Attention All Passengers (28 page)

Robert MacLean is a veteran security expert who joined the Federal Air Marshal Service just two months after 9/11 and served until 2006; at that time he was “terminated against his will” for publicly reporting on a TSA internal directive to temporarily remove all marshals from long-haul domestic and international flights to address a budgetary shortfall by avoiding hotel bills. Although the information he shared with the press was considered “sensitive” and not “classified,” his termination papers state: “Your unauthorized media appearance and unauthorized release of SSI information to the media raise serious doubts about your judgment and trustworthiness.”

Many of MacLean's claims about nonsensical and downright dangerous policies in the TSA's early days were later supported by a GAO report in 2009, which cited mandatory dress codes and airline and hotel check-in policies that made undercover work all but impossible. A report from the Project on Government Oversight stated: “It is disturbing to learn how poorly the agency has handled federal air marshals' safety and security concerns.”

Today MacLean's biggest concern is that the Federal Air Marshal Service has deviated from its primary mission and devolved into “jet bouncers.” He emails me numerous news reports documenting air marshals embroiled in fistfights with drunks, hoodlums, and wackos, and says, “The bottom line is air marshals need to protect the flight deck. It's clear that if you douse yourself with booze and act like an idiot, it's an effective way to reveal the jet bouncers. If I want to disarm air marshals, I can set up a distraction and create a ruse and overwhelm them and then have a weapon.” He and other security experts decry a recent laxity in hiring—many applicants are fresh out of college and no longer have military combat and/or police experience—thereby creating human “ammo pouches” for terrorists.

“Pistole needs to push the airlines to take more responsibility,” says MacLean. Specifically, he believes airlines should hire their own security personnel for routine in-flight disturbances, and “deputized” passengers who provide assistance should be granted immunity from liability. Of course, in an industry infamous for cost cutting, there's no point in wondering how airline financial officers would view such a proposal.

Yet considering how many air marshals have been disciplined and fired for supposedly revealing classified data, the TSA itself is amazingly public in revealing sensitive information. The agency's site features a press release and photo of a marshal who assisted in an off-duty arrest. And in a truly bizarre bit of promotion a few years ago, the Sheraton Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel actually issued an electronic flyer titled “Federal Air Marshall [
sic
] is Company of the Month in July!” The announcement included this: “Please feel free to spread the word!”

Cockpit Security

And then there's the cockpit. As Crandall says, “It's the most nonsensical thing to put pilots through security. If he wants the airplane to crash, he'll crash it. What kind of madness is this?”

Ralph Nader has been speaking out on airline security issues for more than forty years, when a wave of Cuban hijackings in the late 1960s highlighted vulnerabilities. But between 1968 and 2001 the airlines resisted his repeated calls to strengthen cockpit doors. One of the most immediate steps taken after 9/11 was that reinforced doors be installed on the entire U.S. commercial fleet. Amazingly, the FAA reported the mission complete by March 2002. But an investigation I conducted for
Consumer Reports
found fifty-one incidents between 2002 and 2007 with failures of the tougher doors: they unexpectedly opened in flight, the locks jammed, they broke when slammed.

And even if there were no problems with reinforced doors, experts note the inherent danger, particularly on long flights: eventually crew members need to open those doors for meals and lavatory breaks, which is why relying only on a reinforced door completely defeats the purpose. And one former air marshal's view of the common stopgap measure, a flight attendant blocking access with catering equipment? “Little Betty using a beverage cart isn't ready to brace against Al Qaeda.”

Instead, many recommend a “secondary flight deck barrier,” a concept endorsed by the Air Line Pilots Association in a 2007 white paper. In fact, Congressman Steve Israel, a New York Democrat, has repeatedly introduced legislation to mandate secondary barriers, without success. Here credit is due to United Airlines for voluntarily installing such barriers; the lightweight set of cables can be easily installed and disassembled by a flight attendant at the front of the cabin. But at an estimated twenty-five thousand dollars per aircraft, it's little wonder other airlines haven't emulated United.

