Introduction
Aviation security is of paramount importance in the modern world. Today, vast numbers of people have to use planes in order to travel to distant areas; without aviation, their trips would take considerably more time or would even be impossible, and the loss of aviation capabilities would significantly hinder both the economic and technological development of the world. In any case, it is a fact that each year, hundreds of millions of individuals utilise air transport. It is also a fact that planes are sometimes used as targets of malefactors such as terrorists who aim to achieve some political, business, or personal goal. The risk of terrorism and other events which pose a hazard to the health, safety, and lives of passengers and airport personnel corroborates the need to implement considerable safety measures at airports.
In many cases, the security of airports, as well as other aspects of aviation safety, are determined by certain regulatory acts created by the government or governmental institutions. For instance, in the EU, there exist a number of regulatory documents which provide basic definitions and standards for aviation security. For example, the document entitled Regulations: Commission implementing regulation (2015) supplies a detailed account of measures which should be utilized in order to provide the execution of common basic standards for the safety of air transport. Another document also determines the ways in which aviation security should be implemented, for instance, describing the procedures for aircraft security search or screening of passengers (European Commission 2015). These standards and measures are regularly updated; for example, Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament (2008) cancels a 2002 regulation pertaining to airport security, and introduces certain new common rules in the field. Clearly, such updates are necessary, for potential malefactors gain access to more advanced technologies as the latter develop continuously.
However, the implementation of such security measures is associated with numerous inconveniences for passengers, who are forced to wait in long queues, be subjected to scans, have their luggage checked, and so on. Moreover, airports are also forced to spend considerable sums of money and employ large numbers of workers to carry out these security measures (see Fig. 1)—all while continuing to provide their many clients with viable service.
This paper investigates state regulation of safety measures in airports. General problems tied to physical security and passenger and cargo screening are discussed; then, arguments against and for prescriptive airport security measures are considered. A general discussion follows in which it is demonstrated that the traditional, prescriptive nature of these security measures is a better choice than the deregulation of security issues and the situation in which the airlines themselves are completely responsible for overseeing the safety of their passengers.
Physical Security
Physical security can be defined as a variety of measures which are aimed at stopping unauthorised individuals from gaining access to certain facilities, equipment, materials, and documents; at averting damage to the property of the organization for which the security is provided and guarding it against theft, sabotage, or espionage; and at preventing injures to the staff working for the organization (Baker & Benny 2012, p. 2). Physical security measures in aviation include trained personnel and a number of procedures and routines, as well as a variety of equipment; all of these allow for the identification of individuals who might have criminal intent and the prevention of unlawful or hazardous acts.
Whereas it is clear that safety is of paramount importance in airports, it should also be noted that the number of physical security measures which can be taken in an airport is limited by a wide array of factors (Scotti, Dresner & Martini 2016). Of these factors, one of the most important is the need to deliver viable service to the clients of an airport, in particular, the need to handle a great number of passengers every day. In fact, many airports deal with tremendous numbers of passengers every day (Baker & Benny 2012); to thoroughly check each one of them requires much time and effort and slows the flow of customers considerably. Because of the need to continuously move passengers through the airport, only a certain amount of time can be reasonably spent on checking each passenger for potential threats to the safety of the airport.
In addition, the fact that all customers need to be individually scanned in order to detect a possible threat means that the airports must purchase the costly equipment which performs the scanning procedures. As it has already been stressed that airports must serve great numbers of clients daily, it follows that the personnel of airports have to handle large amounts of data and analyse them to detect any potential threats (Hainen et al. 2013). As a result, airport security employees may feel exhausted and become dissatisfied with their constant and large workloads, a factor which has also been found to decrease the overall effectiveness of the security procedures (Baeriswyl, Krause & Schwaninger 2016). Staff scarcity also means significant inconveniences and problems for the clients, who are forced to wait in long queues in order to get on their planes (see Fig. 2).
It is also important to point out the fact that the current security procedures and protocols are based on a set of assumptions, one of which is that compliance with rules and regulations will allow for maximised safety in the airport and on the plane. In fact, passengers are viewed as passive agents, whereas the personnel of an airport are those who take an active stance with respect to the problem of safety (Kirschenbaum 2013; Kirschenbaum 2015). However, it has also been stressed that passengers very often tend not to comply with the rules and procedures which are aimed at making air transport safer (Kirschenbaum 2013; Kirschenbaum 2015). In fact, the situation usually tends to be the opposite: customers of airports are active participants in the safety procedures (Kirschenbaum 2015). Moreover, it has been argued that passengers often behave defiantly, a defiance which is actually encouraged by the currently existing safety protocols and procedures (McHendry 2016).
As a result of these factors and realities, the procedures aimed at providing physical security in airports often take considerably more time than they were originally meant to take, thus causing delays in the flow of passengers and air traffic (Hainen et al. 2013; Kirschenbaum 2015; Skorupski & Uchronski 2015). Therefore, it is clear that if the safety procedures are obligatory, they may adversely affect the efficiency of the airports, lowering their overall passenger traffic capacity.
Passenger, Baggage, and Cargo Screening
The cargo and passenger screening procedures utilise a wide range of methods such as X-ray detection, laser-based molecular detection, radio-frequency identification, and many others (Michel et al. 2014; Simbro 2014). However, the use of these methods is also associated with a wide array of problems and complications. For instance, the utilisation of X-ray scanning is made more difficult by the fact that this procedure requires the employee responsible for interpreting the results of the scan to have a great amount of competence and experience; otherwise, this employee may miss something that is dangerous indeed, simultaneously slowing down the passenger throughput with an excessive number of false alarms and asking the clients of the airport to undergo additional scans (Michel et al. 2014).
Furthermore, researchers stress that members of airport security personnel tend to treat passengers differently depending on a variety of factors, including their race. For example, a study that was carried out in a large East Coast airport in the United States (which supports international flights for its clients) found that passengers of non-White ethnicity were much more likely to have to undergo an additional screening procedure than White passengers; moreover, these affected clients were also less likely to receive an apology and/or explanation for the reasons for searching them (Lum et al. 2015). In fact, passengers of non-White background faced a greater chance of having their possessions confiscated and of feeling embarrassed due to the actions of the security personnel, and so on (Lum et al. 2015). These findings reasonably allow for the assumption that similar problems exist in airports in other countries as well, not only in the United States. Therefore, it is possible to state that the need to undergo screening and adhere to strict safety protocols might result in customer dissatisfaction, therefore possibly lowering the profitability of airports.
Arguments against Prescriptive Airport Security
Given the current situation in airport security, a number of arguments for making security scanning and controls non-obligatory might be given. These arguments are mostly rooted in the disadvantages and inconveniences for the passengers caused by the process of security scanning, as well as in the high costs necessary in order to comply with security guidelines imposed by the state.
For instance, it has already been highlighted that the need to perform thorough scans of passengers and their baggage, as well as several other measures aimed at maintaining the physical security of airports, require considerable effort from the personnel responsible for the security of the airport (Baeriswyl, Krause & Schwaninger 2016). This demanding workload may lead to severe exhaustion of the staff and also poses the risk of burnout (Baeriswyl, Krause & Schwaninger 2016). In order to prevent this workplace hazard, airports might need to reduce the workload of their employees, which can result in complications pertaining to human resource management issues, and, eventually, in greater costs that need to be spent to carry out the process of scanning according to state requirements.
The equipment that is employed to execute the safety measures is also costly (see Fig. 3), and the money spent on purchasing such equipment might be better used for other purposes—for instance, increasing the quality of customer service in the airport.
