What's wrong with getting there with sufficient time NOT to have to butt in front of people? If the crew isn't there to get the plane out on time, it's THEIR fault.

How about saying 'excuse me - I'm working a flight today, I hope you don't mind if I go ahead of you so we can get to the gate on time' - rather than their usual just physically pushing past or making some snide remark.

The vendors at the airport shops that they let go to the front of the line. These airport employees are not doing anything critical or important and can wait in line like the rest of us slobs. Why someone selling me a news paper or bottle of water gets to go to the front bothers me.
I am spoiled since I go through Changi airport mostly, here all the stores are outside of security. Your security checkpoint is actually at your gate. Therefore the only people in line are those on your flight, very civialized

Yes, some airports do allow flight crews to bypass security. Some have separate areas where we are randomly screened (X-ray, WTMD), some just allow us to walk through the ops area and onto the ramp.

As some here have already pointed out, ramp agents and customer service agents already aren't screened at most airports, so its almost worthless to screen flight crews. These people have more time with the aircraft on the ground and have access to some very intimate areas of the aircraft. Should they be screened? Probably. Are they? Nope.

Even if there was 100% screening at an airport, screening flight crews does little to reduce the risk that may be posed by an errant group of people. Just the required safety equipment onboard the aircraft poses more of a risk than the flight crew. Ever seen the damage ignited oxygen can create or how sharp a crash ax is? Heck just thought of hot coffee in my lap brings me terror.

If you don't want to assume any risk, stay in bed and never go out because you have a higher risk of getting struck by a car crossing the street, getting killed in a car accident, or being struck by lightning than you do getting killed in a terrorist attack in the United States.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of going straight up to the front of the line. I'll hop in front of someone that is taking a long time, which happens a lot, but I find that just being allowed to the front of the ID check line is more than enough of a time saver.

However, as long as they ask politely, this is why you should allow a flight crew ahead of you.

Where I fly, we are required to be at the airport 60 minutes prior to departure and at the aircraft 45 minutes prior, at a hub airport, and 45 minutes prior at the airport at an out station.

When we are at an outstation and we arrive at the airport, we are considered on duty and off rest. Adding additional time to our report times just to wait in line so we can clear security would add additional costs that at the end of the day are unnecessary.

We also need that additional time to pre-flight the aircraft, make sure its properly catered, and to catch those minor maintenance issues that can be quickly fixed but would otherwise result in delays if caught too late.

Getting out on time and ensuring tickets are as cheap as it possibly can be are very important to our passengers. This is just another way to do that.

Sure, if we are late to work when starting a trip, its our fault and the company will make sure we know that. But for the vast majority of crews, going through security comes in the middle of a trip and at an outstation, where the duty and rest rules come into play. Not allowing them to get ahead only would make things worse for you, in the form of delays and eventually, even higher ticket prices.

Checko

By this argument it is pointless to screen passengers as well. Thanks.


Passengers are required to arrive at the airport 30-90 minutes prior to a flight to check bags and complete other check-in processes (though OLCI and carry-on only mitigates this to an extent). And I'm not getting paid to stand around at the airport either. So anyone not being paid to stand there should have expedited screening by your argument, which is everyone.

Huh? You are more than welcome to clear security in advance of your shift starting, just like passengers. I get that you don't want to, but to say that getting to cut the line has a direct relationship to on-time operations and lower fares is ridiculous. If that option wasn't made available you'd still get to the airport on time and fly the planes on time. You'd complain about it to management and anyone else who will listen, but you'd still do it. Or you'd get fired for failure to report on time.

That doesn�t bother me since they zip through pretty fast, especially compared to some Kettles.

MS990 and MI185 are two cases in point.

I wish I was a moderator so I could post such a condescending and sophomoric flame and not fear any repercussions.

Alas, I'll still give writing a response a whirl, but something tells me you won't be happy with anything I have to say. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to have the honor of reading another gem of a response...

Passengers not flight crews started this security mess in the 70's and again on 9/11. Also, the argument here is whether screening flight crews makes any sense, not whether screening passengers is a good idea. Judging by how some passengers act at the airport and on aircraft, I still think its a good idea.

True, but a passenger can still make it to the plane 10 minutes prior to departure and still keep their seat. They an arrive at the gate even later if the flight is not full, there are no standbys, and the door hasn't been closed. So any longer than usual security waits are balanced out by the fact that a passenger can arrive with minutes to spare and still get to where they want to go, ontime.

That's a luxury a flight crew doesn't have.

More or less, that is what occurred. Airlines realized that making flight crews wait in a full line would be a detriment to their operations so they worked it out so they could either have a dedicated line or that they could get to the front of the line quicker.

If you don't like that explanation, then think of it as a benefit of working at the airport or for an airline. A SIDA badge gets you to the front of the line, much like a Clear pass. I don't get all bent out of shape when they are taken to the front of the line nor do I have a chip on my shoulder because its "not fair."

Furthermore, requiring additional time for crews to clear a full security line would affect ontime performance and fares.

What happens when the TSA is shortstaffed and the crew gets stuck at the back of the line with a 1 hour show? Those people who got there early would be waiting at the gate for the crew to arrive, preflight the plane, and board the pax. If the line was 30 minutes with a full plane, it would most likely result in a late flight. In this case, it wasn't the crew's fault they were late, they'd blame it on the TSA, which actually doesn't like being blamed for delays.

There would be short term costs associated with misconnected passengers/bags and lost good will. Eventually, if this continued to occur, the time would have to be built into the schedule either in requiring crews to arrive earlier, resulting in additional costs associated with having to overnight more crews in a city and in lost revenue from the reduced amount of flying the aircraft could do.

As much as waiting in a line for a business traveler is lost time and reduces productivity, it has the same exact effect upon airlines. In the competitive and cost-sensitive environment airlines are now experiencing any lost performance or revenue has an effect. As many of you know, there is little slack built into an airline's operations these days and adding security issues on top of everything else would create additional challenges that, while not insurmountable, would, at the least, increase costs and reduce crew and aircraft productivity.

Checko

He didn't flame you.

Now what did you just accuse him of?

Come down off your cross. We need the wood.

And given current airline corporate climate with cutbacks, there are a lot of unhappy crew. What's to keep a crew member somewhere from going postal?

Not always true. Airlines seem more concerned about their ontime performance rather than holding a plane for late pax. UA wasn't going to hold a plane for me when we were late due to their flight being grounded an hour for a minor mechanical. Why should we believe that they'll still get us on even if we're late?

You're not paying for a service. Additionally, if I have to be at a meeting and I'm not there because I'm stuck in traffic, there's hell to pay because I didn't plan ahead.

I don't mind separate crew lines. I do mind crew butting in like it's an entitlement. At least you're getting paid to be there.

Again, I don't mind separate crew lines. Some airports have them. I think it's very telling of airline industry if cutting to the front of the line in front of paying customers is viewed as a perk. It really shows the lack of customer focus in the industry.

It really sucks as a passenger after waiting an hour in line to have crew jumping in front ... especially when they're rude about it.

Sounds like an airline problem. Why should it be mine? If people are expected to get to work on time and plan their commutes accordingly, I have a hard time accepting that the airline should be different.

Ontime performance is already bad. The airlines are already nickel and diming us.

It happens to all of us. It sucks, but like the airlines tell us, plan ahead.

Of course it was the crew's fault. They didn't get there in time. They should have planned ahead.

That's already happening.

I don't see why this is such a hard concept and I can't say I have any sympathy. Almost everyone can't count their commuting time to work, which can number into multiple hours each way. They're expected to be at work at a certain time and plan accordingly. If traffic sucks, oh well, that's not the company's problem.

It's not like airline crews are working 160 hours a month like most people (and no, I don't count overnighting as work). When I worked for the government, I didn't have a fast lane for me even though I was on official doing business and tax payer dollars were wasted when I sat in traffic. Pardon me if I don't have sympathy for getting to the airport an hour earlier.

Quite honestly, I don't see why airline productivity takes precedence over everyone else's. What about revenue loss when the airline can't get the person to a meeting ontime without mechanical problems, lost luggage, and cancelled flights?

And given the "productivity" of a lot of crews I've had lately, I don't know that it could drop much lower.

Honestly, if the airlines even hinted at caring about their customers any more and had more of a customer service focus like they did 10-20 years ago, I could have more sympathy. If the airline doesn't care about passengers problems and sees them as things to be squeezed for money, why should we care about the crews?

Sorry if this is scathing, but this is something I really don't have a lot of patience for anymore.

Superguy,

Sure, the first few lines of my response might be bit too provoking. However, I do have trouble calling what I said a flame and in the same breath ignoring some the phrasing and tone of what I was replying to.

All I am trying to do is present another viewpoint and back it up is non emotional, non personal arguments. I intentionally try not to use the pronoun "you" because I know that "you" don't cause these problems.

I too despise what some of the airlines I've had the pleasure of dealing with call customer service and do everything I can to do the exact opposite.

As much as this discussion keeps on skewing into the crappy customer service realm, I can't and won't defend that. I want to talk about screening crews and how it actually hurts to not let them ahead of you and how it really is useless.

Case in point:

Nothing. There is not one thing that would prevent a pilot or flight attendant from "going postal." Nor can they prevent a passenger from doing the same as has been demonstrated by the many air rage incidents that have proliferated in the past few years.

I mean, they could remove my hands, but that would make it quite difficult to fly the plane.

My example never included the plane being held if passengers were running late because of security issues.

I know it happens every day at my airline, but that is beside the point. I was merely pointing out the additional time a passenger has versus the time a crew has.

A crew showing up 10 minutes prior would almost certainly cause the flight to be late, while a passenger doing the same would hardly have the same effect.

I'm not going to argue with you there. You are the reason I get to go and fly in the morning, however, these issues in security are well above my pay grade and I won't even attempt to defend anything but crewmember screening.

I would never and have never defended rude crewmembers. I see it a lot and it embarrasses me. Its a privilege not a right.

There is an art to doing this and part of it is making sure you don't hold up the line any more than is necessary before getting in line. I don't like jumping in front of people already at the bins unless they are taking their sweet time and causing more of a delay for everyone.

Experienced travelers often do the same thing. Its just more efficient for everyone.

Again, no excuse for being rude. Its unacceptable.

As to it being a perk, its the only other way I can explain it. I've tried almost every other argument I can think of. If anything its an argument made out of exacerbation.

I don't exactly get enjoyment out of cutting in front of passengers and no its not a "perk" for me, but its what I have to do (in a polite manner) so I can get on that plane and make sure it pushes ontime.

Like everyone else, we are required to be at work at a certain time. This would be your problem because like you said you are paying for this service. This is how the airline tries to ensure you get what you paid for, at least where the crew is concerned, which is doing everything we can to ensure an ontime departure.

I did mention that this is usually an issue at an outstation where the crews don't have SIDA badges, which means they are coming from a hotel and off rest. Additional time at the airport means more duty time, which translates to less productivity and higher costs. It really is as simple as that.

My examples do not address showing up to work before a trip at a hub. Things are usually much different at a hub where crew lines and separate screening areas are usually available. We do plan ahead for that.

However, when we are on the road, we are on company time and do what we are told, such as arriving 45 minutes prior to a flight. If the company felt we needed to be there earlier, they would plan for it and build it into our schedules.

They are directly related. If an airline is unable to run an ontime schedule, it messes up everything else you mentioned. There are enough challenges just to get things to run smoothly in a day, adding more security issues isn't going to help passengers nor the airlines they fly on.

Okay, I'll take a moment to address customer service...

