Time to pay for the WAR

[wnbubbleboy]

WASHINGTON - The president's 2007 budget would double the aviation security fee that passengers pay to $5 per flight from $2.50 for nonstop trips and cuts Amtrak payments as the national rail passenger line struggles for survival.
The security fee would have the biggest impact on low-cost carriers such as Dallas-based Southwest Airlines because 80 percent of the carrier's passengers fly nonstop.

According to the budget released Monday, the fee, enacted to pay for enhanced security, will increase to a flat $5 per flight instead of increasing with every segment. The security fee will be capped at $10 per round trip, the current maximum. The proposed increase on nonstop trips will raise $1.3 billion a year toward funding the Transportation Security Administration.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/13810894.htm

 

[corl737]

According to the budget released Monday, the fee, enacted to pay for enhanced security, will increase to a flat $5 per flight instead of increasing with every segment. The security fee will be capped at $10 per round trip, the current maximum.

Sooooo ... now DFW and AA will have another arrow in their quiver to shoot at the Wright Amendment repeal efforts. By keeping SWA's passengers "hostage", people making "Wright Connections" will continue to be forced to buy two tickets to reach their actual destination and that would mean extra $$$ for the TSA. :down:

 

[USAir757]

The security fee would have the biggest impact on low-cost carriers such as Dallas-based Southwest Airlines because 80 percent of the carrier's passengers fly nonstop.

The security fee would have the biggest impact because most of the people who are flying low-cost carriers such as Dallas-based Southwest Airlines are the same people that shop at Walmart and give the proverbial middle finger to the economy through just about every financial decision they make.... simply put, they're cheap! And a $10 increase would be just too much to handle, nevermind that the money would be allocated to enhance and provide better security for the very flight they're attempting to take. :down:

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

The security fee would have the biggest impact because most of the people who are flying low-cost carriers such as Dallas-based Southwest Airlines are the same people that shop at Walmart and give the proverbial middle finger to the economy through just about every financial decision they make.... simply put, they're cheap! And a $10 increase would be just too much to handle, nevermind that the money would be allocated to enhance and provide better security for the very flight they're attempting to take. :down:

Rather than rag on Southwest Airlines passengers, let's target the socioeconomically upscale passengers at some of the legacy carriers. I know....let's charge a flat percentage tax on airline tickets.

Charging a flat fee on every ticket, regardless of purchase price, is a very regressive form of taxation. (and allegedly more fair) to tax those who can most afford to pay the tax.

Maybe.....a $2 fee for each Coach ticket and a $50 fee for each F ticket?

Or maybe a flat 2% on every ticket - $3.60 tax on the $180 RT between PIT & PHL --- and $ 11.50 on the $575 RT between PIT & BUF.



It is much more progressive

 

[USAir757]

Maybe.....a $2 fee for each Coach ticket and a $50 fee for each F ticket?

How can you argue that simply because a passenger chooses to fly first class that they should pay more for government security services that someone flying coach? Two people, one flies Y the other C, and one has to pay $48 more than the other to have the same exact service? That's anything but fair.

Or maybe a flat 2% on every ticket - $3.60 tax on the $180 RT between PIT & PHL --- and $ 11.50 on the $575 RT between PIT & BUF.

Again you have people paying different amounts of money for the same service. The key is to have better aviation security, and (all things being equal) the same amount of resources are needed to screen passenger 1 and passenger 2 for their flight, regardless of destination.

 

[KCFlyer]

The security fee would have the biggest impact because most of the people who are flying low-cost carriers such as Dallas-based Southwest Airlines are the same people that shop at Walmart and give the proverbial middle finger to the economy through just about every financial decision they make.... simply put, they're cheap! And a $10 increase would be just too much to handle, nevermind that the money would be allocated to enhance and provide better security for the very flight they're attempting to take. :down:

US...I think ELP's response to you was based on your generalization that he (and I) are cheapskates.

 

[USAir757]

US...I think ELP's response to you was based on your generalization that he (and I) are cheapskates.

That's an astute observation, because I didn't pick that up. Of course, I did say most people... not necessarily all people.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

The security fee would have the biggest impact because most of the people who are flying low-cost carriers such as Dallas-based Southwest Airlines are the same people that shop at Walmart and give the proverbial middle finger to the economy through just about every financial decision they make.... simply put, they're cheap! And a $10 increase would be just too much to handle, nevermind that the money would be allocated to enhance and provide better security for the very flight they're attempting to take. :down:

Shortly after 9/11 The State Police/MTA here in MD ran security for BWI. IMHO they did an excellent job. If the TSA was run with that professional attitude. The money would be well spent. I don't see that happening.

 

[ramper_in_las]

That's an astute observation, because I didn't pick that up. Of course, I did say most people... not necessarily all people.

though some of your points may be valid, none of which i agree with. Why is it you have to bring your flame bait to a southwest message board? You could have the same conversation on the US message board. :down:

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

The key is to have better aviation security, and (all things being equal) the same amount of resources are needed to screen passenger 1 and passenger 2 for their flight, regardless of destination.

