I agree with you entirely, that as a consumer of a private sector business that is responsible to shareholders in essentially a capitalistic country, you should be, in the US at least, able to enjoy the fruits of such a arrangement. But, there's a catch. The airways, as far as the government is concerned belongs to the "people." That's why outside of fuel, air security incidents and medical emergencies, all flights are treated equal by ATC. Airports, in the US at least, are still blurry lines between government and private enterprise. Add to the fact that through a hasty transition from privately operated (i.e. airlines) to nationalized security operating within public installations. Further complicating matters is that when you get to many major airports, (EWR, DFW, ATL, DEN, SFO, PHX, CVG, MSP, DTW, MEM, CLE, IAH, IAD) that are so heavy dominated by a single carrier as to think the entire place was owned by that carrier. Messy situation... FAA (and elsewhere in the US fed. gov. is still very much run by what scary mary called it's dual mandate, to support and maintain safety within the airline industry. Matthew > -----Original Message----- > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On > Behalf Of Nick Laflamme > Sent: March 12, 2002 5:58 AM > To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: Elitism or pure capitalism? > > > What's with the backlash against differing levels of service > in the airline industry? > > Why is the press spending so much time interviewing people > who think that frequent fliers and people willing to pay > first or business class fares should have to do everything > exactly the same as the once-a-year cheap-as-possible > travellers? It seems socialistic, even communistic, to say > that people who earn preferential treatment from an airline > shouldn't be allowed to accept this preferential treatment. > > When I get in a shorter check-in line for United at Dulles, > it's not because I'm a white male. It's because I'm a loyal > United customer who's flown about 100,000 miles in the past > three years, with about a third of that in business class. > United has a higher profit margin on my travels than it does > on my brother's travels, and so by the rules of capitalism, > United may find it in their best interest to treat me especially well. > > And it works, too. A year ago, when I had to make weekly > trips between Washington and Minneapolis, on four of those > weeks I took United through that black hole called O'Hare > instead of taking the non-stop flights on Northworst between > IAD/DCA and MSP. (To be fair, it's only "Northworst" if > you're travelling through Detroit, and hopefully that's > changing with the new terminal. They've got their act > together at MSP. But I digress.) United got the profit of > those four trips, all booked on about three days notice at > nearly full price ("Hey, boss, am I going back again next > week?" "Are you done yet?" "No, not yet." "OK, book the > flights."). It didn't cost my employer more; United and > Northwest have virtually identical fares between those two cities. > > So if United wants to make me happy because they value my > business, why should I have to wait in the same long check-in > lines and sit in the same coach seats with no leg room? For > that matter, if I'm going to go through the same security > checks, is it so bad if there's a separate screening queue > that keeps just as busy but is just for the frequent > travellers who actually have their stuff together and can > keep the line moving? > > If you want one class of service and no perks, I think you've got two > choices: Southwest and Aeroflot. And I'm not even sure about > Aeroflot. :-) But one of the principles of American > enterprise is that businesses are allowed to prefer frequent > or lucrative customers (assuming no racial or ethnic > discrimination) and consumers are allowed to choose (or > receive protections against certain monopolistic practices). > > </rant> > > Thanks, > Nick >