It seems to me like you might be flying the wrong airline.

I ask this honestly and in a non confrontational manner:

Why do you continue to fly on these airlines?

Is it because you want the cheapest ticket, because you might be getting what you paid for, or is it the airline miles, which to me seem to become more and more worthless every day and a poor reason to choose an airline, especially when their service is so bad?

This is what frustrates me and most crewmembers the most. We want to be so much better and some might even try, but it seems like passengers just don't care and chase miles or cheap tickets.

Also, it almost seems like you want to take out all your frustrations on the crew. Of course, there are plenty of rude and crass crewmembers out there. I don't apologize for them, because they bring down this industry even further. However, at the end of the day beyond serving drinks, doing our best to get to the destination ontime and safely, and hopefully finding the smoothest ride possible, there is little else we can do.

I'm sorry you feel that you receive such poor service and I wish I could do more to fix it.

I guess, I really hope you give the little guys a chance some day and maybe you'll be surprised by what we offer. Of course, we have bad days too, but we also don't hate our customers.

Finally, yes, airport security sucks and I think this is something we can agree on.

Checko

160 hours? LOL I'm sure you don't work 14-20 hour days (yes flight attendants can be on duty up to 20 hours in one day - it requires special rest period after it but still) People working 40 hours a week have no clue the varying schedule that a flight crew can have - and I see you fit in that mold. Cut them a break - they make pennies and have to deal with morons all day sometimes for up to 20 hours.

Most of the people who travel a lot for work are NOT working a typical 9-5 job and 40 hours/week. And I would suggest that most of the people posting here are working a bit more than 40/week typically.

I have worked 14/day and even 20/day on multiple consecutive days - something that pilots and FAs are not allowed to do based on federal regulations. And I still don't insist on special treatment.

GreatChecko, sorry if you felt my post was inflammatory or sophomoric, but you made some pretty ridiculous arguments and I responded to them. If the GAs are the biggest risk because they pass unscreened and they spend the most time near the planes - a claim that you made - then the rest of the screening is a joke. I don't think either of those is actually the case, but I was responding to a claim that you made. I specifically did not address the customer service aspect of the issue. If flight crews are in a position that waiting in line to clear the security line with the rest of us plebeians is grounds for providing bad service then I guess the airlines are in big trouble, but that is a completely different discussion. If the end game is that crews waiting in line means higher fares because the unions can negotiate being paid to wait in lines then that is something that passengers will have to learn to deal with.

I don't get a special pass because I'm a moderator, and I didn't flame you above. And the only time I used any variant on the word "you" is to address specific points you made in your post. Sorry if that bothers one.

Wirelessly posted (AT&T Tilt: MOT-Q9/01.09.28R Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; Smartphone; 320x240) Opera 8.65 UP.Link/6.3.1.17.0)

Checko: I'm on my pda right now. interesting thoughts and I'll discuss them more when I'm at a real keyboard.

jfulcher: Please. If the job sucks that badly then please find another one. FAs know what they're signing on for when they accept the job. Life's too short to be unhappy in a job. There's a big difference between working those 20 hour days a few times a month and being done for the rest of the month and doing it constantly. I'm not realy concerned about what an FA makes and it's irrelevant to the discussion anyway. Low pay is no excuse for bad attitudes and demanding entitlements Not saying all FAs are that way. However, you seem to be saying it's ok to do those things because the hours and pay suck.

No I'm saying they don't need to be leaving their hotels an hour and a half before their flight so they can get to the airport early enough to potentially sit through what can be unpredictable security. They work odd enough hours every single day. Sometime overnight flights, sometimes flights at 0500, etc. Just let them take their shuttle from the hotel and breeze right through security and move on. To force them to try to predict the extra time through security is going to make for a much unhappier flight crew and effect us directly. It's simple not worth being such a pain about. Sure their job is probalby kind of cush most of the time, but honestly they cap out at less than most people's starting salary out of the college I went to. Cut them a break!

^^^^^