[Inkedadeal]

All:

First off, thank you for your kind insight and replies. I really appreciate it!

Secondly, I have tagged PHL as well to be on the safe side, though I don't believe the theft occurred in Philly. I was one of the last on board this particular flight. We taxied within minutes of boarding. While the baggage canopy may have typically afforded some cover, I struggle with the two baggage handlers having time and opportunity to steal my purse in the time allotted- especially since the thief in question left my work badge back in my roll-aboard (which was previously in my purse).

While I strongly believe that ORD had better opportunity to steal my belongings than PHL based on this particular situation, I am in no way naive with regard to the potential of this occurring on any airline I fly. In fact, when I intentionally check bags (as opposed to being forced to, as in this case) I never have anything of value in a checked bag.

But you do start to wonder about the possibility of what could happen when security is not as tight as it should be. I doubt anyone would believe that boxcutters could serve as the weapon of choice to bring down 4 airplanes before Sept. 11. If there is an opportunity, people with intent will expose that opportunity. And if there is a dishonest employee that will not hesitate to steal a passenger belongings, I would propose that same employee may not hesitate to insert something into a bag for the right money (perhaps a package that ticks, or a package of narcotics, etc.).

Ultimately, there are dishonest employees in every industry. But employers- such as United- have a direct responsibility to protect its assets and its customers. It is simply unacceptable to be fully aware that this situation happens and not take every possible precaution against this sort of exposure. If theft was not rampant, there would be no need to have a process, forms, and even a category ("pilferage reports") to manage the situation.

If this were a banking scenario, for example, the outcome would be far different. If I deposited $500 at an ATM and the bank only credited $250, the call from the customer would engage immediate and swift measures. Tapes would be reviewed right away. All employees on staff would be questioned (even though only certain employees with password access can even get at the ATM deposits) and the employee would be terminated. The employee would then be arrested on the spot for theft. And finally, the bank would credit the money to the customer. This in hours or days at most- not weeks.

What I don't understand is why it has to take this long. Whether at ORD or PHL, United knows who was on duty and who worked that flight. Why not act like a bank does- swiftly- to start the investigation? Why have your customer be burdened with the obligation to resolve the matter your employees caused?

See, I disagree that this is not a security issue. If the airline is apathetic, it is not vigilantly ensuring its passengers' safety. I can't prove that other airlines aren't as apathetic, but I have proof that United is.