Making Air Travel Safe from Terrorism - Term Paper Example

 Making Air Travel Safe from Terrorism Introduction “Protecting this system demands a high level of vigilance because a single lapse in aviation security can result in hundreds of deaths, destroy equipment worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and have immeasurable negative impacts on the economy and the public’s confidence in air travel” (Sweet, 2006). Gerald L. Dillingham uttered these words, when he was present in front of the subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in U.S. Senate, April 6, 2000 (Sweet, 2006). Almost after 17 months, Dillingham’s prediction came true and the same happened to the United States, its people and its economy. On September 11, 2011, the people of United States mourned over the events that took place a decade ago that have caused too many ripples on the social, economic, political, and legal situations on a global scale. Amongst the major and frontline stakeholders and affected parities, the airline industry of the United States was the one that suffered greatly and had to undergo a series of changes related to security and safety in order to survive in the business (Seidenstat & Splane, 2009). Right after the 9/11 attacks, the airline industry remained shut for four consecutive days during which the airline industry suffered with losses of more than 1.4 billion in income (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola & Yeletaysi, 2008). Even after resuming the flights, the fear and terror was so tremendous that people decided not to use airplanes for travel or delay their travelling plans for as long as possible. On top of it, airlines had to incur costs of millions of dollars in form on introducing new security programs, tools, and machines and training their staff for the same (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola & Yeletaysi, 2008). It became a nightmare for these airlines since they posted losses of 7.7 billion US dollars in 2001 and the trend continued in the next year as well where the losses strayed at the 7 billion US dollars mark. On top of it, with freezing wages, decreasing benefits, tougher jobs and security jobs, people started leaving jobs and many airlines initiated layoffs as an attempt to decrease their costs (United States Government Accountability, 2011). Even before 9/11, there were many cases of hijackings but this was first time in the history of United States that commercial planes were used as weapons of kill thousands. Quite understandably, this raised serious questions on the ability to US government, intelligence agencies and other law enforcement agencies to protect its citizens from external and internal threats and the airlines to take aviation security measures (Seidenstat & Splane, 2009). This brief introduction about the impact of 9/11 attacks and ongoing threats of terrorism on the aviation industry has transformed the entire industry during the past decade or so. This explains why the words aviation security, aviation safety, making air travel safer, and others, has become some familiar to every common person in the United States. Without any doubts, even after a decade of efforts, experts agree that our airbases, airline and the entire aviation system is still far from fool proof and the threats are still very much there. Therefore, the job is not done for the aviation administration and the government. This paper is an attempt to explore and discuss that what else is still needed to ensure security and safety of our aviation industry so that air travel could be made safer and trust of people could be restored fully. Discussion Despite the fact that United States is a capitalistic nation and the free market and laissez-faire ideals still dominate the minds of most of economists and experts, intervening in the aviation industry with full force has become imperative since in the absence of the same, the entire nation is at risk (Sweet, 2006). For example, Libertarians and free market advocates like Ron Paul would oppose such government funding and intervention (Harrison, 2009). Researchers have proved that in unregulated private markets, the amount of security that the aviation authorities would provide is going to be far less than the amount, which would be required or demanded by the passengers (Berrick & United States Government Accountability Office, 2008). This is true because aviation security is not only costly but it also goes to benefit other people in the locality which private airlines would not want since they would want their costs to provide maximum benefits for their own companies and no one else (Spencer, 2008). Furthermore, it is highly likely that powerful players in the airline industry would make cartels, deals of secret agreement to deliberately decrease their investments and costs on security measures and then reap the benefits out of their monopoly. The point here is that ensuring aviation security cannot be left entirely on the aviation administration and the government officials and department will have to play their dominant role in the entire process (Markarian, Kölle & Tarter, 2011). Out of the many steps that are required to ensure airline security, comprehensive training of all the airline employees remains at the top of the list. Statistics and reports from previous hijacking cases reveal that whenever such incidents have happened, the terrorists have had access to inside information and someone from the inside, intentionally or unintentionally enabled the terrorists to acquire that information. Furthermore, since 9/11, airport staff has received countless threats through phone call and emails about bombs, hijackings and so on (Spencer, 2008; Thomas, 2003). A considerable majority of these threats have proven out to be wrong and have not even made it to the press but a handful of these threats also proven out to be right or have created enough panic in the airports. The point here is to indicate the time when regulations and rules are laid down for on the recruitment and selection of all the employees who work on the airports or within the aviation industry (Seidenstat & Splane, 2009; Harrison, 2009). Right after the Pan Am Flight 103 incident or also known as the Lockerbie bombing incident that killed 270 people, the United States passed the Aviation Security Improvement Act of the 1990 (Wallis, 2001) that aimed at improving the screening