November 16, 2001

CONTACT: Kent McNaughton
Public Information Director,
The Libertarian Party of Colorado
================================================

Airline Security Bill is "Irresponsible"

WASHINGTON - President Bush prepares to sign a bipartisan bill on airport security. Congressmen cheer their own efforts. Libertarians admonish both branches of government and both major parties for failing to address the real hazard to the lives of passengers: lack of responsibility.

"Why is it that, whenever we are called upon to defend America or Americans, we always do it in an un-American way?" asked John K Berntson, Chair of the Libertarian Party of Colorado. "Of course the airlines support this bill, which puts the federal government in charge of airport security, because the airlines don't want to be responsible for it. Everybody flees from responsibility, if we allow them to."

In a free society, competing airlines would face the dual tasks of getting passengers to their destinations in a timely manner and getting them there safely. If they failed in either task, they would lose customers and money and might well be taken to court if people in their care were killed or injured. They would have great incentive to protect their passengers.

This new bill skews the incentives even more than they already were. Now the airlines will be in a position to take any aircraft disaster that is - OR MIGHT BE - a terrorist incident and blame it on the federal security apparatus. The taxpayers will wind up footing the bill for most aircraft accidents, protecting the airlines and their shareholders from liability.

Meanwhile, the federal inspectors will have only limited incentive to do their jobs effectively. Job security for federal employees is well known and bringing them to court is problematic at best. What little incentive they will have will be geared towards security and making people believe that the employees are doing something about it, so long lines and missed flights will become even more prevalent than they already are.

"We are now replacing a somewhat federalized security system with a completely federalized security system," said Berntson. "We should have gone the other way. We should have placed it squarely on the shoulders of the airlines."

Libertarians believe that the airline bailout was exactly the wrong thing to do, that it was patently un-American and skewed the incentives of the airlines.

What would have happened had the taxpayers not bailed out the airlines? United and American would probably have folded, their failed executives would be unemployed, and their stockholders would be less wealthy.

But their aircraft, equipment, and gates would have been rapidly bought up by other airlines, some of them brand new, and the employees would have followed the aircraft and equipment to new jobs with the new owners. These new owners, having seen the fate of United and American - and with the help of their equally careful insurance companies - would have taken steps to protect their passengers and their investment.

In this instance, the airlines would have had the incentive to keep their passengers safe and deliver them in a timely manner. They would have been free to experiment with various security systems, from new and innovative

scanners to armed guards. They would have been free to try arming flight crews or arming passengers. They would have competed with each other over both security and timeliness, without which the airlines are totally useless.

"Under the new bill, there will only be the one 'right way' and we will never know if another system would have worked better," said Berntson. "The American Way is one of freedom, competition, and responsibility. This bill denies all three and we will all be worse off for it."