Manchester Airport Leader in Security Efforts

February 15, 2004

Airport Leader in Security Efforts 
Associated Press 

  
MANCHESTER - Since the terrorist attacks upended
American air travel, Manchester Airport has
accomplished two goals that have made it a leader in
the post 9-11 world: Making flying safer and
maintaining customer service. 

But the future still holds challenges and choices for
the airport, its security and its passengers. 

Manchester has spent millions on changes such as more
police patrols and terminal checkpoints, surveillance
equipment and random vehicle searches. But unlike most
airports, it’s also spent millions making a major
security improvement invisible, a key to helping
rebuild confidence among jittery fliers. 

"Not only did you have to look at 100 percent
security, but you also had to look at doing it with
100 percent customer service in mind," said Airport
Director Kevin Dillon. 

Dillon vowed to make sure passengers didn’t wait long
to clear security and weren’t greeted by large
explosive detection machines. As a result, the airport
installed the detection system behind baggage check-in
stations, hidden by a wall. It was the first airport
to do so. A handful of others have followed. 

"We are very pleased with what they did," said Chris
Rhatigan of the Transportation Security
Administration, the federal agency created after the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to screen passengers and
intercept potential weapons. 

Manchester passengers check bags at the ticket counter
and head to gates, while a conveyor carries bags
through the detection machines to baggage carts and
the planes. Bags that set off alarms are detoured to
another conveyor to be checked further. Dillon said
the airport spent $7 million to install the conveyor
system and rebuild offices that had to be moved.
Washington contributed about $20 million. 

At many airports, passengers check their bags at the
ticket counter, then wait in another line and watch
while their bags go through the explosives-detection
system in the lobby. If the bags clear, passengers are
permitted to go to their gate and the bags move to the
baggage loading area. 

Dillon and Fred Aufiero, the TSA’s assistant federal
security director for screening in New Hampshire, said
the rapid push for security was bumpy, especially soon
after the terror attacks, as airports and the security
agency made major changes in a short time. 

"This is probably one of the biggest knee-jerk
reactions I’ve ever seen in my 27-year career and I
think today there is some recognition that it was a
knee-jerk reaction," Dillon said of the rush to
federalize security and pass laws that demanded many
immediate changes. 

Aufiero said the TSA was trying to get organized,
while tightening security. But he said every deadline
was met at Manchester. 

"We’ve gone through some very difficult growing pains
in the past year," he said. 

One was a federal order that cut nearly half of
Manchester’s screeners, without consulting with the
airport. After intense lobbying, some screeners were
reinstated. 

"I can’t imagine who in Washington was sitting at
their desk making that decision without really
understanding the implications of that decision,"
Dillon said. 

"It’s not acceptable to say, ‘Sorry, I don’t have the
personnel today, so we are going to let people wait 45
minutes or an hour to get through that screening,’" he
said. 

Rhatigan said the TSA constantly reviews staffing,
considering factors such as the number of outbound
flights, the number of bags that must be screened and
whether airports have the in-line system. 

As time passes since the attacks, Aufiero said the TSA
also works to make sure screeners stay focused. 

"They cannot come in and say, ‘I had a bad day today.
I missed this knife ... but tomorrow I’m going to come
in and I’ll get it.’ They have to be 100 percent all
the time and that’s very difficult." 

Now that the security changes have been made, Dillon
said the coming debate will include making sure the
government provides enough money and people to
maintain security and service. 

"Airport operators will say they want a larger say in
terms of staffing and resources, because it is so
critical from a customer service standpoint," he said.


Dillon said he would like to see screening involve
more than metal detectors and X-ray equipment. For
example, he said, if people provide some background
information, and airports are allowed to use
techniques such as iris scanning and finger printing,
many travelers could be identified quickly with less
intrusive screening and go through a sort of "express
lane." 

Tighter airport security requirements came at the
right time for Manchester. Security improvements were
built into a new $25 million terminal opening
Wednesday at a much lower cost than some airports
would have to spend for security renovations. 

Acknowledging the need to increase security, Dillon
said he wonders if some of the money spent at airports
could have been spent more wisely for immigration or
border security. 

And underlying the security questions is the lingering
concern about whether terrorists would even target air
travel again. 

"Would you go after something that has spent all of
this money to protect itself or would you look at the
other soft spots," Dillon said. 

"But you will have those who will say, ‘Well, the real
victory to the terrorists would be if they could come
back and do it again.’" 


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

*****************************************