welsh
Junkmaster
Have you heard about the new security checks at the airport. Bring thumbs and smile for the camera.
What do you think? Is the US overreacting? Should other countries retaliate in kind, and if so why? Is this a general trend?
More security, more delays
Jan 7th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda
http://www.economist.com/agenda/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2326977
More than two years after the September 11th hijackings, aviation security is still being tightened, as are immigration procedures. America’s stringent new restrictions have provoked a storm
Welcome to America: passports and fingers please
IT WAS probably the best-inspected flight in aviation history: British Airways flight 223 finally took off for Washington’s Dulles airport on Saturday January 3rd after being cancelled on the two previous days owing to security concerns. Its passengers were thoroughly searched and their names checked repeatedly against terrorism watch-lists. Since American homeland-security officials raised their national threat level in December to orange, indicating a high risk of an attack, airlines have been back on the front line of the war on terror. Some recent Air France and Aeroméxico flights have been escorted by American fighter jets or cancelled altogether. The turbulence is unlikely to end soon: on Sunday, Britain’s transport secretary, Alistair Darling, warned that passengers should expect extra security “for many years to come” and that sometimes the inconveniences will be “quite severe”.
Few people are happy about the new arrangements—and not just among the hundreds of delayed British Airways passengers unlucky enough to be booked on a flight that terrorists apparently “chattered” about. Last week, America suddenly began requiring most incoming international flights to carry armed air marshals. This has provoked a storm. Thailand’s prime minister said that his country would not abide the rule. European pilots have also been up in arms, shuddering at the idea of guns on planes. Thomas Cook, Europe's second-biggest travel firm, announced on Monday that any charter flight required to carry an armed marshal would be cancelled; South African Airways also rejected the plan. And the Geneva-based International Air Transport Association said it was opposed to the blanket use of armed marshals. “Introducing firearms aboard an aircraft increases rather than decreases the security risk,” said William Gaillard, the association's spokesman.
But governments and airlines in Europe and elsewhere are in a bind. Though they may chafe at the idea of armed guards on planes, they realise that there is little chance of the Bush administration backing down. This leaves them with an awkward choice: accede to the demands or face not being allowed to fly into American airspace. That is why the British, French and Dutch governments have already said they are ready to employ gun-carrying marshals, and other countries are “studying the idea” (ie, preparing to cave in). British Airways pilots appear to have accepted the marshals plan, albeit reluctantly.
Are American officials over-reacting? Possibly. After all, it is hard to see how a transatlantic flight could still be hijacked, what with locked, bullet-proof cockpit doors and passengers ready to pounce on any tweezer-wielding fanatic trying to repeat the hijackings of September 11th. Still, American officials are right to ratchet up security if intelligence points to threats against specific targets. Should terrorists succeed again, the government would naturally be blamed, especially if it had warnings in advance and failed to act. Indeed, the American administration is taking no chances: on Tuesday, it selected three companies to work on ways to protect passenger jets from shoulder-fired missiles like that used in a failed attack on a charter plane in Mombasa in 2002.
It is not only on aeroplanes that security is tighter than ever. In Hamburg—where Muhammad Atta, the September 11th ringleader, helped build a terror cell—authorities closed off a German military hospital last week after warnings that extremists planned to attack it with a car bomb. In America, immigration procedures are being tightened. On Monday, America began digitally scanning the hands and faces of most foreigners arriving at its airports and seaports, as part of an evolving biometric tracking system. Whether this will do much good is debatable (see article), and there is plenty of potential for false alarms. Like the air-marshals requirement, it has irritated other countries. Brazil has begun fingerprinting all visiting Americans, in unconcealed retaliation.
If the delays and the extra checking on planes and at borders go on for years, they will be costly. Governments will probably pick up the tab for extra security, but airlines will pay a price in lost passengers. Many airlines are still suffering from the fall in passenger numbers that followed the September 11th attacks (though shares in the sector rose this week on news that the volume of lucrative business travellers on British Airways' long-haul routes is growing quite strongly). Airlines are cringing at the new troubles on their transatlantic routes, since the prospect of long delays could put some passengers off travelling altogether. The tourism industry at large also has reason to worry. Only al-Qaeda will be taking pleasure in the past week’s delays and distress.
