LAX airport approves a private lounge for the rich

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

That's exactly what was running through my mind.

We as a species seem to rewrite history every couple of generations to suit the current political views and history be damned. We need to learn from it and its sad how easy it is to bury history.

The Soviet Union and what it evolved into is exactly what any system of that type would eventually turn into. A ruling class, a snitch class (members of the Party) and the working poor. The Party members (government employees) are paid a bit more than usual and given extra perks to control them, so they control the working poor. Those at the top never have any intention of there being equality.

Only through having equal opportunity, do we have equality.

Equating civil rights to this does not pass the smell test in my opinion

So poor people have no rights, I get it.

I still don't understand how that discrimination is OK but if someone has a business and only wants to serve people of their own race then they're evil?

How about if rich people get to pay to have more votes than everyone else, would that be OK with all of you?? Or if they can have their own police so when they get pulled over or arrested they won't get tickets or have to go to jail like the rest of us??

a reply to: CB328

Wow, you are grasping at straws here.

Paying the extra for a nice lounge to wait for a flight in, is just a luxury some can afford and others cannot.

What matters is we live in a system where anyone has the same opportunity to do well.

What is your real point if I might ask? You want things given to you?

originally posted by: CB328

Equating civil rights to this does not pass the smell test in my opinion

So poor people have no rights, I get it.

I still don't understand how that discrimination is OK but if someone has a business and only wants to serve people of their own race then they're evil?

How about if rich people get to pay to have more votes than everyone else, would that be OK with all of you?? Or if they can have their own police so when they get pulled over or arrested they won't get tickets or have to go to jail like the rest of us??

Wow! You used up a lot of straw for all those straw man arguments. That straw could have been used to line the bedding of a person that could not afford the straw! How dare you waste straw like that when so many poor are suffering!

I am quite sure you live with luxuries that others cannot afford to have (like the tech and this Internet connection you are using to post here). Perhaps it should be taken away from you and provided free to them (but you still get to pay it all, that is, if YOU actually are paying for it yourself). Why should you live with the luxury of having the ability to voice your opinions when the underprivileged without the means to own these things are silenced!

See how that works. Someone is always less off than you, unless you live in a cave. Then, perhaps someone that doesn't even have a cave to live in would object.

Snowflakes, yes, FLAKE is the proper term here.

originally posted by: crazyewok
It there money.

You get what you pay for.

Think those sorts of people are smug selfish arse holes, especially in Hollywood, but they have the right to spend there money as they see fit.

Only think I disagree with is bypassing security. Rich or poor they should be subjected to the normal TSA semi literate police drop outs abuse and customs inspections as the law should be applied EQUALY to all.

The bypassing of security isn't anything new. The TSA itself runs a program called TSA Pre which runs your name through a database, if you check out as not being a known terrorist you can pay a fee and just walk past the security check.

www.tsa.gov...

Never used it myself, but the lines I've seen for it in airports don't even have an xray machine for your carry on, you literally just walk right through everything.

Then again, the whole reason they do this is because there's no evidence the TSA has stopped anything and their failure rates on test runs when people smuggle items in is very high. The whole security check isn't to actually make anyone safer, it's to make everyone suspicious of everyone else so that fellow passengers turn in suspicious activity rather than them catching it.

originally posted by: CB328
It sounds like it's an actual separate terminal and they're just calling it a lounge, but this is about the rich getting special rights. Pretty soon they'll have their own supermarkets, restaurants, courtrooms and everything else while the rest of us will be crowded in substandard facilities with migrants and refugees.

They used to call it discrimination, but I guess in America now that's fine as long as it's against working people in general and not just minorities.

They do that now. Have you not ever looked at various grocery stores? The Krogers and Safeways are the middle class stores, the Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Sam's Club, etc are the higher end (Sam's on that list due to a membership fee). And then you have the lower end like Aldi's (oddly enough, the same food as Trader Joes), Walmart, and Save-a-lot for the lower class.

Restaurants are no different, I'm sure you know which restaurants in your town are priced as being high end places, and which are the low end places for when you don't want to cook but still want to eat cheap.

In times past it didn't really create much segregation, but as the economic classes have widened, that's precisely what it's doing.

a reply to: CB328

There's a major difference between being able to buy more votes and being able to have access to a special lounge at an airport. That is blowing this way out of proportion.

If people can afford to pay for the special lounge, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not discrimination or infringing on anyone's civil rights. It's a buisness offering a service for a fee, no different than any other buisness selling any other product.

originally posted by: Jennyfrenzy
a reply to: CB328

There's a major difference between being able to buy more votes and being able to have access to a special lounge at an airport. That is blowing this way out of proportion.

If people can afford to pay for the special lounge, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not discrimination or infringing on anyone's civil rights. It's a buisness offering a service for a fee, no different than any other buisness selling any other product.

