• 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.

Safe — and Sorry
Opinion · January 11, 2004

It isn't the machine-gun toting National Guardsmen posted at the airport or the code-orange terrorism warnings that unnerve air travelers like Mort Herman. Instead, it's a sense that all the precautions are little more than posturing, and that if a sequel to 9/11 were to actually happen, they'd be completely useless.

What exactly worries him? Security screeners rarely ask him about the sharp hypodermic needles he carries on board as a diabetic, which could be used as weapons. But it's the government's fallback plan that he finds truly frightening. "What's the purpose of those fighter jets that accompany some of our airlines?" asks the New York writer. "The only answer is that if terrorists were to take over an aircraft, they can shoot it down. Now that's comforting."

Many Americans quietly concur. The latest terrorism threats are forcing some travelers to rethink their plans and threaten to stall an already fragile travel industry recovery. And when people decide to fly, they're playing it safe: Blue Star Jets, a New York charter aircraft brokerage company, has seen orders jump 300 percent since Dec. 21, when the government issued its latest terrorism warning.

The brave travelers who go anyway seem willing to endure a long wait at the airport and rigorous security screening. But in the last few weeks, they too have become increasingly skeptical of excessive measures taken by officials, and they've questioned our policy of pursuing terrorists in the bright but ultimately ineffective glare of the public spotlight. To use a football analogy, it's as if the government's game is all defense and no offense.

Instead of taking the credit for protecting air travelers from the next round of hijackers, should the government be apologizing for the way it fumbled the present code orange alert? And if it mishandled the latest terrorist threat, then how should it deal with future problems?

Business travelers such as Gary Vaughn believe the government could do better than what he calls the current "dog and pony" show. "All it's accomplished is to aggravate and frustrate law-abiding citizens," says the Arlington, Texas, management consultant.

What a show it's been. Among the terrorist suspects were an elderly Chinese woman and a five-year-old whose name was similar to a Tunisian on a terror watch list. But as aviation analyst Mike Boyd observed, the only real bad guys nabbed so far have been the federal security directors at Washington and Philadelphia, who lost their jobs for actions unrelated to terrorism.

It's also worth noting the world reaction to this stateside spectacle, which is perhaps best described as a combination of antipathy and amusement.

At least three European countries have refused to comply with a request to allow armed guards on flights to the United States. The International Air Transport Association, a group of 270 airlines, dismissed the idea of guns on its planes. Australians collectively chuckled at the U.S. government's request that Qantas passengers not line up outside toilets while making the 14-hour flight to and from the United States. The consensus seemed to be that these were security measures worthy of a Hollywood production, but that they had no place in the real world.

The TSA denies it overreacted. "Based on credible intelligence information, the federal government calmly takes the precautions necessary to protect its citizens, and the public needs and has a right to know that steps are being taken," Mark Hatfield, the agency's director of communications, told me. (See full transcript of the interview.) "Our mission is to deter and disrupt terrorist activity and to this end, the visibility of some of our security measures is a definite advantage."

Maybe, maybe not.

The TSA and the other government agencies protecting the country might be better served by rethinking their game plan - downplaying their impressive defense and working instead to actually find the villains.

That's something the controversial CAPPS II program - shorthand for Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System - promises to do. The new system will merge the current watch-lists into a single database and assign airline passengers a color-code based on their itinerary and the information they provide at the time of their booking. Translation: fewer F-16s scrambling to intercept planes and innocent children detained by grim-faced agents - actions which tend to attract a lot of media attention. CAPPS II debuts next month and will be fully implemented by this summer.

But if the government were a football team, it probably wouldn't have made it to the postseason. Yes, it has a formidable defense but it also has an equally impotent offense. Why? Its opponent was given the playbook and can anticipate almost every move it makes.

And you can't win a game if you can't score.

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.

Get a look behind the scenes at The Travel Troubleshooter. Check out Elliott's Travel Notes blog.