The aviation industry is more competitive now than at any other time in its short history. The end of the Cold War and the subsequent outbreak of capitalism across the world has prompted a dual expansion: new destinations are constantly opening up, and new carriers (often spin-offs of old state airlines) are appearing to meet this increased demand.
The intense competition for passengers' custom presents airlines with something of a dilemma. They have to balance the desire for efficiency and check-in speed with the need for tight security measures, which can often be time-consuming and irksome - hence eroding perceptions of the airline's 'user-friendliness'. Although credible safety and security records add value to an airline ticket and enhance the carrier's reputation, no airline is totally immune from attack or mechanical failure.
In terms of passenger welfare, there are two important distinctions to be made: the first between security and safety, and the second between airlines and airports.
- security vs safety. Security is concerned primarily with the prevention of intentional attacks, such as bomb blasts and hijacks. Safety applies to mechanical failure or technical faults which could cause accidents. Airlines with the highest safety standards tend to be major Western carriers, which have the resources to maintain high levels of expertise and back-up. However, these airlines are often prime targets for terrorist attacks. In particular, Middle Eastern terrorists tend to attempt strikes against major US carriers - the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1989 is merely the best-known of several attacks over the past decade or so.
- airline vs airport. Even airlines with the highest security standards may be compromised when they pass through airports which have weak overall security. Choosing non-stop flights originating directly from the point of departure (without stop-overs) can reduce the risk of would-be attackers tampering with the aircraft at intermediate stops or inserting explosives into transfer baggage. However, such risks should be weighed against the benefits of flying a low-profile carrier to a 'safe' intermediate destination against taking a higher-profile (and therefore higher-risk) direct flight.
The problem of differing security standards is partly caused and largely exacerbated by the lack of a cohesive international legal framework. Annex 17 of the 1974 Chicago Convention called on member states of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to regulate and comply with basic security measures. Beyond this, however, the situation is patchy. Some states dictate ways to meet standards, while others leave it to individual airlines and airports to introduce measures. Even strict compliance with Annex 17 may not be enough in times of severe threat. Professional terrorists have detailed knowledge not only of the Annex's provisions, but also of national security programmes and operating procedures.
As a result, airlines need:
- the co-operation of governments and commercial security agencies in sharing intelligence information,
- an extension of international standards to universally-accepted forms of compliance,
- analysis of risks at every port of call, with continuous monitoring of potential troublespots, and
- crisis management plans which cover not only flights but also all phases of ground operation (including access control, baggage screening and handling, maintenance areas, catering facilities, and so on).
If all this sounds alarmist, it is not supposed to be. The criteria outlined above are no more than should be expected in any major industrial sector, and the risks should not be overblown - one of the reasons why attacks on Western airlines make such massive headlines is precisely because they remain relatively rare. Every time you are on your way to catch a flight, remember one thing - you are far more likely to be killed on the road to the airport than on the flight itself.
China - poor safety record is improving, especially on major routes, with the help of the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA).
Israel - security at all airports is extremely tight. Passengers at Ben Gurion international airport face intensive questioning and possibly complete baggage searches. Security forces patrol the airport and perimeters at all times.
Russia - poor safety standards and flawed security procedures make travel with Aeroflot and its offshoots increasingly dangerous. In 1995, there were 90,000 incidents of passengers trying to travel with banned objects (including 3,000 pistols and 17,000 knives).
US - since TWA 800 blew up in July 1996, security standards have been tightened, with kerbside and hotel check-ins banned on international flights. In September 1996, a US court sentenced Ranzi Youzef to life imprisonment for conspiracy to blow up US airliners en route from Asia to the US.
CONTROL RISKS IS AN INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANCY. WE ADVISE BUSINESSES, GOVERNMENTS AND INDIVIDUALS HOW TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THEIR ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL INSTABILITY, SOCIAL CHANGE, TERRORISM, FRAUD AND CRIME. SINCE ITS FOUNDATION IN 1975, CONTROL RISKS HAS WORKED WITH OVER 3,000 CLIENTS IN MORE THAN 120 COUNTRIES.
FOR DAILY ANALYSIS OF WORLDWIDE EVENTS, OUR ONLINE SERVICES PROVIDE ASSESSMENTS AND ADVICE FOR BOTH CORPORATE MANAGEMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS TRAVELLER. WE COVER MORE THAN 80 COUNTRIES AND UPDATE THE SERVICES EVERY WORKING DAY. FOR LONGER TERM ASSESSMENTS AND DETAILED FORECASTS, CLIENTS CAN COMMISSION SPECIFIC REPORTS ON A COUNTRY, REGION OR TOPIC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON CONTROL RISKS' SERVICES, PLEASE CONTACT THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS AT OUR OFFICES IN LONDON (TEL: +44 171 222 1552; FAX: +44 171 222 2296), WASHINGTON (TEL: +1 703 893 0083; FAX: +1 703 893 8611) OR TOKYO (TEL: +81 3 5570 6391; FAX: + 81 3 5570 6392)
Control Risks Group Limited ('the Company') endeavours to ensure the accuracy of all information supplied. Advice and opinions given represent the best judgement of the Company but, subject to section 2 (1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the company shall in no case be liable for any claims, or special, incidental or consequential damages, whether caused by the Company's negligence (or that of any member of its staff) or in any other way.