Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Critics Say Aviation Businesses Hurt by Super Bowl Security

Aired January 25, 2003 - 07:31   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, talk about in security. Federal agents have rounded up more than 100 security guards slated for work at the Super Bowl. Thirty-four of them had criminal convictions, and some were from companies suspected of having terrorist cells.
It's kind of a typical news item in the post-9/11 world. But in the final analysis, do all the green card sweeps, the metal detectors, the careful inspections of your shoes and the no-fly zones really leave us safer in the end? Or does it simply create the appearance of security?

Now, let's check out here the zone around the Super Bowl in San Diego, California. This is the no-fly zone, seven nautical miles around the Qualcomm field. And if you'll look in there, I can give you a little telestrator assistance there, right at the center there is a very busy general aviation field, Montgomery Airport. This is shutting down a lot of businesses in order to protect the Super Bowl.

But the question is does it really protect anything? We'll put that question to a couple of people who have some insights on it. First, we are joined by John King, who is an airplane owner and an aviation giant, really. He is the co-owner and cofounder of the King Schools. Aviation trainers, he and his wife Martha. Along with him, Kelly McCann, our security analyst, joining us out of Washington.

Let's talk about this no-fly zone first. John King, just taking a look at this, a lot of people might say seven nautical miles, 18,000 feet, prudent thing to do. And, gosh, can't you guys just relax and watch the Super Bowl and not worry about flying your planes?

JOHN KING, OWNER, KING SCHOOLS: Well that's actually a good thing to say, Miles. It's very hard to argue against security. Who can say we don't want more security? But the problem is there's a tradeoff.

Here we have 600 airplanes that are grounded for the day. That's over $100 million of productive assets. Businesses are put out of business for the day. Some flight schools do their very most amount of business on Sundays, and they're out of business for the day.

So there is a tradeoff. But the problem is that it's hard to argue against security. Would it be safer to ground every airplane everywhere in the world? Yes. And it's ironic the one kind of aircraft that was used in the 9/11 attacks was an airliner and they can do real damage, and they're not grounded. So you've got to wonder about are we just try to prevent people from seeing banner tows and blimps and other aircraft and making them nervous?

O'BRIEN: Let's broaden this out just a little bit and let's go back to the Web. I've pulled up now the no-fly zone that will be blanketed over the Washington D.C. area, and it's really a good hunk of the Eastern Seaboard is what it is for the State of the Union address on Tuesday. Take a look at this big disk.

That's Baltimore up there. There's Dulles Airport over there. It is a huge no-fly zone. Kelly McCann, once again, a lot of people would say that's a prudent thing to do when you have so much of the power structure in one building in Washington, D.C. The flip side of this is there is a lot of inconvenience when you block off that much air space.

KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: There's no doubt, Miles. And this is kind of analogous to when Eleanor Holmes Norton had argued against significant physical security upgrades here in D.C. I mean her constituency are the people who make business in the D.C. area. So there is going to be someone who has a bone to pick with every issue as we go forward with new security.

But remember that security is in part a show. And, in fact, when you said, "Is it just the appearance of security," that's part of the redundancy and part of what you're promulgating out to the public domain for their consumption, is making it just that much more difficult.

I agree with John. A light aircraft, of course, as we saw in Florida, is significantly less threatening than a jet airliner. But the balance is that the TSA is saying that they have much better and tighter control than, say, a fixed-base operator who is running a general aviation point of origin, if you will, of a possible attack. And so there's less control there, and I think that's primarily the issue.

O'BRIEN: All right, but my concern is this: is that it creates a false sense of security. And to that extent, it's a bad idea. It makes people think they're safe when they're not, and perhaps their guard comes down. John, what do you think of that?

KING: Well I agree with you 100 percent. And actually, general aviation airplanes, people know who is going to be in those airplanes, whereas in an airliner you're carrying the general public. So we all know our passengers, we know the pilots around the airport. And it's very difficult for some strange person to come in and take over a small airplane. Whereas an airliner, hijackers, are people that are not known by the airline. They just come in and buy a ticket and have the airplane available to them.

So I think it's a false sense of security. I think what we're doing is doing ineffectual things that make a big difference in terms of visibility, but they're really ineffectual. If they really wanted to be effectual, they can ground the airlines and people would complain so much about that it wouldn't happen. So they're doing the easy thing, in my view.

O'BRIEN: Kelly, would you go along with that? That in the sense that it gives -- we have to do something, so let's do something, and what you do is you pick the low-hanging fruit and the low-hanging fruit isn't always the most effective way, right?

MCCANN: Sure. But also, we can attribute, of course, all the way back to when we still had media promoting what the al Qaeda was saying. They said planes will rain from the sky. And then in fact they used them as a weapon.

And I disagree with John on one point, which is it isn't difficult to get a plane out of a general aviation place with weapons. I mean, typically, at fixed-based operations there are not arm security people. And the general population of people who are flying are not armed. So, in fact, I don't think it is that difficult.

But he is right by saying vastly different damage figures from a jet airliner. So it's a complex issue, but I think that in an effort to try to take things off the table, they're going to take steps like this, no matter when we have a big event.

O'BRIEN: Final words, John King. What do you think about that? If somebody came up with a gun and said, "Fly this plane," what would you do?

KING: Well, how would they get in the position where they could get to the airplane and force you to do it?

O'BRIEN: Use of force.

KING: Well I suppose. It's pretty unlikely. I can't think of a single instance in which it has been done.

MCCANN: Yet.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's leave it at that, gentlemen. Thank you very much.

Security is a difficult thing, as you say, to argue against. So I guess this is the environment we live in for quite some time. Kelly McCann, John King, thanks for being with us on CNN SATURDAY MORNING.

