Security Causing Bankruptcies?
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From: I wish I knew
Security Causing Bankruptcies?
So we've had another airline announce that they may go down the plug-hole following the downturn since September 11. And every day (just about), we hear of the AMAZING lengths that security personnel are going to so that our skies are safe (see GI Joe disarmed , Drinkin Breast Milk, etc.). My question is, "To what level are the two related?"
Is the level of security assuring or alarming passangers? Do pax feel that being delayed by security is just a necessary part of flying now, or is it turning people off or worse, giving people the impression that security is a joke and scaring them away?
Most if not all agree that increased security levels are required, but to what level if it's paralysing the industry? How long before the airlines move together to pressure the security agencies to provide a more efficient service? Otherwise, the physical inability to process pax will stall growth or prevent passanger levels of days gone by.
Is the level of security assuring or alarming passangers? Do pax feel that being delayed by security is just a necessary part of flying now, or is it turning people off or worse, giving people the impression that security is a joke and scaring them away?
Most if not all agree that increased security levels are required, but to what level if it's paralysing the industry? How long before the airlines move together to pressure the security agencies to provide a more efficient service? Otherwise, the physical inability to process pax will stall growth or prevent passanger levels of days gone by.
Dir. PPRuNe Line Service
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 563
Likes: 4
From: Southern England
Working for an American company I spend a lot of time talking to friends and collegues in the U.S. Before "enhanced security", many folks thought nothing of flying from say San Francisco to LA or from Chicago to NY for a day out.
But because they are required to be at the airport 2 hours before departure instead of 20 minutes due to "security", day trips such as this are considered to be just too much trouble.
Mik
But because they are required to be at the airport 2 hours before departure instead of 20 minutes due to "security", day trips such as this are considered to be just too much trouble.
Mik
Last edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher; 15th August 2002 at 17:07.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 162
Likes: 5
From: kinmel bay
Recently took some internal flights in the US, the first since Sep 11
and it is not just the airline security which is offputting, the whole
of the US has become paranoid.
I sat next to an American on one flight who was obsessed with a
passenger because "he was swarthy".
The US used to be such an open and friendly place.I am not trying to belittle the Sep 11 events, but until the US learns to just
get on with a normal life terrorism has won.
and it is not just the airline security which is offputting, the whole
of the US has become paranoid.
I sat next to an American on one flight who was obsessed with a
passenger because "he was swarthy".
The US used to be such an open and friendly place.I am not trying to belittle the Sep 11 events, but until the US learns to just
get on with a normal life terrorism has won.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
For those that can afford a private/fractional aeroplane, business has never been better. The serious business traveller has much more to do than show up two/three hours before departure.
And it won't improve for the scheduled airlines anytime soon.
And it won't improve for the scheduled airlines anytime soon.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Limboland
The answer to LP's question is a resounding YES ! Paranoid, poorly trained and poorly equipped security staff are turning the punters away. Security in the U.S. is a joke. It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that it's killing the airline industry in that country.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From: I wish I knew
So who else is making the connection?
The airlines are asking the government to fund them (which doesn't look like happening) which ius a short-term solution. In the end, to make money, people have to fly. It seems that unless the previous freedoms return, we can say goodby to at least a few more airlines?
On the other hand, the UK does not seem to be as badly as the US (see below). My job's not directly threatened but, in the future, will all the unemployed US pilots look for jobs elsewhere?
Stats from the Uk's Guardian Newspaper 16/08/02.
Emptier skies
Flights August 6-12, 2001 compared with August 5-11, 2002
Worldwide: -4%
US international: -8%
US domestic: -7%
UK international: -2%
UK domestic: +3%
Europe international: -5%
Within Europe: -3%
Asia Pacific international: 0%
Central and South America intl: -1%
US to/from Europe: -13%
Heathrow to/from US: 0%
Gatwick to/from US: -20%
New York JFK to/from W Europe: -15%
Chicago O'Hare to/from W Europe: -20%
Source: OAG
(Edited for extra info)
The airlines are asking the government to fund them (which doesn't look like happening) which ius a short-term solution. In the end, to make money, people have to fly. It seems that unless the previous freedoms return, we can say goodby to at least a few more airlines?
On the other hand, the UK does not seem to be as badly as the US (see below). My job's not directly threatened but, in the future, will all the unemployed US pilots look for jobs elsewhere?
Stats from the Uk's Guardian Newspaper 16/08/02.
Emptier skies
Flights August 6-12, 2001 compared with August 5-11, 2002
Worldwide: -4%
US international: -8%
US domestic: -7%
UK international: -2%
UK domestic: +3%
Europe international: -5%
Within Europe: -3%
Asia Pacific international: 0%
Central and South America intl: -1%
US to/from Europe: -13%
Heathrow to/from US: 0%
Gatwick to/from US: -20%
New York JFK to/from W Europe: -15%
Chicago O'Hare to/from W Europe: -20%
Source: OAG
(Edited for extra info)
Last edited by Low-Pass; 19th August 2002 at 14:20.
