IP: two on -- : you will bail out airlines so they can continue give you bad service and endanger you

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

To: dave () farber net
cc: mo () ccr org
Subject: Airline responsibility....
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:33:00 -0400
From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () ccr org>


the airlines are indeed responsible for the poor level of
security which has operated in the past at airports.
but in fairness, we have to ask why this is the case.
the answer is that the government abrogated their responsibility
for this critical piece of national security maintenance by
delegating to the airlines, who then further delegated it to the
lowest bidder (in the finest "open market" manner, i might add).
there is a real difference between "inexpensive" and "cheap", and
this was demonstrated in a most horrible fashion.
but this is precisely the behavior the government asked for when
it created the operating policy they have been using up to now.
there have been various polls about "would you pay an extra $25 per
ticket for better security?" Excuse me, but i pay a lot more than
that on April 15th every year and the notion that i now might have to
pay extra for the reasonably expected level of competence is more than
just a bit cheeky.
it is clear now (although it should have been clear before) that the
national security perimeter includes security perimeter at airports
and i expect that to exhibit the same level of diligence which we
provide embassies and other "official" installations. I was fortunate
to have a US Marine Embassy Guard as a roommate in college, and while
i was initially incredulous, i and everyone on the dorm floor very
quickly acquired immense respect for him, both personally and as
the consumate professional. this was 1972 and he changed a lot
of minds and attitudes that year.
we do not have to settle for refugees from the fast-food world who
don't yet have enough command of English to take a hamburger order
(this is not xenophobia, it is an observation of the facts at Dulles
just last week). we have professionals who know how to do the job
with polish and quiet pride, but who can respectfully push back
with all the force required by a situation, even deadly force if
required.
the government should admit this security perimeter is possibly the
most difficult we have to deal with because of the large number of
persons who must pass quickly and efficiently, and then be responsible
for providing the best and the brightest to do this critical job.
-mo

> From: "Carl Stork" <carls () windows microsoft com>
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2001 16:19:13.0866 (UTC) 
> FILETIME=[28CFFAA0:01C13E02]
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by linc.cis.upenn.edu 
> id f8FGK1J17977
>
> Don't have too much hostility toward the airlines. I don't blaming
> individual airlines or causing the bankruptcy of United and American
> serves any purpose. Here are a couple of things to think about:
>
> > All airlines are relatively thinly capitalized compared to their
> revenues and assets. Ultimately the airline industry isn't very
> profitable and is highly risky, leading to low market valuations. They
> generally carry a lot of debt and/or lease many of their planes.
> Significant liability can wipe out an airline.
>
> > Overall American and United are among the best run airlines in the
> U.S. They are certainly run far far better than TWA or Pan Am were.
> Bankrupting these airlines will NOT help the U.S. or the traveling
> public. Holding them alone accountable is also ludicrous. This could
> just as easily have happened to Delta or Northwest or any other airline
> with transcon flights.
>
> > There is little that any one airline can do about security or the
> attitude about security. There are many different entities involved in
> airport operations and security and attitudes. The individual airlines
> can't change that - it has to be collective action, whether under
> anti-trust immunity or government directive - and there needs to be an
> ability to mandate performance on the part of airports as well.
> Certainly the security screening process can be improved dramatically.
>
> I don't want to be an apologist for the airline industry. But holding
> the airlines accountable for this disaster doesn't solve anything and is
> no more reasonable than holding the steel supplier accountable for the
> fact that the steel melted. If your car is stolen while you are sleeping
> and crashes into someone's house, should you be accountable for that?
>
> The airline industry is entering an incredibly difficult period. For
> many months, perhaps even years, travelers are going to put off all
> travel - whether business travel, tourism, or travel to see friends and
> relatives. The demand for travel is plummeting and will remain depressed
> for a long time to come. Yet the airlines' fixed costs - for airplane
> leases, debt, terminal facilities, etc. - are fixed. Their operating
> costs for security are increasing. This will be a difficult time for the
> airlines, even absent liability concerns. You have already seen Midway
> Airlines close down. I don't think America is well served by making the
> U.S. airline industry bear the full costs of this act of terrorism.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/