[justme]

I give up. I, as well as others, have tried to explain how the process works and why rules are in place. For you to think that airline employees have nothing better to do with their time other than track down missing passengers is ridiculous. In all reality the airline, AirTran in this case, did absolutely nothing wrong. Your complaint is with TSA and the airport authority because as you say, you were late to the gate because of security and a broken tram, both of which have absolutely nothing to do with any airline. There are so many things in your last post that are wrong, and I would love to "discuss", but it won't make a difference, so why try.

And just for your reference, I in fact do know the difference between a paramedic, a policeman, and a fireman. Here's part of the mission statement for Clark County FIRE DEPARTMENT: "At the Clark County Fire Department, we are proud to protect lives and property. Under a fine leadership of the CCFD command staff, our dedicated and well-trained crews respond to emergencies of all types - big and small, natural and man-made."

You'll notice it doesn't say, "We put out fires."

I hope your ocean trip is more pleasant than your attitude towards airlines and their staff.

[Trvlr]

justme: Once again, you have yet to respond to my original post - the issue here is the DISCRIMINATORY application of the "rules", and the prima donna attitudes of airline/airport employees - issues you have validated by the content and nature of your responses, while at the same time denying they exist. Instead of addressing these issues head on, you seem to want to attempt to prove that firemen don't show up in great numbers to put out fires. No one stated that firemen don't respond to emergencies of all types; simply that their primary purpose, WHEN THEY SHOW UP AT A LOCATION IN GREAT NUMBERS, usually involves the extinguishing of a fire - hence the big trucks filled with WATER, the HOSES, the FIREPROOF SUITS, and, if all else fails, the words "FIRE DEPARTMENT" painted all over their equipment. Let us not forget that where they sleep is called a "FIRE HOUSE". Furthermore, are you so obtuse that you genuinely missed the point of my comment about firemen, or are you completely incapable of addressing, or unwilling to address, the issues I present?
Actually, you have already admitted to being unwilling . . . so many things wrong with my last post that you'd love to, but can't name one . . . interesting.
Airport staff, and airline employees have better things to do than make sure passengers receive in a courteous, professional manner the services they have already paid for? (Just as GM employees have better things to do than produce quality vehicles the public wants to purchase . . .) Gee, I had it all wrong, employees in public production/service industries do have better things to do than actually serve the public in their industry; validate their over-inflated egos, collect government hand-outs, and arbitrarily abuse, and rip-off, the customers who fund their salaries. Perhaps there is another profession's mission statement you should be reviewing . . .

FYI: One thing the staff at Kingsford-Smith (Sydney) DID do (however, the entire experience was laced with abuse), was send someone, an airline employee to be specific, to GET ME OUT OF CUSTOMS/SECURITY when they (the airline employees) realized I was being needlessly held up for so long that I was going to be late for my flight. So, what I proposed in my last reply, and what you claim is impossible to achieve, IS ALREADY BEING DONE. What I suggest in my last post are possible ways to make this process more efficient.

Thanks for your kind wishes as to my future travel by ship - I'm sure the experience will be very enjoyable, as cruise line management, and employees, DO THEIR JOBS WELL ENOUGH AND WITH THE PROPER ATTITUDE that the industry does not require government subsidies to stay afloat (pun intended). I realize this may not be a fair comparison, but "fairness" doesn't seem to be something the airline industry is concerned about . . .

[oh my]

trvlr, sounds like you have a habit of being held up in security lines. LAS, SYD, when else? Maybe you've got a metal rod in a leg, or carry something that needs extra scrutiny that might take some extra time? I'm just wondering if your security issues stem from one thing in particular?

