Why Is Airport Security So Unpleasant?

Why Is Airport Security So Unpleasant?

Description image by Gershon Mader Management and leadership consultant; author of The Power of Strategic Commitment.
  • First Posted: Mar 02 2010 02:10 AM
  • Updated: 4 months

You would think that authorities would be more committed to making the travel experience as pleasant as possible.

I realize that I am one of the lucky ones. I fly on business almost every week of my life, which earns me Super-Elite status on Air Canada, shorter line-ups, lounge access and frequent upgrades. But still, making my way through the airport has become a quagmire of inconsistency, hassles, and unpleasantness.

Does it really need to be this way? Absolutely not!

Since the events of September 11, 2001, airport security has been more complicated and more paranoid than ever before. It took time, but we began to get used to the new reality. Then, over the 2009 year-end holiday, the incident of the failed Nigerian underwear bomber tipped things over the edge. Dealing with airport security has long been unpleasant, but now it has reached an all-time low.

Every time I fly, I never know exactly what the rules are and whether or not they will be the same as the last time. Before every flight, I go to the Canada Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) website to get the most recent rules and regulations about carry-on luggage. But frankly, I am never sure. The site is unclear, rarely updated – and even when it is, it seems as if the agents at the airport are singing from a different hymnbook. Even at the Super-Elite hotline, they don’t know what to say anymore.

Last week, as I was entering the U.S. immigration hall, the security agent instructed me to transfer all the contents of my briefcase into my carry-on. This was completely different from the procedure of previous weeks, and there had been no change notified on the CATSA site. When I asked for the reason, the agent simply said: “They are extra sensitive today.” But the supervisor at the security belt exclaimed that the agent didn’t know what he was doing. This confusion and inconsistency seems to be the norm at the airport.

Here’s a story from a week earlier: a fellow passenger was amazed that I had been allowed to keep my carry-on bag. The agent next to mine, just a few feet away at the check-in counter, had refused him permission to bring his identical bag aboard even though the rules explicitly allowed it. Unfortunately, these types of incidents seem to be happening constantly. Surely there is no reason why competent security needs to be synonymous with passenger harassment and flying blind about the rules.

The measures required to protect passenger and airport safety are no different than any other massive change that organizations frequently have to implement. In fact, CATSA and its counterparts are in a rapidly growing business these days.

Any successful change initiative requires crystal-clear communication at all levels, and a true commitment to serve customers well. Airport security should be no exception. The fact that travelling has become such a nightmare tells me that there is a problem of leadership.

CATSA, its counterparts and the airlines need to step up to the plate. The economy is bleeding. Cross-border trade and tourism are suffering. Even U.S. Ivy League universities are attracting fewer foreign students – an ominous development in the long run.

You would think that, given these challenges and the fact that security measures are intrusive and uncomfortable to begin with, the authorities would be more sensitive and committed to making the travel experience as pleasant as possible. Unfortunately, I have not felt that to date. For me, and for many others who will continue to travel on a weekly basis, the solutions can’t come too soon.

TAGS: Politics

Comments

Re:Marks

rules of engagement

New security measures implemented since 9/11 are based on security through obfuscation. It is security theatre in the common parlance. The security system is a black box into which no one is allowed to look. Security by obfuscation is failure prone. With open systems, smart people outside the system look at it and try to break it, reporting faults and correcting the system. With closed systems, criminals try to break the system, telling no one when they succeed. The airport security people keep their system a black box (who is on the US no fly list, how many lists are there) because if the public was allowed to look inside it would become clear that they are offering no real security. Just smoke and mirrors security. It is a black box to prevent embarrassment to the authorities. In much the same way that many claims of national security - the documentation of Afghan detainee transfers currently being withheld on national security grounds by the Harper government - are made solely to avoid embarrassment to the government and the security agencies.

Brent Beach

play

FEATURED VIDEO

Double rainbow, oh my God ... Jimmy Fallon, in the character of Neil Young, has performed a cover of the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSNhk5ICTI&feature=related" target="_blank">original masterpiece,</a> proving for the umpteenth time that, on the internet, even the slightest video can spawn a meme empire.

Still Not Over the Rainbow

Double rainbow, oh my God ... Jimmy Fallon, in the character of Neil Young, has performed a cover of the original masterpiece, proving for the umpteenth time that, on the internet, even the slightest video can spawn a meme empire.