Delays Create InsecurityFor Those Insuring Airlines

The ink is barely dry on the airline security law signed by President George W. Bush last month, and already there are problems with its implementation. This is unacceptable at a time when passengers and aviation insurers need to be reassured that it is indeed relatively safe to fly once again.

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta created a stir last week when he flatly stated that it is not possible to meet the law's Jan. 19 deadline to screen all luggage for explosives. The law gave the Transportation Department two months to begin screening every bag, whether via manual searches, X-rays or bomb-sniffing dogs. The government was given an additional year–until Dec. 31, 2002–to pass all checked baggage through machines that can detect even small amounts of explosive material.

But only nine days after the bill was signed by his boss into law, Mr. Mineta said there is too little equipment, and too few people and dogs to handle such a load in 60 days. Other officials in the industry raised questions about whether enough screening machines could be manufactured to cover all airports by the end of 2002, as well as wondering where the government was going to get all the money to finance the equipment purchases.

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

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

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

Sept. 11 made it glaringly clear that airline security was lacking. Indeed, even after the hijackings, with security concerns at their peak and the spotlight focused on those private firms handling screening, security lapses were repeatedly exposed, leading to the evacuation of entire terminals. The ineptitude of the private firms made the strongest case for turning over direct responsibility to the government.

However, there was understandable skepticism on the part of opponents of federalization as to whether putting the government in charge of flight security would be a blessing or a curse. While it's early to render a final conclusion, early indications are that the government is not up to the job.

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

Insurers must keep the heat on the Transportation Department and Congress to make sure the law is implemented in full and on time. Any failure on the government's part will only encourage insurers to raise premiums, discourage people from flying in the first place, and possibly tempt terrorists to exploit the weaknesses in the 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 serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.

Contact Webmaster

Special Reports /

Delays Create Insecurity For Those Insuring Airlines

Related Stories

Recommended For You