standards for the applicants of jobs in aviation industry. Six years later, TWA 800 incident due to which around 230 persons lost their lives forced the US government to create a “White House commission on Aviation Security and Safety” (Wallis, 2001). Once again, the commission suggested tightening of the screening policies. In addition, the commission also provided the airline industry with more than 1 billion US dollars for the implementation of these policies. Furthermore, it is important to train these employees in various areas such as stress handling, time management, avoiding panic, dealing with security threats, hostage handling, negotiation, and bargaining, coded language, foreign language, reporting any suspicious activity and others. If the aviation staff knows how to minimize the adverse effects during, after or before a terrorist activity then it is highly likely that the aviation administration would be able to contain and avoid damage (United States Government Accountability, 2011). Another problem encountered by the aviation security is the fact that security standards vary in different airports. Over the past few years, there have been countless reports from various airports and areas of the North America where customers have reported to bypass the normal security requirements (Thomas, 2003). There tends to be less focus on smaller airports, both in terms of size, customer traffic, and airline traffic. This is in line with the theory that terrorists are more likely to select airports where they could create maximum casualties, get maximum exposure, and incur maximum damage. Therefore, they would always select the airports and aircrafts with which they could send a strong message (Price & Forrest, 2008). This explains why majority of the security restrictions, screening and resources are being spent on airports such as “Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, O'Hare International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Denver International Airport, McCarran International Airport, JFK International Airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and others” (Berrick & United States Government Accountability Office, 2008). However, the problem with such an approach is that this disparity between security, scrutiny, and implementation of security procedures may result in providing a safe haven to the extremists. Rather than trying for the bigger airports and aircrafts, they may decide to target, the smaller and less scrutinized airports, and aircrafts, which will still be enough to spread a huge wave of panic, fear and concern all over the United States (Markarian, Kölle & Tarter, 2011; Levine, 2009). The point here is that the aviation industry must reconsider its policy of spending its resources and attention based on the size and traffic of the airport. The idea is not to leave any loose ends from where the terrorists could strike back. Furthermore, with following strict and prudent measures and regulations all over the world wherever the US planes are having their activities, this would create a sense of security and protection amongst the customers and the public. On the other hand, lazy, lethargic, and inconsistent attitude of staff in the aviation industry may provoke feelings of fear and concern amongst the customers. This is because that they would fear that if they can bypass security or beat them the officials with not following the instructions then someone with not so good intentions may be able to do the same (Seidenstat & Splane, 2009). Mass transit systems, whether in form of railways, roads, automobiles, bridges, airports and aircrafts and others, have always remained in the spotlight of extremists and terrorists. They used mass transit systems as a two edged swords. First, they use these systems like other people for the quick transportation of drugs, arms, ammunition, trafficking, and others. With the same, they spread their scope of criminal activities (Seabridge & Morgan, 2010). Second, bigger criminal elements and mastermind and enemies always target these mass transit systems because they know that destruction or even an unsuccessful attempt at destroying these places can create an upwards spiral of demolition for the nation and their economy (Ray, 1999). The economy not only suffers with the losses of the structure and the equipment but losses billions of dollars in revenue for the coming months and years. Furthermore, the effects are visible on other sectors of the economy as well, thus creating, as mentioned earlier, an upward spiral of destruction (Markarian, Kölle & Tarter, 2011). The point here is that in order to cope with these threats and issues, the aviation authorities and the government must work together to make the jobs of the aviation staff for attractive so that the employee turnover in the industry, which peaks at 60 percent, could be decreased to a reasonable level (United States Government Accountability, 2011). Even if the airlines are comfortable with losing 60 percent of their staff every year, this may put a serious dent on the ability of these airlines to ensure security and safety of the aircrafts and their customers. When an airline loses 60 percent of its staff every year, the costs of recruiting, selecting, screening and training these employees may be in millions for the entire industry (Price & Forrest, 2008). Furthermore, when employees leave the airlines, they contain crucial and precious information, which, if misused, can result in catastrophic results. Therefore, the bottom line is that it is also important to retain the staff for longer periods so that airline companies could decrease their costs, ensure that critical information may not be leaked outside, and go in the wrong hands. Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways, and Continental Airlines, over the past few years have been able to keep their turnovers rates at minimum of 10-20 percent as compared to the industry averages of 60 percent (Seidenstat & Splane, 2009; Zellan, 2003). The prime reason behind the same remains the attractive pay programs and work environment at these airlines (Berrick, 2006). At Southwest and Continental airlines, employees receive pays, which are higher than the industry average or at least, the bonuses, rewards, benefits, and facilities that they get for the higher team performance or the better performance of the entire airline boosts their average yearly pay to a comparatively very high level. Furthermore, case studies and researches show that at these airlines, employees have access to their bosses and even the offices of their CEOs, COOs and other executives for most parts of the day. Employees are well aware of the happenings in the company, company strategy, policies, and others (Markarian, Kölle & Tarter, 2011). Furthermore, these airlines put in great deal of energy, through company trips, parties, picnics, concerts, programs, outings and others, that every employee could feel that the company treats him or her like a family. In turn, these employees remain loyal to the company and statistics reveal that since 9/11, these airlines have been able to achieve above average ratings from the Department of Homeland Security and other concerned organizations regarding their efforts to implement security programs and plans (Berrick, 2006; Nath & Crans, 2010). The reason for the same is that when employees feel that their organization treats them like a family then they are ready to step forward go an extra mile to ensure that the reputation of their family is clean. The point here is that it is time that the airlines and the entire aviation industry sit down to focus on the human aspect of their employees and security personnel to ensure that they are ready to put in the extra effort for their airline, its safety and reputation (United States Government Accountability, 2011). Over the past decade or so, the security systems to check the passengers, their hand bags, luggage have improved dramatically. In fact, passengers now have to wait more than two hours to complete all the security procedures before they could get on the plane. Even the children and elderly people have to go through such strong screening procedures (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola & Yeletaysi, 2008; Zellan, 2003). In fact, over the past few years, checking of the elderly and children has made huge news in the media that this issue received extensive debate and discussion during the recent hearing of “the US Senate Committee headed by Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, and Democrat, Representative William Keating of Massachusetts at Logan International Airport” (Zellan, 2003). More importantly, during this same committee hearing, experts shed light that despite the fact that passenger screening, luggage checking and aircraft scrutiny are areas where we have shown some tremendous progress but much needs to be done in order to ensure that protection of airport perimeters especially during the off peak hours (Berrick & United States Government Accountability Office, 2008). During the peak hours, the security officials are employed at almost everywhere at the airports but during the off peak hours, the security gets so lightened at many airports that it provides a great opportunity for the extremists to enter the airport premises and do the damage. Therefore, there is immense need to switch to more technologically advanced tools to keep trespassers and terrorists away from the airports 24/7 (Abeyratne, 2010; Markarian, Kölle & Tarter, 2011). Furthermore, during the past couple of years, the government has invested over 40 billion US dollars in airline security. A small portion of this investment went for supporting the airline for employing more than 2800 behavior detection personnel airports who stand everywhere at the airport to look for people who seem to be acting weird, bizarre, strange and who may be causing trouble or creating distraction for others (Markarian, Kölle & Tarter, 2011; Elias, 2009). Nevertheless, it is time that airports should employ fewer personnel on the field and invest more on the security cameras and CCTV footage. People with a small criminal history and comparatively less destructive intentions may be easy to spot by those inspectors but people who plan extremely dangerous for the airport have proven to be trained enough to keep their composure and behavior in front of the guards and employed security personnel (Seidenstat & Splane, 2009; Nath & Crans, 2010). Therefore, the key here is to ensure that they think that there is no one seeing them but at the same time place there should be strategically placed CCTV cameras covering every inch of the airport premises, out of which, only a few should be visible to the naked eye. This is a possible way to catch the suspicious actions of dangerous people on the airport (United States Government Accountability, 2011; Johnstone & National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2006) As mentioned earlier that after 9/11, airlines have come up comprehensive systems to check each passenger, his or her complete luggage and everything else which belongs to that passenger. In fact, as soon as passenger registers with the airline for the ticket, the authorities start a background check on that passenger, which goes to look for virtually everything, home, work, marriages, family details, criminal record, credit card history, telephone records, income, patterns of travel, and reports for any misconduct, nationalities, and others. This allows them to rank their passengers based on the possible threat that they could pose (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola & Yeletaysi, 2008; Elias, 2009). Passengers that are suspicious and rank high on these ratings find themselves thoroughly checked and screened at the airports before getting on the plane. This allows the aviation staff to ensure that any potential troublemaker does not get a chance to reach even near to the aircraft. However, lately, this procedure has remained under great deal of scrutiny, criticism and debate (Thomas, 2010). Minorities and other groups claim that this entire practice is just racist because the only which are leaving their lines and presenting themselves for insulting full body checks are mostly Blacks, Asians and Muslims. One can observe many lawsuits and cases against the airlines and security personnel over the years, in which, many passengers have been able to get the verdict in their favor. This has compounded the problems for the airport security people because they are being assigned two troublesome tasks at the same time (United States Government Accountability, 2011; Johnstone & National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2006). First is to ensure that they keep any suspicious person away from the aircraft before ensuring that the passenger does not pose a threat. Second is to remain extra careful from racial and religious minorities since they reserve the right to sue the officer and the company based on racial profiling (Berrick & United States Government Accountability Office, 2008; Levine, 2009). All possible chances are that while screening and checking the passengers, the racial and religious bias, predispositions, and presumptions about minorities may have prompted them to search particular passengers in the name of random security checks and leave the others. However, there are no doubts in the fact that this issue is much bigger than ensuring the safety and security of the people of America (Abeyratne, 2010; Ray, 1999). Again, at the same time, it is important that United States of America, which champions individual freedom and liberty, is able to ensure that its ethnic, religious and racial minorities are able to call themselves as Americans as proudly as anyone else. Therefore, this is the time when the governments officials, senators, congressional representatives and other political figures must come up for symbolic gesture of equality and good intentions. There are so many politicians in the United States that travel through the airports every day. More importantly, congressional representatives, senators and other political figures are most likely to bypass these security restrictions, or at least most of these restrictions (Seidenstat & Splane, 2009; Elias, 2009). Quite understandably, these officials pose the least threat and spending time and resources of screening them would be the waste of resources and the waste of their precious time as well. Nevertheless, what is important here is that some senators and congressmen should come up voluntarily for these comprehensive and time consuming checks and screening process every once in a while to send a message that this is not about your background, power, position or other. However, these security measures are solely for ensuring that the lives of the people of the United States remain safe from any external or internal threat (Price & Forrest, 2008; Wallis, 2003). These symbolic and voluntary checks and screenings by the prominent politicians and heads of the law enforcement agencies would send a message to the perceived and actual victims of racial profiling that even if they suffered from the unjust treatment, the purpose was to ensure that their family, friends and loved ones could be protected (United States Government Accountability, 2011). Conclusion Therefore, towards the end, it is understandable enough to conclude that the aviation industry and United States government has still a long way to go before they could reach the mark of ideal security level at our airports. However, since 9/11, government, law enforcement agencies, airlines and general public have done a tremendous job in order to secure our skies and contain any other attack like that of 9/11 (Seidenstat & Splane, 2009). Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, our institutions are still away from realizing their full potential. The good news is that these institutions are on the right track and with a few systematic and strategic changes, which have been mentioned in this paper; aviation security would come very near towards achieving that ideal level. Important here to note is that in order to ensure the same, all the stakeholders, from suppliers of aviation industry to the government officials, from media people to passengers, from pilots to airline crew and others will to have work together with proper and well defined plans (Abeyratne, 2010). References Abeyratne, R. (2010). Aviation Security Law. Springer. Berrick, C. A. (2006). Aviation Security: Federal Air Marshal Service Could Benefit from Improved Planning and Controls. DIANE Publishing. Berrick, C. A., & United States Government Accountability Office. (2008). Aviation security: federal coordination for responding to in-flight security threats has matured, but procedures can be strengthened. DIANE Publishing. Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G., Coppola, D. P., & Yeletaysi, S. (2008). Introduction to homeland security: principles of all-hazards response. Butterworth-Heinemann. Elias, B. (2009). Airport and aviation security: U.S. policy and strategy in the age of global terrorism. CRC Press. Harrison, J. (2009). International aviation and terrorism: evolving threats, evolving security. Taylor & Francis. Johnstone, R. William., & National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. (2006). 9/11 and the future of transportation security. Greenwood Publishing Group. Levine, J. E. (2009). Aviation Security: Status of Transportation Security Inspector Workforce. DIANE Publishing. Markarian, G., Kölle, R., & Tarter, A. (2011). Aviation Security Engineering: A Holistic Approach. Artech House. Nath, R., & Crans, B. (2010). Aircraft Repossession and Enforcement: Practical Aspects. Kluwer Law International. Price, J. C., & Forrest, J. S. (2008). Practical aviation security: predicting and preventing future threats. Butterworth-Heinemann. Ray, S. J. (1999). Strategic communication in crisis management: lessons from the airline industry. Greenwood Publishing Group. Seabridge, A., & Morgan, S. (2010). Air Travel and Health: A Systems Perspective. John Wiley and Sons. Seidenstat, P., & Splane, F. X. (2009). Protecting Airline Passengers in the Age of Terrorism. ABC-CLIO. Spencer, L. (2008). Touching history: the untold story of the drama that unfolded in the skies over America on 9/11. Simon and Schuster. Sweet, K. M. (2006). Transportation and cargo security: threats and solutions. Pearson/Prentice Hall. Thomas, A. R. (2003). Aviation insecurity: the new challenges of air travel. Prometheus Books. Thomas, A. R. (2010). Supply chain security: international practices and innovations in moving goods safely and efficiently. ABC-CLIO. United States Government Accountability. (2011). Aviation Security: Foreign Airport Assessments and Air Carrier Inspections Help Enhance Security, But Oversight of These Efforts Can Be Strengthened. Taylor & Francis. Wallis, R. (2001). Lockerbie: the story and the lessons. Greenwood Publishing Group. Wallis, R. (2003). How safe are our skies? assessing the airlines' response to terrorism. Greenwood Publishing Group. Zellan, J. (2003). Aviation security: current issues and developments. Nova Publishers. Read More