WILL AVIATION EVER BE FUN AGAIN? Remarks by Washington Post columnist Don Phillips to the Aero Club of Washington, March 26, 2002 I want to emphasize that the opinions I express today are strictly my own, and not necessarily those of my newspaper. My newspaper is perfectly capable of expressing its own opinions. I'm going to do something a little different today. Normally when I speak to aviation groups my topic is some version of "Why do we do such a crappy job of covering aviation safety?" And of course I'll be happy to answer questions about that later if you wish. I could also talk about the new National Transportation Safety Board under Marion Blakey. But why should I waste time here saying nice things? No, today I want to talk about another subject near and dear to my heart. I almost called my speech "What the hell are we doing to ourselves?" But a cooler head prevailed. Rob liked another title much better: "Will aviation ever be fun again?" My earliest memories of aviation were all fun. I grew up in a small Alabama cotton mill town called Talladega. Most of you have probably heard of Talladega because there's a race track there. But when I was growing up in the '40's and '50's, the current home of the Talladega 500 was nothing more than a cotton field. Later, a small airport was built in the middle of the cotton field, right about where the race track infield is today. But my favorite airport was the big airfield in Birmingham. That's where the big iron flew?the DC3's, the DC6's and occasionally a Connie. My aunt and uncle lived in Birmingham, and we'd go visit sometimes on weekends. Daddy and I always went to the airport. Security was a low chain link fence at the edge of the apron, which in those days probably could be legitimately called a "tarmac," and the gate was a real gate that swung open in the chain link fence. The planes always pulled to within a few dozen feet of the gate, and Daddy and I would watch the lucky passengers board, and then wait for the real action. Many of you younger people probably think aircraft engines whine or roar when they start up. In those days, they coughed. They belched smoke, and then they roared. A huge fire extinguisher was a normal piece of airport equipment in those days. To get to the taxiway, the aircraft would wheel around and head directly away from us. Then would come the real fun. I hung to the fence for dear life as the propwash nearly blew me down. Daddy and I would laugh and laugh and laugh. I was only about six or seven when we started our regular routine. We kept it up for years. Daddy is gone now, but I can close my eyes and relive those moments any time I want to. What does a six-, seven-year- or eight-year-old carry away from an airport today? I'm afraid we all know. There's tension, sometimes fear. Mommy and Daddy don't smile as much now as they used to. A lot of humorless, tense people hurry about. If you are traveling that day, you may well have the opportunity to see Mommy or Daddy searched. A strange black stick is rubbed over their bodies while they hold their arms out like a bird that wishes it could fly away. They unbuckle their belts. They take off their shoes. Strange rituals are performed on their bags.YOU, in fact, may have that black stick rubbed all over you, and for some reason they take your shoes away too. Perhaps your security blankie or your dollie is pulled from your hands and put on a belt that takes it away. You may cry. Mommy and Daddy can do nothing to help. Mommy and Daddy actually may be able to help in advance by explaining that the people who seem to be attacking you are just trying to keep you safe from the bad people who want to make your airplane crash. Maybe that helps, but it also says that what we are about to do today?flying--is frightening and unsafe. It certainly isn't fun. I think everyone probably remembers that wonderful United Airlines TV ad from a couple of years back. The dedicated and kind mechanic walks up into the terminal after a long night of work to see the real reason for his dedication. A couple of gleeful kids run to the big glass windows to see a plane pulling in. As I remember, they're there to meet Daddy coming home from his long trip. I think that is one of the most effective ads I've ever seen. But I bet you'll never see it again. I doubt the mechanic would take a chance on making the security people suspicious. But more importantly, the kids won't be there to meet him. They can't come through security without a ticket. Personally, I would recommend strongly against taking kids to the airport to meet or say goodbye to anyone. By refusing to let meet-and-greet folks go through security, we are creating one of the most dangerous situations in aviation?a public area, unusually crowded with people, with absolutely no security at all. I don't think I need to say more about that. So, for me, we've come from a fun trip to the airport with all the sights and sounds and smells and excitement of aviation?.to?.THIS. Kids who go to airports today may never even see a plane. What are we doing to our children? Perhaps it is necessary to frisk them. After all, kids have been used as human booby traps in other parts of the world. But should we treat EVERY one of them as if they were suspects. Roughly 100 percent of them will never be responsible for bringing down a plane. We may think we are not doing any damage, but how many of us can get into the mind of a child? I fear that terrible things have already been planted in many of their young minds. Why couldn't screeners be trained better to handle children? Rather than ordering the dollie onto the belt, why couldn't screeners ask Mommy or Daddy to bring the little one over to the X-ray screen and say something like, "Honey, what's your dollie's name? Would you like to see what she looks like on an X-ray screen? Look at this." The experience could be turned into something better. It might not always work, but we could at least try. Someone, I think, once said we can judge a society by how they treat their children and their old folks. At airports, we are failing both miserably. Just this morning, I was talking to a psychologist friend about this speech. Not only did she agree fully, but