The average passenger doesn’t know it, but behind a flight, there’s an entire mechanism hidden, corroded by a lack of communication among the various agents that compose it. Traditional airlines, low-cost carriers, airports, tour operators, security organizations, and other subcontractors are bustling in a chaotic cockpit, completely closed off from travelers. “There are more actors than action,” insists Roger Dutoit. This is the first conclusion of this conference, where the agents all presented a mea culpa and a solution to try to improve passenger care.
Stressed in an unfamiliar environment, amidst check-ins, searches, misinformation, lost luggage, timed takeoffs, and fear of flying, they try to find their path. After all, isn’t it they who pay for the ticket? “Stress is caused by a loss of control,” emphasizes Elisabeth Rosnet, a psychologist specializing at the University of Reims, invited to the forum. “Hence the behaviors of ‘air rage’, the outbursts from passengers that can jeopardize the safety of the flight.” Studies report 5,000 annual cases of such behaviors that can lead to legal proceedings. Last October 10th, passengers on a Karthago Airlines flight sued the company for “anxiety damage,” following a takeoff and emergency landing.
The information provided to passengers is extremely limited, and coordination among the different actors is insufficient. “The lack of communication among all the actors creates opacity in the air market,” notes Ray Webster, the former president of EasyJet. “Airlines never publish the breakdown of a ticket price. If I buy a special rate trip, who guarantees I’m getting a good deal?”
“Airports initiate most of the stress through enhanced security measures,” observes Brian Barrow, IATA (International Air Transport Association) commissioner. However, there’s no question of taking sole responsibility for passenger stress. Many point the finger at the authorities since the implementation of drastic security measures is a government initiative.
According to an ADP/Sofres study from April 2006, the appraisal of the filtering system is predominantly positive, with 90% of passengers considering the security staff’s reception to be rather good. However, increasingly thorough searches frustrate travelers, forced to empty their pockets, remove shoes, belts, or even bras for those unlucky enough to wear one with an underwire. Finally, all belongings must be left in the hold, and all multimedia devices turned off, even on business trips.
Nevertheless, all professionals doubt the effectiveness of this security system. The terrorist threat remains ever-present. “The overlapping of security layers is a boon for terrorists,” asserts Philippe Legorjus, a former GIGN commander now running a small airline. “Invisible security is far preferable to visible security.” He also criticizes another state drift – the privatization of security systems. “In France, nearly all security is entrusted to private actors. We’ve opened a window of opportunity for predators. Moreover, it increases costs without real effectiveness. The government needs to realize this.”
Another issue is the increasing cost of flights. “Security measures impact taxes and thus ticket prices,” confirms Michel de Blust, secretary-general of ECTAA (grouping of European Union national travel agencies and tour operators unions). “In the end, it’s always the traveler who pays.”
Roger Dutoit denounces hypocrisy on the part of the authorities. “There is no 100% reliable system. The current system is more reactive than structured. It piles on measures and technologies without real effectiveness.”