757

My earlier comments were in the vein "let's do this tax like we do the federal income tax - sock it to the rich (those most able to pay)(ie folks in F) and leave the po' folks alone."

However, since you mentioned that the goal is better security, I have an even better (and cost effective) solution.

Let's not even have a tax. Or a TSA. Or screening.

No, instead, let's just give every passenger a weapon when they board the aircraft.

PEACE THRU SUPERIOR FIREPOWER

 

[USAir757]

Shortly after 9/11 The State Police/MTA here in MD ran security for BWI. IMHO they did an excellent job. If the TSA was run with that professional attitude. The money would be well spent. I don't see that happening.

The money has to benefit aviation security somehow... whether it's for better training, more sophisticated equipment, better quality personnel, etc. Afterall... when you have State police running baggage scanners, then the highways of your state are paying the price with less policing.

though some of your points may be valid, none of which i agree with. Why is it you have to bring your flame bait to a southwest message board? You could have the same conversation on the US message board.

Not flame bait at all... people who fly your airline want to spend less and get less, I mean isn't that your whole gimmick? The article leading the thread suggests that the tax targets passengers on discount airlines, which I think is misleading. You don't have to agree with me, although disagreeing is interesting, since my point is pretty elementary in nature.

 

[KCFlyer]

Not flame bait at all... people who fly your airline want to spend less and get less, I mean isn't that your whole gimmick? The article leading the thread suggests that the tax targets passengers on discount airlines, which I think is misleading. You don't have to agree with me, although disagreeing is interesting, since my point is pretty elementary in nature.

That isn't necessarily so. Let me put you in my shoes. Last year, I had to fly to Dallas from Kansas City because my mom was to undergo surgery. Found out Tuesday night...had to catch a flight Wednesday morning. American and Delta (who flew the route at that time) wanted over $800 to fly me there. Southwest was willing to fly me there (via the Texas two step) for $400 for the two roundtrips I had to book. So in that respect, yes, I most certainly did want to spend less. Today, if I needed the same thing, Southwest would do it for $274 ($240 plus taxes and fees). That fare nets them $.26 cents per mile I fly....that would even have covered a US ASM cost back in the old days. And I have no problem at all with taking them up on that $274 fare.

Your comments seem to indicate that even YOU would have gladly forked over the $800 to make the 960 mile round trip. Would you have...or would you have sought something a tad more "affordable", yet still allowed the airline to make a generous profit?

 

[USAir757]

Your comments seem to indicate that even YOU would have gladly forked over the $800 to make the 960 mile round trip. Would you have...or would you have sought something a tad more "affordable", yet still allowed the airline to make a generous profit?

KC - In that situation, I'd have to ask myself if having a nonstop flight into DFW would be more important than making a connection into DAL. All else being equal, in your scenario, I'd likely fly WN. But in a broader sense, you yourself have argued on this board that in many cases WN isn't the most cost effective choice, and when it is, it's usually only by a few dollars (14-day advance purchase). Same goes with shopping at Walmart, where today I can purchase a cd player for 10-20% less than I could at Circuit City or Best Buy, but then I'd have to deal with the hordes of people, long lines, underpaid and unconcerned employees, etc etc. I feel the same way about Southwest, and I think a lot of the traveling pubic, especially those that routinely chose not to fly with Southwest, will agree with me. So back to the original point, the tax targets Southwest passengers not only because of more point-to-point service, but because the airline's customers are notoriously cheap, and they tolerate all the negatives just to save a few bucks.

 

[KCFlyer]

KC - In that situation, I'd have to ask myself if having a nonstop flight into DFW would be more important than making a connection into DAL. All else being equal, in your scenario, I'd likely fly WN. But in a broader sense, you yourself have argued on this board that in many cases WN isn't the most cost effective choice, and when it is, it's usually only by a few dollars (14-day advance purchase).

I guess I should add...since my WN tickets were full fare, when I touched down in Tulsa, I walked over to the next gate and boarded the Dallas bound flight...total "layover" time, 10 minutes...that's less time than it takes AA to taxi to the gate at DFW. On the return, I did have an hour in OKC...and I couldn't help but notice that about 40 other people...all in "business attire" (Walmart must have had a sale on suits) head over to the gate with the flight to MCI...so I wasn't the only one "two stepping".

I have argued that WN isn't always the cheapest. That's why I wonder why 1) so many blame Southwest for the state of the industry, when they price BELOW them and 2)why the customers flyin US or UAL or AA on ticket that cost less than Southwests are not considered "Walmart shoppers".

Same goes with shopping at Walmart, where today I can purchase a cd player for 10-20% less than I could at Circuit City or Best Buy, but then I'd have to deal with the hordes of people, long lines, underpaid and unconcerned employees, etc etc. I feel the same way about Southwest, and I think a lot of the traveling pubic, especially those that routinely chose not to fly with Southwest, will agree with me.

You speak of the 'hassles" of flying Southwest. From Kansas City, I have FAR more nonstop options (because of their point to point system) than I do on other airlines...that's not really a hassle. A hassle to me is buying a ticket for myself, not being able to use it, automatically have a hundred bucks deducted from what I paid, and not being allowed to use the remaining funds to purchase a ticket for someone else. I've actually paid MORE to fly Southwest because my plans were subject to last minute changes. At least they don't charge me a hundred bucks (plus any fare difference) to say I need to come home Friday instead of Thursday.

Same goes with shopping at Walmart, where today I can purchase a cd player for 10-20% less than I could at Circuit City or Best Buy, but then I'd have to deal with the hordes of people, long lines, underpaid and unconcerned employees, etc etc. I feel the same way about Southwest, and I think a lot of the traveling pubic, especially those that routinely chose not to fly with Southwest, will agree with me.

You haven't been in Best Buy much, have you. The ones here are a zoo, and you can't get out of the store without having 2 or 3 employees trying to talk you in to buying the extended warranty. What's this about underpaid and unconcerned employees....I thought SWA employees kind of lead the league in pay these days...hence all the "wait til the fuel hedges run out and managment comes after labor's pocketbook".

You know, IMHO, ten bucks is ten bucks. I'd rather see that ten bucks go towards doing something about increasing security. What I see today is my 85 year old mother in law with a pacemaker (can't go thru metal detector) be all but strip searched at the security area. Even if my mother in law had a knife or a gun on her, the pilot could most likely LAND before she got to the cockpit door.

 

[Busdrvr]

On the return, I did have an hour in OKC...and I couldn't help but notice that about 40 other people...all in "business attire" (Walmart must have had a sale on suits) head over to the gate with the flight to MCI...so I wasn't the only one "two stepping".

Then again, with SWA losing 50% more bags last year than UAL and having OVER TWICE the invol DB's (despite no codesharing, international, lower load factor, and more "directs"), maybe the folks in the suites were just going to cousin LuLu's shotgun wedding in KC and didn't want to have to make a quick trip to Wal Mart to avoid having to dress like Jethro at the wedding, or they figured they'd have them some nice threads when they attempt to eat the 36 ounce sirloin "if you eat it all it's free" meal at the Super 8 motel they'll have to get a room in when SWA doesn't have a seat for them (and given it's a "two step", SWA doesn't even have to get them a room) on the last flight out. Of course they're risking the drunk stripper just out of rehab (the one on "Airline") puking on their only set of church clothes....

You know, IMHO, ten bucks is ten bucks. I'd rather see that ten bucks go towards doing something about increasing security. What I see today is my 85 year old mother in law with a pacemaker (can't go thru metal detector) be all but strip searched at the security area..

While I've never been a true fan of the TSA, let me point something out that the less thoughtful among us may be missing. If you were going to try to take out an airliner today, would you get a bearded Bin Laden look alike to do the deed? Or, is it possible, that you would be get that nice young man who lives in the apartment below auntie Mae or Uncle Ralph, to befriend them, help them out, run errands for them, and THEN, out of the goodness of his heart offer to buy them a ticket to visit Nephew Billy Bob in Tulsa who is celebrating his long anticipated passing of his GED and completion of his first welding class at the local tech school. Of course the good hearted Ali (who of course says he's a hispanic from Texas, and likes hunting, the NRA and all the finer things in life like Bud Light) offers to help uncle Ralph pack. He then either puts a bomb in the wheel chair (it doesn't have to be big) or in Aunt Mae's luggage. Could it happen? Well, to my knowledge it hasn't happened to old people, BUT El Al found a bomb in the luggage of a pregnant red headed pale Irish lady. She had no idea her palestinian boyfriend was capable of martyring his infidel girlfriend and his unborn child.

I've actually paid MORE to fly Southwest because my plans were subject to last minute changes. At least they don't charge me a hundred bucks (plus any fare difference) to say I need to come home Friday instead of Thursday

that's funny, on the last airline I saw they wanted well over $100 EACH to let a lady and her two young boys get on an early OPEN SWA flight (DAY OF TRAVEL), while every time I've looked to get on an early UAL flight, if it's open, I'm on.

I thought SWA employees kind of lead the league in pay these days...hence all the "wait til the fuel hedges run out and managment comes after labor's pocketbook".

Wow, so they weren't the lowest paid for like 3 out of the last 30 years...impressive.. 🙄 . And just for reference, (and I hate to say this out loud), but do to stock, UAL's 737 Capts will on average make around $100K more this year than an equiv SWA guy. Granted it is a temprary blip, but I'm betting SWA's payrates are as well