Q&A: Tight security on air travel
 |
The U.S. program will require an estimated 24 million visitors to submit two finger scans and have a photograph taken.
Story Tools
VIDEO
|
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge discusses fingerprinting international visitors.
CNN's Elaine Quijano reports on biometric anti-terrorism screening.
|
| EXEMPT COUNTRIES |
Andorra, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (for citizens with the unrestricted right of permanent abode in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Channel Islands and Isle of Man)
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
|
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
|
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in.
Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
|
|
(CNN) -- The United States has begun photographing and fingerprinting visitors who currently require a visa to enter the country.
The new government program was launched Monday and is intended to make it harder for terrorists to enter the U.S. The moves follows a series of cancellations and delays of flights into the country by foreign operated airlines.
CNN Senior International Correspondent Sheila MacVicar explains what led to the tighter security and what travelers can expect in the future.
Q. What has caused the latest flight cancellations? Is it safe to fly?
A. Flights were cancelled by British authorities to two destinations last week: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Washington, D.C. British Transport Secretary Alistair Darling is on record saying there was information about a specific threat to flight BA 223. That flight was delayed on Saturday, and again on Sunday, but went ahead after additional information on the passengers was provided by British Airways, and further security checks were carried out.
The Riyadh flight, which departed with a very short delay Monday, had also been cancelled because of "specific information." In both cases, authorities have not said what that information is, but in the case of Riyadh, flights had been cancelled several times during 2003, after warnings of the imminent nature of further terrorist attacks. It is also known that Saudi authorities successfully aborted one attempt to down a BA flight after a police operation led to arrests.
The British government has said clearly that when there is specific intelligence about a threat to a flight, that flight will not be permitted to take off.
Q. Have cancellations been caused by BA pilots' reported refusal to accept armed sky marshals?
A. The U.S. has said it may require air marshals on some international routes. The International Association of Airlines (IATA), based in Geneva, says about 25 governments have used sky marshals at one time or another.
Some countries remain opposed to the use of sky marshals; another major British airline, Virgin Atlantic, has already reached agreement with it's pilots on the conditions under which marshals would be deployed. BA was still in talks with its pilots Monday.
Both U.S. and British officials have said that the cancellation of BA 223 was a result of specific intelligence against that flight. However, when the flight did resume over the weekend, there were long delays, apparently caused by additional security checks. It is not clear if U.S. authorities would have approved the departure of the flight sooner if sky marshals had been on board.
Q. Who will pay for the marshals and heightened security measures at airports?
A. As yet, there's no agreement on who will pay for the marshals. IATA's position is that the country demanding the marshals (in this case, the U.S.), should also pay for them, including compensating the airline for the loss of a seat. IATA also says that it does not believe that air marshals should be used on a permanent basis.
Other nations known to use sky marshals include Israel; the Israel government pays the cost for additional security on board El Al flights.
Governments may end up paying for enhanced security, but as the airlines ultimately benefit from consumer confidence, they may end up levying additional fees.
There is also the question of who pays when flights are cancelled for security reasons. Air France is currently talking to the French government about compensation for the six Paris-Los Angeles flights cancelled over the Christmas period. It says it lost more than one million euros in revenue.
Q. What do the airline industry and governments hope to achieve with extra security? How have they justified them?
A. Consumer confidence is the name of the game. The airline industry is a multi-billion dollar global business, and if consumers were to believe it was not safe, or that security was inadequate, the global economy would suffer greatly, as it did after September 11.
To quote an IATA spokesman: "Once a dangerous person is on board (an aircraft), it's already a defeat in itself."
So a lot of the focus will be on the ground; better intelligence gathering, better security at airports, their perimeters, and at departure gates. We've already seen some of the measures put into place after September 11 (no sharp items in cabin baggage, metal cutlery replaced by plastic on most flights), and since convicted shoe-bomber Richard Reid attempted to blow up a United Airlines flight in December 2001, passengers are frequently asked to remove their shoes for x-ray.
Q. How is the situation different from last February, when Britain posted troops and tanks at Heathrow to guard against feared al Qaeda rocket attack on a plane?
A. The February threat remains very murky, and some intelligence analysts in the UK believe it was a response to the British government's position supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq. No arrests were ever made public, and there has been no examination of the threat or alleged plot through the courts. It is not known what intelligence the British government was acting on, and it underlines one of the difficulties of this conflict. Intelligence sources are not always reliable. Intercepted communications may be misinterpreted. But in the current climate, no government is willing to take the risk of ignoring what may be a lethal threat.
Q. Are some airlines and countries perceived to be facing higher risks than others?
A. Yes. Those nations allied to the U.S. in its war in Iraq, in particular,(which includes the UK) but not exclusively, are seen to be higher value targets. However, terrorist plots have been interrupted in France. Cells have been uncovered in Canada. Neither of those nations support the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Al Qaeda and it's extremist allies also view the governments of Arab states, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as enemies. Attacks have been carried out in both those countries, with Saudi Arabia continuing it's own internal war against terrorists.
Some analysts believe that if al Qaeda, or allied organizations were to again use airlines to attack western nations, or other symbolic targets, it would be on a scale similar to, or greater than, September 11
Q. How long will the current security scare last?
A. These kinds of cancellations and delays, based on security considerations, will become more commonplace. British and European ministers, and American officials all say that we will see much more of this.
Indeed, since June 2003, British officials -- including the head of Britain's internal security service, MI5 -- have repeatedly warned of the likelihood of attacks against British interests, including aircraft.
