Non-crew employees cutting security line

Old Oct 27, 07, 7:36 pm
  #16  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: AA Exec Plat, United Plat
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by APW Girl View Post
,Does it really make sense to hold us up because of ill prepared passengers (i.e. have water bottles and other things that should be in their checked bags and etc.) even though all the rules should just about be able to be recited in their sleep? I don't think its these people cutting security lines that is bothering you so much as its just the hassle of the security lines that bothers everyone.
You know what? It doesn't make sense to hold ANYONE up because of ill-prepared passengers, but it happens everyday, and I don't think employees should get to deal with less of it that anyone else. I feel as much irritation as an employee when I see the guy who waits until he's holding up the whole line to realize he needs to take his laptop out of his bag, etc.

And yes, you are right that the hassle of 'security' lines in general bothers me a lot. Employees cutting in line makes it even more of a hassle.
WineIsGood is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 8:27 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
The solution is simple:

Dedicate one lane strictly for crew/employee screening. Period.
Be careful what you ask for.....you just might get it.
There is even a simpler solution. Employees should not receive better treatment than their customers. These employees don't even pay a screening fee like their customers do.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 9:19 pm
  #18  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
There is even a simpler solution. Employees should not receive better treatment than their customers. These employees don't even pay a screening fee like their customers do.
Very impractical and unrealistic. You can't get past the emotion to see it; however, the airport is no different than any other business enterprise, and corporate managers will not tolerate employees having to wait in line so as to not offend the sensitivities of passengers waiting to get to the checkpoint. You don't see it because you refuse to see it. However, my friend, this is the business principle being served, and your security fee just doesn't compare. Not trying to be rude here.

Step back and look at it from the business perspective. You don't have to like it or even agree with it, but I credit you being able to understand it.
Bart is offline  
Old Oct 27, 07, 11:03 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
Very impractical and unrealistic. You can't get past the emotion to see it; however, the airport is no different than any other business enterprise, and corporate managers will not tolerate employees having to wait in line so as to not offend the sensitivities of passengers waiting to get to the checkpoint. You don't see it because you refuse to see it. However, my friend, this is the business principle being served, and your security fee just doesn't compare. Not trying to be rude here.

Step back and look at it from the business perspective. You don't have to like it or even agree with it, but I credit you being able to understand it.
No emotion (except perhaps on your part concerned about how it might impact TSA ). It is very practical. Only in that way can the weight of the businesses affected be brought to bear on the TSA policies that don't actually provide security and to better utilize TSO's to minimize time in line. But right now that incentive does not exist. Right now the airlines and vendors tolerate the policies and lines because they are not greatly impacted. Once employees are treated like passengers, then the dynamics will change. And of course, the TSA doesn't want to see it changed because of the pressure that would be exerted.

You keep on telling us to write our "Congresscritters" and others, but that has not proven effective in the least. This would. And businesses generally don't give preferential treatment to their employees to the detriment of their customers.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 2:40 am
  #20  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
No emotion (except perhaps on your part concerned about how it might impact TSA ). It is very practical. Only in that way can the weight of the businesses affected be brought to bear on the TSA policies that don't actually provide security and to better utilize TSO's to minimize time in line. But right now that incentive does not exist. Right now the airlines and vendors tolerate the policies and lines because they are not greatly impacted. Once employees are treated like passengers, then the dynamics will change. And of course, the TSA doesn't want to see it changed because of the pressure that would be exerted.

You keep on telling us to write our "Congresscritters" and others, but that has not proven effective in the least. This would. And businesses generally don't give preferential treatment to their employees to the detriment of their customers.

Who is going to force the employees to wait in line? And what vehicle is going to be used to gain compliance with this proposed change in procedure?

There simply is no way that this change will be adopted by anyone. You are absolutely right to believe that businesses would be impacted by the policy. For this reason you can expect that they would lobby very hard to prevent such a change from occuring.

And I really can't believe that anyone with access to policy makers would actually make such a recommendation. It's a pipe dream. It won't happen. There is no way to make it happen.

Angry Dan
AngryDan is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 3:13 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Washingon, DC
Programs: AF; DL; & SQ FF Programs
Posts: 170
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
There is even a simpler solution. Employees should not receive better treatment than their customers. These employees don't even pay a screening fee like their customers do.
When I am going to go through a checkpoint, before I leave my store, I take all metal off, I take only paper money (if I'm going to buy lunch) with me. So if you want everyone to be treated equally..then you shouldn't be carrying anything more than I am through the checkpoint. Which of us has a better chance of slowing a line. If you can't get through faster than I can then I don't think you should complain about us cutting line. Please don't tell me about user fees. Not only are we paying heavy rental fees for our spaces, but also a percentage of our sales for being there. All of our employees have to be fingerprinted and badged to even work there and that is not free. As I said, I travel about 100K a year and I am paying for it, not some company. And no, I don't get any special rates or privlidges either.
APW Girl is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 9:18 am
  #22  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
No emotion (except perhaps on your part concerned about how it might impact TSA ). It is very practical. Only in that way can the weight of the businesses affected be brought to bear on the TSA policies that don't actually provide security and to better utilize TSO's to minimize time in line. But right now that incentive does not exist. Right now the airlines and vendors tolerate the policies and lines because they are not greatly impacted. Once employees are treated like passengers, then the dynamics will change. And of course, the TSA doesn't want to see it changed because of the pressure that would be exerted.
You miss my point. This is beyond TSA. It's all about what goes on in the executive level conference rooms at Starbuck's, McDonald's, Brookstone, etc. These businesses and enterprises pay far more in terms of airport rental space and other fees than the security fee you pay in a lifetime. This is something strictly based on dollar amounts, and these executives are not going to tolerate their employees having to wait in line just because it's more "fair." Again, you don't have to like it; you most certainly don't have to agree; and I do appreciate your point and do agree with you in principle. However, I'm telling you that this is why employees will always be allowed to cut in line and nothing will ever change it.

Originally Posted by ND Sol
You keep on telling us to write our "Congresscritters" and others, but that has not proven effective in the least. This would. And businesses generally don't give preferential treatment to their employees to the detriment of their customers.
Sorry, disagree. Thing is that very few people in this forum actually follow through their threats/promises to write their Congressional representative/senator. I contend that if more people did, then Congress would have to take note.

No, my friend, the maximum effective range of most complaints you and I read in this web site is the "reply" post in a mental masturbation of one-upsmanship of bad screening experiences.
Bart is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 9:40 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: CO Plat, Priority Club Plat, HH Diamond, Avis First, Hertz #1Gold
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
Sorry, disagree. Thing is that very few people in this forum actually follow through their threats/promises to write their Congressional representative/senator. I contend that if more people did, then Congress would have to take note.

No, my friend, the maximum effective range of most complaints you and I read in this web site is the "reply" post in a mental masturbation of one-upsmanship of bad screening experiences.
What got me an immediate response from TSA management in Moline, IL was a letter to the editor of the local paper. Quite an effusive apology, really.

"Would you like a little whine with that cheese?"

Last edited by vassilipan; Oct 28, 07 at 9:41 am Reason: Left out close quote
vassilipan is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 9:46 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Programs: Delta Plat, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Silver
Posts: 567
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
And businesses generally don't give preferential treatment to their employees to the detriment of their customers.
Remind me of that next time I'm on a flight to Europe and the non-revs are sitting in Business while I'm in coach...
ColumbiaPete is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 10:51 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Washingon, DC
Programs: AF; DL; & SQ FF Programs
Posts: 170
Originally Posted by ColumbiaPete View Post
Remind me of that next time I'm on a flight to Europe and the non-revs are sitting in Business while I'm in coach...
Goodness! Are you coveting thy neighbors seat? Actually, I thought that was why people went to work for airlines..to travel. And not every employee gets a business class seat when travelling. Much less overseas. Why begrudge them a business seat, its the least bonus they can get for putting up with demanding, abusive customers that they have to deal with on a daily basis.
APW Girl is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 11:32 am
  #26  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: AA Exec Plat, United Plat
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
however, the airport is no different than any other business enterprise, and corporate managers will not tolerate employees having to wait in line so as to not offend the sensitivities of passengers waiting to get to the checkpoint. You don't see it because you refuse to see it. However, my friend, this is the business principle being served, and your security fee just doesn't compare. Not trying to be rude here.