What do you think? Is the US overreacting? Should other countries retaliate in kind, and if so why? Is this a general trend?
More security, more delays
Jan 7th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda
http://www.economist.com/agenda/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2326977
More than two years after the September 11th hijackings, aviation security is still being tightened, as are immigration procedures. America’s stringent new restrictions have provoked a storm
Welcome to America: passports and fingers please
IT WAS probably the best-inspected flight in aviation history: British Airways flight 223 finally took off for Washington’s Dulles airport on Saturday January 3rd after being cancelled on the two previous days owing to security concerns. Its passengers were thoroughly searched and their names checked repeatedly against terrorism watch-lists. Since American homeland-security officials raised their national threat level in December to orange, indicating a high risk of an attack, airlines have been back on the front line of the war on terror. Some recent Air France and Aeroméxico flights have been escorted by American fighter jets or cancelled altogether. The turbulence is unlikely to end soon: on Sunday, Britain’s transport secretary, Alistair Darling, warned that passengers should expect extra security “for many years to come” and that sometimes the inconveniences will be “quite severe”.
Few people are happy about the new arrangements—and not just among the hundreds of delayed British Airways passengers unlucky enough to be booked on a flight that terrorists apparently “chattered” about. Last week, America suddenly began requiring most incoming international flights to carry armed air marshals. This has provoked a storm. Thailand’s prime minister said that his country would not abide the rule. European pilots have also been up in arms, shuddering at the idea of guns on planes. Thomas Cook, Europe's second-biggest travel firm, announced on Monday that any charter flight required to carry an armed marshal would be cancelled; South African Airways also rejected the plan. And the Geneva-based International Air Transport Association said it was opposed to the blanket use of armed marshals. “Introducing firearms aboard an aircraft increases rather than decreases the security risk,” said William Gaillard, the association's spokesman.
But governments and airlines in Europe and elsewhere are in a bind. Though they may chafe at the idea of armed guards on planes, they realise that there is little chance of the Bush administration backing down. This leaves them with an awkward choice: accede to the demands or face not being allowed to fly into American airspace. That is why the British, French and Dutch governments have already said they are ready to employ gun-carrying marshals, and other countries are “studying the idea” (ie, preparing to cave in). British Airways pilots appear to have accepted the marshals plan, albeit reluctantly.
Are American officials over-reacting? Possibly. After all, it is hard to see how a transatlantic flight could still be hijacked, what with locked, bullet-proof cockpit doors and passengers ready to pounce on any tweezer-wielding fanatic trying to repeat the hijackings of September 11th. Still, American officials are right to ratchet up security if intelligence points to threats against specific targets. Should terrorists succeed again, the government would naturally be blamed, especially if it had warnings in advance and failed to act. Indeed, the American administration is taking no chances: on Tuesday, it selected three companies to work on ways to protect passenger jets from shoulder-fired missiles like that used in a failed attack on a charter plane in Mombasa in 2002.
It is not only on aeroplanes that security is tighter than ever. In Hamburg—where Muhammad Atta, the September 11th ringleader, helped build a terror cell—authorities closed off a German military hospital last week after warnings that extremists planned to attack it with a car bomb. In America, immigration procedures are being tightened. On Monday, America began digitally scanning the hands and faces of most foreigners arriving at its airports and seaports, as part of an evolving biometric tracking system. Whether this will do much good is debatable (see article), and there is plenty of potential for false alarms. Like the air-marshals requirement, it has irritated other countries. Brazil has begun fingerprinting all visiting Americans, in unconcealed retaliation.
If the delays and the extra checking on planes and at borders go on for years, they will be costly. Governments will probably pick up the tab for extra security, but airlines will pay a price in lost passengers. Many airlines are still suffering from the fall in passenger numbers that followed the September 11th attacks (though shares in the sector rose this week on news that the volume of lucrative business travellers on British Airways' long-haul routes is growing quite strongly). Airlines are cringing at the new troubles on their transatlantic routes, since the prospect of long delays could put some passengers off travelling altogether. The tourism industry at large also has reason to worry. Only al-Qaeda will be taking pleasure in the past week’s delays and distress.
