« السابقةمتابعة »
Regulation 107.4 which required the filing on or before January 6, 1973. You will note in the second paragraph the statement that the assignment of the officers was contingent upon approval by Council of the City of Richmond. This statement was included because of the administration's inability to commit the expenditure of funds not approved by Council of the City.
On January 4, 1973 the Airport Manager received a response from the Air Transportation Security Officer dated January 3. The response advised the amendment was disapproved.
Mr. Sheffield in the Budget Bureau, recommended the Director of Public Works request the Budget Bureau prepare an O & R 1 to request the necessary funds be made available to accomplish the intent of the Federal Aviation Regulation. Mr. Sheffield and Mr. Whorton, as a result of a meeting with the Airport Manager on December 26, have the figures and numbers of personnel and amount of equipment necessary to prepare an appropriate O & R 1.
This memorandum is to request you direct a brief memorandum to the Budget Bureau to accomplish the above.
AMENDMENT-MASTER SECURITY PLAN
A. E. DOWD.
Section IV, Paragraph E, Page 9-Add a new subparagraph 6 to read: "Beginning February 6, 1973, assignment of sufficient personnel to provide a law enforcement officer be present at the point of and prior to and throughout, the final passenger screening process prior to boarding for each flight conducted by a certificate holder required to have a security program under Paragraph 121.538 of the Federal Aviation Regulations."
Assignment of law enforcement officers as required above will be accomplished contingent upon approval by Council of the City of Richmond of a request for funds to provide additional law enforcement officers not subject to response to airport crash emergencies or other collateral duties which would detract from the intent of FAR Part 107.4.
Senator CANNON. The next witness, Mr. Paul Ignatius, executive vice president of Air Transport Association of America.
STATEMENT OF PAUL R. IGNATIUS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES LANDRY, GENERAL COUNSEL; AND HARRY MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
Mr. IGNATIUS. I have with me Mr. James Landry on my right, general counsel for ATA; on my left Mr. Harry Murphy, the director of security of ATA.
I have a fairly brief statement which I would like to read.
Senator CANNON. I was going to say we would make your statement a part of the record, if you can summarize from it. I think I know your views already.
Mr. IGNATIUS. I also have a longer statement.
On August 15, 1972, I presented a detailed statement to this committee of airline views on the air piracy problem. I have attached a copy of this statement for your further reference. The statement endorsed the bills the committee was considering and indicated that "the airlines strongly support the need for uniformed Federal law enforcement officers as a fundamental part of the antihijacking program."
We were pleased with the bill which the Senate passed under your leadership last year, Mr. Chairman. The press reaction at the time indicated general support for the Senate bill. The New York Times, for example, on September 23, 1972, said, "The Senate's exemplary
action deserves speedy emulation in the House," and the Washington Star-News on November 1, 1972 referred to the measure as "an admirable bill."
Airline representatives continued to stress the need for strong antihijacking measures and for Federal law-enforcement assistance. For example, in a speech in Los Angeles on October 31, 1972, I stated that:
It is tragic that Congress did not pass a strong anti-hijacking bill this year. S. 2280 was such a bill; it would have insured a comprehensive anti-hijacking program in the United States that would have made this country a world leader in the fight against hijacking. Hopefully, it will be addressed when the new Congress convenes.
In this same speech, I also criticized the administration for failing to support the use of Federal law-enforcement officers and for its pocket veto of legislation that among other things would have financed most of the cost of fencing, lighting, and other airport security needs from the aviation trust fund.
Meanwhile, the hijacking problem continued but at a lower frequency rate. In the first 7 months of 1972, there were 28 hijacking incidents in the United States. In the last 5 months of the year, there were only three. However, two of these were very serious.
On October 29, 1972, four men, three of whom were suspected of bank robbery and murder, shot their way aboard an Eastern Air Lines plane, killing a ticket agent and wounding a mechanic.
Then, on November 10, three other wanted criminals took over a Southern Airways jet out of Birmingham, Ala., demanding a $10 million ransom. Ultimately, one crew member was wounded and three passengers required hospitalization.
In late November and early December there were indications that the administration was about to announce new security measures. The nature of the new measures was rather fully described in news stories. Based on this preliminary information, airline views were conveyed to Secretary Volpe in a letter dated December 4, 1972, which read in part as follows, and I am quoting from the letter:
However, we are firmly convinced that the measures contemplated by the new program. as we understand them from press accounts and other information, do not constitute the most effective way to deal with the problem. We are particularly concerned about the dependence on local law enforcement personnel. As you know, this industry, consisting of the airlines, their pilots, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, and the airport operators, represented by Airport Operators Council International, have consistently advocated the use of Federal law enforcement officials in order to achieve necessary uniformity and responsiveness, and to properly enforce the Federal laws which are being violated.
We were greatly encouraged, that our approach was the correct one when the Senate in the last session passed S. 2280 by an overwhelming vote of 75-1. This bill. as you know, provided for Federal law enforcement officials together with other strong measures for dealing with the problem. We continue to believe this is the best approach and hope that the Senate will re-enact its bill. We are also hopeful that the House will address the problem in a comprehensive manner and are pleased that a member of the House has recently announced that he will introduce legislation to establish a nationwide force of specially-trained Federal guards at airline boarding gates.
Thus, we can all agree on the need for a strong and visible law enforcement presence at airports. Our difference relates to whether it should be provided by Federal or local officers. We are hopeful that the Congress will address this issue and provide for comprehensive, tough measures to deal with the hijacking menace and other threats to aircraft security.
End of quote.
On December 5, 1972, the administration issued two emergency regulations which:
First, directed airlines by January 5, 1973, to screen all passengers electronically, or by consent search, and to search all carry-on items; and,
Second, directed airport operators by February 6, 1973, to station at least one local law-enforcement officer at each passenger checkpoint during boarding or reboarding.
In announcing these regulations, the administration stated that there would be stiff penalties for failure to comply with the new program. At the same time, Secretary Volpe indicated that the costs of the program should be recovered from the traveling public as a legitimate business expense.
The airlines considered that they had no choice but to comply with the directive and have done so-not without a great deal of "scrambling" to meet the tight deadline. However, the problem of cost recovery by both airlines and airport operators remains a matter of serious concern.
First, the costs are substantial. Early estimates place them at $56 million per year for the airlines and $57 million per year for the airport operators, or a total of $113 million. In addition to the $113 million-largely for personnel costs there are perhaps $20 to $40 million of other costs for such purposes as maintenance of metal detectors, modification of airport holding rooms, and for other items, for a total currently estimated in the range of from $133 to $153 million.
These costs would be higher were it not for the fact that Congress provided funds last year for the purchase of metal-detection devices. Second, these costs are already being incurred by airlines and airport operators. Many of the airport operators apparently lack the financial resources to carry out the administration mandate. Unless the airports can be assured of very early reimbursement, a further proliferation of local head taxes seems inevitable. The airline views on the head tax issue are a matter of record.
The Senate bill before us would provide Federal funding for a Federal antihijacking force, but the $35 million included in the bill is substantially less than the airport operators' current estimate of $57 million. Moreover, it would not provide for cost recovery by the airlines. Also, unless it were enacted without delay, severe financial pressures would be placed on the airport operators.
Faced with these uncertainties, a number of the domestic airlines have filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board for a fare increase which would generally cover the costs of the new program. On January 3, 1973, the Board denied these requests for special tariff permission to bring that increase into effect on 1-day's notice, effective January 5. In refusing to waive the 30-day statutory notice requirement, the Board emphasized the need for carriers to include fully documented data in filings due on January 19.
The administration program and the Senate bill before you are in agreement in two important respects:
First, both require 100-percent electronic screening of passengers and carry-on luggage by the airlines.
Second, both require law-enforcement presence to back up the screening process.
On the other hand, the two programs reflect fundamentally different philosophies on two key aspects of the program:
First, the Senate bill provides for a federally funded security force, while the administration program is based on the use of local lawenforcement personnel.
Second, under the Senate bill, the Government would finance the cost of the armed guards, but under the administration program, the additional costs of the overall security program would be borne by airport operators and the airlines but ultimately presumably passed on to passengers.