Step back and look at it from the business perspective. You don't have to like it or even agree with it, but I credit you being able to understand it.
Consider a shopping mall: employees of Starbucks, McDonalds, etc are required to park in the furthest parking spaces so that customers can park close to the mall. Some malls have separate employee parking garages. A shopping mall wouldn't stand for employees taking the closest spaces while customers have to park further away.

It's not the corporate manager's problem that employees have to wait in line - it's the employee's responsibility to get to work on time, whether there is a line they have to wait in or a parking lot to walk across.
WineIsGood is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 11:58 am
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 60137
Posts: 10,369
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
Thing is that very few people in this forum actually follow through their threats/promises to write their Congressional representative/senator.
If you can divine this, your psychic powers are wasted at TSA.

Criss Angel and Uri Geller need you on NBC's Phenomena.
sonofzeus is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 12:26 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by WineIsGood View Post
Consider a shopping mall: employees of Starbucks, McDonalds, etc are required to park in the furthest parking spaces so that customers can park close to the mall. Some malls have separate employee parking garages. A shopping mall wouldn't stand for employees taking the closest spaces while customers have to park further away.

It's not the corporate manager's problem that employees have to wait in line - it's the employee's responsibility to get to work on time, whether there is a line they have to wait in or a parking lot to walk across.

Using you own logic, these same employee's do not stand in line outside of the building waiting for the doors to open. There is generally an employee entrance that they use so they can be in place waiting on those same customers that are standing in line.

Are you paying those employees to stand in line when they need to get in to the sterile area's or is it your belief that they should just be happy to have that low paying job and give up an extra 3 or 4 hours a week to be able to get to work?
Qwert is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 12:32 pm
  #29  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Department of Homeland Sincerity
Programs: WN Platinum
Posts: 12,073
Originally Posted by Qwert View Post
...
Are you paying those employees to stand in line when they need to get in to the sterile area's or is it your belief that they should just be happy to have that low paying job and give up an extra 3 or 4 hours a week to be able to get to work?
If a business cannot afford to have employees wait in line to get into the sterile area the same as its customers (remember, a security line's #1 priority should be security, not convenience for the businesses inside), then the business needs to help change the policies that cause long lines, or get out of the business of selling things / services at airport altogether.

If a business has to resort to having employees cut in lines at the expense of its customers then it is in the wrong business.

Using you own logic, these same employee's do not stand in line outside of the building waiting for the doors to open. There is generally an employee entrance that they use so they can be in place waiting on those same customers that are standing in line.
This analogy doesn't stand because when the employees use an employee entrance they are not consuming the same resources that cause delay for their customers. Not a good comparison at all.
UALOneKPlus is offline  
Old Oct 28, 07, 12:36 pm
  #30  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: AA Exec Plat, United Plat
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by Qwert View Post
Are you paying those employees to stand in line when they need to get in to the sterile area's or is it your belief that they should just be happy to have that low paying job and give up an extra 3 or 4 hours a week to be able to get to work?
I'm not saying employees should have to wait longer than anyone else (although that IS the case in the shopping mall scenario), just that they get in line with the rest of us riff-raff

Security makes me give up hours per week that I don't get paid for - don't understand how the swatch store employee is different. If the security line waits were so onerous, they could find a job at another swatch store, mcdonalds, starbucks, etc.
WineIsGood is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: