Telegraph-Journal - October 11, 2001
Daily Gleaner (Fredericton) - October 18, 2001
By Colin Kenny
With the image of a jetliner smacking through a high rise building planted like a bomb in all our heads, it isn't surprising that the public is shying away from airplanes.
But that image was only strike 1 on the travel industry. Strike 2 was (laudably) trying to enforce strict new security measures at airports, but attempting to do so with the same old penny-pinching systems the airline industry has been using for years, creating the kinds of lineups that drive people nuts at Disney World.
Then, strike 3: U.S. and Canadian authorities pronounce that, if it came to it, military forces would shoot down jetliners filled with civilians if they were being diverted to catastrophic targets. No question, if that were the only alternative to saving the Empire State Building or First Canadian Place, fire away. But this kind of draconian solution isn't likely to encourage people to head back to the skies, and there are other ways of accomplishing the same end.
The three-pitch strikeout situation I am talking about is infuriating because it marks an enduring victory for the terrorists. It is infuriating because it is causing widespread economic damage and inconvenience. But it is also infuriating because most of the downside involved is unnecessary.
Lineups now snake toward the security belts in endless, winding coils. Straight lines are out: there isn't enough room, and lines that stretch to the horizon produce even worse optics than the coils. Is it any wonder that airline bookings are plummeting?
All this, in the name of security that isn't much better than it was before Sept. 11. Airport ground personnel, aircraft cleaners, mechanics, baggage handlers, janitorial staff and sales clerks are still not scrutinized for proper security clearance, and low-cost, poorly-trained employees are still at the helm at security checks.
You will recall that, a few years ago, Canadian airports were privatized and several of their proprietors started charging (often around $10) for "airport improvement taxes." A few people grumbled -- in fact most of us grumbled. But in most cases it meant that we were only paying between 1% and 5% extra to fly, so most of shrugged and got on with our lives.
I say that (a) we should start charging air line travelers a safety tax of $10 a flight for better, smoother security, and (b) we start using modern technology, which already exists, to dispel the fear that our own country's fighter jets are going to knock us out of the sky.
Let's start with (a). What is the traveler going to get for his or her money? Some of the safety tax could be used to have the government take over security, expand the number of conveyer belts several-fold, hire security personnel as federal employees, train them well, and pay them decently. Creating more security entrances at airports, staffed by more highly-trained people, and give them the opportunity to do more careful checks without bringing the system to a standstill.
Of course let's introduce bulletproof, force-proof doors to cockpits, as the federal government has already announced. That's a lot better than some of those initial suggestions that flight attendants use axes or passengers throw fire extinguishers to take out would-be assailants. Let's also hire bodyguards for those pilots. One sky marshal trained in the marshal arts would cost about the same as a flight attendant. Beats arming pilots, who should be focusing on flying the planes.
Now, what about (b)? Rather than scrambling the air force to contemplate shooting down civilians every time there is a ruckus in an airliner, consider the following:
Three times in the last few years I have been invited into the cockpit of an airliner I was traveling on. The last time, we were flying across western Canada. The pilot laid out the flight plan for me, told me proudly that his on-board computer, once set, could not only follow the exact route, but would set us down at the exact right spot on the runway when we arrived in Vancouver. The only reason he took off and landed manually, the pilot told me, was that it was the only fun in being a pilot: taking off and landing.
If these computers can do all this from the air, then, in emergencies (say when the captain sends a special code), surely systems and technology can be implemented to allow them to be controlled from the ground. The terrorists take over, having somehow circumvented the bodyguard and the bulletproof, locked door. But there is nothing they can do to divert the plane, because the folks on the ground have control.
If these emergency systems were installed, and everyone knew they were installed, who would want to hijack a plane? Even lunatics hate to lose.
Ten bucks for peace of mind when you're 30,000 feet in the air? It's the cost of a movie ticket. A movie that doesn't make you wriggle in your seat, and delivers a happy ending.
Senator Kenny is the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Defence and Security. He can be reached via email at kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca