Box Cutter Guidelines Not Enforced By Airlines

Status
Not open for further replies.

WingNaPrayer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,742
0
EYW
Visit site
[STRONG][FONT size=3]Report: Box cutter guidelines not enforced by airlines[/FONT][/STRONG][BR][BR][BR]WASHINGTON (AP) -- Airlines failed to enforce existing security guidelines on September 11 that required airport screeners to confiscate box cutters from passengers, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. [BR][BR]Government rules did not specifically bar the objects before last year's the attacks, but the airlines were in charge of security then, with the Federal Aviation Administration overseeing their performance. [FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00][STRONG]The airlines issued a manual in 1994 that listed for screeners items passengers could not
carry past airport checkpoints.[/STRONG][/FONT] [BR][BR][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00]The AP obtained a copy of the document, [/FONT][STRONG][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00]which [/FONT][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00]included box cutters such as those purportedly used by the September 11, 2001, hijackers. [BR][BR][/STRONG][/FONT]If they knew these were problems, why weren't they more responsible in protecting the public? asked former FAA security chief Billie Vincent. [BR][BR]The Air Transport Association, which represents major airlines, and the Regional Airline Association, the trade group for smaller carriers, issued the Checkpoint Operations Guide to implement Federal Aviation Administration security regulations. [BR][BR]ATA spokesman Michael Wascom said only: Box cutters were not prohibited by the FAA on 9-11-01, and refused to comment further. Officials of the regional airlines' group would not comment. [BR][BR]FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said keeping box cutters off planes was an industry requirement, not a government order. She said the FAA allowed airline passengers to carry blades less than four inches long before September 11. Government rules now prohibit such items. [BR][BR]The manual for security screeners was issued by the airlines' trade groups to comply with FAA regulations and was in effect at the time of the terror attacks. The document lists box cutters and pepper spray as items not allowed past security checkpoints. Screeners were told to call supervisors if either item were to be found. [BR][BR]Attorney General John Ashcroft has said some of the hijackers used box cutters to take over the planes, and the indictment of alleged hijacking co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui charged that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the hijackers, had pepper spray. [BR][BR]Dean Headley, associate professor of marketing at Wichita State University and co-author of an annual study on airline quality, said airlines didn't want to invest the time or money before September 11 to check passengers thoroughly. [BR][BR]Security was mostly a nonstarter for most people, he said. The airlines, knowing it would cost them a bundle to make a bigger deal out of that, didn't want to spend the money. [BR][BR]After the attacks Congress took responsibility for airline security from the FAA and the airlines and gave it to a new Transportation Security Administration. The TSA has until Nov. 19 to replace private airport screeners with an all-government work force. [BR][BR]Former FAA chief counsel Kenneth Quinn, now a lawyer representing several airport security companies, said that before Sept. 11, the agency, not the industry, had the ultimate responsibility for what got onto planes. [BR][BR]There's only one way to prohibit items from being carried on board airplanes, and that is through mandatory security directives from the FAA, Quinn said. Relying on trade association advisory materials is an inherently suspect and deficient way to ensure an important safety and security task. [BR][BR][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00][STRONG]Former Transportation Department Inspector General Mary Schiavo, now a lawyer suing United Airlines and American Airlines [/STRONG][/FONT]on behalf of families of September 11 victims, said the document shows there were regulations in place that might have thwarted the hijackings. [BR][BR]What's disappointing to me is a lot of effort has gone into our government and others bending over backward saying no one did anything wrong, but it's clear they didn't follow the guidelines that were in place at the time, Schiavo said. [BR][BR]Brown said that since the manual was not an FAA document, failure to follow its procedures did not violate agency regulations. [BR][BR]Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation subcommittee on aviation, said the FAA should have had more stringent screening standards in place. [BR][BR]The whole security process was in disarray, said Mica, R-Florida. When you don't have the personnel with any standards, and you don't have FAA adopting specific rules, you have no one to enforce it.
 

ITRADE

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
2,860
0
DCA/IAD US2
www.geocities.com
Ahhhh, yes. Scary Mary:[BR][BR]
[P align=left]Admitted: 1980, Missouri and U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri; 1990, U.S. Supreme Court; 1993, District of Columbia; 1994, Maryland. (Not admitted in California).[/P]
[P align=left]Law School: New York University, J.D., 1980. [/P]
 

KCFlyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
10,631
1,322
www.usaviation.com
Interesting thing...boxcutters weren't banned prior to September 11. But it's nice that she's suing because the aviation industry shoulda known that box cutters might be used as a weapon. Mary won't be happy until aircraft taxi from NYC to LAX.
 

KCFlyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
10,631
1,322
www.usaviation.com
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/13/2002 11:50:55 AM WingNaPrayer wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/13/2002 10:44:27 AM KCFlyer wrote: [BR][BR]Interesting thing...boxcutters weren't banned prior to September 11. [BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]You need to read that again, it says they WERE banned...screeners were required to confiscate them as far back as 1994.[BR][BR]Since this was clearly a policy of the airlines in their instructions manual, Mary is going to most likely end up with an automatic win on a good portion of her case.[BR][BR]It's generally a bad idea to make policy, then either not...or selectively enforce it.[BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Such a deal. Government bailout money, followed by a lawsuit to take it all = bankruptcy of two more airlines. Mary is well on the way to increasing air safety by eliminating the airline industry. Brilliant woman. I wonder if she'll donate any of her portion of the automatic win to the victims families.[/P]
 
C

coldplay

Guest
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/13/2002 11:50:55 AM WingNaPrayer wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/13/2002 10:44:27 AM KCFlyer wrote:

Interesting thing...boxcutters weren't banned prior to September 11.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You need to read that again, it says they WERE banned...screeners were required to confiscate them as far back as 1994.

Since this was clearly a policy of the airlines in their instructions manual, "Mary" is going to most likely end up with an automatic win on a good portion of her case.

It's generally a bad idea to make policy, then either not...or selectively enforce it.

----------------
[/blockquote]

now if the airlines handed off the manual to the screeners to enforce, and the screeners were NOT airline employees but were under contract thru Argenbright, shouldn't Argenbright be the ones liable for non-compliance of the no box cutter rule?
I've never seen any airline employee supervising these screeners. Argenbright was contracted to do the security checks. The only fault the airlines had in here was being so cheap to hire the soddiest security company.
 
OP
W

WingNaPrayer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,742
0
EYW
Visit site
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/13/2002 10:44:27 AM KCFlyer wrote:

Interesting thing...boxcutters weren't banned prior to September 11.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You need to read that again, it says they WERE banned...screeners were required to confiscate them as far back as 1994.

Since this was clearly a policy of the airlines in their instructions manual, Mary is going to most likely end up with an automatic win on a good portion of her case.

It's generally a bad idea to make policy, then either not...or selectively enforce it.
 

KCFlyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
10,631
1,322
www.usaviation.com
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/13/2002 1:36:17 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
[P]The airlines, like most other companies, are responsible for the actions, or non-actions as the case may be, of their contractees.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]And thus should be put out of business, right Wing?[/P]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts