Sunday, Jul 6, 2008
Deeks notes that the new, higher-security Reagan National Airport has supposedly initiated one of the security measures favored by both the flight attendants' and the pilots' unions: limiting one carry-on per passenger, so as to help security personnel focus. But even that's being implemented so loosely as to be meaningless, she says. Passengers are allowed one carry-on item and one personal item such as a purse or briefcase. It's still two carry-ons, she says.
The Federal Aviation Administration has instituted new security measures at all airports since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, banning baggage checks at off-airport locations, keeping everyone but ticketed passengers from proceeding through security checkpoints and more closely monitoring vehicles parked near airports. Gun-carrying air marshals will soon be onboard certain flights, President Bush has asked governors to call in their National Guard troops to provide additional security at airports and FAA canine teams will be on patrol.
But Friend has been trying to make the case that even with these fixes, a terrorist could very easily check a suitcase bomb at the ticket counter. Since very few checked bags are screened, it would likely proceed undetected all the way into the cargo bin of a commercial aircraft. And the terrorist wouldn't even have to be suicidal -- he can refrain from getting on the plane, since domestic flights in this country require no baggage-to-passenger matchup.
With reports that pilots will be afforded more security through reinforced cockpit doors and perhaps even the right to carry firearms onto planes, flight attendants are concerned that it will be up to them to be the first line of defense in case of future terrorist attacks in the air. They are trying to emphasize the need to significantly beef up ground security, particularly in baggage screening, which they see as woefully inadequate. They are also moving to reduce the number of carry-on bags per passenger to one.
But the flight attendants are meeting with quiet opposition. A House Transportation Committee source says that airline lobbyists have already been trying to squash the baggage-to-passenger matchup proposal as unnecessary since the Sept. 11 terrorists were suicidal, and therefore more than willing to be on a plane with a bomb on board.
The Transportation Department's airport security task force recommendations could have been written by ATA. (Two of the task force's four members, it should be noted, were airline executives.) The report notes that "improvements in explosive detection technologies and passenger and baggage screening are also being developed. Properly deployed, these tools can be a powerful weapon in the war against terrorism. The Rapid Response Team urges that available technologies be incorporated more widely in our airport security program as soon as practicable."
Hardly a call to arms. And certainly a far cry from the stringent security measures the flight attendants want to initiate immediately.
Critics say that on the issue of airport and airline security, the airline industry, chiefly represented by the ATA, has consistently voiced a businessman's regard for the bottom line. In testimony before a Senate Aviation subcommittee in April 2000, Richard J. Doubrava, managing director of security for the ATA, cautioned the Federal Aviation Administration about its proposal to certify baggage screeners, saying, "It is important that the FAA not create a bureaucratic structure that becomes over-burdensome to the industry." The new certification requirements might economically hurt local security contractors hired by airports, Doubrava said.
ATA spokesman Wascom makes similar arguments about what would happen today with the flight attendants' recommendations. "First and foremost you would probably have some small cities that would lose service just because of the delays that would result," he says. "The way the current airline system is set up, with a hub and spokes, is geared toward moving passengers, baggage and cargos quickly and efficiently. A full bag-match, or full inspection of all baggage, would cause massive disruptions to that system. They've tested this, and that's why we're focusing on other measures that should be put in place," ones focused on passengers.
He adds that these proposals are also based on a false sense of security. "Domestic bag match does not prevent savvy terrorists from learning about how bag-match is done and circumventing it -- including the use of suicide bombers." He says that this isn't an issue of airline security, but rather of national security. The airlines have yet to see any proof that the Sept. 11 terrorists violated even one security regulation, he says. "Box cutters were allowed by the FAA," he says.
The Air Line Pilots Association has issued 30 security recommendations, some of which come close to the flight attendants' suggestions, though they are not exactly the same. On Sept. 25, Captain Duane Woerth, president of ALPA, testified before the House Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee, saying that fewer carry-ons should be allowed on board "in order to let security screeners spend more time examining each item brought on the aircraft. We strongly support increasing the percentage of bags subjected to search."
Get Salon in your mailbox!