Finally, perhaps the key argument utilised by proponents of cancelling the prescriptive security demands in air transport are related to the belief that the free market would be able to properly regulate airport security measures. Indeed, it might be assumed that once the prescriptions related to airport security are lifted, the airports will implement their own security strategies and methods in accordance with their needs and the market situation. In other words, it is supposed that airports will not implement or carry out those safety protocols and procedures which are redundant, instead utilizing only those methods of safety provision that are needed to supply a level of security high enough to attract clients. In fact, some scholars argue that a risk assessment which was carried out in a study of a number of airports in Europe, the United States, and the Asia-Pacific region demonstrates that many airports implement redundant safety measures and that it would be reasonable to make the security demands less strict than they are (Stewart & Mueller 2014). Thus, according to the proponents of this argument, self-regulation is bound to occur once the requirements imposed by the state are removed; the airports will then seek to eliminate redundant safety measures, leaving only those which are indeed necessary and economically justified.
At the same time, it is clear that if the prescriptions related to airport security issues are cancelled and if airports are to supply their own forms of security according to the demands of the market, then the spending required in order to provide this security should also be covered by the airports. Because private organizations gain money by selling their products or services to their clients, it is clear that as a result of such deregulation, customers will have to fully cover the cost of safety measures when they purchase their airplane tickets. Proponents of this solution might argue that this is a logical step, because passengers would essentially be purchasing their own safety; in other words, those clients who purchase cheaper tickets must be willing to enjoy lower levels of security and higher levels of risk while travelling.
Today, there already exist a number of examples of deregulation of airport security. For instance, Prentice (2015) highlights that in Mexico airport security is financed completely by the government, while in the United States, the spending on safety is split evenly between the clients of the airports and the government; in Canada, however, the costs of air safety are shouldered fully by the air passengers. The process of the deregulation and privatisation of air security in Canada began in 1973, when it was decided that the airports should create and utilise safety programs on their own, using their own financing for this purpose. The process took place gradually over a number of steps and was completed only in 2003, when “all the international airports [were] commercialised” (Prentice 2015, p. 54). The Canadian example serves to demonstrate how the policy of deregulation has been implemented in a highly developed country and has proven capable of existing so far.
Arguments for Prescriptive Airport Security
Despite the many arguments for the deregulation of airport security, it is also possible to provide a variety of reasons that airport security should be regulated by the state. Many of these arguments are rooted in the considerably adverse impact that insufficient safety measures implemented in airports would have; however, arguments related to the issues of economic fitness have also been given by certain authors.
First of all, it should again be stressed that the problem of air traffic safety is of critical importance due to the fact that the lives of passengers may (and do) depend on it (Sakano, Obeng & Fuller 2016). If an airport or airline decides to cut their spending on security measures in order to make tickets cheaper and attract additional customers, this organization, in fact, may be risking the lives of their clients. This problem is likely to be exacerbated by the fact that, due to the lower prices of tickets, it will be easy to identify that a particular airport probably utilises less strict security measures, which could potentially attract individuals having some criminal intentions to attempt to realise these intentions in that airport. Indeed, it is apparent that risking the lives of individuals using air transport is too high a price to pay to identify which security measures would be sufficient according to the situation in the market.
Also, it has been emphasised that a breach of security in air transport resulting in an incident of terrorism against airplane passengers is not only capable of causing mass loss of life; it also results in considerable harm to national reputation, and the “cost estimates for even limited events are stunning” (Prentice 2015, p. 52). Indeed, the whole society of a country whose airline is subjected to a terrorist attack might be affected by this security breach. Therefore, it is clear that the safety of air transport is not only a problem for the air company that delivers this service; it is, in fact, an issue of public safety (Prentice 2015; Leese 2016).
One example that demonstrates why security issues should not be made the responsibility of air companies alone is also provided by Leese (2016). According to the researcher, the issues of airport security in Germany have been handled in an increasingly marketised manner, which has resulted in a number of disadvantages. One of these issues is related to the fact that under these conditions, the airport workers who provide private security suffer from a variety of problems. For instance, they bear additional responsibility for their actions due to the fact that they are representatives of private companies rather than state organisations. In addition, they are forbidden to act in the case of a real emergency; in such cases, they are forced to call the state police instead (Leese 2016). These serious limitations also adversely affect the efficacy of air transport safety measures, increasing the risks for both passengers and personnel of the aviation company.
