[oh my]

Trvlr-
I started my last post off by asking you a legitimate question. Instead of answering the question, you chose to nit-pick my choice of the word “habit,” and then questioned what I based the statement on. You, yourself, mentioned how you had to be retrieved from customs in Sydney, and your original complaint about being held up by TSA were what I based that statement on. If this information is not valid, then I stand corrected. I then continued to address your initial post. You expressed concern that others had not done so in their remarks, and I had information I thought might help. I will then admit that I got sarcastic, abrasive, and a bit rude. And I apologize for that. I guess I was just caught up in the moment, and my thoughts came out harsh. I am writing this time with the best intentions (and no sarcasm) in trying to understand your concerns and have a civilized conversation. I sincerely hope that you respond in kind.

My first question for you is what happened with the TSA screening process that held you up? Do you know if you were considered a “selectee” for the extra screening, or if TSA “randomly” chose you once they got a hold of you? Do you travel with something that needs special screening, or that they might want to hassle you about or take their time in inspecting? It seems like you’ve got some complaints about how TSA (and the government in turn) runs things. Do you think you were delayed because you had to wait 40 mins in line, when you feel the process should be faster, or less invasive? I want to understand what your complaint with TSA in this specific instance is.

When it comes to the action of the gate agent, I think I made it pretty clear that there are decisions need to be made and some of those decisions result in unhappy customers. The agent in Vegas didn’t know where you were. All she knew was that you were not in the gate area when you were expected to be. At that point, she has a decision to make, and that decision depends on many factors. Again, I don’t think you want hypothetical scenarios of the numerous and random possibilities of what “might have happened.” They always sound like excuses, no matter how they are explained. And I’d like to point out that at no point did I disagree with you about being discriminated against. I simply chose a quote (maybe a poor choice) to point out that it was hypocritical for you to cry discrimination, considering the sour and rather broad, discriminatory attitude you reflected in statements you previously made about airline (not to mention TSA) employees. I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, or get you going, I am just trying to point out that there is a bit of a double-standard here.

I understand you take issue with the way airlines handle their “business” (from the top to the bottom) and feel wronged by self-serving agreements the airlines have with our federal government, particularly when the rules of the agreement work against you, seemingly at every turn. I agree with you. There are so many restrictions, provisions, regulations, changes, charges, and exceptions to the “rule” in the airline industry that it is ridiculous. There were times I felt very silly explaining to a passenger why they were being charged, or why something could not be done, simply because I thought the reasoning behind it was less than solid and justifiable. But that’s my job. If that sounds like a lame excuse to you, I understand that. But I take pride in doing my job well. I may not agree with every aspect of what I have to do, but I still do my job. Call me a lemming if you want, I completely understand.

I’m going to skim over your capitalism, subsidies, free-market, self-sustainable, financial remarks. I’m really not disagreeing with you, honestly. The system is flawed. I guess I see it as a big catch-22. The airlines scratch the government’s back, and the government scratches right back. They’re 2 separate entities, yet the relationship is symbiotic. To untangle them would take a miracle or a catastrophe. I can hope for the first, and I fear for the second.

The cut-off time, as you obviously know, is determined by the airline. And, yes, it is in fact what the airline considers reasonably adequate time for a typical passenger, on a typical day, to make it from their ticket counter, through that airport’s security check point, to their gates in that city in time to board an aircraft, without delaying the flight. The airlines are capable of estimating that time frame. They are not capable, however, of escorting a passenger from their ticket counter, through the check point, to the correct gate, and on to the plane. They are not capable of preventing you from slipping, falling and breaking your leg along the way. They are not capable stopping you from using the restroom, if you need to go. They are not capable of making the TSA move the line a little faster. If you see those examples of things the airlines are not willing to do, as opposed to not capable of doing, then that is where your opinion and that of the airlines differs. To say that the airline has “control over what transpires in an airport between the check-in counter and the gate” is simply not true. If you think it is unreasonable for passengers (and therefore airlines?) to be capable of determining how much time is enough time, then what do you suggest? Should the airlines hold flights for every passenger, regardless of the reason for their late arrival at the gate? I, personally, think that inconveniencing a plane-load of people because someone got lost in the bookstore, or went back to the car because they forgot their cell phone is asking a bit much. But how is the agent to know if someone has lost track of time in the bookstore, stopped for a cigarette, stuck in line at security, or in the bathroom sick? Where is the line drawn, and who draws that line? The airlines have, in general, adopted the 10 minute rule, and placed that decision with the gate agent. Do I inconvenience the (one, two, ten,…) people who were not there on time, or do I inconvenience the plane load of people who were on time, and expect to leave on time? The AirTran agents in Las Vegas (and I admit I am assuming here) were doing just that, for all 3 flights. It may not have been how you would have handled the individual flights, and individual passenger situations, but it is how they chose to. They took the information that they were given, the guidelines that AirTran established, and were told to get the flight out on time. If the flight is delayed and it is because of a decision or choice that the agent made, then the agent is held responsible for it, and has to account for what he or she chose to do. I know that you think the agent in your case made a bad decision that you disagree with, and it seems like an arbitrary one to you, but she was within those “guidelines” to do what she did. And, for argument’s sake, let’s say the airline is tracking you and I do know where you are. Do I wait for you if you are in the bookstore? Do I wait for you if you’re in the smoking lounge? How about if you are stuck in security? What if you are drunk at the bar? No matter the situation, there will still have to be someone who decides that “this is ok” and “this is not.”