MCCANN: Thanks, gentlemen.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Security>


Aired January 25, 2003 - 07:31   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, talk about in security. Federal agents have rounded up more than 100 security guards slated for work at the Super Bowl. Thirty-four of them had criminal convictions, and some were from companies suspected of having terrorist cells.
It's kind of a typical news item in the post-9/11 world. But in the final analysis, do all the green card sweeps, the metal detectors, the careful inspections of your shoes and the no-fly zones really leave us safer in the end? Or does it simply create the appearance of security?

Now, let's check out here the zone around the Super Bowl in San Diego, California. This is the no-fly zone, seven nautical miles around the Qualcomm field. And if you'll look in there, I can give you a little telestrator assistance there, right at the center there is a very busy general aviation field, Montgomery Airport. This is shutting down a lot of businesses in order to protect the Super Bowl.

But the question is does it really protect anything? We'll put that question to a couple of people who have some insights on it. First, we are joined by John King, who is an airplane owner and an aviation giant, really. He is the co-owner and cofounder of the King Schools. Aviation trainers, he and his wife Martha. Along with him, Kelly McCann, our security analyst, joining us out of Washington.

Let's talk about this no-fly zone first. John King, just taking a look at this, a lot of people might say seven nautical miles, 18,000 feet, prudent thing to do. And, gosh, can't you guys just relax and watch the Super Bowl and not worry about flying your planes?

JOHN KING, OWNER, KING SCHOOLS: Well that's actually a good thing to say, Miles. It's very hard to argue against security. Who can say we don't want more security? But the problem is there's a tradeoff.

Here we have 600 airplanes that are grounded for the day. That's over $100 million of productive assets. Businesses are put out of business for the day. Some flight schools do their very most amount of business on Sundays, and they're out of business for the day.

So there is a tradeoff. But the problem is that it's hard to argue against security. Would it be safer to ground every airplane everywhere in the world? Yes. And it's ironic the one kind of aircraft that was used in the 9/11 attacks was an airliner and they can do real damage, and they're not grounded. So you've got to wonder about are we just try to prevent people from seeing banner tows and blimps and other aircraft and making them nervous?

O'BRIEN: Let's broaden this out just a little bit and let's go back to the Web. I've pulled up now the no-fly zone that will be blanketed over the Washington D.C. area, and it's really a good hunk of the Eastern Seaboard is what it is for the State of the Union address on Tuesday. Take a look at this big disk.

That's Baltimore up there. There's Dulles Airport over there. It is a huge no-fly zone. Kelly McCann, once again, a lot of people would say that's a prudent thing to do when you have so much of the power structure in one building in Washington, D.C. The flip side of this is there is a lot of inconvenience when you block off that much air space.

KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: There's no doubt, Miles. And this is kind of analogous to when Eleanor Holmes Norton had argued against significant physical security upgrades here in D.C. I mean her constituency are the people who make business in the D.C. area. So there is going to be someone who has a bone to pick with every issue as we go forward with new security.

But remember that security is in part a show. And, in fact, when you said, "Is it just the appearance of security," that's part of the redundancy and part of what you're promulgating out to the public domain for their consumption, is making it just that much more difficult.

I agree with John. A light aircraft, of course, as we saw in Florida, is significantly less threatening than a jet airliner. But the balance is that the TSA is saying that they have much better and tighter control than, say, a fixed-base operator who is running a general aviation point of origin, if you will, of a possible attack. And so there's less control there, and I think that's primarily the issue.

O'BRIEN: All right, but my concern is this: is that it creates a false sense of security. And to that extent, it's a bad idea. It makes people think they're safe when they're not, and perhaps their guard comes down. John, what do you think of that?

KING: Well I agree with you 100 percent. And actually, general aviation airplanes, people know who is going to be in those airplanes, whereas in an airliner you're carrying the general public. So we all know our passengers, we know the pilots around the airport. And it's very difficult for some strange person to come in and take over a small airplane. Whereas an airliner, hijackers, are people that are not known by the airline. They just come in and buy a ticket and have the airplane available to them.

So I think it's a false sense of security. I think what we're doing is doing ineffectual things that make a big difference in terms of visibility, but they're really ineffectual. If they really wanted to be effectual, they can ground the airlines and people would complain so much about that it wouldn't happen. So they're doing the easy thing, in my view.

O'BRIEN: Kelly, would you go along with that? That in the sense that it gives -- we have to do something, so let's do something, and what you do is you pick the low-hanging fruit and the low-hanging fruit isn't always the most effective way, right?

MCCANN: Sure. But also, we can attribute, of course, all the way back to when we still had media promoting what the al Qaeda was saying. They said planes will rain from the sky. And then in fact they used them as a weapon.

And I disagree with John on one point, which is it isn't difficult to get a plane out of a general aviation place with weapons. I mean, typically, at fixed-based operations there are not arm security people. And the general population of people who are flying are not armed. So, in fact, I don't think it is that difficult.

But he is right by saying vastly different damage figures from a jet airliner. So it's a complex issue, but I think that in an effort to try to take things off the table, they're going to take steps like this, no matter when we have a big event.

O'BRIEN: Final words, John King. What do you think about that? If somebody came up with a gun and said, "Fly this plane," what would you do?

KING: Well, how would they get in the position where they could get to the airplane and force you to do it?

O'BRIEN: Use of force.

KING: Well I suppose. It's pretty unlikely. I can't think of a single instance in which it has been done.

MCCANN: Yet.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's leave it at that, gentlemen. Thank you very much.

Security is a difficult thing, as you say, to argue against. So I guess this is the environment we live in for quite some time. Kelly McCann, John King, thanks for being with us on CNN SATURDAY MORNING.

MCCANN: Thanks, gentlemen.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





Security>