Delays Create InsecurityFor Those Insuring Airlines

The ink is barely dry on the airline security law signed byPresident George W. Bush last month, and already there are problemswith its implementation. This is unacceptable at a time whenpassengers and aviation insurers need to be reassured that it isindeed relatively safe to fly once again.

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta created a stir last weekwhen he flatly stated that it is not possible to meet the law'sJan. 19 deadline to screen all luggage for explosives. The law gavethe Transportation Department two months to begin screening everybag, whether via manual searches, X-rays or bomb-sniffing dogs. Thegovernment was given an additional year–until Dec. 31, 2002–to passall checked baggage through machines that can detect even smallamounts of explosive material.

But only nine days after the bill was signed by his boss intolaw, Mr. Mineta said there is too little equipment, and too fewpeople and dogs to handle such a load in 60 days. Other officialsin the industry raised questions about whether enough screeningmachines could be manufactured to cover all airports by the end of2002, as well as wondering where the government was going to getall the money to finance the equipment purchases.

This “can't do” attitude severely undermines the law's goals–toactually increase security, and to convince everyone the governmentwas indeed serious about making air travel secure.

The issues raised by Mr. Mineta should have been settled priorto passage of the law. It does no good now to hear that the law'smandates are impossible to meet.

The biggest question when Congress debated this law was whetherthe federal government would do any better of a job securing flightsafety than the underpaid, poorly trained, relatively unsupervisedand under-equipped private firms hired by the airlines today. Theinitial response by the Feds is discouraging.

Sept. 11 made it glaringly clear that airline security waslacking. Indeed, even after the hijackings, with security concernsat their peak and the spotlight focused on those private firmshandling screening, security lapses were repeatedly exposed,leading to the evacuation of entire terminals. The ineptitude ofthe private firms made the strongest case for turning over directresponsibility to the government.

However, there was understandable skepticism on the part ofopponents of federalization as to whether putting the government incharge of flight security would be a blessing or a curse. Whileit's early to render a final conclusion, early indications are thatthe government is not up to the job.

Baggage screening is critical because hijackings are less likelyto be attempted now that everyone is aware of the threat, cockpitdoors have been secured and the number of air marshals expanded.Safety experts say that bombing attempts are therefore morelikely.

Insurers must keep the heat on the Transportation Department andCongress to make sure the law is implemented in full and on time.Any failure on the government's part will only encourage insurersto raise premiums, discourage people from flying in the firstplace, and possibly tempt terrorists to exploit the weaknesses inthe new security net.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Property &Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, December 3, 2001.Copyright 2001 by The National Underwriter Company in the serialpublication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as anindependent work may be held by the author.

Contact Webmaster