SNAFU - Delta credit only meals

Remember when airlines cut out meals on flights on short-hauls, followed by long-haul domestic flights?

Imagine what would happen if you weren't able to eat on a flight, even if you had low blood sugar, for the singular reason that you forgot your credit card.

Delta's decided to do away with cash on all domestic and select international routes (including Mexico, Canada and the Bahamas). So if you don't have a credit card, or if your credit card is declined, you won't eat.

The idea sounds good, but the practicality is somewhat different. Let me use an example from my own recent experience.

I fly Delta. I fly Delta frequently.

I fly Delta frequently enough that I'm what they consider a Platinum Medallion, which means that I'm in a position to often get upgraded to First Class on most coast-to-coat domestic flights.

Yet, in this particular instance, I would have been subjected to the inability to eat from LAX to ATL, at least a four-hour flight.

I ended up in LA without my credit cards, but didn't notice it until I landed on my flight from Atlanta, mainly because I was bumped to First Class and didn't have to reach for my non-existent wallet to buy a meal.

After being on the ground for three days, two of those over a weekend, I was unable to get a replacement credit card before my return flight. I also needed to subsist on what I had in my pocket, until Monday morning, when I could visit a bank branch and verify my identity (with my passport, of all things).

The return flight from LA to Atlanta was full enough that I didn't end up in First Class, so I had to use the last $8 in my pocket to buy food on the plane (I'd withdrawn what the bank would let me, but had to pay for a hotel, etc.)

If that event had taken place anytime after December 1, 2009, I would not be able to even buy a meal.

That would not have been acceptable for reasons of both well-being and health.

Think, Delta, think! Do you want to lose frequent fliers just because you choose to disengage from cold hard cash?

Update: Official US Chamber of Commerce stance on 100% container scanning

Yesterday's blog post on DevelopedEconomy.com, regarding 100% container scanning, contained a brief report from a keynote at a local economic development summit.

Today, after sending a request to the US Chamber of Commerce representative that spoke (via Gary Mabrey, a Johnson City, TN, Chamber executive who served on the USCoC's board for several years), I've received a bit more detail on the USCoC's stance on this topic.

From Ann M. Beauchesne, VP, National Security & Emergency Preparedness Department for the USCoC:

The technical and infrastructure constraints are two of the greatest shortcomings of the mandate. In many meeting with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) they actually show photos of scanned containers and have the audience guess the contents. Never once has the audience guessed correctly, and we have seen dozens of examples. CBP remains committed to a risk based approach to security to maximize impacted and costs. Congress created the mandate but they did not give CBP or the trade community the funding to see it implemented. Consequently we find the international community completely in line with leaders at CBP and the business community.

To give you a better understanding of our position on 100 percent scanning here are some recent statements we have made to both the administration and Capitol Hill:

The Chamber opposes any laws, policies, or regulations that require 100 percent scanning of maritime containerized cargo prior to lading at overseas ports. A policy of blanket inspection misdirects limited resources away from programs with the greatest security benefits and places an unnecessary burden on the global supply chain. Since the passage of the 9/11 Act in 2007, it has become evident, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported, that the 100 percent mandate is impracticable. Beyond the direct costs of implementation, the hidden costs contribute to greater supply chain delays and increased trade barriers. In light of the operational shortcomings of this mandate, keeping the law in place sends a confusing message to the international community and threatens U.S. credibility in the development of a viable trade security program.

Many of these concerns with 100 percent scanning requirements have been shared with Congress by the current and past leadership at DHS, the Governmental Accountability Office, and the international community. These concerns include:

• significant technical and affordability challenges with current technology;
• insufficient infrastructure at foreign ports;
• threat of reciprocity by international community;
• strong opposition from U.S. trading partners;
• customs limited resources focused on an ineffective program;
• security is actually diminished, not enhanced; and
• significant impact on global trade and economic recovery.

The Chamber believes that the United States should reach out to its trading partners to develop a comprehensive, multilateral supply chain security program that promotes trade and security on both sides of the transaction. The United States can accomplish these goals by furthering discussions on the World Customs Organizations SAFE Framework and moving forward on mutual Recognition. Businesses harmonize processes around the globe and governments should as well.

Update: Official US Chamber of Commerce stance on 100% container scanning

Yesterday's blog post on DevelopedEconomy.com, regarding 100% container scanning, contained a brief report from a keynote at a local economic development summit.

Today, after sending a request to the US Chamber of Commerce representative that spoke (via Gary Mabrey, a Johnson City, TN, Chamber executive who served on the USCoC's board for several years), I've received a bit more detail on the USCoC's stance on this topic.

From Ann M. Beauchesne, VP, National Security & Emergency Preparedness Department for the USCoC:

The technical and infrastructure constraints are two of the greatest shortcomings of the mandate. In many meeting with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) they actually show photos of scanned containers and have the audience guess the contents. Never once has the audience guessed correctly, and we have seen dozens of examples. CBP remains committed to a risk based approach to security to maximize impacted and costs. Congress created the mandate but they did not give CBP or the trade community the funding to see it implemented. Consequently we find the international community completely in line with leaders at CBP and the business community.

