Wait Until the Feds Take Over [Airport Security]

As others may also attest, I have never viewed flying as particularly pleasant, and a recent cross-country trip I took with my family did nothing to change my thinking. It is difficult enough to fly alone or with a spouse these days, but three small children--and all of our luggage--tend to multiply that misery. Even in the best of times, flying with little ones is a challenge; in this day of increased airline "security," the task becomes one of endurance and misery.

For those who have not flown commercial aircraft since the September 11 attacks, you are in for a rude awakening when you take to the skies again. You have not faced the insanity that passes for modern airport security, but when you do, remember that I have warned you. The procedures will surely inconvenience you (at best) and, at worst, leave you as vulnerable as those poor passengers and tenants of the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon were on that fateful day.

Moreover, if you believe things might improve, think again. The federal government has not yet fully taken over the airport security apparatus, and when it does, we will see the present calamities multiplied manifold.

There is good reason for making this prediction, as I will point out. Furthermore, it is not a mystery as to why the federal government will make commercial flying worse than it is now. Instead, it is as simple as Ludwig von Mises’s dictum that government intervention into peaceful, private activity will make things worse rather than better.

Congress began to insist shortly after the attacks that airport security workers be made federal government employees, even though there is no evidence that the attacks occurred because of breakdowns in the private security systems at the Boston, Newark, New Jersey, and Dulles airports where the hijacked planes originated. Fresh from being awarded his Nobel Prize in economics, Joseph Stiglitz even declared that federalizing the workers would thus serve as a "signaling" device to demonstrate that airport screeners would not be of "higher quality" than lower-paid private workers.

Congress and President George Bush apparently bought into Stiglitz’s idea, and soon after the hijackings, the new security system was born. It now awaits being fully implemented, although airlines and airports have already told Congress that all of the multi-million-dollar luggage screening devices the government has mandated cannot possibly be put in place by the legal deadline.

As it does in so many other situations, Congress simply picked an arbitrary time limit. Furthermore, members of Congress acted without any regard for common sense, something that hardly is surprising. What should not surprise anyone is that when the government’s system is fully implemented--should that ever happen--the situation in the nation’s airports is likely to be so bad that the airline companies are likely to suffer the Vietnam Syndrome: In order to save the airline industry, we will have to destroy it.

There is, of course, one sure way to prevent airline hijackings; do not allow anyone to fly anything. Just like a zero mile per hour speed limit would eliminate all automobile accidents, keeping people out of the air is a guarantee of airline safety. While the feds are not likely to accomplish that feat, they certainly will be keeping large numbers of people from flying simply because the process will become way too cumbersome.

Economists, whether they be mainstream or of the Austrian School, know that incentives direct the choices individuals will make, and people involved in airport security are no exception. When the incentives are political in nature, things take on a near-unreal air. For example, while people look on incredulously as airport workers nearly strip-search 80-year-old grandmothers and small children while permitting young men of Middle Eastern extraction to board aircraft unchallenged, we must remember that the workers are acting according to the rules and incentives laid down by their political bosses.

First, as the unfolding pre-September 11 evidence has demonstrated, a few federal law enforcement officers suspected some of the very hijackers who at that time were taking pilot lessons might be planning to commandeer and fly passenger aircraft. However, because FBI officials feared being accused of "racial profiling," it is likely that they downplayed the officers’ warnings.

(Attorney General John Ashcroft already had gone through a bruising confirmation in which he was all but accused of being a racist. One of the things Ashcroft said he would "not tolerate" was racial profiling, so his underlings certainly did not wish to do anything that would make their boss appear "racially insensitive." Ignoring potential Middle Eastern terrorists was one of those actions, apparently.)

Because political correctness has reached epidemic stages in the United States, it is clear that the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees airport security, fears offending certain ethnic groups as much or more than it fears more planes being hijacked. While numerous people have pointed out the folly of these random searches of people, it is also a given that they will continue, given the present political climate.

Second, while the FAA sets the rules for screeners, the screeners are still employees of firms hired by the airlines. Because of this, they do have an incentive for passengers to make their flights on time. (This does not mean that everyone will make it through security on time, but at least the incentive is there for screeners not to overdo their searches.)

Once screeners become full-fledged government employees, however, the incentives structure will change dramatically. The inspectors will be working for the federal government and will have no obligations at all toward passengers, except to treat all of them like criminals.

In this new atmosphere, one can expect a number of things. First, searches will be slower and more cumbersome, since the fewer people who actually get through, the lower the probability that a plane can be hijacked. Empty seats on flights will not matter to federal employees whose paychecks will come courtesy of the taxpayers.

Second, it is quite likely that screeners and other government security personnel will be more rude toward passengers than they are at present. While some of us who have suffered through some brutal searches, I fear the worst is to come. Again, airline employees, while they can be disagreeable, do have at least some incentive to treat their customers with some decency. Federal employees will have none.

When my family and I went through security lines, there was some grumbling, although I could tell that many of the screeners at least were trying to be as fair and helpful as possible, given the difficult situation all of us found ourselves. However, I suspect that when the government takes over all security, anyone who makes even the slightest complaint quickly will be banned from their flight. Look for airport workers to become more surly and less helpful, as their government status will give them power to harass people.

