Jim

Just sitting here and getting worked up over the fact that our tax dollars are bailing out airlines to the tune of billions of dollars, while these same airlines are laying off people. These are the same airlines that hired these cost cutting cheap security agencies,that let all the terrorist through.
Now we have to pay extra for their mastakes.
Is this fair,is this right?
Why can't a portion of the monies currently going towards the bailout go to pay for REAL SECURITY? Or perhaps make the surcharge tax deductible.
EVEN BETTER what if we refuse to pay the surcharge,sort of like a rent strike???

Adam

Well, Jim, if the airlines folded then we wouldn't NEED any extra security, would we?

The bailout was to keep these companies afloat well into 2002 when, it is hoped, the recovery will be complete.

We bailed out Chrysler. We bailed out U S Steel. If you try very hard to think it through, you'll see why a viable airline industry is so important for a large nation.

L

The simple, straight answer to your question, Jim ... that's not the way the world works. You are going to pay for more safety, so accept it. It's called progress ... messy to be sure, but doesn't it feel good to know we're all in this together. Just relax, and you'll live longer. You're not getting any tax breaks ... we're going to run a big deficit next year. I have to predict some type of add-on tax to pay for everything this country must do now to keep our standard of living somewhat intact. Let me guess, Jim ... you're not in a target area, are you? Ciao

Jim

I don't mind bailing out companies,but I DO MIND THEM LAYING PEOPLE OFF.
Yeah I heard a few CEO's were forgoing their salaries til the end of the year,WOW. How magnanimous.
I am going to get hell for this, but I bet you the two people who replied are Republicans. Do you approve of the way these companies have handled YOUR security concerns as well? Give me a break, also the thought that the airlines in 3 years are going to be able to go back to these companies like Argenbright,do you approve of that.

Jim

BTW, I live midtown Manhattan.
I'm all for busines but not at the expense of tax payers,the little guys.
Damn I sound like Bill O'Reilly.
And I'm an non practicing Democrat.

Mike

Uh OH Andy Rooney's uncle Jim got on the computer again.

nychick

personally i feel that flying is either a luxury or a necessary business expense. in either case, it's not a necessity, nor is it used by every single person, so it should be paid for by those who use it.

just my 2 cents

Geoff

Jim you're just plain naive if you think you're not going to pay for this. And actually it's not airlines that hire the security, it's the airports through the money they collect from the airlines. Blame them instead on that issue.

Jim

But who pays the airports bills ????
The airlines they are ultimately responsible for what goes on.
Why am I naive? Because I think it's totally unfair the the traveling people in this country are constantly being dumped on? When do we get a break? When do we get subsidies. I travel only for fun these days, and when I travel I support the local communities I visit by spending MY money in their restaurants and shops,not taxpayers money. Can someone enlighten me on who pays for security at the airports in Europe for example?

oboy

Taxes, my dear Jim, taxes. If you really believe all this clamoring for airport security can be done for less money, you are smoking somethin.
We travelers, in general, have not been willing to put up with tough security. We like to throw our luggage at the guy at the curb, and run to the boarding area talking on our cell phones. We get annoyed when loose change makes us go through the scanner again. Don't hassle us, we say, with long lines and baloney. Well now we get to pay for the serious stuff. You think airlines should pay without raising ticket prices? You think all taxpayers should pay for it with more taxes? Don't think so friend. The user will pay more, count on it.
The only thing I hope out of all this is that the security is GOOD! I mean European quality good! That will take a whole new approach to the process. And if it takes us longer to get on the plane, well so be it. In the meantime, try to be a little patient with the process. We've been sleeping for decades. It'll take a while to wake up.

Adam

for what it's worth, Jim, I'd a contributing member of the Democratic Party.

gimme

yea, get those evil business type people. The government will help me. yea, those evil profits, gimme some of that. they don't deserve it. i hope the government takes over everything, then everything will be cheaper and run better and there will never be any problems, and we probably pay less too. yea that'll show em.

Jim

To Oboy,
I don't have a problem with waiting longer for my bags to be checked. I'm used to that with all the trips I've done in my life to Europe and other places with stringent security policies.
The point I was trying to convey is that we shouldn't have to pay for the errors committed by others. I am not responsible for the hiring these horrendous companies like Argenbright. So why should I have to pay any additional money? More than what we are already paying for little leg room,a bag of peanuts on a four hour flight and recycled air?

In the UK

As a European, used to flying international flights to go anywhere (the UK being an island….) I have some sympathy with you all regarding the increased cost of flying following the terrible events on Sept 11th. I have often envied the cheaper airfares to be found in the US and Canada!

However, I believe safety should always be the priority for all forms of public transport - and airlines and airports in Europe have taken this to heart.

More importantly, I believe you get what you pay for - people who are well trained, well motivated and well rewarded will deliver good security. The fact that this has to be paid for via higher air fares and longer check-in times is something we have accepted in Europe for a very long time - security comes with a price. But we feel safe when flying - and the terrorists knew that US domestic airport security would make it relatively easy for them to smuggle weapons aboard - something that would be much harder in Europe (although not impossible)

It's quite pointless to say that you don't want to pay extra for security when the airlines are receiving "huge hand outs of tax payers money". The fact is that huge airline fleets do not earn money when they're only flying half full and if they aren't flying at all there is clearly no need for the extra employees to service them (and the non-existent passengers!) - job losses are inevitable. Sad but true (and I suspect they were inevitable before Sept. - the economy was slowing anyway)

The US now lives in a different world - I think its time to recognise that and move on - security will now feature far more heavily in everyone's lives.

Before I get a deluge of criticism, I want you to know that I've already flown to Vancouver since Sept 11th - and I'll be visiting Boston for a few days before Christmas. We can all help the airlines and their personnel by flying again - you just need to accept that feeling safe comes with a price tag.

Happy flying in 2002!

choco lata

The point that nobody has raised yet is that it is possible to move a lot of people through a secure area with minimal hassle if the airport authority and airlines would just put their heads together and take a systematic approach to the problem. Having large numbers of people run through a gauntlet is not the way.

The problem is that, for the longest time, the airline industry has treated security as the red-headed stepchild of their operations. They've put all their brainpower into maximizing profit on their air runs and no thought into how to best get people to the gates.

L

I think Jim will stay angry no matter what anyone says ... it's just that times have changed so fundamentally people have not had time to catch up. Ciao

Jim

No I am not going to stay angry I just can't believe how complacent some people are about all this. Let me state for the record,I am all for security.
I just dislike having to foot the bill.

Duke

This question is typical of what is wrong with the education system in the US. The poster does not understand basic economics....someone always pays for service. The fact that the charge for security will be on the ticket is meaningless. The airlines have to make a great profit to stay alive. Those that actually use the airlines should pay to be secure. Simple. There ain't no free lunch!

justwondering

Jim, if the user doesn't foot the bill for the security who will? Mr. & Mrs. Aint-got-no-Teeth in Appalachia?

EarlB

Jim hates to "foot the bill?". Then who should foot the bill? The taxpayer that never gets on an airplane? Jim just does not understand how business works and that is a shame. He probably works for the government or some other public entity that has no worry about payroll or profit.