IF you took the average air passenger, gave him some truth serum and asked him what he felt was the most intimidating aspect of flying the chances are that he would say, rudeness.

Not the fear of flying or the safety aspect or the hassles of immigration and visa, but just plain rudeness. Rudeness is a commodity rife in this business and it is an eloquent counterpoint to the heavily advertised imagery of warmth and comfort and care that is flung at the passenger from all media outlets.

The fact is that while airline executives are generally polite, airline staff are not. On the ground this shortage in politeness becomes a drought. So the ticket holder, having surrendered all vestiges of authority at the entrance to an airport terminal is now in the captivity of people who can either stand by their advertising and ease his path to the aircraft or they can make the interim period of a very frustrating experience.

Much is written about in-flight crew and frankly, the crew inside the aircraft, confined to the same tube as a passenger, are a lot more patient, courteous and helpful than they are given credit for. Unless a passenger is unusually offensive or demanding stewards and stewardesses are generally responsive. You might get an odd one who is waspish or ill-mannered but there is a hierarchy on board that can be pinned down and if you set about it the right way you can seek redress. Most quality airlines take adverse comments in-flight very seriously and an in-flight supervisor can set things right in a moment. The "customer is right" sentiment does manifest itself. Not so on the ground. The command structure is too widespread and loose to be effective. Indifference and casualness are hard to pin down. Ignorance is compounded by fallacy that all people in uniform are in the information loop. Actually, 90 percent of the people in uniform at an airport are no more aware of what’s going in than the average passenger.

We assume, most incorrectly, that they would have answers to our questions but they don’t and constantly being barraged they can be short and curt. End of the shift hour can be the worst where irritated staffers are concerned.

Not every passenger gets the chill of indifference and it is for this reason that ground staff at an airport can get away with rank bad behavior. They employ selective courtesy and VIPs and commercially important passengers are exceedingly well looked after. In fact, airline reputations are built for and by the exclusive clientele to which they pander. And the pandering is immense. Insiders know that doors will open, passengers will be bumped off and adjustments made to accommodate regular customers, members of various airline clubs and associations, some of them very exclusive and limited in their numbers. Special handling is an airline parlance for "give this one the soft soap he or she is a somebody" and a complaint from that source can spell big trouble. So overweight luggage is ignored, seat preferences are marked off and if possible, the seat next to such a passenger is kept vacant. There is a reception at the disembarkation and ground staff will be available to handle transportation into the city, hotel bookings and executive floor concessions. Except for Customs clearance other formalities will be expeditiously completed and the privileged passenger will literally swan past the great unwashed.

Is it wrong for airlines to show such obvious preference for a handful of its passengers. No, it is not.

Aviation is a business, highly competitive and commercial and VIPs and CIPs (commercially important)are for an airline an investment. They dictate the trends and opinions and they give money to the company coffers through either their position or their recommendation. An MD of a corporation could mean 1,000 tickets a year to an airline. So he deserves cottonwool mollycoddling. A CIP who despatches cargo on a specific airline is given priority because he is billed $400,000 annually by the airline. You give him tulips and more to keep that account.

A travel writer who has a large and credible readership can cause tremendous damage through negative PR if his specialist report is critical. So it is plain common sense to see he is given no aggravation. These are policy decisions and any airline that ignores its privileged passengers is an airline that will get nowhere very fast. They are the core of loyalty programs and their "come bac" factor is a major element in airline sharing of the passenger pie. The rub comes in the stark difference between this group of passengers and the rest. For the majority the politeness level recedes for reasons as varied as ethnic and racial prejudice, genial indifference, contempt, arrogance, mismanagement and most assuredly, absence of action. So passengers will be snubbed when they ask for legitimate information, they will be snapped at, even treated as a nuisance and given short shrift. Requests for help ranging from baby nappies and warm milk to aspirins or water will be dealt with cursorily and in the case of the growing section of less than literate labor forces and the socially 'inferior' and gauche nouveau riche travelers there is a this feeling in the ground staffs that they are made of sterner stuff than those they are expected to service.

A good airline would do well to address this area. There is no call for being officious to people, even when they are unreasonable. They are customers, the ground staff are on duty and it is their job to see to the problems of travelers, even if they do not fit their concept of what an air passenger should be.