Mueller confirms that airlines see the TSA as a big part of the problem: “After the TSA took over back in 2001, my pilferage claims quadrupled,” he says. Before the TSA came into the game, passengers’ bags could be opened by another party only if a law-enforcement officer was present. His counterparts at other carriers have reported similar findings, he says, and in a 2002 meeting in Washington, D.C., they demanded that the TSA crack down on rogue employees. It is not clear what the agency has done since that time to solve the problem, but it has agreed to investigate and settle any claims that arise.
Let's leave the 1-dimensional partisan politics out of this please, there are plenty of real-world reasons why the TSA sucks. The air traffic controllers are federalized and they do a great job.
The article also notes another reason why the arrival of the TSA coincided with an increase:
"The arrival of the TSA, which should have heightened security throughout airports, actually created an opportunity for petty thievery, he says. “When you have the TSA and local law enforcement watching for terrorists, this takes the priority off of thieves stealing luggage from the carousel.”
Q: Why Do 26 Million Checked Bags Go Missing Every Year?
My answer: Because they contain valuable things.
When I used to travel with checked baggage, it almost always got stolen or lost. Bad luck? No. I would pack expensive cameras. I now only put cheap clothing and nothing metal in checked baggage. Everything valuable comes with me by hand, and when that isn't possible is shipped using a more secure carrier like FedEx. Since not packing valuables, I've never had a single bag lost.
The fact is that baggage handlers at airports are criminals who make money stealing things. There are exceptions, I am sure a few are honest. Not many though.
26 million bags were not lost - most were delayed in connection. Which means you ran to your next flight and made it just in time, but your bag travels slower than you do. In any case, you got it back a few hours or a day later, all contents intact (or did you cheat the insurance? haa? :)
Few (although some) baggage handlers have the time to ruffle through your bag ni the short time they strive to load, unload, and transfer hundreds of bags from one flight to the next twenty.
The fact is that most baggage handlers are honest, while a few are not. Like in any business.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
26 million bags were not lost - most were delayed in connection. Which means you ran to your next flight and made it just in time, but your bag travels slower than you do. In any case, you got it back a few hours or a day later, all contents intact (or did you cheat the insurance? haa? :)
Few (although some) baggage handlers have the time to ruffle through your bag ni the short time they strive to load, unload, and transfer hundreds of bags from one flight to the next twenty.
The fact is that most baggage handlers are honest, while a few are not. Like in any business.
Edit: Thanks for the downvotes. Lovely. For refuting the OPs ridiculous claim that:
"The fact is that baggage handlers at airports are criminals who make money stealing things. There are exceptions, I am sure a few are honest. Not many though."
I worked in baggage handling for 10 years. I never saw anyone steal anything from any bags. Nobody opened any bags without witnesses (supervisors). I saw delayed bags due to - in order by reason - 1.) misconnection due to delayed flights, 2.) baggage airport system failures 3.) Weather (indirectly causing point 1, 2 and 4) 4.) Human error (rare).
I have found that if you have anything valuable-ish in external pockets to your luggage, it will usually disappear. e.g. change in a bag; CD's & DVD's etc.
I'm sure the baggage handlers that do that don't make it obvious to their co-workers.
> When I used to travel with checked baggage, it almost always got stolen or lost.
Your experiences seem to be exceptionally bad.
I'd be interested to hear what airline and routes you traveled. And did you have connections? Also, do you mean that some objects were stolen or the whole bad disappeared?
I regularly traveled internationally with lots of expensive gear in my checked luggage and never had it lost or stolen. But usually I travel on direct flights with no connection.
From the numbers given for US carriers, it looks like US carriers lose about 0.5% of baggage.
That's equal or higher to FedEx's loss rate, based on numbers I've seen inferred from their insurance rates and the assumption that the insurance rates are set to at least cover their costs.
Given that checked bags cost money now, why not send your bags by FedEx to your hotel? You'll likely reduce your risk of losing them, and you won't have to deal with carrying them to and from the airport.
Not as much as FedEx. Checking a 50-pound bag with United from SFO to AUS costs $25. Shipping a 50-pound package via FedEx costs twice as much, and that's assuming you can afford to be without the things in your bag for up to 4 business days. If you can't, overnight shipping is $288.
I often wish I could travel without a second suitcase. I recently paid a popular Brazilian airline R$230 (US$115) for a half-full second suitcase weighing 15kg. That price was also the price of the flight I was taking, btw.
If you're willing to do laundry in your travels (lots of hotels offer drycleaning as a paid service also) then I see no reason you shouldn't be able to.
I often travel for weeks at a time with no more than a Skyway 'carry-on' model bag and my laptop bag, both of which are carryable onto all US airlines at least. If I were somehow restricted to one bag, I could stow my laptop in my carryon if necessary, but I'd worry more about it getting banged up.
Timing, cost, and marginal return on investment of effort.
Timing: When you check your bag, it travels with you. As a result, it arrives at the same time as you. It also spends the minimum amount of time outside your possession. These two traits are desirable to travelers.
Cost: If you were to ship your bag, most travelers would need overnight service, because travelers simply don't pack two or three days ahead. The cost of shipping your travel supplies overnight isn't going to offer a cost advantage to the $25 (estimated) it costs to check your bag.
Marginal return: Yes, it would be possible to plan ahead and ship your bag through a parcel carrier's ground service, but depending upon where you're traveling to, that can take 5 days. That's a lot of planning, and the marginal increase in risk (of lost baggage) doesn't offset the time and effort required to "optimize" against this risk.
Would rates be at all competitive? Most checked baggage is quite heavy, and the cost to ship something overnight, or even 1-2 day would most likely be quite higher than the fee your airline charges per bag (which unlike FedEx it travels with you). Maybe for a planned well in advance trip where you ship items you won't need for a couple days it might make sense but I can't see it working for the short 3-4 hour business trip.
The pilot, who’s been apprised of these developments, must now make the crucial call of whether to wait for the errant valises and risk a late departure
I'm actually surprised that it comes down to the pilot's call - you'd think that their job is to just worry about flying the plane, not whether baggage has made it or not.
Premium clients can singlehandedly make a flight profitable (and in some cases, pay more for their last minute reservations than all of coach combined), so there's a damn good reason to wait for them.
Pilot(s) - *Doing pilot pre-flight things*
Gate Agent - "Alright, gate's closed, you're all clear!"
Ground Crew - "Alright, baggage is done, you're all clear!"
Pilot(s) - *Done doing pre-flight things*
"Okay, let's get permission from air traffic control to start taxi."
I imagined that whether or not all the bags (or even passengers) made it was of little concern to the pilots.
Your imagined scenario has him waiting for the bags, though!
The pilot has to know what's happening with his plane (e.g. are all the bags loaded or not) and is the final authority on everything that happens with the plane, so it all just comes out of that.
It’s not total bullshit. Salaries for regional pilots are extremely low and their hours are terrible which is why I always avoid those planes when possible. Private jet pilots are almost as screwed.
Most regional jet pilots barely make enough to survive after they have a 4 year degree and have qualified for a number of ratings (licenses).
After becoming a regional pilot, they then have a shot (small percentage chance) of working for a major carrier making approximately $50k per year (this would be someone in their late 20s early 30s applying for that job in most cases). If they are lucky they will make captain 20 years down the road and make $150k.
I don't think your link - at least the first page - supports your conclusion.
Average salary for a pilot at American Eagle - a regional airline affiliated with American - is 46k. Average salary for a fast-food manager/assistant manager are 33-39k (see my link upthread).
And, before you say you should compare captains wages with manager wages, remember, the guy flying the plane is way better qualified to run an American Eagle Outfitters than the manager.
But, what is the upper limit at American Eagle??? Well after you put in 20 years of service and you fly their absolute biggest jet you can expect to make just under $85k per year:
Here is what you fly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_ERJ_145_family
I'm not saying piloting is a bad job, I'm just saying that there are a lot of low paying jobs out there in Aviation and I think it is funny how little information people have on the topic. In short, it isn't "total" bullshit.
