 |
| Home | Update | LATEST ISSUE | Gallery | FR Inside | Datafiles | Links | FR 10/2006 |
|
October 2006 |
|
|
SECURITY COMES AT A PRICEBy Karl SchwarzStranded passengers in the departure halls and in tents, at times up to one-third fewer flights and endless delays: the chaos which lasted for several days at the London airports and especially at Heathrow has shown once again how vulnerable air travel is to the threat posed by terrorists. Specifically, the British security services apparently learned of a huge terrorist plot to blow up a number of transatlantic flights using liquid explosives. Stricter controls with extra passenger searches and a ban on carrying liquids and gels of all kinds into the security area and on board were the result. For a short time hand luggage was banned altogether, and when it was subsequently allowed again the maximum size of bags was reduced. Such measures founded on general hysteria which many people and not just Ryanair CEO Michael O´Leary found “illogical and absurd”, have sorely tried the already severely strained sympathy of passengers for the need for security measures. As stricter regulations are probably unavoidable, flying will gradually turn into a time-consuming and irksome affair. The possibility that this will have a long-term effect on the trend in passenger numbers cannot be ruled out, even if at present there are no signs of a drastic change in customer behaviour. But if this were to prove the case, it will have been the airlines who picked up the tab for the fact that they continue to be a preferred target for terrorists of all kinds. In the days following the discovery of the terrorist plot the airlines complained that they had already lost millions due to cancelled flights and higher expenditure, for example, on hotel accommodation. Quite apart from this, the airlines in the European countries have already shelled out a lot of money on increased security, for example, around Euro1.66 billion in 2002. On top of this the airports spent a further Euro1.32 billion and national governments another Euro650 million. These figures come from a report published by the EU Commission on threat containment in transport which was published only a few days before the events in London. The authors of the report warned that differences in the approach taken to finance the security costs could lead to a distortion of the competition and that “public financing of anti-terrorist measures in transport generally does not constitute a state subsidy.” Naturally such statements were welcomed by the European airlines. They point to the Euro32 billion of state funding which the American aerospace industry received between 2002 and 2004. “It is not a matter of 1,000 demonstrators having a free police escort, but of 1,000 people who want to go on holiday by air who are now expected to pay nine euros. The state must pay the cost of their protection,” demanded the CEO of Lufthansa, Wolfgang Mayrhuber. But money is not everything. As Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, Secretary General of the Association of European Airlines (AEA) pointed out, “The last thing we need is confusion.” What is required, he argues, is not actionism but internationally coordinated, reliable measures geared towards the biggest risks. The accelerated development and introduction of new sensor systems for the detection of explosives of all kind would be, for example, just as helpful as concentrating the intensive checks on genuinely suspicious passengers with the aid of clever suspect profiles. Only improved procedures will keep air travel safe and secure without turning flying into an onerous experience for passengers. From page 4 of FLUG REVUE 10/2006
|
|
|
|
|
Home | Update | LATEST ISSUE | Gallery | FR Inside | Datafiles | Links | FR 10/2006
Copyright 2006 by Motor-Presse Stuttgart. All rights reserved. Last updated 15 September 2006 FLUG REVUE, Ubierstr. 83, 53173 Bonn, Germany |