To give you a better understanding of our position on 100 percent scanning here are some recent statements we have made to both the administration and Capitol Hill:

The Chamber opposes any laws, policies, or regulations that require 100 percent scanning of maritime containerized cargo prior to lading at overseas ports. A policy of blanket inspection misdirects limited resources away from programs with the greatest security benefits and places an unnecessary burden on the global supply chain. Since the passage of the 9/11 Act in 2007, it has become evident, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported, that the 100 percent mandate is impracticable. Beyond the direct costs of implementation, the hidden costs contribute to greater supply chain delays and increased trade barriers. In light of the operational shortcomings of this mandate, keeping the law in place sends a confusing message to the international community and threatens U.S. credibility in the development of a viable trade security program.

Many of these concerns with 100 percent scanning requirements have been shared with Congress by the current and past leadership at DHS, the Governmental Accountability Office, and the international community. These concerns include:

• significant technical and affordability challenges with current technology;
• insufficient infrastructure at foreign ports;
• threat of reciprocity by international community;
• strong opposition from U.S. trading partners;
• customs limited resources focused on an ineffective program;
• security is actually diminished, not enhanced; and
• significant impact on global trade and economic recovery.

The Chamber believes that the United States should reach out to its trading partners to develop a comprehensive, multilateral supply chain security program that promotes trade and security on both sides of the transaction. The United States can accomplish these goals by furthering discussions on the World Customs Organizations SAFE Framework and moving forward on mutual Recognition. Businesses harmonize processes around the globe and governments should as well.

Update: Official US Chamber of Commerce stance on 100% container scanning

Yesterday's blog post on DevelopedEconomy.com, regarding 100% container scanning, contained a brief report from a keynote at a local economic development summit.

Today, after sending a request to the US Chamber of Commerce representative that spoke (via Gary Mabrey, a Johnson City, TN, Chamber executive who served on the USCoC's board for several years), I've received a bit more detail on the USCoC's stance on this topic.

From Ann M. Beauchesne, VP, National Security & Emergency Preparedness Department for the USCoC:

The technical and infrastructure constraints are two of the greatest shortcomings of the mandate. In many meeting with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) they actually show photos of scanned containers and have the audience guess the contents. Never once has the audience guessed correctly, and we have seen dozens of examples. CBP remains committed to a risk based approach to security to maximize impacted and costs. Congress created the mandate but they did not give CBP or the trade community the funding to see it implemented. Consequently we find the international community completely in line with leaders at CBP and the business community.

To give you a better understanding of our position on 100 percent scanning here are some recent statements we have made to both the administration and Capitol Hill:

The Chamber opposes any laws, policies, or regulations that require 100 percent scanning of maritime containerized cargo prior to lading at overseas ports. A policy of blanket inspection misdirects limited resources away from programs with the greatest security benefits and places an unnecessary burden on the global supply chain. Since the passage of the 9/11 Act in 2007, it has become evident, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has reported, that the 100 percent mandate is impracticable. Beyond the direct costs of implementation, the hidden costs contribute to greater supply chain delays and increased trade barriers. In light of the operational shortcomings of this mandate, keeping the law in place sends a confusing message to the international community and threatens U.S. credibility in the development of a viable trade security program.

Many of these concerns with 100 percent scanning requirements have been shared with Congress by the current and past leadership at DHS, the Governmental Accountability Office, and the international community. These concerns include:

• significant technical and affordability challenges with current technology;
• insufficient infrastructure at foreign ports;
• threat of reciprocity by international community;
• strong opposition from U.S. trading partners;
• customs limited resources focused on an ineffective program;
• security is actually diminished, not enhanced; and
• significant impact on global trade and economic recovery.

The Chamber believes that the United States should reach out to its trading partners to develop a comprehensive, multilateral supply chain security program that promotes trade and security on both sides of the transaction. The United States can accomplish these goals by furthering discussions on the World Customs Organizations SAFE Framework and moving forward on mutual Recognition. Businesses harmonize processes around the globe and governments should as well.

100% container scanning: feasible or ineffective?

The saying "all issues are local issues" struck home today; returning from London to the Tri-Cities of Tennessee and Virginia, I attended the Washington County / Johnson City Economic Development Summit, where the keynote focused on homeland security.

Ms. Ann M. Beauchesne, Executive Director of the Homeland Security Department at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spoke at the lunch-time keynote slot regarding disaster recovery and other issues surrounding homeland security. 

One issue she addressed, though, hit home for global trading: the goal of scanning 100% of all incoming containers, prior to landing in the US.

"It's a great soundbite on the Hill," said Ms. Beauchesne, "to say that we need to have 100% of shipped containers scanned before import. Unfortunately, the technology is not yet available to do this; forcing 100% scanning on the transportation industry would grind transportation to a halt."

Having visited several ports, including a large trans-shipping port near Valletta, Malta, that received, repacks and forwards on thousands of containers per day, I can attest that the attempted policies would significantly undermine shipping timeliness.

At the Malta port, a single container scanner is available - courtesy of the US Department of Homeland Security - that takes close to 5 minutes to scan a single container.

It's hard to imagine the backlog that would be faced with the current technology, with weeks building to months in terms of receiving container shipments. Let's hope the US Chamber of Commerce is successful in its goal to hold off the requirement for 100% scanning at foreign ports - until such a time as the technology makes it feasible to scan each container in less than 90 seconds.