Airport Insecurity?
The GOP has the better idea.
October 30, 2001 10:45 a.m.
When it comes to the question of airport security, what do 100 members of the United States Senate know that Isaac Yeffet doesn't? The Senate has unanimously approved an airport-security bill that would fully federalize the nation's 28,000 baggage screeners. To Yeffet, the former chief of security for the Israeli airline El Al, that's a terrible idea. "It would be a big mistake," he says. "Airlines should continue to hire private security companies, and the federal government should write the procedures, should supervise the performance of the airline security, and should test them to make sure that security reaches the level we need to reach."
Yeffet points out that that's the way it's done in Israel, known for the best airport security in the world. It's also the way it's done in the major airports of Europe, where security is far better than American airports. And it's the way the Republican leadership in the House would have it done in the United States. The president, too. "Many European countries and Israel, as you know, contract out for some of the services for security," White House chief of staff Andrew Card said Sunday on NBC. "It is supervised by their government. We would like to see our system supervised by our government but give the secretary of Transportation the flexibility to find the best solution to the problems rather than have one cooked up in Congress that may not be the best solution."
But Card, in the same interview, signaled that the White House is not willing to fight on the issue. When asked what the president would do if the Senate's full-federalization bill passed the House, Card said, "I suspect that he wouldn't want to have to sign it, but he would. He wants airline security."
To Yeffet, a federal force just doesn't make sense. The best system, he says, is one in which airlines are in charge of all aspects of their flights — but under heavy federal scrutiny. "The airlines are responsible for the operation of each flight they have, from A to Z," he says. "They are responsible for the ticket office, the cargo department, reservations, check-in, delivering the luggage to the aircraft." Under federal supervision, the airlines would train each worker to function in the security system and catch potential threats as early as possible in the process from ticketing to boarding the aircraft. If you take one part of that system and replace it with federal workers, you have two agencies doing the work that should be done by one.
That's not to suggest that Yeffet thinks today's system, which relies on private contractors, is in any way adequate to the task. "The problem in this country is that we are looking to save money," he says. "The airlines are looking for the security companies that offer the low bid. But who are they hiring? Unqualified people." In Yeffet's ideal system, the government would set very strict standards of performance and constantly test the airlines' security systems. It would be very different from what exists today, with many more people working solely on security. "You must change the concept," he says. "You cannot allow a skycap to ask you security questions. His job is to take your luggage. The ticket agent behind the counter is busy assigning you a seat."
Another issue involved in getting qualified screeners is being able to get rid of unqualified screeners. That question — unanswered in the Senate bill — was President Bush's concern in his radio address Saturday. "The [House] bill allows the use of private contractors, operating under tough federal standards on background checks with law enforcement at every gate," the president said, "to promote better screening services, and ensure that security managers can move aggressively to discipline or fire employees who fail to live up to the rigorous new standards."
To support that argument, Republicans might point to a new study of federal workers out today from the Brookings Institution. According to the study, federal workers say that about one in four of their fellow employees is a poor performer on the job. In addition, a significant percentage of those surveyed say the government does not deal well with workers who don't perform. Combined, those two statistics make a powerful case against fully federalized baggage screeners.
Isaac Yeffet understands the problem. "If the federal government takes over, and they are responsible," he asks, "who will supervise the federal government?"
nationalreview.com |