Wow- didn't think this was true, but googling found this:
"On the low end, first-year pilots at US Airways would, theoretically, earn a minimum $21,600 a year. For that, they would work 72 hours a month at the controls of a plane (lots more hours are involved in flight preparations, overnights and sitting around waiting)."
Stewardesses face similar issues, though I think some get below minimum wage while doors are not closed.
Its not the glamorous industry make it out to be, it can be worthwhile pay wise if you stick with it. Which is similar to many other jobs.
My cousin lived with his parents for many years flying jets for a feeder airline. He really didn't feel he was doing well till he was flying as Captain with 100+ seat jets.
I had to deal with US Airways for the first time last week (not from the US). It was at Laguardia, all the other airplane companies had flatscreens and whatnot, US Airways seemed to have been stuck in the 80's with letter boards. They were very courteous though. But damn they looked cheap.
This is true of most American companies. A while ago I was travelling a lot to Europe (England in particular) from Brazil. On every single flight you'd get personal entertainment systems installed on fairly new planes and great onboard service.
Now I'm living in the US. Every time I travel (either inside the US or to South America) I feel like American companies are not even trying.
They are trying and succeeding. The only amenity that Americans care about are the absolute lowest prices. (Does your fare comparison site let you search by the availability of entertainment devices? Nope. Because nobody actually cares.)
Considering you can regularly fly NYC-SFO round-trip for about $250, a distance of 5000 miles, I think they're doing a pretty good job.
If you want free food and nicer seats, fly first class.
> Does your fare comparison site let you search by the availability of entertainment devices? Nope. Because nobody actually cares.
I would search by that, if it was an option. But in practice most (airline, aircraft) pairs all have the same entertainment options, so you can figure it out yourself with a little googling.
Try flying a budget airline in Europe. The seats don't recline, no in flight entertainment at all, no food, and you have to ask forthe in-flight magazine.
Your big jet cross-country pilots with 20 years or more of experience are probably closing in on $200k. And working less hours for it. Union pilots bid for schedules, and once you get up in seniority, you can get some pretty choice schedules. Enough so that many senior pilots can run full on side businesses.
On the seniority note, the Vietnam era pilots must be mostly retired by now, they used to dominate the seniority charts. People would get trained to fly by the military and then go straight into the airlines afterward.
I think people can understand that mishaps occur, and can forgive their property going missing/damaged/delayed. What is unforgivable is how airlines delay and refuse reimbursing the traveler for losses incurred instead of simply accepting their responsibility and making the disruption as painless as possible.
I recently landed at SFO, near midnight, and found that their handlers had completely sheered a wheel of my suitcase. The pull handle was also busted. And this was a bag tough enough to survive 15 years of use without trouble.
Exhausted, I went home, thinking I could deal with it in the morning. JetBlue told me that they weren't taking responsibility for anything reported more than four hours after the fact "to reduce fraud", they said.
Here's the thing. They know how many bags they ruin. They also know that the likelihood of a person buying an airline ticket in order to get a "free" suitcase is vanishingly small. So they can tell that while it's possible I'm hustling them, it's also very unlikely. Chances are good that they simply destroyed my bag. But instead of paying for it, they added insult to injury by stating "we have no idea whether or not you're a criminal" before telling me the four hour rule was written in stone.
That's got nothing to do with avoiding fraud, and everything to do with avoiding responsibility. I suspect I'd have gotten the same treatment (or worse) elsewhere, but still, Jet Fucking Blue.
It's amazing to me that they even make it at all. There are so many bags coming in that have to be unloaded, scanned, sorted, transfered (sometimes cross-airline), and reloaded in such a short period of time with so much possibility of human error.
I make some pretty tight connections and my bags always seem to make it (knock on wood).
Well... I don't find it any more amazing than the fact that they can keep most of their planes in the air. Why? Because that is the job they have agreed to do for the money I have agreed to pay. Sadly, they fail at their job... apparently 26 million times a year.