Air piracy is a violation of Federal law and a serious threat to our domestic and foreign commerce. The airlines continue to believe, as we stated publicly when the administration program was announced, that Federal enforcement is the most effective and appropriate way to deal with the problem.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we urge approval of the Senate bill. At the same time, we have no choice but to carry out our part of the program directed by the administration. We are dedicated to any undertaking which promises to remove the threat of hijacking.
At the same time, we are anxious to recover the additional costs we are incurring and to see the airport operators relieved of their financial dilemma. We are therefore hopeful that the Civil Aeronautics Board will provide prompt relief.
When the Senate bill is enacted, it may be necessary to make downward revision in these increases because the bill would relieve the airport operators of substantial costs. However, the Board has ample power to make such adjustments.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the airlines appreciate the effort that you and your committee have made over a period of many months to deal affirmatively with the security problem. None of us connected with civil aviation in any way can relax our efforts until the menace of air piracy is once and for all eliminated.
This completes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, but I have one other comment I would like to make with your permission, a point that has come up since I prepared the statement.
Some of our member carriers who operate internationally have expressed some concern that the language under 315-B, title II, would not give the Administrator requisite legal authority to require weapondetecting devices operating internationally for use at airports here and abroad.
It is my understanding that those U.S. air carriers who do operate internationally will be subject to security regulations in accordance with section 315-A. It would appear to us it is the intent of Congress to require the same security regulations for U.S. air carriers operating domestically and internationally and to provide the Administrator with the authority to require weapon-detecting devices for domestic and international air carriers.
It is recommended the committee clarify the provisions of section 315-B to insure that the Administrator does in fact have the authority to require weapon-detecting devices for those U.S. air carriers operating internationally.
Senator CANNON. We will consider that.
Has counsel for the airlines had an opportunity to review the emergency regulations as they relate to the provisions for locally provided policemen and provide an opinion on the firmness of the legal authority on which they are based?
Mr. IGNATIUS. We have discussed that and our counsel, Mr. Landry, will respond.
Our initial reaction on looking at them, Mr. Chairman, was it appeared to us that all of the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act had not in fact been observed. We felt, however, that the circumstances were such that we were bound to comply. We have done so.
Senator CANNON. Well, does the ATA or any of the air carriers plan any legal action or litigation to challenge the Secretary's regulations administratively or in the courts?
Mr. IGNATIUS. There are no plans that I am aware of, sir.
Senator CANNON. Of course, I think as you stated in your prepared statement that if these emergency regulations are fully implemented, and the costs are placed on airport authorities, that that certainly is going to be a strong argument to permit the airport authorities to impose charges through user charges or head taxes, which is the thing we were trying to get at last year in the bill, S. 3755, that the administration vetoed.
Mr. IGNATIUS. It seems no question but that is the case. There are all kinds of indications of it. They will turn to the head tax solution and we feel that is going to further complicate the air transportation system.
Senator CANNON. Senator Hart?
Senator HART. Thank you.
I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Ignatius. I am tempted to ask Mr. Murphy how long it takes to train somebody to be an effective gate guard.
Mr. MURPHY. To be an effective law-enforcement officer is the paramount thing because in order to be an effective gate guard you have to be trained in firearms, all the procedures, what constitutes a violation. My estimate would be between 8 and 12 weeks.
Senator CANNON. Is there not a pool of such people from which you could go and just pick them up off the street and put them on duty as a law-enforcement officer by February 6?
Mr. MURPHY. Not to my knowledge. Senator CANNON. Thank you very much. (The statement follows:)
STATEMENT OF PAUL R. IGNATIUS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AIR TRANSPORT
My name is Paul Ignatius. I am Executive Vice President of the Air Transport Association, representing virtually all of the scheduled airlines in the United States.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 3815, introduced by Senator Schweiker, and S. 3871, introduced by Senator Boggs. Both bills express the concern of Members of the Congress over aircraft hijackings and propose further remedies for dealing with the problem.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF AIRCRAFT HIJACKINGS
I have attached to my statement for your later study some charts that summarize hijacking attempts from 1930 until the present. The data lead to some important conclusions: