|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 12/03
Don't Federalize Airport Security
On The Issues
November 2001
Transforming airport security into a government bureaucracy would not solve the security woes that led to the September 11 attacks. Calls for federalizing baggage screeners and other security operations at airports ignore the benefits of allowing private companies to compete with each other to create innovative ways to protect passengers.
If you had an important task in which speed and flexibility were vital, would it be better done by government or private employees?
The answer seems obvious. Government employees have fixed salaries, and firing them is virtually impossible. Government bureaucracies are not known for quick adjustments or innovations. Nowadays, even the U.S. Postal Service hires Federal Express to help deliver mail. In the post-September 11 debate, though, it seems taken for granted that the federal government should take over security at airports. The discussion so far involves anecdotal stories of how people were able to breach airport security. The assumption is that this would never occur if only these workers were federal employees. Yet does anyone really wonder whether reporters posing as illegal immigrants could cross the Mexican border? Airport screening is extremely difficult. Terrorists can evade metal detectors with knives made of plastic or ceramics. Thin metal blades can be hard to detect with X-rays and can be hidden in the bottom of shoes or made to look like parts of metal boxes. Even hand checks of all baggage do not guarantee safety.
But there is a better approach. Western European countries started privatizing airport security in the early 1990s after spectacular security failures with government-run operations. The governments set standards but left it to the privately run airports to decide exactly how to meet the standards.
Private security is not just limited to screening passengers and their baggage. In Britain, for example, private companies also provide gate, aircraft, and catering security, as well as crew screening. Similar arrangements exist at such high-risk airports as Amsterdam, Belfast, Brussels, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Paris.
At Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, government involvement is more extensive, providing training and controlling access to the tarmac and other sensitive areas. Still, a private company conducts preboarding screening and other security operations.
What is startling is how the drop-off in hijackings corresponds with the privatization of these services. There were twenty-one hijackings in Europe during the 1970s, sixteen during the 1980s, but only four during the 1990s. Out of these forty-one hijackings, only three originated from airports with private security.
With all the concern about getting qualified people to perform security, Europe's experience has another lesson. Europeans found that some people were too highly trained and got bored and inattentive staring at screens all day.
In any event, training standards have nothing to do with workers being employed by the government. Barbers, real estate agents, doctors, and others are required to meet minimum training times. In most states, you can't sell real estate without attending classes for at least six months, but no one claims that means agents should be federal employees.
Don't Eliminate Competition
Many airlines are losing tens of millions of dollars each day. If they are to survive, people's fear of flying must be dealt with quickly. An airline safety bill that creates one government agency to operate security has passed the Senate, but that solution would eliminate competition that could create innovative ways to protect passengers.
In their rush, senators re-created Western Europe's painful mistakes. Europe learned the hard way that some things are better run by the private sector. If these provisions in the Senate bill become law, the United States will be modeling its air security system after the post office.
John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at AEI.
Email this citation