Introduction
Safety occupies a central role in many spheres of the modern world. As for the aviation industry, security became even more significant after the terror attacks on the 11th of September, 2001. Those events shocked the globe and made both the United States and other countries reconsider their attitudes to aviation security. According to Otabor (2018, para. 1), the given term stands for “the techniques and methods used to protect the safety of passengers at airports, airport personnel and the aviation industry in general against” various threats. Since this issue is of state importance, it is not a surprise that governments become actively involved in shaping this policy, which can contribute to various consequences. Thus, one can say that the government’s input into aviation security design, technologies and procedure results in more efficient safety irrespective of some potential drawbacks.
The Role of Governments
As has been mentioned, governments can enhance a level of security, which, in turn, results in various consequences. On the one hand, increased safety is profitable for individuals because they do not experience any hazards. On the other hand, some issues emerge when governments overperform in their attempt to achieve safety. This dual nature does not mean that states should stop regulating their aviation industries because of potentially harmful effects. Instead, this information denotes that it is necessary to elaborate on the existing measures to make them result in positive outcomes. The evidence below will demonstrate that some adverse effects arise, but it does not prevent states from doing their best to achieve this essential goal.
Harmful Effects of Increased Security
To begin with, one should state that such an effect does not mean that the wrong decision has been made. For example, it refers to the fact that the UK and the US governments developed portable electronic device restrictions but failed to benefit from them (Garcia, 2019, para. 2). In this case, the IATA mentions that the states cannot enhance security if they fail to make joint actions. It was so because the legal establishments failed to discuss the terms of these restrictions neither with each other nor with their airline companies. Consequently, the initiative appeared to be unsuccessful because airports did not understand how to follow that regulation. This information denotes that some unproductive results in aviation security can occur because of unfinished ideas even though they are profitable. That is why Garcia (2019, para. 11) emphasizes the significance of dialogue and collaboration among various governments to achieve higher safety.
In addition to that, it is necessary to mention that safety is in close connection with privacy issues when it comes to aviation. Throughout the world, numerous people are concerned with their privacy, which creates some problems during security checks. It is so because this procedure implies the interference in the personal space of people. Nugraha and Choi (2016, p. 14) stipulate that such a check becomes unethical when a security officer comes into physical contact with a passenger or their baggage. Furthermore, the researchers point out that “no one’s privacy is subject to arbitrary interference” according to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Nugraha and Choi, 2016, p. 14). Consequently, the government’s desire to create the most effective security system results in privacy concerns for numerous citizens.
At the same time, careful security measures at airports result in long queues and increase crowding. In addition to creating challenging conditions for passengers, this phenomenon decreases safety. Even though it sounds counter-intuitive, it is true because “less crowding could be critical to reducing casualties in a terrorist attack” (Buchanan, Daniel and Pearce, 2016, para. 17). This idea supposes that such attacks are unavoidable, and the only task of the government and airport officials is to minimize harmful outcomes. However, Jansen (2018, para. 2) mentions that eliminating or mitigating the checkpoints is one of the first steps toward raising “significant national security concerns”. Consequently, this initiative is going to bring more problems than benefits.
Şengür and Vasigh (2018) present another argument that explains the drawbacks of the government’s input in shaping aviation security policy. The scientists have conducted research to compare the levels of safety in private and public airports. They have identified that there were no direct correlations between a security level and a type of ownership (Şengür and Vasigh, 2018, p. 200). Even though this idea indirectly refers to the topic under consideration, it demonstrates that the active participation of the government does not mean any difference in what level of security passengers can experience.
The information above has shown that some government initiatives in the field of the airport and airline security can have a negative impact on both the industry and individuals. In this case, officials start believing that safety and security are the most significant phenomena, and nothing else matters. However, this idea does not mean that, for example, privacy and convenience are not essential. However, when it comes to security issues, it is impossible to overestimate their meaning because they directly relate to matters of life and death. That is why governments should take specific measures and implement some initiatives to both address these matters and prevent possible dangers. If some of these steps appear unsuccessful, governments and responsible officials should elaborate on these ideas to achieve productive results as it will be shown further.
Cases of Successful Interference
However, it is useful for society that a more significant part of government security initiatives implies positive outcomes. As for the United States, many successful policies emerged following the 11th of September. After the tragedy, the government decided to participate in aviation security more actively. Hunder and Lambert (2016, p. 35) state that the creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was one of the most significant decisions. It was so because this establishment had to develop and implement security procedures to prevent and overcome any possible dangers. At the same time, there existed another essential issue because passengers felt unsafe in the sky irrespective of what security measures had been taken. Consequently, it was necessary to influence people’s psychology, and smiling customer service happened to be effective in this case because it mitigated “safety perceptions about airline travel” (Hunder and Lambert, 2016, p. 35).
As has been mentioned above, the TSA was responsible for increasing security, which required this body to take specific steps. According to Moriconi (2018, p. 93), one of such measures referred to the development of “22 Layers of Security”. The given system of actions and recommendations comments on what airline officials should do to both prevent terror attacks and minimize harmful outcomes as soon as one has occurred. For example, these layers include no-fly passenger lists, canines’ programmes, training programmes for flight crews, and others (Moriconi, 2018, p. 94). Thus, it is possible to say that the 11th of September has changed American airline security measures significantly.
At the same time, it is reasonable to comment on a few more government initiatives that have made the airport and airline security more effective. Firstly, it refers to full-body scanners and their probable benefits. According to Nugraha and Choi (2016, p. 12), such machines use either radio waves or X-rays to produce three and two-dimensional images of a person, correspondingly. With their help, it is possible to identify non-metallic weapons and various kinds of explosives. The effectiveness of these scanners is equal to that of pat-down search, but airport officials do not need to come into physical contact with passengers and challenge their privacy (Nugraha and Choi, 2016, p. 12). That is why the governments appreciate these machines because they minimize the probability that a criminal will manage to deliver a dangerous object to a plane or airport.
In an attempt to enhance preventive measures, the US government also utilizes the principles of biometrics. According to Haas (2019, p. 459), there have appeared United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) and Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening (CAPPS II). These technologies seem to be necessary because terrorists can become aware of static security procedures and develop ways of how to overcome them. Consequently, both US-VISIT and CAPPS II are practical tools to deprive these criminals of such a possibility. It is so because these systems collect and analyse passengers’ personal information when an individual is going to book a ticket. As a result, if a person is a member of a no-fly list or is said to have some connection with terrorists, this person is subject to extended screening procedures. If necessary, airline companies can contact law enforcement agencies to manage such a situation. As a result, the government heavily relies on biometrics because it allows to control every suspicious passenger, which significantly minimizes possible treats.
In addition to the data above, it is reasonable to consider where governments can find funds to take specific actions and assess their effectiveness. Here, there is no doubt that implementing new and working security measures is a relatively expensive task, and governments should find resources for this. As for the United States, a possible option is to increase passenger fees. Currently, approximately 40% of the airline transportation costs are covered by taxpayers in general (Congressional Budget Office, 2018, para. 5). That is why the US government wants to make passengers pay this part because they are the primary beneficiaries of service. According to the Congressional Budget Office (2018, para. 1), this policy will have resulted in approximately 8.3 billion dollars of savings by 2023. As a consequence, the government will have sufficient resources to enhance its aviation security and safety.
Even though the information above has focused on the United States, it does not mean that other countries do not have their impact on aviation safety. For example, the UK government understands the significance of this phenomenon, which makes it stimulate the development of innovative security measures. That is why the government spends £1.8 million to fund technological projects (Gov.UK, 2018, para. 2). These innovations promise to identify unusual items in bags, find explosives, screen passengers’ footwear, and others (Gov.UK, 2018, para. 16). Some of these projects, including a walk-through system for passenger screening, are going to both enhance safety and reduce screening time. Thus, the UK government’s input is beneficial in all aspects because the measures above do not result in other challenges for passengers.
Conclusion
The airport and airline security is a significant issue for every nation. Even though these life-and-death matters deserve specific attention from responsible establishments, there still exist disputes as to whether governments should actively participate in shaping aviation safety requirements. Opponents of this fact stipulate that when the government interferes in this area, it creates many essential challenges for individuals. For example, they specify that increased safety measures result in privacy issues, overcrowding at airports, and others. In this case, such people question the effectiveness of the measures above because of the inconvenience that emerges following their implementation. That is why it is not reasonable to spend so many resources to meet strict security standards.
At the same time, supporters of the increased government’s input in aviation security emphasize that these standards are necessary to save passengers’ lives. In other words, they mention that the end justifies the means, but it does not matter that governments do not draw attention to the issues that arise. It has been mentioned that governments are interested in the creation of new technologies that will solve the problems, which makes them spend money on it. It is useful information for the society that some of these projects are going to improve the current state of affairs fundamentally. Finally, it is possible to prove the effectiveness of the government’s interference in aviation security by the fact that the United States has not witnessed any severe terror attacks after the 11th of September.
Reference List
Buchanan, L., Daniel, J. and Pearce, A. (2016) Does more security at airports make us safer or just move the targets? Web.
Congressional Budget Office (2018) Increase the passenger fee for aviation security. Web.
Garcia, M. (2019) IATA warns of aviation security risks, calls for better collaboration with governments. Web.
Gov.UK (2018) Government commits £1.8 million to fund innovation in aviation security. Web.
Haas, E.P. (2019) ‘Back to the future: the use of biometrics, its impact on airport security, and how this technology should be governed’, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 84, pp. 459-489.
Hunder, J.A. and Lambert, J.R. (2016) ‘Do we feel safer today? The impact of smiling customer service on airline safety perception post 9-11’, Journal of Transportation Security, 9, pp. 35-56.
Jansen, B. (2018) TSA studies eliminating checkpoints at smaller airports, but criticism is fierce. Web.
Moriconi, F. (2018) Outbreak and treatment of terrorism risk: empirical evidences from the U.S. airline industry after September 11th. Master’s Degree Thesis. LUISS Guido Carli. Web.
Nugraha, R.A. and Choi, J. (2016) ‘Body scanners within airport security systems: security or privacy issue?’ The Aviation and Space Journal, 15(3), pp. 11-24.
Otabor, S. (2018) Aviation security and safety standards. Web.
Şengür, F.K. and Vasigh, B. (2018) ‘An assessment of airport governance policies with a stakeholder perspective’, in Seifi, S. and Crowther, D. (eds.) Stakeholders, governance and responsibility. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 189-205.