Another argument that can be used to support the existence of prescriptive aviation security measures is related to economic issues. As mentioned above, Canadian airports are responsible for the implementation of security measures on their own, and the money which is used for this purpose is raised from passengers by including the price of security in the cost of tickets; security is not financed by the government. According to Prentice (2015), this system has led to a situation in which airplane tickets in Canadian airports are too costly for many customers. Therefore, a large number of clients opt to utilise other means of transport whenever possible; when using air transport is absolutely necessary, they often choose to travel first to the United States in order to use the services of U.S. aviation companies, where half of the security cost is covered by the state (Prentice 2015).
As a result, Canadian air companies have suffered from a greatly reduced number of passengers. Interestingly, it has also been estimated that the Canadian government would spend less money if it paid for aviation security than the amount of money it loses due to the fact that the passengers who use U.S. airlines instead of Canadian ones do not pay tax to the Canadian treasury when purchasing tickets (Prentice 2015). In this way, the Canadian airline industry has become unviable for many of its target customers. Therefore, it can be concluded that state-funded airport safety measures are more economically justified than the market-based situation in which security expenses are covered by airport clients; not only is the state-funded option more convenient for the passengers, it is also more profitable for the government and the airports of the country in question.
Of course, if the state finances the safety measures in an airport, it is logical that the government will also make certain demands about the level of security which is to be provided in that airport. An airport can attempt to do more than simply meet these minimal demands, supplying a greater level of security when justified.
Discussion
It is clear that the implementation of safety measures in airports needs to be constantly controlled, revised, and adjusted to the changing situation in the world. New technologies that permit quicker passenger, luggage, and cargo screening should be introduced if the operators and employees of airports are to provide their clients with viable, effective, and competitive service. Moreover, continuous optimization of security procedures must be carried out. For example, according to Cole and Kuhlmann (2012), current safety airport measures are largely reactive: they are aimed at detecting criminals who have already begun acting. The authors recommend instead taking a proactive stance in aviation crime prevention, and they offer certain methods in order to accomplish this goal (Cole & Kuhlmann 2012).
In addition, an unfortunate consequence of constant technological progress is that malefactors also gain access to more complicated methods and technologies which can be utilised to commit a crime, and the detection of offenders in such public places as airports becomes more difficult by the day. Moreover, the developing safety technologies and methods should also take into account a wide array of other aspects related to airports and crime, such as various human factors.
As Kirschenbaum (2015) argues, it is also critical to revise the assumptions that passengers are completely passive objects in airports and that compliance alone will allow for high levels of safety; instead, it should be taken into account that many airline customers actively participate in the security processes and the related decision-making. The effects of various safety techniques on people also ought to be considered in the optimization of safety measures; for instance, McHendry (2016, p. 1) argues that the existing methods result in “secure airport[s] and defiant public”.
On the whole, it is apparent that government-regulated security measures in airports are more justified than the alternative in which companies decide which safety measures to use and pay for them out of the costs of enterprise, that is, from the money gained from their passengers. Moreover, it is clear that the sheer magnitude of the impact of possible threats to passengers, as well as airline personnel, justifies the need to impose at least some minimal standards for the provision of safety. Thus, it is recommended that aviation security remain prescriptive.
Of course, this recommendation does not mean that the evident disadvantages of this situation should not be addressed. Perhaps one of the most considerable disadvantages of governmental regulation of safety issues is that this system is generally much slower and more cumbersome than the one in which companies handle the security problems on their own. Moreover, it might be the case that the government requires the use of a particular type of security measure or a certain kind of technology that is outdated; in this case, of course, the safety of airline passengers and personnel might be compromised. Therefore, it can be concluded that while the government should establish certain minimal (but sufficient) requirements for the security measures used in airports, these demands should be flexible enough to allow airports to implement more innovative approaches to safety as well. In addition, the government ought to regularly revise guidelines and adjust them in accordance with developing technologies and the changing situation in the world.
