US Airlines not keen on tighter security

[newswatcher]

From the Houston Chronicle:

"U.S. airline executives told lawmakers Wednesday they can't implement the kind of baggage check procedures required in Europe, insisting such measures would be too logistically difficult to put in place here.
But the members of a Senate panel warned the airline officials that the flying public won't buy their excuses.

Less than two months after four U.S. airliners were hijacked by terrorists, the nation's carriers are under increasing pressure to ensure that no airplane carries a checked bag unless the owner of that luggage is also on the flight.

Under such rules, if a passenger's bags made a flight but the owner did not, that luggage would have to be pulled off the aircraft before the plane could leave.

Appearing before a Senate subcommittee Wednesday, executives from Continental, American, Delta and Northwest airlines argue implementing such procedures would force airplanes to stay on the ground longer and disrupt the airlines' flight schedules, particularly in their hub cities.

To put these safety procedures in place, the airlines would have to downsize even further and lay off more people, the executives said.

"We don't know how to do it and keep the airlines looking the way they look," Donald Carty, chief executive of Fort Worth-based American told the panel.

Delta Chief Executive Officer Leo Mullin said the logistical problems posed by such measures would be "very serious," while Northwest's Richard Anderson insisted implementing them in a hub city would be "practically impossible."

But the carriers' European rivals already practice such bag match procedures. And lawmakers were skeptical that safety measures that could be achieved over there could not be accomplished domestically.

"No one's going to accept that, fellas," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio. "You can say it, but no one's going to buy it. The answer from the public is going to be: Figure it out."

Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., chairman of the Antitrust, Business Rights & Competition Subcommittee, said he could conceive of saboteurs loading explosives on, say, a dozen different aircraft and effectively bringing an end to the airline industry as we know it.

"As long as that's possible, I think you all are taking a huge risk," Kohl said.

Kohl said the airline must be able to assure the traveling public that luggage aboard aircraft is not packed with explosives.

"Now guys, you know that's true," Kohl told the executives.

Airline officials point out that positive bag check procedures would do nothing to deter suicidal terrorists.

Continental President Larry Kellner said he and other airline executives favor installing more bomb-screening devices, known as CTX machines, which eventually could screen all baggage.

Such equipment, however, is expensive. CTX machines cost about $1 million apiece to purchase and even more to install.

And they are slow. Currently, these bomb-screening devices can only handle about 150 to 200 bags per hour.

"That's an airplane per hour," said Jeff Smisek, Continental's executive vice president, corporate.

Continental currently only has a handful of these machines in operation. Expanding their use will take time and money.

Airline officials also noted that since the terrorist attacks, security has been beefed up significantly.

Passenger manifests are screened for possible terrorist suspects. Cockpit doors have been reinforced so hijackers can no longer force their way to the controls and armed flight marshals are on numerous flights.

At the same time, the bags of about 10 percent of all travelers are checked more thoroughly. Some of those passengers are chosen at random, while others fit profiles deemed suspicious."

[Mishandled]

As I remember from the implementation of Triple A (Accounting and Authoristaion of baggage for carriage by Air, if I remember correctly), in the UK, there was a steep learning curve required for ensuring that bags did not travel without their respective owners. This did cause delays, and did lead to extra costs to the carriers, however, once everybody was used to the procedures, it worked in the end. Indeed it led to a reduction in the number of mishandled bags.

In my opinion, after the events of the 11th, it is a bullet that the airlines in the states will have to bite, if they are to restore the travelling publics confidence in air travel. :(

[newswatcher]

Last weekend, during a recent trip to Houston, I noticed that Continental were employing two security guards on each loading ramp for an MD-80. They were checking each baggage tag against a list, and removing some bags from the ramp before they entered the hold.

[HugMonster]

Don't they realise quite how easy it is to check in a bag for a flight, then not turn up at the gate? Who needs to be suicidal?

Until the USA Government mandates sufficient security procedures to force US Airlines to carry out sensible checks, they are playing russian roulette with the lives of passengers, crews, and (as we have now seen) thousands of people on the ground.

They need to stop their lily-livered kowtowing to business and realise where their duty lies, which is in legislating safety into their procedures.

The blinkered and smugly self-satisfied attitudes of many American airlines was a major contributory factor to the events of the 11th. September.

When people realise that making money is not the be-all and end-all of business, we will start to have a society in which people care about each other.

[The Guvnor]

More tombstone economics from US carriers. If only the travelling public knew about the way they are allowed to ride roughshod over rules and regulations - with the blessings of the US government! - in a way that few third world airlines do, no one would ever fly on them. :mad: :eek: :mad:

Of course, it goes to show how backward they are compared to European airlines. If we can do it - why can't they?

No wonder they need so much protectionism!

[Max Continuous]

Hugmonster,

Why do you persist in claiming that making money is not the be-all-and-end-all of business? Do you have a problem with the profit motive? Do you think anybody who tries to make a profit is a nasty, uncaring, tory right-wing extremist?

Just because you run a business doesn't mean you don't care about other people. But the reason you run a business is to make a profit. Period.

Bet you're a Guardian reader!

[The Guvnor]

Max Continuous - I think he's referring to cutting corners to save a buck.

Personally, I'd rather be a Herb Kelleher (and have my staff buy me a Harley!) than a Michael O'Leary (and get sent dog shi*) for my birthday.

[HugMonster]

Max Continuous, you don't appear able to read or reason with anything you've posted lately.

I said that making money is not the be-all and end-all of business. That's all.

Of course the aim of business is to make money. Without it, there's not be much point in starting out a new venture in the first place.

However, there are various other factors which get in the way. One is safety. Another is the welfare of your staff. Another is environmental impact, etc. etc. If all those are to be subjugated to making money, then let's send children up chimneys and down mines, let's remove emission regulations on factory chimneys, stop spending money on things like ear defenders, let's go back to Victorian values and damn everyone and everything that gets in the way of MAKING MONEY.

Of course I don't think that everyone who is out to make a profit is a nasty, uncaring, tory right-wing extremist. Even to suggest that labels you as pig-ignorant and unthinking. But then, we knew that about you already.

I have no problem with people who run a business to make money, and in doing so look after their staff, do all they can to ensure safety, etc. etc.

I have a major problem with people who will screw anyone and anything just to make a fast buck, and will cut corners to make £1.03 out of a deal instead of £1.00.

If you think safety should not be top priority for everyone in aviation, you have no business being in the industry at all, and I hope I never work for the same company as you, because that makes you DANGEROUS.

[PAXboy]

The observation by Mishandled is spot on. We all know that American pax bring as much baggage into the cabin as they possibly can because the American carriers lose so much of it enroute - even point to point. Subsequently, they try and do it in Europe, often succeeding.

So here is a chance for these guys to improve customer service at the same time!

[zerozero]

The way I see it, Sept 11 was a wake up call and US airlines are still in bed.

Perhaps they never heard it; perhaps they can't figure out how to turn it off.

Bottom line: They're still in bed, wiping their eyes and somebody's trying to get in through the kitchen window.

[virgin]

Before getting the best seat in the house, I travelled extensively on US domestic carriers, and continue to do so every month or so.
I like the American (domestic)turn up and fly with as little fuss as possible.

Thanks to the media whipping up fear of flying (just like they did over Concorde) I suppose it's necessary to reassure passengers that security has been tightened.

Sept 11 was terrible. But, in aviation terms, let's put it into context of flights flown etc.

I sense some anti American bias coming out, and the extremely embarrassing British failing of always thinking we know best about aviation.

I'd fly on a domestic flight with a US carrier from a US airport with the same degree of security as pre Sept 11th. I think the odds are good enough.
And, although it may take many years, I hope the world will eventually be able to relax the additional security measures being taken now.
If we go too far down the 'security' road, the terrorists have won anyway.

Max Continuous
Try counting to 10, OK 100 then, before responding! ;)

[phd]

If anyone cares to read the fascinating book 'The Tombstone Imperative' all becomes clear re. the trade-offs made between profit and protection in the air travel sector, and the extreme conflicts that arise between the FAA, NTSB and now the US Government itself. It is going to be an interesting struggle - I wonder who will win? I'll give you good odds on corporate profits and jobs coming before lives.

-----------------------------------------
That's torn it!

[GlueBall]

Roger that, Virgin. Besides, many thousands more people die in automobile crashes, yet nobody drives less! There's an obvious trade-off between risk and travel convenience. Bullet proofing aviation security kills passenger convenience. Present day aviation security overload is more damaging and costly to the airline industry than is random terrorism.

[Rongotai]

Virgin and Glueball have missed the point. Up until September 11th. the statistical issue was primarily as they state it: "What are the odds against any particular flight having a problem?".

But now the statistical issue is entirely different. The question has become 'What are the odds against ANY random flight being turned into a guided missile aimed at the public at large?"

Now in rational terms that may not be a lot of difference, but perception has nothing to do with statistics. The political reality is that the airline industry has to now assess the risk that it collectively poses to the wider public if its security is lax (or ORD or YVR).

It is no good ranting about that. That's the way it is. It is politically inescapable as long as the image of those ruins is imprinted on the minds of the world: i.e. for a very long time.

[laxman]

Guvnor,

As a proud "colonial" I take umbrage at your comments. First, I fly for Southwest, and I welcome you brits to come over and try to compete with us, you have been here before, and the results will be the same. As we say here, old man, "anytime, bro". As far as the relative lack of competitiveness, your class bound society will never be able to compete with ours. for we care not which school you went to, or who your daddy was, what counts here is what you can do when it is your turn at the plate. Nice talking to ya, mate. :D

[HugMonster]

No, Rongotai, it is you who miss the point.

The point is that airlines do not wish to make themselves safer if it will cost them money. They do not wish to make pilot's maximum duty hours any shorter and the chance of pilot fatigue consequently slimmer, if it will cost them money. They do not wish to check that all baggage on board belongs to a passenger on the flight if it will cost them money.

And up until now, they have had their way, whatever the problem, whoever has pointed it out to them.

And that situation is not healthy. Because when the overarching consideration of ALL possible factors is making money, and making more money, then people's lives are in danger.

[TowerDog]

The issue on this thread started with bag matching. Yes, a good idea if some rag-head terrorist wants to plant a bomb aboard, using timer or a pressure trigger, then not show up for the flight. Bag stayes on, plane blows up. Valid point for baggage matching.
NOT.

As was proven 9/11 and has been proven for years in Israel, some of these brainwashed fanatics thinks it is cool to die for the cause: Show up at the gate, board the plane, bag with bomb stays onboard. Plane blows up.
The terrorist goes to terrorist heaven where 72 virgins are waiting to service all his needs.
(Boy will he get a surprise in hell instead)

So what good did the bag matching program just do?

That being said, I agree it should be implemented, if it saves only one airplane or just one life, it is worth the extra work and $. Probably would add only one dollar or two to each ticket.

But again, a bag match program would not be the solution. More of those CXR bomb sniffer machines could prevent any explosives being loaded onboard, whether the owner shows up at the gate or not.

[HugMonster]

TD, as you rightly state the situation of a bag travelling without its owner was not the case on 911.

Many other situations were similarly not encountered on 911, such as private flights by aircraft not N-registered. So why are they banned? For several days afterwards, flights into the USA were banned. Why?

Many other security provisions have been put in place in the USA since 911, when they guard against methods of terrorism that were not employed on 911.

Yet, this precaution is not popular with the airlines. Simply because it will inconvenience them, and cost them money. Yet, as things stand, downing an aircraft this way would be the simplest thing in the world to carry out.

Apart from terrorism, implementing such a precaution would have the very welcome side-effect of resulting in far fewer lost bags on US flights.

[ 09 November 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

[TowerDog]

HM:

Sorry, can't answer many of your questions.
(I only work here..)

As for lost bags;
Well, don't know that it is a big problem here in the US.
Speaking strictly from personal experience I have "lost" bags 3 times in my life.
(Millions of miles dead-heading/commuting/vacation, etc.)
Once on BA, connecting at Heathrow, another time on Iberia, connecting in Barcelona and the third time on Midway airlines in Miami.

The last ten years seems to have been good for pax and their bags.
(Computerized readers and other magic stuff employed at hubs)

If other travelers however have had bad experiences here in the US, I may be wrong.(For the first time of course ;) )

[ft]

Add to that the differences in training requirements (cargo, tech, crew) and you'll be scared for real.

Cheers,
/ft

[virgin]

"Add to that the differences in training requirements (cargo, tech, crew) and you'll be scared for real."

That's just the sort of 'embarrassing British failing' I mentioned earlier. :rolleyes:

To any passenger who might be following this discussion:
Don't allow this patriotic banter to make you feel uneasy. The differences in training requirements between the UK and the US are completely irrelevant when you're doing the job.
If you're flying with a major carrier, it doesn't matter a jot whether your crew have UK or US licences.
The US is the leading aviation country in the world. Some people have difficulty coming to terms with the loss of the British Empire. :rolleyes:

[ 09 November 2001: Message edited by: virgin ]

[ft]

virgin,
are you telling me the UK isn't any better? Ouch. After seeing the new privatized british railway system in the news more than I would have liked over the past few years... I guess I'm driving during my next visit then! If only you could start driving on the right(*) side of the road! :)

Cheers,
/ft

(*) The english language is on my side! (of the road?) :D

[radeng]

Towerdog,

On my last 56 flights in the US (admittedly spread over 12 years), my bags have been lost on 22 occasions. The last and most spectacularly by American, who lost it for over 6 weeks: they paid me over $600, but wouldn't pay the out of pocket none receipted incidentals - which were pretty high. Worst offenders are the commuter lines, especially when you have a big heavy suitcase. However, a 2 week business trip with a different hotel every night hardly gives them chance to have it catch up, while overnight laundry isn't generally an available option....so you're stuck with the big heavy case.

[TowerDog]

Redeng:

Lost yer bags 22 times in the US...?

Wow, somebody does not like you :eek:
Must be a record, never heard of that kind of bad luck. (Or incompetence from the airlines.)

The solution for you of course would be to travel with 2 sets of luggage: 1 that the airlines could loose. and one for you to keep.

Good luck on future travel.