Ask the pilot

Americans haven't been the only ones acting foolishly of late, but carriers in Europe have reacted strongly to what they believe has been a badly bungled security situation. No sooner had word of the foiled liquid-bomb plot ignited pandemonium at airports in the U.K. than British Airways was threatening to sue the British Airports Authority, overseer of London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports, for not having a contingency scheme in place. For several days, carry-ons were banned completely on flights from the U.K., resulting in scores of cancellations and massive delays.

Within a week, a group of airlines led by budget carrier Ryanair were preparing a half-billion-dollar lawsuit against the British government, hoping the threat of legal action might inspire ministers to rescind some of the luggage restrictions. In a statement obtained by the London Times, Ryanair wants the government "to remove some of the illogical and unworkable restrictions at airports that are leading to large-scale disruptions and flight cancellations."

A spokesman from easyJet, another popular European budget airline, was slightly more diplomatic. "We will consider whether either BAA or the government has a case to answer. We have had to cancel 500 flights and put people up in hotels. Why should we have to pay for that?"

Virgin Atlantic was cagier still, but you can read between the lines: "We would prefer a cozy chat with the government," said a spokesman, "rather than suing them."

I'm unaware of any cozy chats taking place between U.S. airlines and either Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff or his underlings at the TSA, who so enthusiastically put us into this mess. If any are going on, it hasn't been reported.

That itself isn't surprising, as airlines in this terror-fixated nation, themselves violently victimized on Sept. 11, aren't prone to speaking out publicly against measures even tenuously construable as bettering security. Backstage, however, they have every right and reason to be fuming, along with their employees, unions and all of the many businesses -- and their employees and unions -- who depend on them. The airlines and their workers already shoulder a considerable portion of the security bill -- passed along to consumers through higher fares and surcharges. They have spoken out vociferously on a number of other issues, but are conspicuously silent on this one.

No airlines responded to requests for comment, while one well-placed industry source said only: "Given your clear extremist views and totally skewed understanding of the facts, I find it best not to respond on the record."

No offense, but if anything is "extremist," it's the notion that confiscating coffee cups and hand lotion truly makes us safer, and that subjecting millions of fliers to security theater, rather than actual security, is in the airlines' best interest.

Another source, who asks not to be identified, was more forthcoming. "The industry hasn't been supine on these developments, but they haven't been very high-profile, either," the spokesperson said. "They have sporadic public relations efforts, talking to the media, testifying in Congress, etc., about things such as the extraordinarily high amount of taxes on tickets, and the costs of airline security in terms of both cash outlays and lost revenues. They weigh in on rule proposals, and I think they've even filed a lawsuit or two.

"Another difference is that Congress gave the airlines $5 billion in cash to cover expenses arising out of September 11, plus $10 billion in loan guarantees. (The Bush people saw to it that only 16 percent of the loan guarantees were granted, but that's another story.) There's also the public perception factor. How would airlines look if they tried to resist? They'd get slammed for putting money above their passengers' safety."

Ultimately it's not about the airlines, it's about us. The people have the power, and we're cowering rather than fighting.

It dawns on me that as I've spent thousands of words and, probably, too much of readers' time analyzing this stuff over the past few weeks, I've danced and dallied around the central point. Allow me to quote Bruce Schneier, the author and security guru, who in a recent blog entry more elegantly sums things up:

"The point of terrorism is to cause terror. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act. And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do you have questions for Salon's aviation expert? Send them to AskThePilot and look for answers in a future column.

Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)

Search terms:

Salon the Web

Salon Directory (browse by topic)