Lastly, the previously mentioned racial issues are a problem of a different sort. Although they can exist independently of whether airport security is provided by the state or a private organization, it is a problem that clearly needs to be addressed. Further research is recommended to determine the most appropriate solution for ending racial bias in airport security.
Conclusion
Above all, it is clear that both the provision of security in airports and the process of passenger and baggage screening are associated with considerable effort and expense for the party that pays for them and with significant inconveniences for the passengers. It might appear justified to deregulate airport safety measures and allow airports to create and implement their own methods and protocols for providing security to their clients. However, it has been demonstrated that this system might lead to increased risks of a security breach, which would have a considerable impact on the reputation of the whole nation; in this way, aviation safety is truly a public safety issue.
The example of Germany further points to the ineffectiveness of security measures when they are carried out without the help of the state. In addition, it has been shown that it is difficult for airports to provide viable services when safety measures are not at least partially paid for by the state; in Canada, for example, passengers seek ways to lower the cost of air travel by going to the neighbouring United States, thus not purchasing the services of Canadian airports and not paying taxes to the Canadian government. Taking all of these factors into consideration, it is possible to conclude that prescriptive security in aviation (particularly in passenger, baggage, and cargo screening) is a better choice than deregulated security.
Reference List
Airport baggage scanner n.d., Web.
Baeriswyl, S, Krause, A & Schwaninger, A 2016, ‘Emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction in airport security officers: work–family conflict as mediator in the job demands–resources model’, Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, no. 663, pp. 1-13, Web.
Baker, PR & Benny, DJ 2012, The complete guide to physical security, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Cole, M & Kuhlmann, A 2012, ‘A scenario-based approach to airport security’, Futures, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 319-327.
Collman, A & Chia, J 2016, ‘Hundreds stranded, passengers sleeping in cots: TSA security lines of up to three hours cause chaos at Chicago O’Hare as national staff shortage at airports makes thousands miss flights’, Daily Mail Online, Web.
European Commission 2015, Commission implementing decision of 16.11.2015 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security containing information, as referred to in point (a) of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008, EC no. C(2015) 8005 final, Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels.
Hainen, AM, Remias, SM, Bullock, DM & Mannering, FL 2013, ‘A hazard-based analysis of airport security transit times’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 32, pp. 32-38.
Kirschenbaum, A 2013, ‘The cost of airport security: the passenger dilemma’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 30, pp. 39-45.
Kirschenbaum, A 2015, ‘The social foundations of airport security’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 48, pp. 34-41.
Leese, M 2016, ‘Governing airport security between the market and the public good’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 158-175.
Lum, C, Crafton, PZ, Parsons, R, Beech, D, Smarr, T & Connors, M 2015, ‘ Discretion and fairness in airport security screening’, Security Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 352-373.
Michel, S, Mendes, M, de Ruiter, JC, Koomen, GCM, & Schwaninger, A 2014, ‘Increasing X-ray image interpretation competency of cargo security screeners’, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 551-560.
McHendry, GF 2016, ‘Thank you for participating in security: engaging airport security checkpoints via participatory critical rhetoric’, Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, vol. 2016, pp. 1-12, Web.
Prentice, BE 2015, ‘Canadian airport security: the privatization of a public good’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 48, pp. 52-59.
Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 2008, Web.
Rosenbloom, S 2012, ‘Speedy airport security: should you apply?’The New York Times, Web.
Sakano, R, Obeng, K & Fuller, K 2016, ‘Airport security and screening satisfaction: a case study of U.S.’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 55, pp. 129-138.
Scotti, D, Dresner, M & Martini, G 2016, ‘Baggage fees, operational performance and customer satisfaction in the US air transport industry’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 55, pp. 139-146.
Simbro, AM 2014, ‘The sky’s the limit: a modern approach to airport security’, Arizona Law Review, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 559-588.
Skorupski, J & Uchronski, P 2015, ‘A fuzzy model for evaluating airport security screeners’ work’, Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 48, pp. 42-51.
Stewart, MG & Mueller, J 2014, ‘Cost-benefit analysis of airport security: are airports too safe?’ Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 35, pp. 19-28.