It seems like no matter what anyone tries to explain to you, you think of it as an excuse. The fact of the matter is there is a human factor involved in customer service of any kind. You have to know when to bend (or break, if necessary) the rules, and when not to. I've known flights that have been delayed because we were missing a wheelchair passenger, or a blind passenger. Because a disability is involved, the airlines don't want to run into problems with possibly denying a passenger boarding simply as a result of their disability. I'm just using this as an example of a situation that "breaks" the standard rules, and the reasoning behind the decision that another passenger might not be aware of. Stuff happens. That's life. There are a lot of things that go on in the process of boarding a flight. Unfortnately, not all flights go as smooth as silk. In fact, just the opposite is true. Each flight is different, and the situations that arise (whatever they are) are handled accordingly. The rules of "10m prior to departure the seats are dropped", "3m the door closes", or whatever they may be for that airline are what is supposed to be done. In a perfect world. We all know nothing is perfect. I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone. I have known some very pleasant gate agents, and some down-right rotten ones. It's possible you had the latter for the flight that you "missed." It's also possible that you had the former, and she was just doing the best she could to accommodate as many people as she could on the flight. I could run through several scenarios that i can think of as to why you were not boarded 6m prior to departure. I can also think of several scenarios that would result in passengers boarding within the 6 minute mark. I don't think that you want to hear any of them, though. The fact is, you do not understand how to work a flight. You can speculate all you want as to what you think happened, or why she did what she did, but the only person who knows what really happened on that flight, and why you were not boarded is the gate agent.

I realize this additional courtesy is too much to ask of the prima donnas occupying "service" positions in airports these days

Since you seem to be so big on helping us little people out by defining your big words, I thought i'd do the same for you. Here's the definition of discrimination:"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit". I'm pretty sure your above quote is discriminatory. Pot, meet Kettle.

I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that I have to agree with others when I say that what happens between when you check in and when you arrive at your gate is something that the airline should not be concerned with. You are a big boy (or girl). You do not need someone to hold your hand from the ticket counter to the gate. You need to assume some responsibility for yourself, and stop blaming others for the fact that you missed your flight. If you think that being at the airport 2 hrs before your departure time is a ridiculous request, then don't do it. But if the result is that you miss your flight, then don't complain. I know 2 hours is a long time. Especially if the flight is maybe an hour or an hour and a half in duration. But that general rule is there for a reason. That you think it is so the airline employees and TSA can screw with you is unfortunate. You keep saying that you checked in in time for the flight. But you missed the flight, so obviously didn't check in with enough time. Technically, you checked in before the cut-off time at the ticket counter, but it doesn't seem that that was enough time to make your flight, does it? I know, I know, trains break, TSA harrassed you, blah blah. Maybe those 2 hours don't seem so unrealistic now?

I also think that any civil liberties organization that got wind of your ideas on how to keep track of people in the airports would be so far up your a$$ they'd come out your mouth. Asking for cell phone numbers? Tracking EVERY passenger through the airport? Riiiiight. And the beeper idea is priceless. I think, essentially, your boarding card serves the same purpose, don't you? It's got the time your flight leaves, the gate, and even your name on it, just in case you happen to forget. I know, it's doesn't have all the pretty lights on it, but i think it's a suitable subsititute. And most airlines in most airports page the people they are missing. "Final boarding call for AirTran flight 346 to Newark. Passengers Abdul, Smith, and Kramer please report to gate B3." I know you've heard those pages before. So to say the airlines make no effort to get missing people on the plane is garbage. Maybe you think we should chip people like we do our dogs, but with GPS, so that you have no responsibilities whatsoever? That way you would never be responsible for your whereabouts ever again. If anyone needed you, THEY could find YOU! Good luck in all your travels. I think you just might need it.

[justme]

glad to see someone else has some common sense and agrees with me!

[Trvlr]

Oh my: quote - "sounds like you have a habit of being held up in security lines." - end quote
Really - based on what, relative to what? Being held up by airport security for frivolous reasons is quite common these days (this website is riddled with accounts of same), and, given the number of flights I've taken, experiences of this nature were actually relatively infrequent - though exceedingly unpleasant when they occurred. Interesting choice of words by the way - "habit" - would you also consider the statements "The people of Iraq have a habit of being bombed", or, "The children of Africa have a habit of starving to death" accurate characterizations of these events, or deliberate attempts at assigning blame where it doesn't belong? Pot, meet Kettle.

quote - "Since you seem to be so big on helping us little people out by defining your big words, I thought i'd do the same for you. Here's the definition of discrimination:"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit". I'm pretty sure your above quote is discriminatory" - end quote
Doesn't surprise me at all that you are "pretty sure" the quote to which you refer is discriminatory; this conclusion serves your purpose, and your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. The statement does not, as you suggest, classify all airport service employees as prima donnas; it asserts that additional courtesy would be too much to ask of those that are - and my assertion that airport, and airline staff quite often behave as prima donnas, is based on personal experience, and the "individual merit" (or lack of it) the employees I encountered displayed. However, a valid argument could in fact be made that all airport service employees are prima donnas by definition, given the parameters of their employment within the context of what is supposed to be a free market economy, and verified statistical data. Also, If you bothered to take the time to apply the definition of discrimination to the policies/activities you detail in the second paragraph (I'm not going to quote the whole thing) of your post, I'm "pretty sure" you'd find those policies/activities fall into the realm of what you have chosen to define as discriminatory. For that matter, the fact that the airline industry receives voluminous exemptions from rule of law, and massive subsidies, is again, by your own definition, a discriminatory practice (more on this later in my reply). This, once again, is the core of my complaint. Pot, meet Kettle.

I'd like to digress for a moment and sincerely thank you for your reply; you are validating my complaint in ways I couldn't have thought of myself, even though you may or may not be aware of what your own statements mean. I fear the latter to be the case.

quote - " . . . what happens between when you check in and when you arrive at your gate is something that the airline should not be concerned with. You are a big boy (or girl). You do not need someone to hold your hand from the ticket counter to the gate. You need to assume some responsibility for yourself . . ." - end quote
Interesting example of the hypocrisy which pervades the airline industry. Yes, I am an adult (I hope you consider it fair to substitute this term for your "big boy or girl"), so is every person who works in the airline industry, from the throwers to the CEOs, and, as you have stated, as adults, these individuals need to take responsibility for themselves, and collectively, the (the massive financial failure of) airline industry as a whole. Therefore, what happens between an airline's business plan and its viability (or lack thereof) is something that the taxpayer/consumer, or federal government, should not be concerned with. Apparently, the airline industry DOES IN FACT need "someone" to hold its hand from balance sheet to pathetic balance sheet - and that same "someone", is holding every single adult airline industry employee's hand as well. I've already stated who that "someone" is, and I find it patently offensive that the people with cups in their hands (airline industry employees) who fly for free, demand that the people who fund their very existence and must pay to fly (thrice over - the cost of the ticket, and the raw, as well as opportunity, costs they shoulder as taxpayers), compensate for the discriminatory policies and incompetence which have been mainstays of this industry for quite some time. Stop forcing the general public to continually support, and sacrifice for, an unscrupulous, deficient infrastructure of adults in a society that is supposed to be Capitalist. At this point, you might want to look up the term "prima donna". Pot, meet Kettle.

quote - " If you think that being at the airport 2 hrs before your departure time is a ridiculous request, then don't do it."
I have a better idea, how about the airline industry, and the "big boys and girls" who are employed in it, face the harsh realities of business the rest of us must face (unless you work for a bank or an American car company . . . but I digress), and learn how to sell their product/service in a professional, efficient manner on the level playing field of the free market? Hmmm, sound like Capitalism, or more to the point, the only way the airline industry and its employees will ever be motivated to innovate to the point of self-sustainability? I'm sure this is too much to ask, so I've actually already stated that I'm going to do exactly what you suggest - I'm no longer going to travel by plane unless I absolutely have to.

quote - "You keep saying that you checked in in time for the flight. But you missed the flight, so obviously didn't check in with enough time. Technically, you checked in before the cut-off time at the ticket counter, but it doesn't seem that that was enough time to make your flight, does it?" - end quote
Please refer to my previous reply where I explain the logical fallacy "slippery slope". It has been stated by a couple former airline employees, within this thread in fact, that I arrived in plenty of time to make my flight, even given the TSA debacle and malfunctioning train. The discriminatory and unethical policies of the airline, the sub-standard performance of this industry in general, and the lack of courtesy and actions of the gate agent, are ULTIMATELY to blame for my additional wait. Once again, this is the core of my complaint.

I'm going to focus particular attention on the last sentence of the above quote: quote - "Technically, you checked in before the cut-off time at the ticket counter, but it doesn't seem that that was enough time to make your flight, does it?" - end quote
This one is priceless; who sets the cut-off time at the ticket counter - the passenger or the airline? What is the purpose of the cut-off time? Gee, do you think it would be fair to say, that this is the time that the airline has determined is the boundary between "enough time to make the gate", and "not enough time to make the gate"? If the airline is incapable, with all of their experience with, and control over, what transpires in an airport between the check-in counter and the gate (I am referring directly to your "stuff happens" - "that's life" remarks), of determining what is "enough time" and what is not, exactly how the hell is it reasonable to demand that a passenger be capable of making this determination?

quote - "I also think that any civil liberties organization that got wind of your ideas on how to keep track of people in the airports would be so far up your a$$ they'd come out your mouth." - end quote
You really shouldn't engage in "thinking" - you don't appear to be very good at it.
Exactly how many civil liberties organizations do you see spewing from TSA agents' mouths right now? Or, how many TSA agents do you see seeking medical treatment from the painful rear entry? I would have thought my comment about the Bill of Rights being shredded the moment you enter an airport would have dissuaded you from revealing your utter lack of knowledge in this area to such an embarrassing extent. Do you know what a horrendous violation of your civil rights a "random search" constitutes? Are you familiar with the legal concept "probable cause?" I guess not, but you do seem to be very good at forming false analogies based on bodily orifices . . . more on your inaccurate "tracking" assumptions below . . .

quote - "Asking for cell phone numbers? Tracking EVERY passenger through the airport? Riiiiight."
Are you familiar with face recognition technology? Do you have any idea how many video cameras are already tracking EVERY single human being that enters AIRPORT PROPERTY these days, let alone the airport proper? Are you aware that your cell phone, and every modern cell phone produced already has a tracking feature built in, which you can't turn off? Don't believe me - pick up your cell phone, and go to "Settings", in the settings menu, you will find an option for "Location", select location, and you will find (on most cell phones - I can't say with certainty that this is exactly the case for every cell phone in the world) only two options: "911 only", and "Location on". The "911 only" option, to the best of my knowledge, DOES NOT eliminate tracking; it only limits access to the tracking information. How else would your provider know if you were roaming? How else would your cell phone know which tower to connect to? Ergo, if you have a cell phone, you are already being, and have been, tracked wherever your cell phone receives a signal! With regard to the airport, and passengers giving up their cell phone numbers at check-in; this could be optional, not compulsory like the TSA invasions of privacy. Furthermore, you are referring to a preliminary suggestion which I hoped would spur some kind of discussion as to how airline and airport staff can mitigate the effects of "stuff happening" on paying customers; this was not to be taken as something I've researched extensively, the viability of which I considered already proven. Silly me, why would someone in an industry that is guaranteed funding and special legal consideration no matter how much it sucks care about improving customer service . . .

quote - "I know you've heard those pages before. So to say the airlines make no effort to get missing people on the plane is garbage. Maybe you think we should chip people like we do our dogs, but with GPS, so that you have no responsibilities whatsoever? That way you would never be responsible for your whereabouts ever again. If anyone needed you, THEY could find YOU!"
Yes, I have "heard those pages" - I heard them when I was being delayed by the TSA stormtroopers in Las Vegas, I heard them in Sydney when I was being delayed unnecessarily by an ego-maniac Australian customs agent - and I pointed them out to the parties in question, but, like most prima donnas, they didn't care because they were getting what they wanted regardless of the cost to me. As I've stated, in Sydney, it took an airline employee to come and get me before the customs agent had to stop needlessly harassing me; in Las Vegas, no airline employee came to get me, so the pages, and my complaints, fell on the snide, deaf ears of the post-office rejects. A call to TSA can be just as easily made as an announcement over the PA system. Sometimes, because, as you have stated, "stuff happens", it behooves the responsible service employee to go that extra inch. Did you bother to read my anecdote about Outback Steakhouse? This would be an example of an employee in an industry that is not taxpayer subsidized appropriately taking responsibility for the "stuff which happens" on her watch, instead of forcing the customer to - this is the foundation of a successful service industry, FYI. How is it that this "extra inch" isn't too much to ask of a $10-an-hour employee with relatively little job benefits, or resources at her disposal, but it is too much to ask of an airline employee, and, why is it too much to ask of the airline industry that they utilize technology already employed to harass, control, and abuse passengers, to assist them as well? It wasn't too much to ask of the airline employees in Sydney (although any further courtesy certainly was). Have you figured out what "prima donna" means yet, and why it is such an appropriate label in these cases under discussion?
Your comments after the first sentence of the above quote are nothing more than self-serving "garbage" as you put it, and you can stick them where you won't find the civil liberties organizations to which you referred earlier. I never stated that the airlines "make no effort to get missing people on the plane" - I stated that their efforts in this area should be improved upon, and could be improved upon, with resources they already have access to and are currently deployed. The comments about chipping people like dogs are yours and yours alone; maybe you think cramming your own irrational hyperbole down someone's throat is a legitimate means of bolstering your incredibly weak, and now utterly invalidated, position?

