Shepherd

Transportation Secretary Mineta has named his crack team to report on specific measures to revamp airline and airport security. The six-person team consists of:

The Chairman of Southwest Airlines

The Chairman of American Airlines

The President of the American Association of Airport Executives

Boeing's Former VP of Engineering and Technology

The President of the Airline Pilots' Association

The Former Commissioner of Customs

Does anyone see a huge conflict of interest with 4 of the 6 members of this commission? The pilot and customs guy can stay, but the rest have simply got to go. We will never see real reform of airline security by putting the issue in the hands of the very people who have already failed us so badly, and who have every financial incentive to keep the status quo.

Time to take a stand, people.

Bo

Time to think clearly and stop trying to find enemies where there aren't.

Next you will be saying that the tragic events of last week were the airlines fault...

Moo

I'm with you, shepherd. What are the chances that airline executives and airplane designers are going to recommend things that might hurt their own bottom line?

Then, their recommendations will be further watered down in adopting regulation, until we are left with the very same system we have now.

What a waste.

Britannia

Never mind all the committess, just have an inexcessible pilot area.

Hmmm

Where are the terrorism experts? Where are the experts on security that foreign airlines and airports use? Where is the air traffic control expert?

Does sound like a committee to protect the airlines' and airports' bottom lines.

mhs

All of this rather "begs the question" -- if we had adequate/stringent passport control, follow-up on expired visa, and stringent border security there would have been no one here to hijack these domestic flights.

Much easier to keep roaches out than to eradicate them once they have infested your house.

However, if we are too weak to do that, I agree with you shepherd.

L

A different take on the two task forces: their recommendations will be strong, for a simple reason: the Federal Gov't. will provide the funds to implement them. And the Airport Trust Fund will have to do its part. This money might be wrapped into the aid package that Mineta will be discussing today. Airlines are seeking $24B to stay afloat. Watch the tube ... the media were out in force at DOT this morning. Just an aside: you criticize the airline guys and toss a slight kudo in the direction of the Customs Commissioner. If you knew more about DC, you'd know that Customs is one of the most absolutely worthless organizations you the taxpayer support, and that their commissioners have often been among the most crass, politically-inspired Presidential appointments. Kudos for Customers Commissioner? Scotty, wake up. I think I'm ready for that darned beam. Ciao

Shepherd

L,

The customs guy might have something useful to say about what type of profiling will be most effective to identify suspicious passengers.

Also, there's no need to toss the customs guy, because at least he doesn't have a profit motive to water down the recommendations.

L

So, if profits are the issue, lets see how this would work: assume they suggest placing an armed air marshall aboard every single domestic flight, and it is estimated that will cost $50-$100 million per year. Per year. Airlines are losing something like $200-$400 million per day. Per day. Now, please explain to me how this watering down view you express and the airline profit picture work. Keep in mind the feds will pay for much, if not all, of these new procedures. The airlines will have to pay too. And so will you. Now, Scotty, hold off on that beam for a moment or so, if you please. I'm not seeing why they will oppose more safety that costs money. Ciao

Cindy

L, I hope you'll allow me to take a crack at this. If you are saying that the feds would pick up the cost of expensive reforms like the air marshall program, so the airlines won't resist those changes, I think you are assuming quite a lot.

The airlines can be expected to oppose anything that will depress demand for their product. Long waits depress demand. Per-ticket levys to pay for security can depress demand. Being hassled El Al style can depress demand. Also, anything that keeps a plane on the ground (inspections before boarding, air marshalls who show up late or are unavailable when they should be, food service delivery guy who forgets his ID that day) costs the airlines money. And of course, retro-fitting cockpit doors would be hideously expensive and would add weight, which costs fuel.

How do we know the airlines will resist meaningful change? History, that's how. When the FAA has tried to improve security, the airlines have opposed the effort in the rule-making process. It's the American way, after all. That's why we have security measures like asking grandma whether she packed her own bag.

As for the airport executives, they can be expected to oppose things that cut their bottom line, too. These measures include reconfiguring airports to allow for a greater number of security screening stations, for instance. The space for that has to come from somewhere, so we could see fewer retailers, so less rent. Even something as simple as prohibiting unticketed passengers past security checkpoints will seriously impact retail sales at airports.

No, I think the changes that this group is likely to recommend are largely cosmetic. Anything that looks good to the public, but doesn't cost a whole lot, will be on the table. The things that are most likely to foil a terrorist will be shunted aside.

So, L, if you wish to believe the federal government will pay for a national marshall program, retrofitting all cockpits with double-doors, beginning detailed background checks for workers, investing in pressurized checked baggage screening chambers, re-vamping carry-on baggage screening (and bail out the airlines financially, too) and the like all out of general tax receipts, I disagree. And if you think this task force is going to make serious and sweeping recommendations given the clear impact they would have on the bottom line, well, I hope you're right.

L

Actually, the airline folks are with Mineta discussing exactly how the Federal aid will be provided ... up to $24 billion to start. From what I've heard, it will take three forms: Loans to be repaid (a la Chrysler, which was very pleased to repay well in advance of the due date)... mortgage and loan guarantees (DOT does this for the maritime industry, why not the airlines)... and up to $5 billion in a direct cash payment from Treasury (DOT does this annually for Amtrak, thus why not for the airlines). The air marshall program is of course already a Federal initiative (I've seen estimates of 30-50 in the air right now from the Cuba highjack days). Some new marshalls are already on their way to NJ to receive training, at Federal expense, with more trainees to follow. Given the present and likely future financial situation of all airlines (did you see the market hit yesterday ... stock in one airline, worth $46 a share last year, is down to $5 and change), it is quite likely that the Feds will agree to pay or help pay for every new safety feature onboard and in the gate and baggage areas. This is the nature of how the Feds will be reacting. Actions unthought of two weeks ago, such as capital gains breaks and extension of a full rebate ending next week to folks who pay little or no taxes last year), are going to be implemented, and fast. Congress needs to get back into session and pass the airline package before some begin to file. I feel fairly certain the two task forces are for more than show, and that we are looking at a new, permanent line item in FAA's budget to support this security initiative. What is disconcerting is we have to wait until october 1 for their report. So, I suppose we'll see what takes place. Ciao

bopeep

I understand Shepherd's fears, but I think we also have to understand that whenever you implement major changes, you have to include all the players in the decision-making process.
It would be silly for someone to sit on the sidelines and say "do this, do that" to the airlines, the pilots and the airports. The people who have to do the "what" must also be involved in the "how."
Of course, I'd be worried if the commission JUST consisted of one of those groups.

Cindy

Let me be more clear. I'm not saying you can't have any input from the airlines and airport management. They can have input during the rule-making process, of course.

But my humble opinion is that this task force is weighted much too heavily in favor of existing business interests. It's not so much who is on the task force; it is who is NOT on it -- terrorism experts, experts on what other nations with better security do. Where, for instance, is the president of the airline passengers' association, for instance? That organization (or one like it) would have no direct financial interest in resisting security measures, and I'd feel better if their president were on the task force to keep it honest.

Put differently, if your goal were to windowdress, this is the task force you'd set up. Maybe this task force will surprise me. I hope so.

As far as the airline bailout goes, L, I heard today that Congress is considering 15 billion, but the airlines want 24 billion (in addition to the substantial amount that has already been allocated toward the relief effort). Add either of those numbers to the hideous cost of doing even a portion of the things that have been suggested, and you are into some serious coin. I doubt that Congress is going to fund all of that out of general tax receipts. I would think some, maybe a lot, will be in the form of a per passenger levy. Don't know for sure, though.

L

Yes, airlines want $24B minimum ... and Congress is talking $15B. What has not been mentioned is the money in the airport trust fund ... already collected through ticket taxes. That should be available too. And yes, we may be looking at a $10-$25 (my guess) add-on to tickets ... a temporary levy that will somehow become a permanent feature on our economic and travel landscape. Ordinarily I'd agree that the make-up of the two task forces makes a difference ... but this time what counts is having the CEO's of the airliners, and a pilot union head ... and that they act FAST. The key players. We do not have the leasure this time of a normal advanced and final rulemaking process, with Federal Regsiter notices floating all over the locale. This time it cannot be government at the usual pace. FAA cannot be allowed to manage it either, and Rep. Mica's aviation subcommittee needs to monitor what's occurring. Notice there's zero discussion of the so-called surplus. The next big issue will be how to reopen Reagan National. And no, please do not suggest this wonderful place be transformed into Andrews Junior. Some idiot suggested that in a letter to the Post today. My god, it made me want to go out and buy a fish to have something to wrap. Imagine fighters and tankers landing on 6,000 feet. If that occurs, I'm thinking of selling helmets amd earmuffs on Alexandria's King Street and making a fortune. Visit us in DC and you'll get it. Ciao