• What's elliott?
• About elliott
• Contact us

t o p i c s

• Business
• Commentary
• Destinations
• Help
• Leisure
• Technology
• Vault

Copyright Elliott Publishing. All rights reserved. For more information, call (305) 453-4781 or send e-mail to us.

Send Them Packing
Opinion · April 1, 2002

When President George Bush signed the aviation security bill into law last November, essentially turning 28,000 minimum-wage baggage screeners into federal employees with a stroke of his pen, he promised Americans "greater confidence when they fly."

Four months later the president's promise rings hollow. The security screeners are incompetent and abusive, Americans remain reluctant to fly, and the government seems as powerless as ever to stop an act of terrorism from recurring on a commercial carrier. Maybe it's time to send some of these rent-a-cops packing and replace them with a common-sense security solution.

The new measures don't work, according to an undercover test of screeners at 32 U.S. airports conducted from November until February. In an internal memo published last week, the Transportation Department's inspector general reported widespread failures in most areas of airport security. Security screeners allowed hundreds of guns, knives or simulated explosives through checkpoints - any of which could have potentially led to another terrorist attack. (New federal screeners are scheduled to begin deployment this summer, but they will likely have the same mandate as the ones working now.)

All of which begs the question: what exactly are the security screeners doing? Answer: they're using their new powers to intimidate and exploit passengers brave enough to fly. The abuses are well-documented. Security personnel routinely frisk, fondle and rub passengers that pass through security checkpoints. Their actions are unprofessional, often sexually degrading, and there's virtually no accountability for these federally-funded perverts.

Perhaps the most outspoken voice on the issue of indecent screening efforts is New York Times business travel columnist Joe Sharkey, who has described the mistreatment of air travelers at the hands of a poorly-trained airport security staff in a series of articles. In one story, he reported an incident in which a passenger who was being "rudely prodded and frisked at a security checkpoint at the Seattle airport" became so enraged that he dropped his pants in a gesture of protest.

I would have dismissed this as an isolated case - not unlike the much-publicized episode in which Rep. John Dingell got a once-over by security at Washington's Reagan National Airport - unless it had also happened to me. Passing through security at Miami International Airport recently, my belt buckle set off the metal detector's alarm. A female security guard, working with a male supervisor, caressed my entire body with a tube-shaped metal-detector. She zeroed in on the buckle and I offered to remove the belt.

"That won't do," the supervisor said. "Unbuckle your belt and lower your zipper."

I refused, insisting that such a screening take place in a private room. The female security guard then inserted the metal detector into the front of my pants. She smiled uncomfortably, then withdrew the device and let me pass.

It would be one thing if these invasive measures were improving air travel safety or even the perception of air travel safety. In fact, during the same period as the government's undercover test, the traveling public remained wary of flying. About one-third of travelers surveyed by Yesawich, Pepperdine & Brown, an Orlando polling firm, answered "yes" to the question, "Do you believe it is not safe to fly?" In other words, air travel is unsafe in both perception and reality.

The $700 million a year it costs to keep inept security staff at the airport could be better spent. Maybe it's time to send some of these employees home. Thinning the ranks of these guards isn't likely to lessen airport security, because airport security probably can't get any worse than it already is. The Transportation Security Administration, which is charged with protecting the nation's transportation systems, should ease its screening requirements. It already knows that the current measures do little more than create long delays and provide a psychological deterrent to amateur criminals.

What then? The government needs to take real steps to stop terrorists: better passenger profiling systems that catch criminals before they arrive at the airport, more sophisticated bomb-detection devices and effective baggage-matching systems. The next terrorist attack on our airlines - and there will no doubt be another - is unlikely to be a copycat hijacking of Sept. 11. Instead, it will probably involve explosives much like the Richard Reid shoe-bombing attempt on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December, or incendiary devices planted elsewhere on the plane.

As Charles Leocha, a columnist for the travel Web site Ticked.com pointed out in a recent commentary, the age of terrorist hijackings is over. Any attempted takeover of the cabin will result in immediate resistance by passengers, crew and the ever-present federal air marshals. If terrorists are foolish enough to board an American commercial aircraft they'll probably pass through our humiliating and futile airport security checkpoints only to be subdued as they try to take over the plane.

Note: An earlier version of this story contained inaccuracies about the nature of the federalized airport screeners. It incorrectly implied that TSA screeners were already on the job. In fact, they weren't. The mistake has been fixed. I regret the error.

Christopher Elliott is a travel commentator based in Key Largo, Fla. All e-mailed questions may be edited, condensed or republished at the site's discretion.