As a relatively new contributor to Flyertalk Forum I don't know if this is the correct place for my suggestion, but here goes.

I have observed and contributed to a great deal of the "mental masterbation", commenting on, relaying personal or observed events, etc. which probably saves many of us a lot of time with physcotherapists, but are we as Flyertalk constructively contributing to the well being of the general flying public?

While I have not read Flyer Talk's Mission Statement (mia culpa), I would hope "contributing to the well being of the general flying public" is something which would be very useful for Flyertalk to undertake.

In my view the only way to make any progress in resolving some of the gripes is to act as a quasi-lobbying organization on behalf of the paying public, and to bring pressure to bear on the Airlines who in the end have the more influence than the public (or so recent history would show) than the citizens, and are not in the position of the Government to take retaliatory action against its constituents.

Now to the point!

The passengers are complaining, the airlines are complaining ridership is down and costs are going up, and it would seem that TSA by their oft behavior are not very happy with thier work environment. It would seem nobody is pleased with the situation; a lose-lose for everyone.

While not very scientific I have undertaken an informal conversational study to find out if people are more or less inclined to fly post 9/11 and why.

My unscientific often random survey has yielded the following conclusions;

1) Due to the longer and unpredicable processing times at airports as a consequence of the screening process, which the majority of people I have spoken with do not feel it enhances security would rather drive.

For example the transit time between LGA and Washington National is about 1 1/4 hours. If one lived on Long Island, between driving to the airport, parking, arriving early, checking in, going through screening without incident (maybe), deplaning at National, waiting for one's luggage (assuming it arrived and with all its contents), and then driving "downtown" you are looking at a total elapsed door to door time of 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 hours.

Driving on a good day is about 4 1/2 hours and 5 1/2 hours on a bad day, hence a trade off in time, and the only person that could not treat you with dignity when driving would be yourself, and not a total stranger.

2) For those whose income is not dependant on globetrotting, I have found that at least 25-35% of those I have surveyed have decided to just stop flying, not because of fears of a terrorist attack, but because the experience has the potential of being totally unpleasant.

3) Last and expressed by the least number of individuals was that they have no intention of flying. They do not want to subject themselves to the indignities, as they percieve them, of the security process, put property and self at risk, feel the process is an abridgment of their civil liberties, and/or don't want to run the risk of being listed by some covert government agency or whatever, which might compromise their ability to "normally" pursue their lives (i.e. being denied credit, being rejected for a Government issued license - professional and/or business, military service, etc.) While the question of these fears being rational can be debated, it is a perception and it is the perception which stops these individuals from flying, and that is the point.

A properly crafted survey encompassing all fliers, and not just Flyertalk members (as Flyertalk members are atypical and not John/Jane Q. Public) could very well demonstrate to Washington and to the airlines that they are very seriously loosing ridership.

I would be willing, ready and able to help in this endeavor.

I look forward to receiving your thoughts on the above proposal, and thank you for your time in considering this proposal.

I believe this is more appropriate for Randy Petersen.

Please follow the discussion in "Only Randy Petersen Forum".

William