Back to the cut-off time, though…I did some checking and here’s what I found:
US Airways cut-off time for Las Vegas: 45 mins.
Southwest fails to own up to a “cut-off” time. I could only find suggested arrival times. For Las Vegas, the suggest 2 hours.
Delta’s cut-off time for Vegas is also 45 mins
McCarran’s own website suggests passengers allow 2 hours for the check-in and security process but pass the buck to the airline to define the specific limits.
And AirTran’s cut-off time is also 45 mins. They do concede that at some smaller airports they reduced it to 30 mins, but direct passengers to their “contract of carriage” for specifics.
Does this change anything? Again, I am not being sarcastic. I’m wondering if the agent in Vegas just checked you in because you had no bags to check, and thought you might make it. Do you think you would have been as upset if you were told from the start at the ticket counter, that you were 5 mins too late to check in for your flight? I’m guessing they would have rebooked you on the flight you eventually wound up taking, and you would have then proceeded to security. Yet, apparently the agent checking you in made a decision to proceed with printing you a boarding card and sending you on your way. In my opinion, you should have been advised that you were, in fact, considered a “late check-in” and to hurry. Obviously that was not done. Not that it would have made a difference, with the TSA hold up, and the train crapping out on you, it does, indeed, seem like the cards were stacked against you. But still, in your opinion, was the ticket counter agent’s essentially arbitrary decision to check you in a good one? He or she let you check in, when, according to the “rules” it shouldn’t have been allowed. The decision that was made, he or she thought, was helping you. Those rules the airlines fall back on would have been the ones that were supposed to prevent you from checking in for that flight and trying to hustle to the gate. Yet, at someone’s discretion, those rules were bent. I understand that, yet again, this “net” of rules (and its one-sidedness) is what you take issues with. If I am mistaken, please let me know.

As for the civil liberty issues involved with passenger check-in and screening processes, I still stand by my statement that organizations would cry foul at your suggestions. I am familiar with biometrics (facial recognition, retinal scanning, etc…), and the GPS systems in cell phones. I also know that the government has been getting a lot of flak from those exact organizations about the way those technologies are being used. This article addresses, among other things, the government throwing “probable cause” out the window in its surveillance practices. The ACLU is not happy. This one discusses how the TSA have overstepped their “permissible purpose of detecting weapons and explosives.” Again, the ACLU is not happy. This one discusses how three different C.L. organizations are raising a fuss over the government wanting to use real-time cell phone tracking without probable cause. This one talks about the Campaign for Liberty’s Steven Bierfeldt again, and discusses how he was handled at the airport and his concerns about his invasion of privacy. He doesn’t think he should “give up my constitutional rights each time I choose to travel by plane.” Controversy concerning TSA’s L3 imaging portals, and the ACLU’s concern for passenger privacy is reflected here. Interesting "article" about how we are already being watched by the government (again, no big shock) and its promise for “greater safety; the trade-off is government control of individual lives.” This one talks about how the cell phone locating technology falls into a bit of a legal gray area. And this one is pretty much the same concept, but looks at it with less of a “track down criminals” point of view. Those articles all deal with security or federal processes that use technology and how it is already being questioned by civil liberty organizations. If that technology were offered to the airlines, not for safety purposes, but in the name of “customer service” I can only imagine the additional stink that would arise. I’d say a slippery slope has already begun here. If you agree, should it be continued? What is your opinion on the matter?

This brings me to a question I have about your stance on the entire “security” concept as a whole. You disagree with the way the government and the airlines handle airline business together, check. From what you’ve previously posted, I’m going to assume that you believe, at least to some extent, that a person’s “bill of rights” goes out the window when they enter the airport (again, if this isn’t correct, please let me know). Does that mean that you would be ok with the above screening and tracking for “customer service” purposes? I mean, if you think that airlines should work with the government to implement these measures, so airlines can find passengers in the airport, then why are you upset at the measures that TSA goes through now, in the name of “security”? Do you want your rights upheld, but have to be responsible for your actions in the airport, or would you rather have no rights, but have the airlines know where you are at all times? I guess I’m confused, because you’re understandably upset with the way airlines and the feds watch out for each other, and not the passenger. Yet you suggest that the airlines follow in the government’s already questionable footsteps by obtaining and using the means to literally “track you down” in the airport? I'm not looking for your ideals, here. I'm hoping for a pratical and constructive response.

Let me reiterate that I did not post this to incite an argument, but rather a discussion about what you think, and to get your opinions on these matters.