Sometimes I wonder if my luggage is even on the same flight as me. We have to check in so early these days, it would not surprise me if they chucked my bag onto any next flight that will get it to my final destination before I do. Probably not... but maybe.
26 million of what, though? I don't recall seeing that mentioned in the article. Are we talking 5%, 10%, 35%? What is an acceptable failure rate? Us programmers aren't perfect, either. Or course, it's not justification, but it would sure help put things in perspective.
A family member of mine worked for an airline on the ground post 9/11 and, barring a major issue at the departing airport, there weren't very many problems. The worst circumstances were short layovers (which usually arrived on the next flight and sent to their address) or reroutes to the wrong destination (which this person took the fall for, obviously, as it was all in their control).
True the numbers are not spelled out exactly. It does say the industry claims that more than 99 percent of checked bags arrive with their owners, and most late bags turn up within two days. But when it happens to you, you don't really care what tiny percentage you are. And two days is a long time when you're in a foreign country washing your single pair of underwear in the hotel sink each night.
Oh, I 100% agree with you, having been in a similar situation. It only happens once, then you learn to carry an extra set of clothes in your carry-on (when travelling internationally).
My point is just that 1% is a pretty reasonable margin of error. If I worked on a team with 1% or less of errors over a life of a project, I'd be ecstatic. But, reality prevails. Email/Gmail, websites, cell networks, car accidents with hours of waiting, etc. all happen. Usually, only a small number are affected (or for a small duration).
Some UK friends of mine were shocked several years ago when we found out our bags were not on the same plane as us. Don't know if it's still a requirement in the UK or not (they seemed to indicate it was several years ago, re: terrorism).
If a passenger is off loaded or doesn't show up at the gate their bags would typically be removed for security reasons. That doesn't mean bags can't travel unaccompanied - just that if a passenger voluntarily offloads themselves their bags can't stay on.
Pre-9/11, I curb checked my bag but I was running a little late so got bumped off my flight before I made it to the gate. My bag made it on though. But that was before 9/11, so I imagine that would not happen today.
Additional funny bit about that: The flight I got bumped from was from Seattle to San Jose with a layover in San Francisco (don't ask). I was able to get onto another flight to SFO a couple hours later but was going to be on Stand-By for the SFO-to-SJC leg. So I just arranged to have some one pick me up at SFO rather than stand-by for that last (short) leg. They picked me up at SFO and we drove straight to SJC to get my bag. Only... my original flight had been severely delayed so I actually made it to SJC before my bag... which left SEA a good 2 hours before me. o_0
You know what I don't find amazing? When websites and SAAS's don't operate on 100% availability time, even though that's what I'm paying them to handle.
I mean, seriously, this is the whole point of their job, and yet websites keep going down. Sadly, they fail at their job.
The physical world is much more difficult than the digital world. If the best and brightest can't maintain 100% uptime on a website, don't expect 100% success with something infinitely more complicated.
"A good part of the baggage process is in a part of the airport that is physically quite complex and, in many areas, dark." He adds: "Your bag may be traveling for several miles" in this maze, and watching it at every step along the way just isn’t feasible.
That's a ridiculous excuse. The police, FBI, or whatever law enforcement agency could put hidden cameras and microphones in various luggage--packed with expensive things that are worth stealing--as part of a sting operation. If there's a serious problem (keeping in mind that the average loss is 0.5%), then they'd be able to nab the crooked TSA agents or baggage handlers after just a couple dozen runs.
The reason this is not done is because this is boring to police. It is not a glamorous or interesting kind of crime to solve, and nor does it make money like speeding tickets or parking tickets.
Part of the trouble is that the victims often aren't local. Police departments, humanly enough, care more about solving local crimes that hurt local people, rather than crimes that hurt people "somewhere else." I agree that the FBI and other such agencies would be interested, but it's still a non-violent crime, and their resources might be better spent elsewhere.
I like how the article don't mention the final destination for all the unclaimed bags. I got a great pair of sunglasses from this place once. Then I lost them.