Taken on it's own, that's all it is. Rather it's the trends in society that are made up of premium experiences that are a problem. Society is reintegrating segregation and we're doing it along income lines. Two people who fly, despite using the same airport and even the same plane have drastically different experiences. One gets a private lounge away from the crowds, one gets free food (better than horrible overpriced airport food I'm assuming), one gets much nicer seats to use their laptop mid flight, one gets food on the flight, one avoids the molestation as part of the security process, one skips 2 hours of lines.

And that's just the differences between upper/middle class. Try it as a lower class where you can't bring food in, can't afford to eat at the restaurants, and are flying standby for days at a time. It takes 2-3x as long and is quite unpleasant.

Premium services for certain things are fine, it's probably even fine in this case. But when taken as a whole what we're doing is creating a caste system and that's not ok.

Just to add a few thoughts. While the airport lounges are one thing you should really see the "private" jet centers that are often located away from the main terminals. The amenities are quite fierce. We get the opportunity to partake when we do fixed wing medical transport. Most are quite comfortable, with full shower and sleep facilities, often a full buffet, or a 24 hour cook available if you have to wait etc.

Its also is a business and they have to be able to attract customers who want this sort of amenities to compete with the aforementioned jet centers and the convenience of using a private jet. etc.

a reply to: Blaine91555

apparently for some you seem very self important, not sure why that would create a problem with anyone.

There has always been lounges as far as I can remember back to the 80's. Frequent flyers mostly got the benefit back in the day, but I don't take criticism against anyone trying to get out of the papparazzi's snapshot. I could not imagine being famous and being stalked the entire way through the airport. They need their privacy. An unimaginable world for me thank god....but let the famous have their solace. As long as they pay for it of course.

originally posted by: VictoriaCromwell
This actually makes a great amount of sense to me, after all, do you honestly think Bill Gates is going to try and commit a terror attack?

So why make him have to go through all the trouble you all have to put up with?

No thats one thing a I disagree with.

They can have a separate terminal but they dam well should go through the same security.

EQUAL application of the law for all is vital.

originally posted by: CB328
So when they had white people only restaurants that was bad, but rich people only is just fine?

I thought "special rights" were bad? That's what the Republicans say, which are about 2/3 of this site.

You people need to wake up.

No one is preventing you from useing that terminal. If you pay the entry fee you can use it.


Unlike blacks ect that could not ever use certain facilities there is no reason you cant use that terminal, just fork up the cash.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I would bet a ton of money that it's cops, but only when he's on the internet.

-----

I don't see the problem. People are dumbasses around celebrities. It's a security risk, it's a pain in the ass for them, it's their money. Being able to pay for certain niceties isn't infringing on anyone else. This is like first class. If you want to pay for it, you pay for it. This isn't telling poor people they can't fly.

There is ONE comparison that I think sort of helps with what OP is saying. The pay fast lanes cropping up around me on the freeway are ridiculous. They have effectively bottlenecked the other highway lanes for people unwilling or unable to pay, and if you're commuting 5 days a week it REALLY does add up. It's different though, this isn't robbing from the poor, it's offering people willing to pay a better experience.

originally posted by: CB328

I still don't understand how that discrimination is OK but if someone has a business and only wants to serve people of their own race then they're evil?

How is what basically boils down to a private club 'discrimination'?

The United lounge I get to go into for free is also available for non-frequent fliers for a fee. Is that discriminatory too?

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: VictoriaCromwell
This actually makes a great amount of sense to me, after all, do you honestly think Bill Gates is going to try and commit a terror attack?

So why make him have to go through all the trouble you all have to put up with?

No thats one thing a I disagree with.

They can have a separate terminal but they dam well should go through the same security.

EQUAL application of the law for all is vital.

I'm fairly sure that if all the facts were shown, no one bypasses security, but those using the lounge have separate security utilities in place so that they are checked to the same level as anyone, but aren't standing in the same queue as those not paying for the premium experience. As far as I'm aware, the same applies for diplomats, but could be wrong on that.

a reply to: uncommitted

No full diplomats completely bypass security. It well known certain African and ME abuse this to smuggle in illegal goods.

Dont get me started on diplomatic immunity. ........

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: uncommitted

No full diplomats completely bypass security. It well known certain African and ME abuse this to smuggle in illegal goods.

Dont get me started on diplomatic immunity. ........

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment, but I thought a Saudi diplomat was recently held at security (showing he went through it) but was let go (confirming your opinion as valid)

a reply to: crazyewok

Oh what a bunch of bosh, next thing you know you'll be saying the syrian refugees ought to be troubled with the security protocols, the poor dears.

We certainly couldn't do a thing like that.