Government may not be solution for airline safety

Washington Bureau Chief FRITZ E-mail: Click here Archive

© St. Petersburg Times,
published October 22, 2001

WASHINGTON -- With their ill-fitting uniforms and vacant expressions, airport security screeners do not evince confidence in our system for preventing terrorist hijackings.

And in recent days, we have learned that some of these workers have been hired even though they have criminal records. Others do not speak English, as required by the government.

Yet Allen Sanderson, a University of Chicago economics professor, says this corps of about 28,000 underpaid security screeners represents the success of the free-enterprise system. They have served us well, he says, as our last line of defense against terror in the sky.

So why do many members of Congress want to replace these privately employed security screeners with government workers? Could it be, as Sanderson believes, that the airlines are simply trying to unload a costly function of air travel on taxpayers? Or is it just an effort to create a more trusty work force, as proponents of the legislation insist?

These questions are being debated by members of the House in response to Senate-passed legislation that would make airport security screeners federal employees. It is one of the many ways Congress is trying to prevent another major loss of life.

Sanderson is right on one important point: Airport security scanners did nothing to contribute to the Sept. 11 hijackings. The airport security people were not to blame for allowing hijackers to carry out their death missions.

"People say, 'Wow, they let box-cutters on the planes,' " Sanderson said in a telephone interview. "But you and I have been allowed to carry box-cutters on planes for the last 20 years."

Now that box-cutters, nail files, manicure scissors, knitting needles and even lapel pins are being confiscated by airport screeners, it would seem we have taken care of the weakness in the system that the terrorists exploited.

When proponents of change argue that our airports need a more professional corps of security screeners, it is not clear how federalizing them would accomplish that task.

Maybe they think the government would pay higher salaries or provide better-looking uniforms. But government workers are not immune from making mistakes.

Sanderson argues that as federal employees, the screeners would be less professional because they would not have a direct, economic incentive to prevent safety lapses. If contract workers employed by the airlines make a mistake, they can be replaced. Not so with civil servants.

"Airlines have no reason to scrimp on safety," Sanderson argues. "If they serve a made meal or show a lousy movie, they don't lose anything. But they cannot afford to lose a plane."

If airline security is controlled by the free market, Sanderson said, it will be sufficient to prevent losses without being excessive. Under government control, it could exceed what is necessary one year, and fall victim to congressional budget cuts the next.

"We could have too much security," Sanderson said. "If American consumers wanted an airline as safe as El Al (the Israeli air carrier), someone would have done it. Someone would be advertising, 'We are the Volvo of the airline industry.' "

As consumers, Americans can decide how much security they want. If they object to high prices and long delays caused by excessive security on one airline, they can opt to fly with another company. But if the government is running it, they will foot the bill as taxpayers without having any influence on the decisionmaking.

It should be noted that Sanderson's viewpoint also differs from that of conservatives in the House, who oppose converting these workers into federal employees. They argue against federalizing the security work force because it would add 28,000 workers to an already bloated federal payroll. But they, too, would shield them from market forces by imposing stiff new federal regulations on these private workers.

Whether or not you agree with Sanderson's conclusion, he seems to be asking many of the right questions -- questions that are being overlooked in the rush to do something in response to Sept. 11.

"People shouldn't make important decisions in times of crisis, and governments shouldn't pass laws in crisis," Sanderson said.

-- Sara Fritz can be reached by e-mail at fritz@sptimes.com and by telephone at (202) 463-0576.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright