Airport asks travelers here about their likes and gripes

By Elisa Crouch

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

01/11/2006



Workers with clipboards took to Lambert Field's concourses Wednesday to learn how passengers rate nearly every aspect of the airport, from its road signs to its wait times to its art displays.



Anyone irritated by the lack of available parking in the Main Terminal garage had a chance to say it. So did those eager for the airport to offer free wireless Internet access, restaurants that remain open past 9 p.m., and more metal detectors to speed up security lines.

Read More



How would people here be answering the surveys?

Its intersting that you bring up smoking, because, my guess is that one of the finding of the survey will be that people want to have all the smoking booths removed.



PS: I am fairly conservative, but even I hate some of the TSA folks. They are just on a power trip very often.

Question, does purchasing a ticket for transportation on a publicly available vehicle waive certain privacy rights?

trent wrote:Question, does purchasing a ticket for transportation on a publicly available vehicle waive certain privacy rights?

What privacy rights do you have that can be waived, anyway?

I'm just asking because they are complaining about the TSA violating their privacy rights.



I'm asking the question because I think the purchase of a publicly used transportation system waves most rights to privacy. They should be able to search your bag for bombs. And search every bag. Don't put any bombs in your bag, you should be okay.

Oh, I don't know that they are violating my privacy. Simply that a little kindness would go a long way.

There are no rights to privacy, really. The closes the law comes to granting us privacy rights is the "expectation of privacy" when considering the application of the fourth amendment to admissibility of evidence.



Speaking of which, if there's a legal argument to be made against TSA methods, it would be under that amendment.



If our complaints aren't legal, all we can do is whine to our representatives. Which I've found to often be more productive than I usually expect, notwithstanding our federal senators.

JMedwick wrote:Oh, I don't know that they are violating my privacy. Simply that a little kindness would go a long way.

Actually they may have no rights to search your bags or even make you show ID.



In the case of Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District, the Supreme Court found that people not considered suspects, such as those simply boarding airplanes, do not have to answer questions or show an ID.







There is a case is making it's way through the courts right now, but basically John Gilmore has refused to show ID or submit to security screening and was not allowed to fly. When he asked why he was told it was against the law. When he asked what law or to see the actual law... well that's where the fun started. The Bush Administration finally responded that it's a "secret law"!



I don't want to turn this into a politcal debate. I just thought the article and the case is very interesting. And I really hope the US doesn't have secret laws - that we aren't allowed to know about.



Here's a few article about it-



http://www.ontherecord.org/blog/archive ... nds_t.html



http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,12 ... _tophead_3



http://news.com.com/Airport+ID+checks+l ... 87820.html

MY guess is, as this case is still pending is that they will probably rule that the government can not require a picture ID, security searches, etc before a individual can fly, but the Airline that is providing the plane the individual will be flying on can.

Right, it's a public vs. private enterprise deal. It's why I'm sort of against the smoking ban. I don't like the fact that a government can dictate was can happen inside a privately owned establishment. The airlines have every right to screen the passengers, but the government shouldn't be allowed to screen people like that. Now if there is an agreement that the goverment covers the costs of screening, is that a gray area, or is that still protected by the private business wanting the screening to happen.



Besides that, who's the idiot who threw a fit at having to show his ID? I would think that would be a more common sense approach to make sure the person who bought and paid for the ticket is getting their seat. Right?

Good grief. Show them your ID and stop holding up the line.



Besides, I am more concerned about the government spying on nonterrorist groups and individuals. Chilling. We have some issues that are more serious than showing ID at the airport.

Expat wrote:Good grief. Show them your ID and stop holding up the line.



Besides, I am more concerned about the government spying on nonterrorist groups and individuals. Chilling. We have some issues that are more serious than showing ID at the airport.

It's the same issue - secret laws, spying on citizens, taking away more and more rights. I would rather have a more open government than a secret one.

That's the question that I'm asking though, is the purchase of your plane ticket waiving your privacy rights in concordance with the 4th amendment?



I would think it does. And if it doesn't it should. The government shouldn't be able to walk into your house and search your closet, but if you are going to fly, they should be able to search your bag.

I work at the airport in a family business, and my mom, dad, and brother all went to this meeting. They said it went fairly well, and that some interesting questions and input were given. I've worked there for about 7 years, and I've always felt that the first and last thing you see before arriving or departing a city is its airport and it MUST give a positive impression - otherwise, who the hell wants to go through that crappy experience again? Only if you must.



All the employees were given surveys to fill out, ranging from what you would like to see in the terminals to necessary improvements to other random tidbits of information. I filled one out as well, and some of what my employees and myself said are as follows:



a) the signs at Lambert are some of the worst I have ever seen. After flying into Denver (granted in the middle of nowhere) or even KC for that matter, Lambert sucks in this department! They've said in previous meetings that there is nothing they can do. Mainly, since I work in the car rental industry, its just frustrating to hear this day in and day out.

b) is it just me, or do you think the roof of the Main Terminal should be a different color instead of the late 1970's dark green? I think a white or even black or dark blue would be really cool...wishful thinking probably.

c) smoking lounges - should we have more or less? everyone is quitting smoking these days, but I've heard from many a customers who say they love them...they dont have to leave security (C Terminal) or can leave real quick, not have to walk outside, and have a smoke - albeit, the exits arent that far from the security checkpoints.

d) more people movers (but does America, as obese as it is, really need these?)

e) more concessions, shops, nicer resturants, more knowledable staff (I'll leave this one alone, I deal with them all the time!)

f) the list could go on and on, if there is any interest in this at all I'll post more...



I've pretty much had Lambert Intnl in my life since I can remember, and I think that its impression on tourists is vitally important to the economic strength of the city, as well as to convince people to keep coming back to STL! I've recommended people who have a couple of hours to kill to take MetroLink into downtown, the CWE, Loop, pretty much anywhere in the city to just explore and see what it is all about! They've come back and said what an excellent form of transportation it is, and that makes me proud to be a St. Louisan.



Any comments would be appreciated!



PS - If anyone needs a rental car, let me know and I'll see what I can do

With all the excess Concourse areas, especially B and D, I think a small on-site hotel within the airport makes sense. Pilots and flight attendants could be a stable clientel, with delayed passengers as added guests. The contract should be bid out to the hospitality industry, such that the City does not directly operate the hotel.



The on-site hotel idea has been around since the mid-century, with Howard Baer asking the same question. But now that Col. Leonard Griggs is no longer running Lambert, perhaps the leadership will be more innovative in converting underutilized excess space into uses that generate income for the terminal.

WHY DID TWA HAVE TO GO> NOW THE AIRORT ISN"T A MAJOR HUB

I've got to say, the concourse areas are looking great. A lot of new restaurants and retail. IMHO, 3 cosmetic changes are needed: change out the ugly, worn blue pattern carpet, replace all those ripped vinyl chairs, and please do something with the popcorn ceiling on main departure/check-in level!

don't you think it time for STL to get a new terminal? enough on trying to put lipstick on a pig!