Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Why the FAA?

This holiday, tens of thousands of football fans gather together in outdoor stadia to watch bowl games. Tens of millions clog malls to buy and return holiday gifts. Billions of dollars in food and drink are sold to help celebrate the season. And of course, airports across America are jammed with passengers boarding flights to visit friends and family.

What these events obviously have in common is a joint connection to our holiday culture--no matter ethnic background or religious persuasion, at this time of year we are all 'Americans'. But at the same time, these ceremonies also share a darkly sinister bond. Because each--the flight, the meal, the spree and the game--also create ideal targets for terrorists intent on striking during our most vulnerable, trusting time of year.

That was the lesson of the would-be bomber who attempted to blow a Cleveland-bound flight out of the air. That he failed was temporary good news. But it was soon followed by the predictable laments, led by the President himself, about how the government had failed us. But why?

Think about the kindergartner's picture puzzle, one that shows a horse, a pig, a goat and a pencil. She is asked to choose which one doesn't belong. If you applied that same overlay to the terrorist targets listed above, which would be the outlier? Well, the airplane flight, of course. Because it is the only threat where the federal government is charged with protecting us. In Glenn Beck's world, this should be seen as 'socialized security'--it is government involvement in a private enterprise. Consider: if your purse is checked on the way into the Rose Bowl...or someone is monitoring security cameras in the local mega-mall...or a bad guy is surreptitiously wandering the aisles of the Safeway contaminating your green beans, that is neither the responsibility nor the liability of the federal government.

So why the skies? Why isn't United running that process by itself...and competing with all the other airlines on the basis of who can deliver a safer flight? What worked as a brand identity for Volvo would certainly be at least as compelling for an airline. Why does the President have anything to apologize for?

The FAA took its current form in the late 50's to serve four purposes: test aviation equipment for safety; certify both equipment and pilots; run air traffic; and manage airport facilities, particularly the control towers. Consideration of securing flights didn't come until a decade later, with a spate of airline hijackings. Rather than demanding the airlines secure their own flights, that big government liberal idiot Richard Nixon literally called out the troops. And they remained on the job until a truly world class waster of tax dollars, George W. Bush, vastly expanded the size if not the efficiency of the airline safety apparatus by folding it into the ridiculous monstrosity called Homeland Security.

So, I say destroy the TSA. If secured flights must exist, then let the private enterprises who run those flights bear the cost...just like the mall owners do for their security cops. Because private enterprise always outperforms the government, right? OK, fine, prove it. Presumably, we'd all ride more confidently.

But of course, we know what the airlines and their apologists would say: "there's no way we can afford that--we're going broke the way it is! We'd have to go out of business!"

So be it. What's wrong with the government being responsible for the airlines? We already pay taxes to certify the pilots, test the planes, keep them from crashing into each other, while trying to prevent people from getting on board with explosive chemicals sewn inside their clothing. All in all, seems like the government's doing a better job on its parts than that than the airlines are doing on theirs: keeping track of luggage...providing clean and spacious accommodations...serving a nice, hot meal--how does all that seem to be working out?

I know the knee jerk libertarians will hate this idea. They'll say governments can't run airlines. But of course, they'd have to then explain Singapore Airlines and Air France. Vive le difference.

No comments: