Ask the pilot
Can we stop bombs in our baggage? And, how do pilots amuse themselves at 30,000 feet?
By Patrick Smith
Jan. 13, 2003 | Is everybody enjoying our new baggage procedures? Initially, troubled by our inaction after Lockerbie and spellbound by the near-catastrophic audacity of the foiled Bojinka scheme, I was beating the drum for comprehensive explosives screening. But now the somewhat haphazard application of what is still an emerging, imperfect technology leaves me uneasy and increasingly ambivalent about the idea of ever implementing a fully effective program.
The CTX devices now deployed, which operate similarly to CAT scanners, were decided on after much administrative wrangling over which system, or combination of systems, would be best. Their level of protection is high, but they are not infallible. Moreover, with our anxiety pinballing from hijackings to bombs to the specter of shoulder-launched missiles, one is reminded of the more or less unstoppable, hit-em-where-they-ain't resourcefulness of terrorism.
And hopefully you kept those cheddar logs and fruitcakes out of the Samsonite during your holiday travels; reportedly the density of such delectables can set the scanners ringing. Cake and cheese now join handguns, oxidizers, fireworks and compressed gasses on the list of items best left at home, and will ensure continued episodes of lunacy at the nation's airports. Terminal madness, you could say, in more ways than one.
Still, I suppose, the madness and hassles should diminish over time.
What might not diminish, however, is the financial hemorrhaging of the major airlines. Making a bad situation much worse, what's even less fair than the banning of Cracker Barrel from suitcases, is the government's insistence that the airlines foot the bill for nearly all of the newly introduced safety regulations, from the barricading of flight-deck doors to the $1 million-apiece CTX machines.
The Air Transport Association puts the security tab at $10 billion in the next year alone. That's an interesting number, since it's roughly equal to the total loan guarantees the government has conditionally offered the carriers, most of which, I might add, has not been doled out and may never be. It also matches the value of wage concessions given up thus far at United and US Airways, the two airlines currently flying under the strains and stigma of Chapter 11.
Costs, of course, are passed on to the traveler. Passengers frequently remark they are willing to part with a few more dollars in the interest of safety. A well-intended sacrifice, sure, but you are paying enough already, trust me. The taxes, extras and fees added to airline tickets can be upwards of a quarter to half of the total price, depending on fare. Percentage-wise, they are often more than twice those carried by tobacco, firearms or alcohol -- products carrying so-called sin taxes meant to dissuade use. Whether you realize it or not, a click of the buy button at Travelocity or Orbitz will subject your credit card to most -- or all -- of the following:
And now a $20-per-head air carrier security fee has been proposed.
While the airlines gasp for life and thousands of employees have been fired or laid off, this one included, many people nonetheless voice revulsion at the suggestion of giving loans to the airlines. To what extent this is based on adherence to an economic principle, versus general dislike and distrust of the airlines themselves, I cannot say, though I've worked hard to educate people on myths and misunderstandings pertaining to the latter. In any case, you're almost right, for the loans might not be needed if the above taxes and fees weren't so bloody overwhelming.
A frequently encountered criticism is that the airline business is a subsidized industry. What this supposed subsidy pertains to is unclear to me. If 100 million people patronize a single major airline in a given year, each chipping in his share of the dollars just listed, it seems there's more than enough cash on hand to keep the runways smoothly paved, the windows in the control towers gleaming brightly.
When the government authorized a 10-year, $190 billion farm bill, did Salon readers dash off spiteful e-mails to soybean growers? Somebody even asked me if I was proud of myself for "helping to destroy the environment in my pollutant-spewing machine." No mention was made of the wasteful irrigation methods often used by those darn subsidized farmers. I take it the somber green graces of agriculture are assumed more earnest than the cowboy coarseness of flying airplanes.
Or no? But for the record, fossil fuel use by commercial aviation, worldwide, is less than 5 percent of the total, and most newer jetliners are significantly more fuel-efficient per passenger mile than your average SUV.
Next page: Why you should always pay attention to the safety briefing, you slacker!