NYTimes.com Article: Despite Federal Rules, Airlines Still Favoring Some Passengers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by psa188@juno.com.



Despite Federal Rules, Airlines Still Favoring Some Passengers

February 27, 2002

By JOE SHARKEY




Not so fast, big shots.

That was the message the airlines thought they heard last
week from the federal government, which assumed authority
for airport security on Feb. 17.

As industry sources describe it, the new Transportation
Security Administration, overseeing the transition of
airport security screening from airline to government
control, objected to the way some airlines had designed
special V.I.P. lanes allowing elite customers - those
flying first class or members of the higher levels of
frequent-flier programs - to pass more quickly through
security.

After federal officials shut down some of these lanes at
certain airports last week, the airlines, acutely aware of
the appeal of the reserved lanes to their most valued
business travelers, asked for a policy clarification.
Meanwhile, a flock of would- be populists in the news
media, sensing a juicy class issue, flapped into formation
with jubilant news reports that basically crowed: Haw, haw,
the big shots have to wait in line, just like everyone
else.

Well, not so fast. As of yesterday, all of the major
airlines had notices on their Web sites assuring elite
passengers that nothing had changed. The V.I.P. lines
remain. "Delta Air Lines (news/quote) Maintains Designated
Premium Security Lines in Select Cities," was the headline
on Delta's statement, for example. "American Airlines and
American Eagle Maintain Express Queues for Premium
Passengers at 19 Airports," said American's.

How did this particular egg get scrambled? "Mixed signals"
from federal staff members at a few airports, combined with
overreacting news reports, suggested Michael Wascom, a
spokesman for the Air Transport Association, the trade
group for major domestic airlines.

Federal officials have now assured the carriers that they
continue to control the turf where lines form to feed into
the checkpoint lanes. "You're in charge of the lines; we're
in charge of the lanes," the airlines were told, Mr. Wascom
said.

Jim Mitchell, a spokesman for the Transportation Security
Administration, added, "There was some initial confusion on
the difference between the security lanes themselves and
the lines that airlines had set up" to funnel passengers to
checkpoints.

Before the government took over security 10 days ago, some
carriers at a few airports had basically hung "Reserved,
V.I.P." signs over specific checkpoints - the lanes where
passengers pass through the metal detectors and are
searched by screeners. That practice has been halted. But
airlines remain free to continue organizing lines leading
to those areas as they see fit.

"The problem we had was when taxpayer-supported equipment
and people were dedicated to frequent fliers," Mr. Mitchell
said. Now that security screening is a direct federal
responsibility, "we have to ensure that all passengers are
treated to an equal level of service and protection," he
said.

The airlines are happy with a policy that allows them to
maintain reserved lines for elite customers and others,
including flight crews, Mr. Wascom said. Kurt Ebenhoch, a
spokesman for Northwest Airlines (news/quote), agreed.

"Northwest's contention was that, while the T.S.A. has now
taken over the security checkpoint itself, how customers
are actually delivered to that checkpoint is a
customer-service issue, not a security issue," Mr. Ebenhoch
said.

Like its competitors, Northwest added extra security lanes
across the board at its hubs after Sept. 11, and later
established separate reserved lines for premium passengers.


Northwest designed its two classes of lines to enable
agents to direct passengers at the head of either the elite
line or the regular line to any security checkpoint,
depending on congestion. This way, passengers in the elite
line still tended to arrive at the checkpoint sooner, but
after that they were sent to the same security lanes as
everyone else, Mr. Ebenhoch said.

"It's natural that we would have some role in how we
organize our customers as they feed into the security
checkpoints," he said, noting that those eligible for the
elite treatment form "a pretty small group of people
anyway."

The definition of lines versus lanes aside, the velvet-rope
contretemps and turf tussles are more signs of a basic
philosophical debate that is occurring just below the
surface in commercial aviation these days, as robust
business-travel revenue continues to elude the airlines.

Last month, average domestic air fares declined 16.1
percent from January 2000, according to the Air Transport
Association. Despite lower fares, passenger traffic
declined 14.7 percent.

While a sour economy and fear of flying after Sept. 11
account for some of this, airlines are increasingly worried
that their bread-and-butter customer, the frequent business
traveler, is flying less frequently now because of the wide
perception of unpleasant searches, rude treatment and
delays sometimes encountered at airport security
checkpoints.

The Transportation Security Administration has hired
private-industry specialists in crowd control and customer
service to assess and address these problems.

But the airline industry is arguing behind the scenes that
subjecting all passengers to equally rigorous security is
pointless and counterproductive, and that security
resources should be concentrated more on a smaller pool of
people whose behaviors, background or travel habits fit
certain profiles for potential trouble.

The airlines also want the federal government to back
proposals for a "trusted fliers" program that would provide
an identity-protected electronic card allowing expedited
security check-ins for customers who submit to a background
check in advance, with the presumption that the card would
appeal to business travelers.

The Department of Transportation, however, is known to be
strongly opposed to any security system that provides
unequal levels of security, or depends on any kind of
passenger profiling.

"They're really butting heads over this in Washington right
now," one industry official said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/27/business/27TRAV.html?ex=1015824753&ei=1&en=0dd34ab767f25cba



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

[Index of Archives]         [NTSB]     [NASA KSC]     [Yosemite]     [Steve's Art]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [NTSB]     [STB]     [Share Photos]     [Yosemite Campsites]