Airport Insecurity

A few weeks ago I found myself at the Tampa airport more than four hours ahead of the scheduled departure time for my return flight to Detroit. After checking my luggage through, I went in search of one of those temporary lockers to safely stow my two cumbersome carry-ons until boarding time. After ten or fifteen minutes of wandering through various wings and levels of the terminal, I finally asked a security guard where I might find the self-serve lockers.

"Oh, we don't have those anymore," he answered.

"What?" I was incredulous. "Why not?"

"Terrorism," he responded matter-of-factly.

"Terrorism?" I asked innocently. "Was there a terrorist incident here?" I continued, feigning naivete.

A look of puzzlement spread over his face. "Well, no." This was clearly the first time that it ever even occurred to him that the question might be relevant. "But," he added triumphantly, "someone might put a bomb in one of those lockers."

"Right," I said with barely concealed exasperation. "Tell me, has anyone ever put a bomb at any airport anywhere in the United States?"

Just as he was beginning to get the hapless expression of someone unavoidably confronted by his own unthinking assumptions I decided to let him off the hook. Mumbling something about the fact that there was, on the other hand, someone standing right in front of him with an obvious need for a temporary locker, I took my discomforting questions and my carry-on luggage and went in quest of some place to while away the next four hours.

The need not having arisen before, I never noticed that the self-serve lockers were gone. And in view of the near hysteria over "terrorism" that has gripped the country, I'm guessing that Tampa is probably not unique in having taken this particular preventative measure.

Detroit Metro Airport officials recently announced a plan to spend half a million dollars to upgrade security systems here. The proposal comes on the heels of an incident in which a Chicago-bound passenger who had set off one of those walk-thru metal detectors, already late and frustrated at the pointless additional delay as she was asked to step aside for a more individualized scan, simply walked away from the security checkpoint in order to catch her flight. Naturally, a state of panic ensued. Entire terminals full of travellers were compelled to resubmit to security procedures. Even those who had already boarded airplanes were forced to disembark and prove to officials that they were not armed terrorists.

This was the fourth such incident in less than a year, hence the plan to enhance surveillance using additional personnel and remotely controlled cameras. (It occurs to me that a less expensive solution would be to simply imply that very sophisticated and ever vigilant video equipment already surrounds passengers. For a tiny fraction of the cost airport officials could merely post a few dozen signs that read: Big Brother is Watching You!)

Meanwhile, Wayne county officials had what county Executive, Ed McNamara, called "a knock-down, drag-out" discussion with Northwest, by far Metro Airport's largest carrier, regarding complaints about slow service -- both in passenger check-in and baggage handling.

"Northwest is very sincere about wanting to improve service in Detroit," Mr. McNamara said following the meeting. And in fact airline officials made what they're calling a "25-minute baggage pledge," apparently assuring customers even faster service than Domino's pizza stores (though I'm guessing the airline won't be offering a money-back guarantee.)

I have a few humble suggestions as to how Northwest could actually accomplish their goals, while saving money rather than having to make additional investments in high-tech gear.

First, end the silly baggage check-in third degree. "Did you pack your bags yourself?" and "Have you had your bags since you packed them?" and "Has anyone asked you to..." &c., &c.; You will recall that this routine was put in place by a hyperventilating congress right after TWA flight 800 out of New York exploded shortly after take-off a couple of years ago, ostensibly as a result of a terrorist bomb. We have, of course, since learned that all indications are that the disaster was caused by some kind of mechanical failure, probably having to do with explosive vapors in a mostly empty fuel tank, and that there are no indications whatever that the plane was destroyed by terrorists. But government regulation is a ratchet going in one direction only. Once in place, new restrictions are virtually never undone, even when it is subsequently shown that they were based on false information to begin with.

Second, skip the photo I.D. verification -- another of those "minor inconveniences" most people assume is needed to combat terrorism. I suspect it actually has more to do with airlines policing their own 'frequent flier' programs than with passenger safety.

Third, take out all of the metal detectors and x-ray machines, as well as all of the security personnel needed to operate them. In a moment of unprecedented common sense and candor former U.S. Department of Transportation inspector general, Mary Schiavo, recently observed that "Professional terrorists are not going to try to smuggle bombs and weapons through the x-ray point." Gee, do you think?

No one has even threatened an airplane in the U.S. since our federal officials announced more than three decades ago that they had come to the astonishing insight that it was probably not prudent to refer to those who seize our commercial planes and force them to go to Cuba as "hijackers" while calling those who did the same thing coming from the opposite direction "freedom fighters." A reciprocal agreement with the Castro regime ended the problem back then. Yet every airport in the country has been operating as though in a state of siege ever since, coming up with ever more absurd ways to inconvenience millions of travellers.

Like taking out all of the temporary storage lockers, for instance.

After having left that security guard behind and wandering through the Tampa airport, bags in hand, for another ten minutes, I finally settled in a small cafeteria-style restaurant, propped my burden in a couple of chairs, and sat down to watch CNN on the overhead TV and drink a half dozen cups of coffee.

President Clinton and various state department officials, as well as several pundits and some highly-placed Republicans (in a show of bi-partisan support) were solemnly castigating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and rattling metaphorical sabres. There seemed to be unanimity of opinion that the logic of the situation was inescapable:

1.) Iraq may still possess and/or be in the process of manufacturing chemical or biological "weapons of mass destruction."

2.) The Iraqi government is under the absolute control of a person of questionable stability who has already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons against his own civilians and, therefore,

3.) Though there is little hope of eliminating either the Iraqi leadership or their weapons-making capacity, we should, nevertheless, go give them a good swift kick in the pants.

Well, if I'm going to be forced to put up with all of these airport inconveniences, I thought to myself as a listened to the official bluster, it's good to know that at least my government is busily justifying all of this paranoia.

Tim O'Brien is the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Michigan.