quote - "Good luck in all your travels. I think you just might need it."
Was this supposed to be clever? Anyone who travels can use some luck, for as you have stated "stuff happens". Maybe you should regress to your fascination with bodily orifices and phantom civil liberties.

Anything else, or was this the best you can do?

[Trvlr]

justme and oh my:

FYI: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18." - Albert Einstein

[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.

[oh my]

"Do you think you were delayed because you had to wait 40 mins in line" I need to correct myself. I know you didn't stand in line for 40 mins. I just realized my mistake.

[Trvlr]

Oh my: I'll address everything you have written by paragraph, beginning with the first (so "quoting" isn't necessary).

1. I don't believe, given your admissions which follow, that your question was, or was intended to be, "legitimate"; IMHO, it was intended to be rhetorical, so I addressed it as such. However, I do accept and appreciate your apology in the matter, I apologize for my sarcasm as well, and, as you have refrained from indulging in juvenile, pugnacious remarks in your last response, I shall gladly pay you the same respect in mine (as requested). I apologize if some of my comments below seem "sarcastic"; this is not my intention, just my style of discourse. I have already stated that my accounts of being held up by security in two locations are not in and of themselves a legitimate basis for characterizing such incidents as "frequent" (as this is a relative term) occurrences in my life, and therefore "habit" would be an inappropriate term to use on this basis alone, without even addressing the causal relationship it inappropriately implies. Therefore, even given the fact that my statements regarding the incidents in question are accurate, you still should stand corrected. Let us proceed to your questions in the second paragraph of your post.

2. Part of my frustration with this incident, is that I never had your first question answered properly. The TSA told me that the AIRLINE had selected me for extra screening, so as I entered the TSA line, I did so thinking that there was no way I could be legitimately denied boarding due to tardiness, for obvious reasons. When the gate agent wouldn't allow me to board, the first objection I voiced referenced this information, and at that point I was told that it was the TSA who selected me for additional screening, not the airline. The nice lady from the help desk at the airport confirmed this to be the case. "Random search" was mentioned as the possible reason, as well as the fact that a week prior, I had booked the same flight on AirTran but decided to stay in Vegas a little longer (I called AirTran and informed them I wouldn't be making the flight, and I lost the money I spent on that ticket, as I'm sure you well know), but I never got a straight answer from anyone, and I never was given the courtesy of an "answer" of any kind from the TSA agents (I guess as a natural-born, caucasian, U.S. citizen I didn't deserve even the slightest courtesy from them?!?! - I only mention these facts about myself to eliminate the possibility of racial/ethnic profiling). My questions, which at this point were jovial, calm, and matter-of-fact in nature, were ignored by TSA security agents as if I WASN'T EVEN THERE. i.e. They didn't even validate my existence until they were ready to subject my body and baggage to one of their utterly useless exercises - more on this later. As to your questions about a suspicious item I may have been traveling with, the answer is no to all; in this instance I was traveling with one leather duffel bag (which fit the size requirement) as a carry-on, and a laptop as a personal item.
As to your comments about my feelings on the TSA, their activities, and the government in general: It is a matter of fact, that the level of "attainable airport security/safety" (through the inception and deployment of such an offensively expensive, inefficient, and incompetent agency as the TSA) being presented to the public is nothing more than reactionary propaganda. Airport support staff (i.e. employees - INCLUDING the TSA) have far greater access and opportunity to wreak havoc on, or do damage to, any given flight at any time than any "passenger". It has been statistically demonstrated that airports require so many support personnel, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to implement security procedures which would result in any significant increased margin of "security". A good example which supports this conclusion are the problems with securing American seaports (i.e. only 5% of shipping containers can be, and are being checked, but this speaks to the larger issue of the futility and ineptitude of the "Department of Homeland Security", and is a topic for another forum). The validity of the aforementioned conclusion becomes obvious, when you consider that the SECURITY PERSONNEL THEMSELVES (read here, TSA) are a SECURITY RISK - i.e. As the number of TSA agents increases, so does the security risk - hence the Orwellian nature of this organization. As to the supposed ultimate goal of the TSA, your "safety"; making people and environments more "secure" and hence, "safe", is a function of effective "risk management". In order to determine which "risks" need to be "managed", we in the modern, civilized, educated world use "statistics", not "emotion". Statistically, you are, by an incredibly large margin, more likely to be killed by a falling coconut, or a toppling vending machine, or by lightning, or by a shark attack, or a bee, than any "terrorist act". These statistics may be a little hyperbolic for people to accept, so let us examine an issue which hits closer to home if you will; far more people have been killed or injured by air travel due to human error, systems inadequacies, and flat out negligence, than have been killed by willful acts of violence ("terrorism"). Therefore, the expenditure of limited resources (read here, the TSA) to manage these risks (willful acts of violence), while antiquated air traffic control systems, crash response, and personnel training remain deficient, is illogical, unreasonable, statistically unjustifiable, and hence, NEGLIGENT. In point of fact, an airline passenger is more likely to be killed or injured by an over-zealous TSA agent, than any "terrorist" (I continue to place the word terrorist in quotes for reasons which will be explained further on in this post).
With reference to my earlier promise to explain why I characterize the exercises of the TSA to be "utterly useless": I personally witnessed events involving "security agents" (some in the U.S., some not), several times, that even my extremely limited exposure to "security training and method" was enough to alert me to the potentially tragic errors in judgement being made. In Las Vegas, at McCarran, when my carry-on bag was being searched in front of me, the TSA agent didn't remove the contents of the bag, she just "felt around" inside it with her gloved hands. When she felt "something hard and cylindrical", she ASKED ME WHAT IT WAS! I told her it was a souvenir glass from the Hard Rock Cafe in Fiji, which was the truth, but, the TSA agent NEVER VERIFIED WHAT IT WAS! Do you know how many potentially deadly items exhibit the physical characteristics of "hard and cylindrical"? Furthermore, the "glass" could have very easily been turned into a "knife" in the blink of an eye! Therefore, the very ludicrous existence of an agency such as the TSA should be taken as an insult, as well as an inexcusable, ILLEGAL violation of civil liberties to any reasonable American citizen.
The wait in the TSA line should have never EXISTED, let alone been long enough to delay my arrival at the gate.

3. With regard to the actions of the gate agent, I understand that there are "decisions to be made", however, HOW those decisions are made is another matter entirely, as well as the level of courtesy/consideration possible and appropriate in a given situation (thank you for admitting that more was possible and appropriate in my situation). If airlines and hence, airline employees, are not held accountable for their actions in the manner ALL businesses and business employees should be held accountable, why would the airlines or their appendages indulge even a dialogue on these topics? i.e. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
With regard to your comments about a "double standard", see above, and: There is an enormous difference between discriminatory ATTITUDES or STATEMENTS and discriminatory ACTIONS. If I hold an attitude which appears to be discriminatory, I assure you, I am well capable of justifying it, and therefore, it is not "discriminatory", but PRUDENT. Being conscious of these attitudes allows me to compensate for them when and if I choose to act, it does not guarantee that I will ACT ON THEM, or that I will ever be in a position to. Part of my complaint is, the airlines and the TSA, make certain that I WILL NEVER BE IN A POSITION TO EFFECTIVELY ACT ON THEM. Exactly where is justice and/or accountability in this paradigm? Perhaps you should look beyond my comments for the "double standard" to which you refer . . .

4. Thank you for your understanding in these matters, however, if your job constitutes serving a corrupt industry, you are aware of the level of corruption, and yet you continue to work in it, and you take pride in this work, please don't expect to get Christmas cards from people who have been victimized by it, and to make matters worse compulsorily, and in some cases unknowingly, support it. Again, I DO appreciate your understanding in the matter however, as well as I appreciate the horrendous moral dilemmas the greedy power brokers of this "brave new world" demand we all confront.

5. I'm with you on all points - sometimes I think trying to change the current system is just as futile as trying to change what has been accepted by the programmed masses as "human nature", when the truth of the matter is, what most people refer to as "human nature", is in fact "animal nature", a state of existence we are supposed to have evolved from, instead of blindly regressing to. However, without exposing the hypocrisy, inefficiency, and gross injustice of the current situation, there will be absolutely no conversation on the state of affairs, and hence, no hope they will ever change.

6 & 7. The core of my complaint is in fact what you have already validated: what is "okay and what is not" is left far too much to the arbitrary whims of the gate agent, and greedy policies of the airline, and there is no accountability on their part for these decisions. Yes, you are assuming too much, and you are giving the airline/gate agent way too much credit in the benevolence/innocence column. I could relate to you a few things I witnessed transpire on both flights that day that I'm sure would alter your opinion, but this post is already a little too long, and given your experience, I'm sure they would be anecdotes of unjust treatment which you have heard or witnessed directly already.
Flights are late all the time - it is a common fact of air travel that anyone who travels by air accepts in my opinion, (which is why many airports are nicer than shopping malls these days) for as you have stated "stuff happens". To screw over a passenger because of an over-booked flight, or because of another passenger's calamity earlier in the day, or because an airline employee wants to globe-trot for free, while using "flight delays" as an excuse, is to "**** on someone and tell them it is raining" IMHO. It bears an unsettling resemblance to the "disorderly conduct" tactic used by "law enforcement".
With regard to your comments about the cut-off time, the exact time printed on my boarding pass does not, I don't think anyway, correspond to the exact time I appeared with my documentation at the counter; probably the check-in agent engaged in 2-5 minutes worth of work before I received the boarding pass and hence, the discrepancy between the cut-off times you detail and time stamped on it. If the check-in agent would have told me I arrived too late to make my flight, I would have been able to book another flight out at my convenience, and leave the airport and come back if so chose. As it happened, I had already gone through security, and even though I didn't want to spend 5 hours at the airport, I was told by the nice lady from the help desk that leaving the gate area after being cleared through security was a huge no-no.
As to your comments about tracking people, and the awkward "decisions" which would still have to be made; many of these "decisions" would fade into oblivion if the airlines would simply STOP OVERBOOKING FLIGHTS, and stop allowing their employees to fly for free, in seats meant for PAYING customers - just about every business has an area for employees, and an area for customers, and employees (generally) might be extended a discount on the goods and services their employer offers, but they certainly don't usually get them for FREE - why should the airlines be any different? Furthermore, in most industries, it is illegal to knowingly sell more of an item than you can provide, why should the airline industry be any different? Exactly what about airline employees' performance in this industry justifies the extension of such lavish perks? And to have these perks extended to their immediate families as well (if this is still true)? (the term "prima donnas" comes to mind again). Also, no passenger can reasonably complain, if it is clearly stated in their contract of carriage and widely publicized, that if you are late to the gate because you have an overactive bladder, wallet, stomach, drinking habit, or an "act of God" occurs, that you forfeit your seat. (Acts of "gate agents" or "TSA agents" due not constitute "acts of God"). Provisions can still be made for the "physically challenged" and infirm. If passengers are tracked between the check-in counter and gate, there can be no argument as to where they were, and therefore, no arbitrary judgements. There can especially be no reasonable complaint, if they get a friendly reminder over the P.A. system, and their cell phone (this could even be an automated text message, reminding them what will happen if they don't get their a$$ in gear), and/or one of the "security agents" littering the airport. With regard to being delayed by security, if security (TSA) can't perform efficiently then they should have to pay - how else will they ever be motivated to do so? If a passenger arrives at check-in before the cut-off time, and doesn't make the gate because TSA sucks, then TSA should be held responsible and a portion of their massive over-funding should be used to compensate the passengers they've let down who pay their salaries. Again, please consider the previous comments to be suggestions of what I think MIGHT work - for all I know many of them could be tragically flawed, and you are welcome to fire as many "shots" at them as your heart desires - how else can legitimate solutions to the problems under discussion be revealed?

8 & 9. With reference to the civil liberties issues: Thank you very much for the links to the articles! And, I am ecstatic to learn that you are not as ignorant of these issues as your original response suggested - lo siento. The flagrant violations of civil rights which have occurred in this country over the last eight years are easier to sustain when I see evidence that the population of the entire country hasn't retreated to the Pavlovian consumer wasteland. And I understand why, and agree with you, when you state that the ACLU would not be happy with my "tracking" suggestions (neither am I). To briefly explain and answer your concerns about the consistency of my opinions on this issue in paragraph 9, I am stating that IF these "security measures" are going to be deployed REGARDLESS, the least the government can do is use them (or allow airline/airport staff to use them) to HELP passengers as well as harass them.
I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the ACLU and all of its members, however, I have come to the sad conclusion that, due to the past and current government, the perennial corruption and ineptitude of same, and the apathetic, Pavlovian state of the nation as a whole, the ACLU "not being happy" about government policy, is just about as effective as a lone citizen "not being happy" about government policy (the actions of the honorable Rosa Parks notwithstanding). This statement is not in any way intended to belittle the efforts of the ACLU, rather, it is intended to illustrate just how far down the "slippery slope" to which you refer this nation has already traveled, and I believe nothing less than armed revolution on the part of the citizenry, will stop, or even slow, this nation's inevitable descent down same. (Hence, my trip to Europe.) On what do I base this opinion, which may seem extreme to all but Thomas Jefferson, street/bike gangs, and state militias you might ask; if the brave men and women of our armed forces, all of whom are literate I hope, and are therefore (or bloody well should be) well aware of the rights of the citizenry they have sworn to protect, are instead protecting the impetuous whims of a corrupt government, and the private interests of multi-national companies (which are the puppet-masters of government), with the very arms, authority, and training the full faith and efforts of the citizenry has provided, exactly how effective can the unarmed lawyers ever hope to be? Evidence of the fact that the latter question is not merely rhetorical, is that the best "army of lawyers" this country has to offer, the ACLU, has not been able to block the permanent ratification of the most blatantly Orwellian violation of U.S. Constitutional law to date: THE PATRIOT ACT. By Orwellian, I mean that to call a law "patriotic", which TRUNCATES the civil, CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED (i.e. INALIENABLE) rights of U.S. citizens, is nothing less than a page torn directly from the NAZI party propaganda play book, and is (at least should be perceived as) an unforgivable slap in the face to every veteran, and every member of our (and our allies) armed services to date. Exactly what "war on terror", or "battle for our freedom" do they still think they are fighting when the US government has already surrendered the front lines via this horrendous, barbaric law? Isn't the goal of every "terrorist", according to the so called "patriot act", to remove our freedoms by using fear, and, the application of inappropriate levels of force (violence) at inappropriate times, the conduit through which this fear is manifest? (At this point you might want to go to UTube and watch the voluminous examples of the excessive, inappropriate use of force by "law enforcement" . . . or better yet, just read a few of the accounts on this website!) Isn't a "terrorist entity or organization" in fact defined as such by its ultimate aims (goals), and the methods used to further them, by the "patriot act"? Therefore, I submit to you that the "patriot act" BY THE PARAMETERS DETAILED WITHIN IT, is a "terrorist act" in and of itself, and the proponents and enforcers of it, BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION(S) ARE TERRORISTS. I would love nothing more, as the son of a deceased WWII veteran who was conscious, before he died, of how his sacrifices were being perverted, to be LEGITIMATELY proven wrong in this opinion, however, I have "done the math", and I would not offer such an opinion if I thought a legitimate rebuttal were possible or forthcoming. In summation, the most effective way to keep a slave (consumer) in line is to program them, through compulsory Pavlovian conditioning (i.e. the "education" system), to believe that they are free, and that arbitrary abuse is a necessary condition of that "freedom" . . .

Again, I thank you for your thoughtful response, and I hope none of my rhetorical statements are taken as sarcasm, it's just the way I write.

[Trvlr]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin