The rich have different rules to you and me

[Hvr]

Well this is AFF so I guess we're rich according to the author.

The rich have different rules to you and me
The most galling airport atrocities of the lot are those that favour the rich over the masses and are endorsed by the government that supposedly serves us all.


...


Another is the existence of government-endorsed "express paths" at immigration and customs which have one purpose: queue-jumping for the loaded.



Last month, Sydney Airport resurrected the third lane at customs: one for those with things to declare, one for those with nothing to declare – and another, the "express path" for those too rich to queue.

The express path lets the rich sail past the immigration logjam on their way out and breeze past the immigration and customs queues on their way back in.
It's for those who are travelling first or business class, or are bestowed "platinum" frequent-flyer class by airlines.

A sadly typical mish mash of various gripes that have a vague connection but don't get to a logical conclusion.

 

[PLANT]

Now they just need to introduce a que for the sole purpose of me to use

 

[RooFlyer]

Well this is AFF so I guess we're rich according to the author.

A sadly typical mish mash of various gripes that have a vague connection but don't get to a logical conclusion.

Oh. It's a Sydney Morning Herald article.

Your last para Hvr describes much of that paper's 'reporting'.

 

[medhead]

Oh. It's a Sydney Morning Herald article.

Your last para Hvr describes much of that paper's 'reporting'.

If only it was reporting. It's clearly labelled as opinion.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What I don't know is whether Australia, like some other countries, charges the airline extra for these special services? Some airports I know have to pay for immigration officers to staff express lanes. Which is good - extra employment paid for by private companies. Same for express security... the question is whether the lane was an existing lane now dedicated for premium pax, or is this an entirely new lane paid for by airlines? If the latter... good idea.

 

[dajop]

First world problem. People well off enough to take overseas holidays complaining about people who either are better off than them or have a job that involves frequent travel.

Let's just worry about that extra 15 mins it takes to checkin (or not if you are smart enough to checkin online and do bag drop) or the extra 20 to get through customs. In comparison to these waiting times in queues at airports things like public health vs private hospital waiting lists seem ever so trivial.

 

[medhead]

I spend about 10.5 days a year in an aeroplane, why not save me 15 minutes.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Someone needs to put a stop to this. Airlines also give bigger seats to the "rich"...

 

[TomVexille]

Apparently my income which is just under half the national average makes me "rich"

Or maybe I did some research and made smart use of FF programs...

You be the judge.

 

[RooFlyer]

If only it was reporting. It's clearly labelled as opinion.

My second para referred to 'reporting', not the opinion article by Mr Dick..

 

[medhead]

My second para referred to 'reporting', not the opinion article by Mr Dick..

And by extension implies this Opinion piece is reporting, since you description of reporting has been applied to this opinion.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

First world problem. People well off enough to take overseas holidays complaining about people who either are better off than them or have a job that involves frequent travel.

Let's just worry about that extra 15 mins it takes to checkin (or not if you are smart enough to checkin online and do bag drop) or the extra 20 to get through customs. In comparison to these waiting times in queues at airports things like public health vs private hospital waiting lists seem ever so trivial.

I don't think it's a 'first world' problem at all. Anyone... first world or developing world, has a right to know where their public resources are going and how they're spent. If premium passengers are paying extra, fair enough. But if everyone is paying the same... why should one get priority over the other?

Someone needs to put a stop to this. Airlines also give bigger seats to the "rich"...

Again comes down to who pays. Passengers pay more for bigger seats. Have the passengers paid for the privilege of fast-track (either directly, or via the airline paying more)?

I wonder if immigration/security collect those fast-track passes and then charge the airline accordingly?

 

[horseman]

.....

 

[Deleted member]

Well this is AFF so I guess we're rich according to the author.




A sadly typical mish mash of various gripes that have a vague connection but don't get to a logical conclusion.

How is one "Bestowed" platinum FF status? I thought it was "Earned"!!

 

[Deleted member]

The "Rich" don't even fly commercial. They own their own plane !!

 

[TomVexille]

I wonder if immigration/security collect those fast-track passes and then charge the airline accordingly?

I think that's what is supposed to happen....

 

[RooFlyer]

And by extension implies this Opinion piece is reporting, since you description of reporting has been applied to this opinion.

No, different paragraphs, different thoughts. Remember those old rules? Please, I know what I wrote and why I wrote it. You really want to argue this point?

 

[dajop]

I don't think it's a 'first world' problem at all. Anyone... first world or developing world, has a right to know where their public resources are going and how they're spent. If premium passengers are paying extra, fair enough. But if everyone is paying the same... why should one get priority over the other?

But the premise of the article was about people paying more to get more privileges from the government. I think the author assumed that somehow the passenger (maybe via the airline?) was paying for it, not necessarily people were getting preference without paying anything (which would be a separate debate/discussion):

The only people who should be unhappy about express paths are those who have to wait because they can't pay their way past a government-controlled checkpoint.

The other thing it bemoans is renting out of public space to private functions. Hello? Where does a chunk of the funding for the upkeep of the said public space come from, it helps relieve burden on taxpayers or ratepayers to fund the maintenance and upkeep, so we all benefit. And if - I say if for now - airlines are paying extra for extra staff in express lanes all traveller ultimately benefit - as that reduces burden on non express lanes, and indeed as I have seen at MEL several times, when the express lane is empty, they call over passengers from the non-express lane.

Anyway, I know when I go through outbound immigration I am not paying*, and the airline is not paying my special express lane (APEC BTC use of diplomatic channel lane), the government definitely is, but has decided there is a benefit to that. I wonder what Mr. Dick thinks about that one!

* Although I probably am (or my company is) via $200 ABTC fee and much faster churn of passports.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But the premise of the article was about people paying more to get more privileges from the government. I think the author assumed that somehow the passenger (maybe via the airline?) was paying for it, not necessarily people were getting preference without paying anything (which would be a separate debate/discussion):

Possibly I read it wrong... I thought he is trying to say premium pax are getting unfair access to government services not because they have paid for them, but because they are flying in premium cabins (with the implication that everyone is paying the same handling charges, just premium pax get separate queues).

If the author acknowledges people are only getting what they have paid for... doesn't the argument collapse?

 

[juddles]

"Tim Dick is a lawyer"

That last line explained the whole stupid article.......