Heightened terrorism worries in recent months have led the USA to bring in a raft of measures designed to make its borders more secure. But the new requirements are not universally welcomed

As the New Year began, so US concerns about aviation security became truly global. Homeland Security officials cancelled selected inbound flights across the Atlantic, forced one to turn back in mid-flight, deployed a controversial fingerprinting regime that greets incoming foreign nationals and, most contentiously, demanded that foreign flag carriers deploy armed sky marshals on their flights to US airports.

Adding the element of compulsion to what had been voluntary and co-operative international regime, Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, in explaining the sky marshals mandate, said that the US retained the right to bar offending incoming flights from landing at US airports. As Ridge put it: "Ultimately, the denial of access is the leverage you have."

He spoke at a time of deep concern over terrorism as some flights were escorted into US airspace by air force fighters and when, even though officials backed most of the country off a high alert, they kept airlines and airports at the higher level. The heightened security stance, marks a global refocusing of priorities.

While the high profile cancellations of several flights drew much public and press attention, the new fingerprint and photographing requirement has made the US security regime a major part of the passenger experience internationally, just as the domestic airport hassle factor has become the defining facet of the US flyer's experience.

Traveller tracking

The new airport arrivals programme, called US-VISIT, for United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, was ordered by Congress following the 11 September attacks after it emerged that two of the 19 hijackers had overstayed their visas. Eventually, it will track 24 million foreigners who come to 115 major US airports, 14 seaports and numerous land crossings each year with work, travel or student visas.

Foreigners from 27 countries that are deemed low-risk for harbouring terrorists, many European countries such as France and the UK, as well as Mexico and Canada, do not have to apply for visas from US consulates to enter the country for short visits. US-VISIT replaces a controversial programme instituted after the attacks that required people visiting from 25 countries, most of them heavily Islamic, to register with the government. US-VISIT uses digital inkless fingerprinting and instant photography to record biometrics.

By the end of 2004, visitors will also be required to check out when leaving so that officials will know if they overstayed. Officials have not yet determined the protocol or technology for checking the same visitors when they leave the country.

Though US-VISIT was widely known to be in the development stages over the last year, and its first few days went smoothly, it seemed symbolic of the new US attitude of caution, authority and, in the opinion of some incoming passengers, "treating visitors like criminals".

While travellers seemed to find the fingerprinting a tolerable level of intrusiveness, many passengers and some government agencies and privacy advocates on both sides of the Atlantic were far more concerned about the US intent, reiterated early in the year, to move forward with a screening plan called Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS II.

The government would mesh airline passenger data with commercial databases and then produce a profile of the traveller, assigning each passenger a colour code based on the estimated security risk posed. Civil liberties advocates from both the left and right wings of American politics have kept CAPPS in the news, and public suspicion was heightened by the revelations in September and mid-January that two carriers - jetBlue Airways and Northwest Airlines, respectively - had shared confidential passenger data with agencies developing CAPPS II.

Here, too, the US government flexed its muscles, with Homeland Security officials saying that they may compel airlines to provide data. That is in contrast to a compromise reached in December between Homeland Security and the European Commission on how much passenger information must be submitted by non-US airlines flying to the US from Europe. The information is transmitted shortly after take-off.

Allegedly, it was delays or inconsistencies in transmitting information of this type that led to the cancellation of several British Airways flights between London Heathrow and Washington Dulles, security officials have said. This led BA chief executive Rod Eddington to go public with his frustration that "a total of 22 different agencies claimed a reason to check one passenger list".

In a public statement, Eddington said: "I am a fan of vigilance, and BA makes no apology for its strict security measures. But I am not a fan of needless bureaucracy." Steven van Beek, senior vice-president for policy at the Airports Council International-North America, backed this point, saying it is "imperative" that US officials mesh their many "watch" lists.

However, the announcement on 29 December by Ridge that the USA would require armed sky marshals on selected inbound flights has been the sharpest wedge issue, provoking vastly different ideas about firearms, law enforcement and the role of the pilot.

The British Air Line Pilots Association initially said it would be unwilling to co-operate but backed away from that position later the same day. The association "does not agree with this initiative", it said, adding that it would work with the authorities. But "we would like to see international standards".

The International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) responded that forcing countries which do not already have a sky marshal programme to "hurriedly implement one" could lead not only to "haphazard implementation", but could give rise to a situation where "the pilot in command may assert that he or she has insufficient information to ensure that the responsibilities of conducting a safe flight can be met". IFALPA, which counts more than 100,000 pilots worldwide among its members, spoke to the basic cultural issues of the profession: a failure to ensure co-ordination between pilots and sky marshals.

Other international bodies spoke out, with IATA insisting that governments should foot the bill if they force national or foreign carriers flying in their airspace to have armed marshals on board. IATA insists that having armed guards on aircraft just adds danger and says that security efforts should be focused on the ground. Officials from Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Portugal publicly said they would cancel flights before allowing armed guards on board. The Latin American International Air Transport Association's newly appointed executive director Alex de Gunten also questioned the policy.

This is in stark contrast to the stance taken by US pilot groups, who pressed Congress for a law allowing pilots to carry sidearms in the cockpit after taking an approved training course. Pilots at US cargo carriers have also pushed for the right to carry weapons, and pilot groups have pressured the FAA to step up the training.

Proactive, not reactive

Ridge said the decision to require guards on selected foreign flights was not based on intelligence that warned of a specific terrorist threat, but had been the subject of discussion for several months. He added that US agencies will offer training to countries that want it. Responding to European anger, the Department of Homeland Security dispatched its third-ranking official, undersecretary for border and transportation security Asa Hutchinson, to Brussels to reassure carriers from the European Union and the 10 nations that are set to join it in May. Hutchinson, a former congressman, said that enhanced passenger screening may lower the need for sky marshals, but did not retract the policy.

The last word, however, was had by Homeland Security Secretary Ridge, and given the size, importance and clout of the USA and its air travel market, will likely remain the last word: "Each of us must remember that we are at war, at war against an enemy driven by hate. For them, victory is gained if we give in to terror or panic that they seek to create with their threats. The full force of Homeland Security all across this nation is at work."

DAVID FIELD WASHINGTON

Source: Airline Business