Air Security Deadline May Not Be Met
Wed Feb 13, 6:21 PM ET
By JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Transportation Department probably will not meet a Dec. 31 deadline for having enough explosive detection machines to inspect all checked baggage, the agency's inspector general said Wednesday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ine_security_9

The TSA was passed in November. That gives them 13.5 months to meet the terms of it. Personally, I think that it's pretty sad that the government can't meet this deadline with over a year's notice.

Meanwhile, they've also decided to not require screeners to have at least a high school degree.

d

This is not the least bit surprising, as I recall it took BAA several years to implement complete explosives checking at Heathrow after Pan Am 103. Someone probably has the exact number but I thought it was 6 or 8 years. And as everyone probably knows there are fewer airports in Great Britain than the US.

As far as screeners having a diploma, that costs money and so far the airlines and governments have had a very low threshold for financial expenditures that improve security. They are more than willing to turn up the sensitivity on metal detectors but improving standards and equipment is a whole different story. I would be happy to pay $10-$20 more per ticket if it truly meant better security but I get awfully frustrated when I see them implementing purely symbolic changes in the name of security that makes everybody feel like things are safer but in reality very little has been done. And so far that is exactly what I see.

I really love "Unfunded Mandates with Deadlines". I'm SO happy I am forced to contribute $10 to this nonsense everytime I fly.

------------------
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

Those of us who argued last fall that it couldn't be done were dismissed as "anti-government" heretics. I prefer "realist" or "pragmatist." Government simply may not be able to do what Congress says government must do. Happens all the time, usually with more mundane subjects than this.

Couldn't agree with you more, Spiff.

Why is it that Americans ignore fundamental economic principles when new user fees/taxes/segment charges/etc. are imposed?

What Congress forgot when the $2.50/segment security fee was enacted was that WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE FLYING, NOT TAX IT AND MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE.

For those who don't follow me, don't you think the money-grubbing airlines would have raised ticket prices that same $10 if they thought that was the profit-maximizing decision? The same carriers that eliminated olives and caviar (presumably because they thought it wouldn't harm profits)?

In 1996-97 the economy was going great guns, airlines (and everyone else) were profitable, and what does Congress do to airlines? Passes the anti-WN segment tax (for which the majors lobbied heavily) which, when combined with the federal excise tax, actually INCREASED the total federal percentage imposed on air travel. Of course, that tax increase didn't by itself kill airline profits, but it contributed to the pre-Sept. 11 losses.

Now that most airlines are struggling for survival, it's time to repeal all federal taxes on air travel, not increase them.

Instead, sheople will continue to claim in surveys (see today's USAToday) that they're afraid to fly. BS. Our government has made it costly.

Don't agree? Call your econ. prof. and take them to dinner. I'll bet they confirm the economics lesson.

[This message has been edited by FWAAA (edited 02-14-2002).]

And with all of this funding cut, how should we pay for security, aiport improvements, air traffic control, etc.?

Should we cut them too, or should we increase taxes on everyone, instead of just taxing travelers?

Honestly, right now I don't think the reason the airlines are losing money is because of an additional security fee of up to $10. Airfares are so cheap these that from NYC I can get to Europe, the Caribbean, some of South America, Mexico, the the West coast and most of Canada for $350 or less, in many cases including tax. Lowering taxes isn't going to do much to stimulate demand, if you ask me.

The real reason that airlines are losing money is that they aren't getting as many high fare paying business pax. This is a result of the economy and other factors (including security), not as a result of an extra $5-10 tax. And taking away the source of the security funding (the tax) isn't going to improve the security situation.


On your other point, I still think that it's pretty sad when our government, supposedly one of the most powerful and well funded in the world, can't get a security plan implemented in 14 months. Even if they don't think they can make it, the solution is to try harder, not start complaining a year before the deadline. Ever see the movie "Gung Ho?" They were a few cars short at the end, but they would have been well over the 15,000 mark had they spent less time complaining and striking and more time working.

d

Well who benefits from the security. We all do, whether flying or not, since no more buildings we're in are being crashed into. It's kinda like the fire dept. You don't raise revenue for the fire dept by taxing those who have to call the fire department. You tax everyone to pay for it on the assumption that it helps everyone. Asking just the travellers to pick up the security tab for securing the airspace over the US is unfair to all the others on the ground who are reaping the benefits of said additional protection.

Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: No where do I claim said protection is efficient (or even that effective).

Time?

Somebody tell me why we are doing all this? Please!

It can not be because of 9/11 - we have changed our policy on hijackers.

It can not be because of checked luggage with bombs in it. I think there has been one in 20+ years, with a few billion people flown.

Why oh why are we doing this?

I am sorry, it is not sad that our government cannot meet a deadline that was made without thought. First the machines that are required are complex and highly sophisticated. The manufacturers said from the beginning that they had to build more production space to increase numbers. Which would require time. The machines would require all airports to be reconstructed. That means getting approval from planning depts. The first plans can not be made until a serious study of each and every airport is completed to determine security layouts. Another how do you plan the new secure areas so that they reduce chances for security breaches. More and more issues could be brought up.

