LONDON, 7 January 2004 — It is becoming harder to get around in the global village. Since Sept. 11, 2001, air passengers have had to cope with longer check-in times, lengthy delays and even having their shoes examined, while passenger manifests are subjected to stringent checks. It has made holidays and business trips just that little less enjoyable, as recent passengers trying to board flight 223 from Heathrow to Washington or flight 263 to Riyadh would readily attest.
The traveler’s burden is about to be added to yet again, with the introduction of armed sky marshals, the fingerprinting of applicants for US visas and, presumably, more flights being canceled at the last minute. The sort of security precautions previously endured only by passengers on the Israeli flag-carrier El Al seem destined to become commonplace on business and budget routes alike.
The biggest discouragement to air travel is the fear of terrorism. The collapse in confidence that followed the events of Sept. 11 clearly demonstrates that: What happened that day was sufficient to put airlines out of business. In Britain, HM Treasury was asked to foot British Airways’ insurance premiums. They agreed: had they not, British Airways’ entire international operation would have been rendered uneconomic.
Quite apart from the human cost of another disaster on the scale of the events in 2001, such a tragedy would devastate the economics of the international travel and leisure industry. Given that the industry represents roughly 10 percent of the Western world’s output, the effects on the global economy would be horrendous. Seen in that context, spending a little longer in the check-in queue seems an acceptable price to pay for international security and peace of mind.
Asking passengers and, moreover, airline staff to share their plane with armed guards represents quite a different order of sacrifice. The fears voiced by the airline pilots through their union, Balpa, are genuine.
Balpa’s general secretary, Jim McAuslan, may have been unduly alarmist when he said last week’s cancellations were the result of “a political decision to get BA to accept air marshals”, but it is perfectly fair for him to point out that it will be his members who will have to live with this regime. Allowing a gun on to a plane, even under the watch of a trained marshal, carries risks.
It would be better if it were not necessary to consider such a draconian move. But sadly their arrival is inevitable, however much pilots and travelers may resent it. Their presence, or even the threat of their presence, is one of the reasons for El Al’s seeming success in deterring on-board terrorism.
If the US authorities insist on their presence, it is unlikely that British Airways will be able to change their minds. Much the same goes for the requirement for visa applicants to the United States to have their fingerprints and photographs taken. There is, however, anecdotal evidence suggesting that American security checks are disproportionately directed at people with the “wrong” names or skin color. If there must be increased security checks in the name of the war on terror, they must be conducted as sensitively as they are conscientiously.
Airport X-ray machines, immigration checks and sky marshals are the last lines of defense in the battle against the bombers. The first line remains the gathering and use of intelligence on terrorist suspects. Here, the record of the authorities since Sept. 11 has been sometimes poor.
Worse, and almost criminally, it has not been an official priority. The British and American governments could have spent a fraction of the money expended on their unnecessary and ill-starred occupation of Iraq on the unglamorous work of tracking would-be bombers and hijackers. Had they done so, then sky marshals might not have been quite such an inevitable innovation.