she added another group that I hadn't thought of?adolescents. The most valuable and sensitive thing to an adolescent is his or her privacy. That can be terribly violated in the screening process. I want to give some credit to the top people in the Transportation Security Administration at this point. First of all, I respect them and I respect what they are trying to do under rough circumstances. We could start with Norm Mineta and Michael Jackson. John Magaw and people like Kip Hawley are doing everything possible to make this thing work. Mr. Magaw has even said there will be an emphasis on customer service at screening points. The first visible sign of customer service was so simple: Chairs and shoe horns at check points. How many times did we all see a screener tell an elderly person something like, "Ain't my job to get you a chair. Take your shoes off." Of course, Mr. Magaw and Mr. Mineta share an incentive to have a chair handy. They both have artificial hips. One is steel, one titanium, I hear. But I can never keep them straight. And I must give them a lot of credit on something else. As a reporter, I called a couple of these officials to ask questions for this speech. I want to get things right, and I like to be fair. From their reaction, it was clear that they understood my concern about children, and said they will do something about it. I could wish they thought of it first. And of course I am paid to be a skeptic. So we'll see what happens. What else does customer service mean? So far, it seems to be mainly a promise that we'll get you through security lines in less than 10 minutes. I have also been told by the folks at the top that training for the new federal screeners will include courtesy and conflict resolution. I'm sure they mean that. In fact, a top Marriott official, Kurt Krause, has developed a full customer service training module, as they call it. The intent is certainly there. But pardon my confusion. Let me tell you another story. A good friend and source who is one of the outside consultants involved in screener training said he was shocked by something he heard from a TSA official at a planning meeting. My friend suggested training in conflict resolution, something that would help screeners calm angry or harried passengers. The TSA official said, "That's frivolous. That has nothing to do with security." I called my friend back three times, asking him, Are you SURE he said "frivolous?" No doubt about it. He was appalled. I told a couple of DOT and TSA officials about the incident, and I could almost hear the blood drain from their faces. They too were appalled. That isn't the policy. But let's face it. People get the word very quickly on reward and punishment. No matter what their bosses SAY, they act on more subtle cues. In this case, I think they are probably acting on a couple of cues. First, the overriding concern at DOT and TSA is clearly to get the new federal security system in place by a politically set deadline. And hang the cost. The chief push to meet the deadline comes straight from Congress. Norm Mineta got the message loud and clear. He was pummeled on the Hill when he told the truth about one deadline. Actually, to that TSA official down in the bowels of the agency, whose career depends on meeting deadlines, training in conflict resolution probably IS a frivolous waste of precious time. This rush to meet deadlines should worry everyone. Not only are we going to waste a lot of money on already obsolete security equipment, but I'm also afraid we're going to institutionalize some of the inhuman practices from the bad old days. Second, the TSA seems to be populated with law enforcement people and a law enforcement mentality. In this mentality, courtesy and conflict resolution may be desirable, but we're in a war. After all, we're holding apparently innocent people indefinitely without charge under the figleaf of "material witnesses." And we're looking for any excuse to deport hard-working legal immigrants on just any flimsy legalistic excuse. Our rights as citizens are being frayed outside the airport. Why not inside? I bounced this theory off some friends familiar with the TSA. They said I had it wrong. It's actually worse. The law enforcement people who populate TSA are mainly former Secret Service and BATF agents, and they're not used to any civilian telling them what to do. This is a particular breed of law enforcement culture that says, "Get out of our way. We're professionals and it's none of your business how we do this." There's nothing inherently wrong with tough law enforcement. In fact, we need it. But our country also insists we have rights. Law enforcement practices must remain under political and civilian control. And I think the top people at the TSA and DOT need to ask constantly if that's the case inside TSA. What about our rights inside the airport? In the current world, it's clear we better not insist on them, or we may well not fly. We may get due process later when we complain to higher officials, or complain to the airline. But there's a good chance we won't fly on the day and at the time we want to. At best, we'll get a courteous, "May our wonderful policemen show you out of the airport?" At worst, we will be caught in a small zone of fascism and maybe even arrested. As some of you know, I can certainly testify to that from personal experience. The word has gone out to airline crews too. You better not complain about ANYTHING. Two US Airways pilots have actually been fired for complaining about security procedures. As nearly as I can ascertain the details, they never threw a punch. They never threatened anyone. They were assertive, and for all I know they acted like jerks I can certainly identify with that. But some screeners and some cops simply love to jump on any complaint or phrase to arrest someone. That seems to be the case here. It is beyond me why the airline took any action against them, much less fired them. But guess what. No rational pilot will stand up for his or her rights again, no matter how egregious the incident. Female flight attendants certainly have a right to complain, as do many other women. One basic right should be that screeners don't have the right to cop a feel. There has been a rash of that in the post-Sept. 11 world. I guess some screeners now think they can get away with anything. Unfortunately, when it comes to flight attendants, the screeners seem to be right. It is no accident that complaints about this practice came from Pat Friend at the flight attendants' union. No flight attendant would dare make a scene herself. She would probably be fired. I trust this problem will go away when all screeners are federal employees. But I must say, I was disappointed with the TSA's most recent reaction, this one to the case of a woman in Philadelphia who, bless her heart, took the system on and won. A TSA spokesman said, naturally, that the TSA does not condone such outrages, but the agency had received "only eight" complaints. Huh? I know at least eight cases myself, including one involving a high official who may or may not be in this room today. I won't offer any other hints. But the question is, why is the TSA waiting for the complaints to come in? Why don't they have spies out there watching for this stuff? I suspect a lot of women aren't complaining, either because they're embarrassed or they believe what a lot of Americans believe?this is security. It will do no good to complain. I hope, in fact, that the new federal screeners will not only be taught about courtesy and conflict resolution. I also hope they will be told that we DO have rights, that a complaint is not a threat, and that the basic American principle of innocent-until (and unless) proven-guilty applies at screening areas too. In a perfect world, maybe a copy of the Bill of Rights would be pasted to each screener location, with a couple of phrases underlined?the parts about free speech and unreasonable searches and seizures. Airport security is also having an important effect on airline revenues, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you. High-end business travel isn't coming back as fast as it could. I know from personal experience and from various surveys that the "hassel effect" is an important cause. As some of you know, a major aerospace company has done a survey that indicates business travelers don't worry about terrorism so much any more, but worry constantly about the hassel of air travel. A lot of my friends say they've returned to their cars for trips less than 500 miles, some say less than 1,000 miles. All of us are under a lot of pressure to plan ahead and buy the cheapest tickets possible. And by the way, what makes you in the airline industry believe you will escape with paying only $700 million a year for security? The TSA is growing into a 60,000-person bureaucracy?more than four times the total number of air traffic controllers?and it's way over budget. This year, of course, we the taxpayers will foot the bill. Don't count on it next year or the year after, however. All this said, I am willing to give the TSA and the DOT the benefit of the doubt. One friend said, "Don't judge us until later this year, when we have everything in place." My answer was, OK. I know you're trying hard. It's your deadline. Now, before I take questions, I want to say something positive. And I want to set straight a bit of history from the events of Sept. 11. It has been said before, but air traffic controllers were among the real heroes of Sept. 11. In all my reporting, I can find no example of anything a one of them did wrong. I've talked to many of them unofficially, including some who were plugged in when the planes came crashing down, and who, naturally were devastated. The FAA, often vilified by some in this room, got it right too. Which brings me to the historical correction. None of what I say should be interpreted as criticism of Norm Mineta. In fact, Norm did just about everything right himself. And when I told several people at the FAA and elsewhere what I'm about to do, they begged me not to. Norm's a nice guy, they said. It doesn't matter. But it does matter, because it matters to thousands of controllers and other FAA folks. I'm sure everyone here remembers the story that Norm, with appropriate cuss words, ordered the FAA to land every plane in the country at the nearest airport immediately, rather than continue to destination. There's one trouble. For at least 15 minutes before Mineta's conversation with the FAA, controllers were bringing the planes down ? and at the nearest airport. So why did Norm think he was correcting a mistaken FAA decision? I'm told by very high sources that it happened this way: First, the decision was made on a regional basis by some gutsy local FAA officials, and the FAA command center and headquarters officials agreed that it should be spread to the whole country. First, they acted. Then they sought permission. A top FAA official?NOT a female official, just to keep that straight?then called Mineta, finding him in a bunker with the vice president and other officials. He explained the plan, and Mineta agreed. I am told that everyone in the room with the high FAA official stuck their thumbs silently into the air in relief that the secretary didn't order them to do something else. Then there was a pause in the conversation. You know what many of us do when there is a pause in the conversation. We try to fill the dead time. The FAA official, unfortunately said something like, "Of course we could have let them go on to their destinations, or?." Big mistake. Norm heard that throwaway line as saying the FAA was still considering letting them go on to destination. He then fired off his now-famous order. He wanted to do the right thing, of course. The FAA and the controllers wanted to do the right thing. Everyone DID do the right thing. There was just a misunderstanding in the heat of the greatest attack there had ever been on America. The misunderstanding is no more than a footnote to history. But as in any good history text, the footnotes should be right. Now, I want to leave you with a final thought about security, one of my favorite quotations, and it's as true today as it was early in the country's history. Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Attend the Newark Airport Airline Collectible Show & Sale: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/psa188/page1.html