Then there is the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, whereby marshals train pilots to use firearms as the last line of defense. But it has faced budgetary problems since its inception; in 2011 the Air Line Pilots Association reported the program had stopped accepting new applicants. Some security experts have expressed opposition, but the Airline Pilots Security Alliance makes a strong economic argument by stating it costs $700 million annually for FAMS to protect 2 percent of the nation's twenty-eight thousand daily flights, whereas it would cost $15 million annually for armed pilots to protect 100 percent of flights.

Who's Guarding the Planes?

A few years ago I obtained an internal ePassages memo sent by Northwest Airlines to its employees back in 2003; the update on maintenance outsourcing noted: “SASCO, one vendor used by Northwest, currently performs NWA work inside a Singapore military base. It is extremely difficult for a non-employee to gain access to this facility.” Actually, it was odd Northwest should mention SASCO, let alone in the context of security. SASCO/ST Aerospace was an outside maintenance contractor in Singapore that served both Northwest and the U.S. Navy. One year
earlier
, in 2002, a SASCO/ST employee was arrested along with twelve others for their connections to a rather shady organization called Al Qaeda.

Imagine. Just months after the worst terrorist attacks in the nation's history, a major U.S. airline and a branch of the U.S. military were allowing their aircraft to be serviced overseas by an outsourcing company that had been infiltrated by the very same organization charged with killing nearly three thousand civilians on American soil. But we're not to worry?

There have been other security breaches at outsourced repair shops, even within our own borders. In 2005, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested twenty-seven illegal aliens working as aircraft mechanics for TIMCO in Greensboro, North Carolina, a facility whose client list included America West, Delta, and United. Subsequently it was revealed that once again the outsourcers were outsourcing, as several of the mechanics were seasonally subcontracted to TIMCO by a firm called SMART of Edgewater, Florida. In addition, one of those arrested was also charged with illegally purchasing a twelve-gauge shotgun. And the FAA's response? Kathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman based in the agency's Atlanta office, said, “To our knowledge, they all passed the written, oral, and practical tests.”

Jack Blomfeld, who has worked in airline catering for thirty years, points out that outsourced service companies that provide aircraft handling, fueling, and catering have virtually unlimited access to airport tarmacs and commercial aircraft. But he also notes that the screening of such employees leaves gaping holes; in many cases the verification process doesn't even begin until after workers are on the job. “The cargo side of the airport is wide open,” he notes. “You can stick twenty terrorists in a truck.”

FAA and TSA officials don't want to consider it, but the offshoring of repairs—as detailed in chapter 7—raises security concerns as well. FAA whistle-blower Richard Wyeroski points out that U.S. commercial aircraft are particularly vulnerable when repairs are performed overseas: “They're worried about scaring the flying public, but I'd rather have them scared than dead. Our airlines should not be serviced overseas where we can't provide surveillance.”

A mechanic for a major domestic carrier recalls that a few years ago a colleague removed a panel in the cabin of an aircraft that had just returned from a repair shop in Latin America and found two duffel bags of cocaine stored in the cooling and refrigeration units of the galley. An agent from the Drug Enforcement Administration told the mechanics, “It's not as rare as you would think.” But the mechanic's concern, obviously, was that instead of cocaine that contraband could have been weapons or explosives. The airplanes themselves—even when serviced and parked at major airports—remain one of the most vulnerable links in the security chain.

The Privacy Debate

American privacy is more threatened now than ever, and the front lines in this battle are commercial airports. As
Popular Science
noted in 2003: “ ‘Outside of lab rats,' says industry consultant Michael Planey, ‘airline passengers are the most analyzed subjects in the world.' ”

Al Anolik, the travel attorney who has long been in the forefront of battling for passenger rights, may surprise some industry insiders with his view of security: “I am to the right of the spectrum on this,” he says. “I am concerned about the threats. I have to give up some of my basic civil rights because of the threat to civil airlines. I don't like taking off my shoes, but it's necessary.”