What is unbelieveable is that people want to throw money around and probably end up with something less effective than what we have. Lets say we pay 3 times what the scanners are worth to facilitate quicker production. The manufacturers hire more employees, build more buildings and then in a year, 2 max, orders completely fall away. Once the airports are fully equiped these machines have very very limited uses. The cost and false positive rate make them ineffective for most other details. The machines that are currently available would hopefully be suplanted by better machines in the next couple of years. Therefore we could use profiling to focus security checks on bags that need them plus a certain amount of randomness. What most people never seem to understand is that to actually place a bomb in an airplane and succeed in getting it to blowup in the air is very hard. So far I have only known of incidents that were sanctioned by states. Lybia and North Korea, with one question mark being in canada by Sikhs with possibly ties to pakistan. Think about it. It has to be small, extremely powerful compared to size, well constructed and extremely durable. These bags get thrown around, and really hard to fix a true time to detonate. After all that, you then have the problem of forensics. Libya has stopped being a major sponsor as they decided that the risk is not worth the benifit. Even Iraq has pulled back its teeth to make sure that nothing can be tied back to it. Learned its lesson with the hit on Dubbya senior.

What does that tell me. We are in the process of throwing away 2-5 billion dollars for very limited benefit. So why should I care that we won't meet a deadline that was stupid. Because to meet an impossible deadline we are going to see security guards with hand metal detectors inspecting every bag? When somebody could have stood up and said stop the madness, be sensible, and make a plan that was worthwile and doable.

------------------
Robert

Doppy: I agree that the primary reason most airlines are now on a death watch is the dearth of full-fare business travelers. (Well, that and their bloated cost structures.) Nobody really knows why they aren't flying. Could be the recession (but unemployment is still very low by modern historical standards).

Could be the 11 business fare hikes of 2000. Maybe those corporate travel dept. bean counters have curtailed high-priced travel in response.

Could be that full-fare travelers are afraid to fly (but I doubt very many are).

Who knows why? I agree that the extra $10 probably won't make a whit of difference to the full-fare passenger.

The extra $10 makes a hell of a lot of difference to discretionary discount travelers, however, such as families traveling on Southwest. If it didn't matter, don't you think WN would have already been collecting it as part of their fare?

I know that fares are extremely cheap right now. I also know (or at least trust the economists when they say) that increasing taxes on something (even air travel) usually results in consumers buying less of whatever it is. Sure, exceptions exist - those products and services where demand is inelastic.

I'm not sure that demand for air travel is inelastic. Otherwise, airlines would simply hike fares now to cover their revenue shortfalls and voila...no more negative cash flow.

Sure, the extra $10 won't by itself kill the airline industry. But it certainly won't help the industry recover. ECON 101 proves that statement. My inhouse PhD economist (my spouse) agrees with me.

Want to see demand take off? Repeal all taxes on air travel. Repeal the federal excise tax, the federal segment (anti-WN) tax and the newly enacted 9/11 Security Fee. We could even split part of the savings with the airlines (fares could go up some) and we'd all still be better off. Even if demand didn't increase. (Although demand would increase.)

And for all the airports crying the blues over decreased revenue? Cancel your $3.00 and $4.50 PFCs and see if that helps.

Well said, Bouncer and robvberg. If increasing airport security is such a matter of national importance, like national defense is, why should its costs be imposed only when one travels and not as part of the overall federal budget? I benefit from the US military but I don't have to pay any particular user fees for that benefit. I simply pay my federal taxes. I fail to see why useful (or useless, depending on your point of view) security enhancements are any different. In any event, the revenues from the $2.50/segment security fee are not going to cover even a small fraction of the expense - so why impose it? What possible benefit to our country results from that fee?

Even more ludicrous is the fact that with one hand, Congress gives airlines $5 Billion to help cover the losses flowing from the ground stop and lessened demand, while on the other hand, Congress raises taxes on what airlines sell. Huh?? Not all that different from the schizophrenic treatment of tobacco (subsidies to farmers, high taxes on smokes), except that tobacco demand is more inelastic than most consumer goods. Not too many tobacco companies reporting losses.

Usually when governments impose such specific taxes it's for one of the following two reasons:

1. Demand is inelastic and therefore it's bonus revenue for the feds - the thinking behind luxury taxes on expensive cars, boats, jewelry, etc. Government is not always right about this one; Remember how the luxury boat building industry tanked after the 1990 luxury tax was imposed? or

2. Government want to discouage demand for the "harmful product" - the thinking behind sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

Which reason is behind the ridiculous 9/11 Security Fee? Neither looks good to me.

I've done my part - I sent my Representative and Senators letters detailing the above and asked them to reconsider the flawed reasoning behind the security fee. I'll post if I get anything other than a form "thanks for your letter" response.

Let's hope the airline industry can recover despite airport security that too closely resembles prison lockdowns.

I completely agree that everyone should be footing the bill for security, not just pax. People on the ground are getting just as much protection from planes crashing into buildings or bombs blowing up planes and airplane parts falling on them. Even though my house isn't on fire, if the neighbor's house burns out of control because we don't have a fire department, mine might eventually catch fire too.

As for the cost/benefit of implementing the sytem, it's really difficult to assess. We know there are people out there who have evil intentions. We know that they're well funded and possibly could get together some type of bomb, like Richard Reid did with his powerful shoe bomb. We also know that it's relatively easy to get one on a plane these days, if you don't mind going down with the plane.

What's more difficult to calculate is how much a plane being blown out of the sky would cost. You've got the cost of the plane, the cost of anything it damages on the ground, investigation by the FBI, hunt for suspects and multi-year trial, the year long NTSB investigation, possible closure of airspace for a time so that other planes can be searched (which is really expensive, look at how much that jerk in ATL cost by shutting down the terminal), lost productivity of pax and people on the ground injured or killed, negative effects on the markets or economy, etc.

And, you'll scare a lot more people scared into not flying. A USA Today poll released yesterday found that 44% of people are afraid to fly. A bomb bringing down a plane is going to insure that these 44% probably never get on a plane again, or at least not until there have been a few incident free years, plus there'll be a lot of people who weren't afraid to fly before but are now. And you'll see companies that don't allow employees to travel or scale back on travel because they're afraid of losing valuable employees. Many companies did this after 9/11 and some still are. That's going to cost a lot, especially since each biz traveler probably adds up to 2 or 3 leisure travelers.

I'm not an economics expert, but I think the costs associated with one plane being brought down are pretty high. Now imagine if the terrorists pulled another 9/11 style and brought down two, three, four planes like this. Or even worse would be to bring down one plane a day for a few days in a row. That would really f* with us.

Most of the costs of upgrading baggage screening are one time costs. They'll also be offest by not having to do 100% positive bag match, which the airlines claimed would be impossible and super expensive (though that prediction didn't seem to come true). There might even be some savings in the way of redesigning the baggage system at some airports to make it more efficient, as a lot of airports are pretty old.

d

Why is this so hard to do? Just make everyone open their baggage before checking it in. Simple! If it casues some travelers problems (overstuffed bags, complex locks) then tough! Take the train or drive. I for one have no problem arriving 3 hours early for security. If business needs make it impossible to do this on a given day, then stay overnight and leave the next morning.

Air travel changed on Sept 11. We can no longer treat air travel the same as a bus or other public transportation vehicle. Air travel is special due to it's nature - namely the ability to kill hundreds with a single bomb, the ability to kill thousands with a single aircraft under terrorist control and the general perception that flying is more dangerous than other forms of transportation.

Stepping off rant box now...

rxziebel, I am sorry but looking in the bags is not a solution. First bombs don't necessarily have signs on them that say, I am the bomb. So opening the bag and glancing is not enough. It means pulling everything out of the bag and inspecting it. Many bags by construction leave areas that could be used to hide the bomb. So that means probing, cutting, scanning the bags. Next where do you set up the tables to do this and how do you ensure that like the guy given his shoes back that in the chaos(even organized) that people don't slip through. Many more comments are available about why your comment does not work. The biggest being that the american economy has flursihed through constantly improving employee effiency, which your comment about just add another day, or stand in line for 3 hours will help to destroy.

Doppy, I am unsure if the costs are one time. First equipment does change and these machines require constant check and maintance if they are like the cat scans that people compare them to. Next we are throughing so much money to do this instantly(which won't happen anyway) that much of what is done to meet this decree will have to be redone. Security procedures that are rushed are always redone. In this case, airports will be forced to do everything possible and that will mean what works quickest. Does that mean throwing up a building outside that people have to go to first, have their bag wrapped and sealed and then check it in? because the time it will take to reinfore the floors in the concourses will take longer. It is pretty simple. How many people have seen construction that is rushed that does not need to be redone.

Finally the costs of one plane going down are different. We have planes crash all the time. The cost of rushing things through has to be weighed against the risk of a terrorist bomb slipping through the current system. Read my previous post. It is actually very hard to succeed, do you think that terrorists have not tried before. The planes have not been falling out of the sky everyday because of how difficult it is without all of these new procedures.

Finally our society is going to have to grow up. The Isrealis and the british have learned that you cannot completely change your society. According to the logic of many on the board, the Isrealis would need to drastically change their society as a result of the suicide bombers that are attacking them. The only solution is to destroy attackers and raise the cost of people that support them to unacceptable levels. It also requires that the US learn that we respect other cultures. Not kowtow to them but understand and respect them and do what we say.


------------------
Robert

No, not simple. It takes too long. I for one DO NOT have 3 hours to waste before I fly. I took about 30 trips last year. That's 30 x 2 (I usually show up 1 hour early) = 60 hours or 2.5 days of wasted time. "Stay overnight and leave the next morning??" Now the time wasted has shot up by a factor of about 7 and adds thousands of extra dollars in hotel expenses. No thanks!

Newsflash for you: the ability to kill thousands is not limited to air travel. Additionally, it's very very unlikely anyone will ever again be able to do what the hijackers of 11 Sep did. You're much more likely to die hundreds of other ways than by airplane and that's NOT because of any new "secuity" measures.

Resist the "Chicken Little" mentality that the FAA wants you to have. Cling to your civil liberties.



------------------
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither." - Ben Franklin