I travel (name deleted) frequently because my daughter is a flight attendant for another airline, which airline has a reciprocal agreement with you. So, I'm flying as a non-revenue passenger (viewed by you folks as a one-way ticket each way). Apparently one-way tickets get increased scrutiny from the security system. (Thank heavens, it's rare to hear any of your employees refer to the system as "random" any longer, since it's quite obvious there's some behind-the-scenes selection system.)
Obviously, security is a scarce resource. You can't scrutinize every single passenger completely AND offer the kind of low airfares you do to your regular passengers. This alone makes it imperative to use your resources efficiently.
I think you'll agree that a parent of one of your flying employees is probably a very low risk, and that this would extend to the parent of someone who flies for another airline. My daughter is a flight attendant for (name deleted) Airlines.
I find that I am singled out for secondary security screening about 80%-90% of the time I travel with your airline. While this is a minor and endurable inconvenience, what REALLY concerns me is that people common sense tells me are a much higher risk than me are not being screened. Since your flights seem to carry about 90 to 130 people, and since only four or five are screened, it's quite apparent that the frequency with which I'm selected has NOTHING to do with randomness, and constitutes a waste of your limited security resources.
It seems to me that with a little records-keeping on your part, you'd know that I fly your airline a lot and usually fly return trips, even if my tickets are technically one-way.
I urge you to consider what's safest for your passengers and crews and not allow yourself to be drawn into the "who has the most politically correct security screening system?" contest. I'm not saying stop and frisk every person who looks vaguely middle-eastern. I am saying that when your passengers see little old ladies in wheelchairs and 10 year old boys being subjected to secondary screening, your passengers roll their eyes. And if they knew that a parent of an airline employee was being singled out for screening while someone much more suspicious seeming gets to walk right in, they'd be concerned, too.
Please use your dollars security-smart, not PR-smart.
Obviously, security is a scarce resource. You can't scrutinize every single passenger completely AND offer the kind of low airfares you do to your regular passengers. This alone makes it imperative to use your resources efficiently.
I think you'll agree that a parent of one of your flying employees is probably a very low risk, and that this would extend to the parent of someone who flies for another airline. My daughter is a flight attendant for (name deleted) Airlines.
I find that I am singled out for secondary security screening about 80%-90% of the time I travel with your airline. While this is a minor and endurable inconvenience, what REALLY concerns me is that people common sense tells me are a much higher risk than me are not being screened. Since your flights seem to carry about 90 to 130 people, and since only four or five are screened, it's quite apparent that the frequency with which I'm selected has NOTHING to do with randomness, and constitutes a waste of your limited security resources.
It seems to me that with a little records-keeping on your part, you'd know that I fly your airline a lot and usually fly return trips, even if my tickets are technically one-way.
I urge you to consider what's safest for your passengers and crews and not allow yourself to be drawn into the "who has the most politically correct security screening system?" contest. I'm not saying stop and frisk every person who looks vaguely middle-eastern. I am saying that when your passengers see little old ladies in wheelchairs and 10 year old boys being subjected to secondary screening, your passengers roll their eyes. And if they knew that a parent of an airline employee was being singled out for screening while someone much more suspicious seeming gets to walk right in, they'd be concerned, too.
Please use your dollars security-smart, not PR-smart.
Comment