No doubt, we can look forward to congressional hearings when airline passengers will tell of airport horror stories perpetrated by federal security workers. Sympathetic members of congress will listen attentively, just as they listened when citizens told of being harassed by Internal Revenue Service agents. Those same members will excoriate whoever is head of the security agency, just as they did the IRS administration, then give the agency even more power to harass people.

Scary, but very likely to become true. Last week I saw a frightened little five-year old girl on her first flight taken out of line to be searched. On the other hand, I checked a bulky, heavy Rubbermaid bin containing tools, steel-toed boots etc. with nary a second glance by ticket counter employees, while the clean cut young man behind me with a guitar got the full treatment.

The only thing that just may save us it that the employees are only federalized for several years and then can be privatized again. Yeh, fat chance!! But it could happen if they get too arrogant and surly (sort of like today's Amtrak employees).

There may actually be some good come from federalizing the airport security function. First, money is no longer an object. There will be LOTS of federal employees not involved in shuffling dirty underware but doing administrative work. That means that there will be reports, statistices and analysis. Will will no longer hear about the horror stories, they will be burried. And, the statistics will demonstrate that travellers are better off, no matter what the real case.

More important, however, if the reward system is properly constructed, the federal employees will simply ignore the racial profiling issues. They are government employees and don't have to be concerned about the rules. Who would complain, what would be their recourse? If an Arab looking guy is most likely to have something bad or be an illegal alien, dead-beat dad or have some other default problem, and the SCREENERS ARE REWARDED FOR FINDING SUCH FOLKS, there will be no problem stopping them. There may be some up side based on the true nature of federal employees.

By the way, on my return to ABQ they did get my small pen-knife (which I have carried on flights for years), but returned my nail clippers. Due to the hassle of checking my rental car in and changing my flight I had forgotten to put them in my checked baggage. They were nice about it at the security checkpoint, because I had emptied my pockets of everything and they were in plain view. They just took the knife and said I could return to the ticket counter to check it. But since all my bags were already prepared for loading, I just let them have it and I watched them throw it in the trash. I guess I was lucky they didn't handcuff me and take me to a "secure" area for questioning.

I guess I was lucky they didn't handcuff me and take me to a "secure" area for questioning.

Yes, you are lucky. I know a USAir frequent flier - Chairman's Preferred Member - who forgot to remove his pocketknife. The National Guardsman called the local police, who made him sign a form stating he understood it was a felony to carry a weapon onboard. Then he was searched again at the gate. Just incredible.

Good post!

I have been telling everyone that I know that if I set out to destroy the airlines, we should do exactly what is being done...namely putting the security in the hands of the FEDS. I am amazed that the airlines have survived as long as they have in light of FAA "control of the airways"..

I, for one, will not get on an airplane unless it is a dire emergency. I cannot and will not suffer fools that are bound to make up most of the airport screener force. I will find some other way to "get there". I have lost nothing in Europe and there is nothing there that I can't live without. So...AA, Cont., SW, Nw, TWA, Delta....etc....you had better not count on me for business thanks to the US Govt. airport screeners.

That means that there will be reports, statistics and analysis. We will no longer hear about the horror stories, they will be buried. And, the statistics will demonstrate that travellers are better off, no matter what the real case.

Yep. And if, God forbid, a terrorist act occurs...the agency will cite their own failing as proof that they're woefully underfunded. Congress will allocate another $50 billion or so to help them become more "proficient". ($49 billion will go toward classes on how to be politically correct.)

I have been telling everyone that I know that if I set out to destroy the airlines, we should do exactly what is being done...namely putting the security in the hands of the FEDS.

I agree wholeheartedly. The private screeners did nothing wrong on 9/11, yet we've replaced them with a force everyone knows (even those who voted to pass the legislation) will be less effective. You can only get that kind of irony from the government - think "Patriot Act" if you doubt that.

Every flight I have been on since 9-11 has resulted in elderly white folks, and families with toddlers getting searched, while nearly every middle-easterner or asian was passed through without a second glance.

This will only get worse as Bush's federal chumps get put in charge of everything.

Please, fogarty, think of how politically incorrect you are acting! Just because anyone with a grain of common sense knows the proper method should be to secure the high-risk areas FIRST, then expand as capacity allows, doesn't mean that's what we should do. It just isn't fair!

Does anyone actually believe we're serious about securing our air travel?

The local TV stations have been running reports on "people who are afraid to fly after 9/11." It apparently hasn't dawned on a one of 'em yet that the reason for the drop in commercial air business has NOTHING to do with fear of flying. I've emailed all of them. No reply.

Of course, "fear of flying" hysteria probably makes for "better TV" than "disgusted with airport security." Plus, it's always easy to find people who are "a-skeered" of flying. It's not easy AT ALL to find someone who does NOT show up at the airport because they don't want to take part in The Great Airport Security Charade.

Michael

I'd bet my bottom dollar there are more folks not flying because they're PO'd at the new regs than because they're scared. But as you said, no one wants to report on that little fact.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.