Los Angeles Times: Don't Go Postal on Airport Security

[Gabriel Rocha]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-000083377oct19.story?coll=la%2Dnews%2
Dcomment%2Dopinions

Los Angeles Times

COMMENTARY

Don't Go Postal on Airport Security

By JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press,
2000)

October 19 2001

If you had an important task in which speed and flexibility were vital,
would it be better done by government or private employees?

The answer seems obvious. Government salaries are fixed, and firing them is
virtually impossible. Government bureaucracies are not known for quick
adjustments or innovations. Nowadays, even the U.S. Postal Service hires
Federal Express to help deliver mail. In the post-Sept. 11 debate, though,
it seems taken for granted that the federal government should take over
security at airports.

The discussion so far involves anecdotal stories of how people were able to
breach airport security. The assumption is that this would never occur if
only these workers were federal employees. Yet does anyone really wonder
whether reporters posing as illegal immigrants could cross the Mexican
border? Airport screening is extremely difficult. Terrorists can evade metal
detectors with knives made of plastic or ceramics. Thin metal blades can be
hard to detect with X-rays and can be hidden in the bottom of shoes or made
to look like parts of metal boxes. Even hand checks of all baggage do not
guarantee safety. But there is a better approach. Western European countries
started privatizing airport security in the early 1990s after spectacular
security failures with government-run operations. The governments set
standards but left it to the privately run airports to decide exactly how to
meet the standards.

Private security is not just limited to screening passengers and their
baggage. In Britain, for example, private companies also provide gate,
aircraft and catering security, as well as crew screening. Similar
arrangements exist at such high-risk airports as Amsterdam, Belfast,
Brussels, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Hamburg and Paris.

At Israel's Ben Gurion Airport, government involvement is more extensive,
providing training and controlling access to the tarmac and other sensitive
areas. Still, a private company conducts pre-boarding screening and other
security operations.

What is startling is how the drop-off in hijackings corresponds with the
privatization of these services. There were 21 hijackings in Europe during
the 1970s, 16 during the 1980s but only four during the 1990s. Out of these
41 hijackings, only three originated from airports with private security.
With all the concern about getting qualified people to perform security,
Europe's experience has another lesson. Europeans found that some people
were too highly trained and got bored and inattentive staring at screens all
day.

In any event, training standards have nothing to do with workers being
employed by the government. Barbers, real estate agents, doctors and others
are required to meet minimum training times. In most states, you can't sell
real estate without attending classes for at least six months, but no one
claims that means agents should be federal employees.

Many airlines are losing tens of millions of dollars each day. If they are
to survive, people's fear of flying must be dealt with quickly. An airline
safety bill that creates one government agency to operate security has
passed the Senate and is moving to the House. That solution would eliminate
competition that could create innovative ways to protect passengers.

In their rush, senators re-created Western Europe's painful mistakes. Europe
learned the hard way that some things are better run by the private sector.
If these provisions in the Senate bill become law, the U.S. will be modeling
its air security system after the post office.


-- 
"It's not brave, if you're not scared."