Guilty until proven innocent?

06-01-2003

I recently returned from a trip that involved catching five flights at five airports and on three different carriers. Like many passengers who have boarded commercial airliners in the last dozen months, I discovered that each journey through an airport these days can be an adventure in unpredictability.

The good news is that all five flights, two on United, two on Alaska Airlines and one on US Airways, were both satisfactory and surprisingly predictable. They departed and arrived on time, which by official definition is within 15 minutes of the schedule. Their coach-class seats were comfortable and in-flight services suitable. (It is interesting that Alaska managed to serve a small meal on each of its 90-minute flights, while a bagel and coffee was the best US Airways could muster on its four-hour early morning flight.) Our luggage appeared on the pickup carousels undamaged and in reasonably short order after our arrival.

For all their well-publicized financial travails, these carriers did what we expected them to do. In fact, we were pleasantly surprised to discover how easy the issue of travel documentation has become. Even though we left home without our e-ticket confirmation codes, we had no trouble getting boarding passes at the airline ticket simply by presenting our photo IDs.

The unpredictable, anxiety-producing aspect of these trips came mostly as a result of enhanced security.

Most travelers are aware that getting inside the flight end of all 429 U.S. airports has become much more complicated since the Transportation Security Administration assumed control. In addition to stringent passenger screenings, all luggage, both checked and carry-on, is being closely examined, either electronically or by TSA agents, often by both.

Security procedures and protocols supposedly have been standardized at all airports and, in recent weeks, even streamlined. For example, to clear security at 257 airports, in addition to a government issued photo ID, passengers must have a valid boarding pass for an imminent flight. These can be obtained online at the airlines' Web sites, at ticket counters or e-ticket kiosks. Printed itineraries, tickets or other vouchers are no longer sufficient.

Most passengers must now show their photo ID only once for security purposes, at the checkpoint. It's no longer necessary to present ID at the boarding gate.

Examination of passengers and their carry-on baggage at security checkpoints is much more stringent. Smart travelers minimize the amount of metal they carry or wear to avoid setting off the detectors. But even removing your shoes is no guarantee you'll avoid close scrutiny.

Even before they get to scanners, passengers are being picked out of line both randomly and, judging by the TSA inspector in Pittsburgh who looked at my boarding pass and sent me to the select lane, by pre-determined criteria. In fact, I was selected for special attention at three of the four checkpoints I encountered.

To their credit, all of the inspectors who examined me during this trip were courteous and efficient, and nowhere did this part of the process take more than a few minutes.

And new scanners are in place for checked baggage, although the equipment and procedures vary from airport to airport. In Pittsburgh, passengers with baggage to check must get bag tags at the ticket counter and then take their luggage to security scanners, who examine it in the passenger's presence and then load it on to conveyor belts. At other airports, such as SeaTac in Seattle, bags are checked at the ticket counters and then scanned or physically examined while on conveyor belts.

Unfortunately, implementation and efficiency of these security procedures varies not only from airport to airport, but also at any given airport depending on the time of day, day of the week, or other transitional factors. Since travelers generally aren't familiar with procedures at many airports, you never know where or when you'll run into a time-consuming roadblock.

For example, clearing security in Pittsburgh early on a weekday afternoon took us only 15 minutes, even being selected for a close inspection. Since we had allowed two hours to get to the flight, we had time -- too much time -- to grab lunch before boarding.

Ten days later in Seattle, we also planned to arrive at the airport two hours early for a 7:30 a.m. departure, which made for a very early wakeup call. We thought that would be plenty of time, even considering that a Code Orange security level had begun two days earlier, which meant they'd be checking vehicles entering the airport.

There was no traffic at that hour. We breezed through the vehicle checkpoint and quickly took care of getting boarding passes and checking our bags. But when we went downstairs to catch the shuttle train to the departure gate, we discovered the mother of all lines waiting to enter the security area, snaking slowly for maybe 400 yards. Getting into and through the security checkpoint took us an hour and 15 minutes. We made our flight with a few minutes to spare, but many passengers weren't as fortunate.

The scene that morning was as anxiety-packed as any I've encountered in my travels. People fidgeted and fumed in line, watching the clock erode their plans, no matter whether they were traveling for business or for pleasure, in first class or economy. I witnessed more than a few meltdowns, and many people missed their flights. The explanations I heard were that it was a holiday weekend, that several TSA inspectors had been laid off, that "mornings from 6 to 9 are always a zoo."

I suspect that not a single person in line was traveling with nefarious intent. As 100 passengers caught in a minor security snafu in Pittsburgh this week learned, any glitch in the process can create havoc with travel plans.

I'm not questioning the need for more vigilant security post-911, but creating bottlenecks in systems originally designed to expedite the flow of passengers imposes considerable stress on all concerned.

Perhaps arriving hours early for flights is the price we must pay to maintain our sense of security, but it's also clear that this factor is having a negative impact on air travel, as fewer people are willing to pay that price.

But it is also important to keep asking: Is all that mass security by the numbers really necessary? Is it effective? What is it accomplishing? Does an absence of arrests mean that a single terrorist has been deterred? Does a stringent show of security mean we are any safer from attack?

Watching white-haired matrons tiptoeing anxiously in their stockings through metal detectors at 6:45 in the morning certainly makes one wonder.

On the other hand, we should all be grateful it wasn't a suppository bomb that Richard Reid tried to detonate.

 
[Back to Articles Main]