines? Argenbright? Isn't that what we have now?
Frankly, I find the premise that the lack of elite lines will result in the air travel industry being driven into the ground to be laughably pompous. The airlines can't survive if they can't fill the backs of their planes, just like they can't survive if they can't fill the fronts. Forcing everyone to wait 50 minutes just so you can wait 3 is just as likely to drive the industry into the ground as making everyone wait 20. And this is not even considering the fundamental fairness of the "policy."
"Don't know a darn thing about it and to be honestly do not care."
I respectfully submit, then, that next time you refrain from making comments about things you "don't know a darn thing about."
In any case, I happen to know that this nation is also built on a foundation of equality and non-discrimination. Since the last time I checked, treating YOU like a king is not one of our social responsibilities. Please stop insisting that YOUR $2.50 fee invokes an absolute right to special treatment.
The distinction you make eludes me. So discriminatory policy is ok? Discriminatory implementation (whatever that means) is ok? Was "separate but equal" a "policy"? Or a law? When do you have policies without laws?
As for why we are paying the government for any of this: who would you suggest we pay? The airlines? Argenbright? Isn't that what we have now?
Frankly, I find the premise that the lack of elite lines will result in the air travel industry being driven into the ground to be laughably pompous. The airlines can't survive if they can't fill the backs of their planes, just like they can't survive if they can't fill the fronts. Forcing everyone to wait 50 minutes just so you can wait 3 is just as likely to drive the industry into the ground as making everyone wait 20. And this is not even considering the fundamental fairness of the "policy."
"Don't know a darn thing about it and to be honestly do not care."
I respectfully submit, then, that next time you refrain from making comments about things you "don't know a darn thing about."
In any case, I happen to know that this nation is also built on a foundation of equality and non-discrimination. Since the last time I checked, treating YOU like a king is not one of our social responsibilities. Please stop insisting that YOUR $2.50 fee invokes an absolute right to special treatment.
Feb 15, 2002, 10:35 am
#29
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 46,817
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by doc:
As nice as it is to be on a special elite, or just a faster line, don't we still actually need to get everyone through airports expeditiously in order for the carriers to profit and for "matters" to return to some semblance of "normal?" I think so! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif</font>
As nice as it is to be on a special elite, or just a faster line, don't we still actually need to get everyone through airports expeditiously in order for the carriers to profit and for "matters" to return to some semblance of "normal?" I think so! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif</font>
---
Expedited screening for OnePass Elite, BusinessFirst, First Class...
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020215/daf012_1.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum20/HTML/003936.html
Feb 25, 2002, 7:46 am
#30
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 46,817
Suggested to me the other day by another FT'er - with their tongue in their cheek of course! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
---
A possible solution for the prevention of hijackings and at the same time, getting
our airline industry back on its feet...
Since men of the Muslim religion are not allowed to look at naked women we could replace all of our female flight attendants with strippers. Muslims would be afraid to get on the planes for fear of seeing a naked woman, and of course, every businessman in this country would likely start flying again in hopes of seeing a naked woman.
We would have no more hijackings, and the airline industry would have record sales.
Now why didn't congress think of this?
---
Is this a workable soultion? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
I don't know if it would fly or not! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
---
A possible solution for the prevention of hijackings and at the same time, getting
our airline industry back on its feet...
Since men of the Muslim religion are not allowed to look at naked women we could replace all of our female flight attendants with strippers. Muslims would be afraid to get on the planes for fear of seeing a naked woman, and of course, every businessman in this country would likely start flying again in hopes of seeing a naked woman.
We would have no more hijackings, and the airline industry would have record sales.
Now why didn't congress think of this?
---
Is this a workable soultion? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
I don't know if it would fly or not! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif