Get smarter get faster

The region’s airlines continue to urge governments worldwide to standardize an airport security management system that consumes 25% of the world’s airports budgets. It’s an uphill battle and not much progress has been made.

by ORIENT AVIATION 

June 1st 2014

Print Friendly

Airline leaders continue to call on governments to reform the global, non-standardized airport security system premised on treating every passenger as a potential terrorist. Read More »

“We need a fundamental rethink about aviation security that breaks free from a mindset that, by default, treats every passenger as a potential terrorist,” said the director general of the Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines (AAPA), Andrew Herdman.

At the 2012 AAPA Assembly of Presidents, the region’s airline leaders passed a resolution that urged governments to develop and implement intelligence-led, outcome-based security measures that balances risk against the costs and inconvenience imposed on travelers. Some eighteen months later nothing much has changed for both airlines and their passengers.

“It is a a constant business to assess new threats and adjust security procedures. To some extent this is coordinated at a global level by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),” Herdman told Orient Aviation last month.

“But more often than not, countries are ahead in terms of introducing new regulations, particularly in the U.S. and Europe.”

Airlines argue governments do not bring the same cost/benefit analysis discipline to security as they do with safety. In other words, there is a reluctance to face up to the costs law-makers impose on the travelling public in the name of aviation security.

For Herdman, the current high level of airline safety is an example of rational spending. “The industry is extraordinarily safe because it prioritizes issues and applies cost/benefit analysis to each safety initiative. We don’t do that for security. We don’t even try to get a handle on what it costs,” he said.

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) estimates each passenger costs $10 to screen, an estimate that does not include the cost in time and hassle the processing produces.

'Air traffic is doubling every 15 years. Nine million people fly every day today. Twenty million people a day will fly in our lifetime. It does not make sense to treat all of them as suspects. They are all innocents'

Andrew Herdman Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines director general

“In my view, that might be double the figure,” said Herdman. “On the basis there are 3.3 billion passengers travelling a year, you are talking about tens of billions of dollars.” The AAPA said airlines can underwrite all remaining risks of catastrophic loss and accidents, including terrorism and war risk, for less than $2 billion per year. “We have to compare this with the money we are spending on security,” said Herdman.

“What will make it better for the passenger? How do we streamline that process? Air traffic is doubling every fifteen years. Nine million passengers fly every day today. That figure will climb to 20 million a day in our lifetime. It does not make sense to treat them all as suspects. They are all innocents.”

The AAPA is not the only airline group concerned about escalating security costs. As recently as late April, the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia (BARA), which represents 29 carriers flying to and from Australia, called for a complete overhaul of aviation safety regulations.

It said the sector is riddled with unnecessary and duplicated laws. BARA executive director, Barry Abrams, said it was 13 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. “and we have reached a point where we need to start thinking a lot harder about how effective these regulations are. Given the large growth in security requirements, we should ask if we are getting good value for money”, he said.

BARA said the cost of security at Sydney’s privately controlled airport had risen from $9 million in 2001 to $76 million in 2012. Australian Federal Department of Infrastructure figures show government spending on aviation security had soared from about $30 million in 2001-02 to more than $250 million today. Analysts said these increases have been replicated across the Asia-Pacific.

The good news is that the world body of air service regulators, ICAO, is throwing its weight behind the argument for risk-based assessment of security. Dr Olumuyiwa Bernard Aliu, who became ICAO’s president in January, said the lack of coordination among regulators had resulted in reduced efficiency, greater costs to government and industry as well as supply chain interruptions and passenger dissatisfaction.

“Regulators, airlines and manufacturers need to work together to develop smarter and faster next-generation aviation security measures for airline passengers, industry employees and the cargo supply chain,” he said.

He added governments can enhance the effectiveness of aviation security regulations by ensuring compatibility with infrastructure and business processes, adapting to emerging threats, expected passenger numbers and cargo volumes and taking a risk-based approach that focuses on bad people and bad things.

Some progress is being made in the U.S. where the TSA’s pre-check program is gradually being extended to allow more travelers to pass through screening without removing shoes and belts or unpacking luggage.

There also has been some relaxation of liquid and gels rules because new technology can electronically determine if their contents fall into dangerous categories. “But the position is still somewhat confusing for the passenger in terms of what’s allowed where,” BARA said.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA)’s Smart Security, formerly called the Checkpoint of the Future, is being tested at selected airports with the support of Airport Council International (ACI). It prioritizes passengers and has technology that allows passengers to walk through a screening tunnel without separating the traveller from their carry on luggage, clothes and personal electronic devices.

When you talk to passengers about air travel the hassle of the security process is high on their lists. No-one is concerned about security per se. It’s the security process that irritates people, Herdman said.

Another issue is the manner in which some border authorities conduct screening. “If it can be done in a customer service way, the passengers willingly comply. The process can be relatively comfortable and the travelling public will support the procedures,” he said

“That, in turn, means it is easier to spot unusual behavior. But treating every passenger as a suspect in a hostile and aggressive manner feeds on itself. Passengers become stressed, resentful and non-cooperative in a passive way. It is a challenge to identify ways of treating people who have to endure onerous queuing and checking.”

Cargo security regulations are also becoming more complicated. Several countries have, or intend to require, airlines to audit their cargo operations. New European rules come into effect this year which demand that anybody shipping cargo into Europe has to be audited and receive the appropriate validation from EU accredited auditors.

In some European countries and the U.S. And Canada pilot schemes are testing the effectiveness of collecting advance cargo information that could locate higher risk freight.

“But again, we need global standards. It would be a big mistake for individual countries to start imposing these regulations because it would only add cost to the industry,” said Herdman.

“There is a danger of arguing about who is bearing the cost. Is it the airports or the airlines or whatever? It is society that is bearing the cost. We have to be honest about the overall cost, including the hassle to the passenger, and resolve the issues systematically.”