He argues that the funds have to be secured to provide the electronic equipment necessary to thoroughly screen passengers. “Travel is a privilege and not a right,” says Anolik. “We know there is a threat. The U.S. cannot go into some of these issues. The captain has to have authority to act. And we need passenger profiling—it's a fact.”

Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union disagrees; in 2010 the ACLU stated the government should enact procedures that pose “the least threat” to travelers' civil liberties but have also been proven to be effective. It further suggested that “routine” full-body scanning, “embarrassingly intimate” pat downs, and racial profiling are what do not work. But finding that balance has proved elusive.
7

11

Cloudy Skies: Aviation's Carbon Footprint

Fly between sea and sun!

Take the course along which I shall lead you.

—Daedalus to Icarus

I
n 2011, when construction on the busy 405 Freeway in Los Angeles so threatened to snarl traffic it was dubbed “Carmageddon,” JetBlue stepped into the breach. The carrier offered four-dollar fares between Long Beach and Burbank (a distance of 37.3 miles according to MapQuest) and received “the cooperation” of the FAA to operate Airbus A320s at low altitudes. Clearly it was a silly promotion designed to do just that—promote JetBlue. But it also highlighted how airlines and government agencies are focused on corporate profitability even when it's at the expense of the planet.

Consider, for example, that unlike legislators and regulators in the United States, government officials in the European Union are actively seeking to address aviation's carbon footprint. Earlier this year, the EU introduced the first major program in the world that limits carbon emissions; airlines that fly within, to, or from Europe need either to reduce their CO
2
, reduce flights, or purchase allowances. The goal is to cut 183 metric tons of CO
2
annually by 2020. Furthermore, even the industry's largest global trade organization, the International Air Transport Association, reported that the “net financial impact” may be slightly positive, or a little better than break-even.

Clearly that isn't good enough for U.S. airlines and the American politicians who support these corporations. Last year Congressman John Mica, the Florida Republican who chairs the House Transportation Committee, held bipartisan hearings to fight the EU policy. Airlines for America, which represents domestic airlines, claimed the “scheme is illegal” and filed suit, along with American and United/Continental. But the Environmental Defense Fund and other groups were quick to question such congressional motives. “It's simply baffling that these legislators are working so hard to keep U.S. airlines in the dark ages of relying on inefficient airplanes and outdated technologies,” stated Annie Petsonk, the EDF's international counsel.

Legal scholar Paul Dempsey, a vocal critical of airline deregulation, points out that aviation is the only industry that pollutes at high altitudes and we have a very poor understanding of what that means. He adds that airline codesharing and marketing deals pose tremendous threats because “we end up putting too many seats in the skies,” without giving a moment's thought to emissions consequences.
1

I turned to Dudley Curtis, the communications manager for the European Federation for Transport & Environment, an environmental organization that campaigns specifically on transportation issues. When I asked him what airlines should be doing, he responded: “As a first step they should be supporting, not attacking, pretty much every conceivable policy initiative worldwide to address the environmental impact of aviation.” I have come to agree with him, and conclude the industry's behavior is in keeping with its blindly striking out at pro-consumer initiatives.

Defining the Dangers from Above

The airline industry's environmental footprint takes many forms, through myriad means such as land contamination, aircraft deicing disposal, and exhaust from large fleets of diesel-powered airport ramp vehicles. Then there is noise pollution. But nothing compares to the dangers posed by carbon emissions, particularly at high altitudes. This was even acknowledged by the FAAC's Environment Subcommittee, chaired by Bryan Bedford, CEO of Republic Airways.

It seems ironic that the CEO of two regional carriers was tapped by the government to address environmental concerns, since one could argue that sending so many smaller planes into the air poses a heightened risk to climate change. Thankfully, the subcommittee also included Juan Alonso of Stanford University's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Shortly after I met him, I joked that if there was one person on the FAAC lonelier than the lone consumer advocate, it was the lone environmentalist.

The good news is Alonso thinks there's a new awareness of green aviation, due to its relative importance and the social costs. He asserts that since 2003 there has been focused research on fact-based, independent research opinions. Despite his advanced degrees and the complex nature of his work, Alonso has a knack for explaining CO
2
emissions rather simply: in goes fuel, out come emissions. The only answers are using less fuel or finding alternative fuels. And technologically, there are solutions.
2

The best minds believe aviation is directly responsible for about 2.5 percent of climate change; however, these calculations could be off by a factor as high as two, so 5 percent is not an insignificant measurement. What's more, aviation is solely responsible for many forms of high-altitude emissions. And according to the International Civil Aviation Organization, the amount of CO
2
emissions from aviation is expected to grow around 3–4 percent per year.

What is not in dispute is that a variety of aircraft emissions are affecting climate, including water vapor, soot, and CO
2
. Low-level emissions in the range of 1,500 to 3,000 feet affect local areas for a radius of about ten miles, and high-altitude emissions can last three to five years. These include small particles that present some of the most serious health concerns.

The dangers keep accruing, in the form of nitrogen oxide, sulfur, and methane. As Alonso tells it, the science can be sobering, since CO
2
lives in the atmosphere for up to three hundred years, regardless of its location. In addition, experts worry about high-altitude aircraft water vapor, which can block the sun and have a significant climate effect.

There are other dangers as well. Experts note that we shouldn't forget air quality, since aviation's impact on air quality is significant. In fact, it's estimated there are fifty thousand deaths annually in the United States and one million worldwide due to poor air quality, which remains a significant public health issue.
3

Ian Waitz, dean of the School of Engineering and a professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, acknowledges that airplanes have a high-altitude impact that is “perhaps double” the effect of CO
2
alone, and this problem is primarily manifested through contrails and cirrus clouds. But he adds, “The good news is some relatively modest changes could alleviate this.” Theoretically, airlines could modify flight plans en route by altering altitudes and airways to lessen the impact of contrails and cirrus. Although this could lead to higher overall emissions, Waitz believes that within the next five years we may elect to trade greater CO
2
output to diminish these more harmful effects.

But Billy Glover, vice president of environment and aviation policy for Boeing, points out that addressing the contrail issue by altering flight patterns and altitudes translates into the potential for more CO
2
. He adds, “If we had a solution for contrails, we would get benefits immediately. If we had a solution for CO
2
, the benefits would not be seen for one hundred years.”

Alternative Energy Sources

Much progress has been made when it comes to biofuels. Some reasons for optimism in recent years include Virgin Atlantic flying a Boeing 747 on a mix of coconut oil and other biofuels, KLM operating a scheduled flight with a Boeing 737-800 on bio-kerosene, and Lufthansa announcing daily commercial flights with an Airbus A321 utilizing a biofuel blend of 50 percent hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids. (It's worth noting these achievements were accomplished by non-U.S. airlines.) Even so, not everyone is impressed with such advancements, under the “too little, too late” theory. But for the short term at least, alternative fuels are raising hopes in some quarters.

It's a topic being discussed at the highest levels of government. At Georgetown University in March 2011, President Obama spoke on “America's Energy Security” and stated, “I'm directing the Navy and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to work with the private sector to create advanced biofuels that can power not just fighter jets, but also trucks and commercial airliners.” In July 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a joint agreement with Seattle-based AltAir Fuels to produce sustainable crops in California, Montana, and Washington. But when I asked Secretary LaHood about alternative fuels, he replied, “I think it will be left to the airline industry. And I think they'll be looking at those opportunities as they buy new planes.”

Unfortunately, the domestic airline industry has not been in the forefront of developing such new technologies. But one airline executive has: Sir Richard Branson, CEO of British-based Virgin Atlantic Airways, who has invested billions into the Virgin Green Fund. As he told
Time
: “There's a frightening potential scenario out there that means that anybody who's in a position to do something must do something. In particular because I'm in one of the dirty businesses, the airline business, I've got all the more responsibility to do something.”

Waitz maintains that so much these days depends on government incentives, which can lead to further development of algae or other crops as biofuels. But he stresses these are scarce resources, and we may find better uses for them than aviation: “Sometimes the aviation industry looks at these issues only from an aviation industry standpoint.”

He is not alone. Many environmentalists worry that the “food-to-fuel” conundrum will cause more harm than good for a planet with starving people. That's why Waitz fears biofuels for airplanes may be mandated, because that could develop into a costly and inefficient use of a scarce resource. For example, he doubts ethanol will be a successful alternative to jet fuel because of its expensive supply chain. Waitz adds, “The question is, will biofuels be lower cost at the point of delivery?”

I asked Curtis if biofuels are a cause for optimism, and he responded: “No. Most biofuels sold today are worse than fossil fuels in terms of total carbon emissions, particularly when indirect land use change is taken into account [emissions associated with land clearance, often in tropical regions, to grow the displaced food crops]. The industry is making a lot of noise about biofuels, but it is far from making any significant deployment. It's a similar tactic to the American car industry who spent years lobbying against tightened fuel economy standards and instead lobbied for ‘flex fuel' credits for cars that could run on corn ethanol, which is environmentally dubious in any case.” That's a sobering conclusion, and it's worthy of a big-picture examination by the U.S. government—assuming Corporate America doesn't derail such a discussion.

The High Cost of Oil: Good News?

These dark clouds may literally be infused with a bright lining. Because even though airline executives may not be motivated to address the industry's carbon footprint, the rising cost of oil has motivated them to seek more fuel-efficient aircraft and engines. When Airbus began developing the superjumbo A380, airlines bidding on the project were doing so when oil cost $25 to $30 per barrel—not more than $100 per barrel. This disparity translates into about 3 percent of the plane's costs. As Alonso says, “That's the difference between being the most profitable airline and going bankrupt.”

While recognizing that fuel remains the most volatile cost for airlines, analyst Helane Becker also notes the industry will have to address its aging aircraft problem. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, three-engine McDonnell Douglas DC-10s and Lockheed L-1011s and four-engine Boeing 747s gave way to a new generation of two-engine jets, including twin-aisle wide-bodies like the Boeing 767 and Airbus A300, which were among the first certified to cross oceans with fewer than three engines. At the same time, three-person cockpits evolved into two-person cockpits, as flight engineers went the way of buggy whip makers. Losing one crew member and one or two engines were huge economic advancements for the airlines, producing savings in two accounting sweet spots, fuel and labor. Becker believes the next “game-changer” technologically will not necessarily be a new airplane, but new biofuels: “From an airline equity standpoint, I think the biggest issue is higher energy costs.”

One would think an industry so reliant upon a resource as scarce as oil would be encouraged by investors to seek alternative forms of energy, particularly since it represents 35 to 40 percent of an airline's operating costs. Amazingly, the nation's small army of airline analysts almost never mentions environmental concerns—with the notable exception of Bob Mann of R.W. Mann & Company, who notes there is a “practical side” to worrying about the planet's future.

Reducing fuel consumption obviously remains a high priority, but when I suggested the industry has maxed out its ability to make lighter commercial planes, Alonso warned me not to sell short such initiatives. He explained that three key factors remain: reducing aircraft weight, improving the aerodynamics of aircraft, and improving fuel consumption of engines. He noted, “The vast majority [of progress] will come from engine efficiency.” Alonso added that the jet engine industry has been “much more aggressive” than the airframe industry, particularly in Europe. What's more, he suggested the aircraft industry is a bit out of step in pushing extra capacity and extra range, when a leading customer such as Lufthansa is instead demanding better cost efficiencies.

I asked Waitz if aircraft and engine technology has plateaued in the pursuit of reducing carbon footprints, and he said, “It certainly has gotten harder and harder to make change. But you can do more. The question is, at what cost?” He added, “It's tremendously challenging technically and financially to introduce a new airplane.”