This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen..

[Statica]

<A HREF="http://www.msnbc.com/news/633186.asp?0dm=C1AOL" TARGET="_new">EXCERPT: KLM adds safety surcharge to tickets</A>

This is preying on the psyche of airline travellers! I thought airport security was the responsibility of the Airport Authority & Law enforcement agencies. And anyways wasn't it their responsibility along with the purchase of the ticket to provide safety??
Well I will be flying KLM .. my money better give me the best danged security there is! (or what they will issue refunds for that amt??)

Reminds me of the Simpsons' episode with the Bear Tax (to keep away bears from Springfield)!

[troysvihl]

I thought airport security was the responsibility of the Airport Authority & Law enforcement agencies.

No, the terminals are controlled by the airlines. They provide security as mandated under FAA security requirements.


As the article clearly points out, this is to cover expenses that KLM incurred to boost their security beyond the normal requirement. I don't see anything wrong with their charging for it. Do you think security comes free? (no matter who provides it, it's going to cost a bunch of money)


If you don't like it, then there's a simple solution: Don't fly KLM.


Security can be just like any other product feature. Either you want a bunch of it, or you figure the risk is small enough not to warrant spending money for extra security. This isn't anything new, people make this choice all the time. Do you shell out the cash for a Volvo, or do you make do with a Geo? Do you fly the much safer air fleet of Quantis Airlines, or do you take the budget saver flights from Southwest?

[glc]

Troy - you picked the wrong "budget" airline to use as an example - Southwest has a record better than most of the majors......I'll fly Southwest before a lot of others out there.

[Karel]

When people started demanding airbags, ABS and what not as standard equipment on cars, thus making them more expensive, nobody called it "preying on the psyche of the motorists". We just paid up and hushed, well most of us did...

[troysvihl]

Troy - you picked the wrong "budget" airline to use as an example - Southwest has a record better than most of the majors......I'll fly Southwest before a lot of others out there.

Well, then insert Valujet. However, Southwest does market themselves as the low-price, budget airlines and they do skimp on many things, including the safety of their fleet. Their planes don't incorporate as many safety features and their fleet is older than many of the more "pricier" airlines. They don't employ as many safety features as more expensive airlines do. They may have had a better safety record than many other airlines (although not compared to Quantus), but it's just because the difference in various safety standards is miniscule from airlines to airline, that it isn't statistically significant given the total number of passengers.

But I think my point still stands, that there are all sorts of extra little gizmos and gadgets that can go on a plane to make it safer. There was a big article on this in Time just a year or so ago. There were all sorts of little things that could be added, with increases in ticket costs ranging from 5 cents to $20. And some airlines used them and others didn't. If they were all used, it would cost an extra $120, and would only decrease the chances of dieing by 0.00005%.



On a side note, I'm not saying I wouldn't fly Southwest. I certainly would. Their safety record shows that the odds are good, and if I can save $20 on a flight, but it means that I have a 0.00005% increase of dieing in a crash, I'm going to take the $20 savings because I think the risk is worth it.



But if you really break down the statistics to determine if KLM's extra $5 is a wise investment, you can make a rough breakdown of the statistics:

$5 savings divided by $1 million which is the rough approx. value of a human life (you can get these from insurance companie's valuation tables) gives a break-even odds of 0.000005%.

So the increase in chance of death would have to be greater than 0.000005% for it to make sense to spend the extra $5 for a safer plane. That's a pretty rough calculation based on some old numbers, but I don't think there's been anywhere close enough change in the to make the outcome any different. And given that there isn't anything close to that increase in chances of death, you should take the savings and fly the less safe plane. I know I would.


You may think that I'm insane valuing a mere $5 more than an increase chance of dieing, but every single person that reads this post does the exact same thing, even if they don't realize it. (Karel's post brushed on this a bit.) You did it the last time you bought a car, when you decided to forego side-airbags, or better crash rating because the slight increase in cost didn't seem worth it. You might not have broken down the numbers, but your subconsious certainly did. (and it isn't just cars, it can be pretty much any product or safety feature.)

There are various degrees of safety with any product, including plane trips. It's just that it was already incorporated in the ticket price. This is just the first time you noticed. In either case, I don't worry about it. We could have terrorists take down a plane every week from now on, and flying would still be statisticly safer than driving to your grocery store.

[mairving]

Southwest is quite unique in the industry. I don't believe that they have ever had a crash. How can you question their safety record if that is the case? Most of their low prices are because of effiency not skimping on safety. They also don't use that many different planes so they don't have to have that many parts. The planes may be older but it looks like they are working fine. I have always marveled when flying Southwest. I have been at the gate with no plane at the gate 15 minutes before takeoff. It still makes it on time. Also the government is thinking about adopting one of their rules about having no assigned seats in its new safety regs. The other thing that they do differently than the others is consitently turn a profit.

You can't really use Valuejet either since they are no longer flying (or crashing).

When flying out west, my wife and I usually drive to Little Rock, AR since SW flies out of their airport. The tickets are usually half the price of flying out of Memphis since it is a major Northwest hub. Northwest has also been able to legislate against SW flying into Memphis.

[troysvihl]

Well, whatever. Yes, I agree that Southwest is a great airline and that their prices are cheap. But they get those cheap prices by cutting a lot of stuff out that increases costs for others. Like you mention, they use all the same jets, this cuts down on repair costs. But they don't decrease prices through increased safety. Safety costs money, it doesn't save money. Unless you're crashing so many planes that it winds up keeping people away. (And yes, they have had crashes, but it has been a long time since their last one.)

Anyway, this hangup on Southwest and ValuJet, etc. is distracting (but not detracting) from my main point. My main point is that safety is a feature, and features come in all sorts of different qualities. The fact is, there are safer airlines than others. And no one is forced to ride the more expensive, safer airlines. (at least safer in the respect that they use more safety equipment/measures, which isn't the same thing as a lower miles flown per cost of crash)

[SARGE]

troy, the details please, just the details...;)