The Right Amount of Airport Security
Posted by Max Dunn Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:34:00 GMT
What is the right amount of airport security? Some might say that airport security is useless and terrorists will always find a way around it, so why bother having much. Others might say that they don’t mind the inconvenience and cost and would prefer to have massive amounts of security in order to minimize the threat of any possible terrorist action.
However, the recent security measures out of Heathrow pushed the limit of what people will accept with airport security. The red level measures included not allowing anything to be carried on the plane except money, travel documents and prescription medications in a clear plastic bag, being hand searched twice, having to arrive 3-hours early and enduring long lines. The general feeling of people who had to suffer through this ordeal was that it was an overreaction to the perceived threat.
But how do we determine the right level of airport security? One way is to let the free market decide. If we have too little security, and there are too many terrorist incidents, then air travel will decrease because people won’t feel secure. With too much security, air travel will also decrease because of the hassles of flying and increased costs of the security measures (which will eventually be reflected in the ticket price). This would require a flexible security system that would be dynamic enough to try different approaches and constantly track how effective they really are as well as how travellers feel about them.
The government should also free up airlines to provide different levels of security (within limits). For instance, one airline might specialize in super-high security with the accompanying delays, inconvenience and higher prices. Other airlines might specialize in bargain basement fares and easy boarding with minimal security. Then, people could decide for themselves what level of security they want.
Some might say that this is a cynical view and that we should always have the maximum possible security without concern for cost or convenience because you can’t put a price on human life. In response, I would point out that even including all the 9/11 victims, the number of people killed by terrorist using airplanes is actually very small, much less than the number of people killed every year by heart disease, cars or even bathroom slips. So it is not a question of respecting human life, but instead, what is the acceptable trade-off between convenience, cost and risk. After all, it is still more dangerous to drive to the airport than it is to fly on the plane, and yet people still drive all the time because they accept the risk trade-off.
I once talked to a close friend about Ryanair – discount European airline. He said he flew with them once and would never do that again. Why? He said he saw how they checked the passengers’ papers and that it would be too easy to get on board unchecked. Still, that same person would prefer cheaper connecting flights over a non-stop, which, in my view, is much safer. Clearly, there are different views on air travel safety.
Another issue with having “tight” and “loose” version of security is similar to that of TV heads constantly saying things like “Oh, fortunately they didn’t settle on blowing up Hoover’s Dam, that would have been the end of the country! (or whatever)”, basically advising terrorists very publicly on what they can pick for a target. If you can get an airliner full of kerosene up in the sky on a relaxed-security airline, wouldn’t it simply prompt them to use the opportunity?
I guess there is just no silver bullet against people wanting to do that kind of harm…
Good point. If there were different levels of security at airlines, then maybe terrorists would target the most lax airline. It is interesting though, that terrorists don’t seem to go after all the easy targets. For instance, there have been very few subway bombings (except for the one in London) even though though there is NO security on subways.