Running head: AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 1

Aviation industry satisfaction: a pre and post-9/11 investigation

Richard A. Brooks

American Military University

BUSN501 Critical Thinking and Digital Literacy

March 3, 2019

Doctor Kandis Wyatt

AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 2

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………3

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Pre-9/11 Security Measures………………….…………………………………………………....4

Post-9/11 Security measures...…………………………………………………………………….6

Air cargo after September 11, 2001……………...………………………………………………..8

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….......9

References...……………………………………………………………………………………...11
AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 3

Abstract

The tragic events that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001 greatly affected the

security infrastructure that the US airlines had in place at the time. The greater the scrutiny that

the newly implemented security measures placed upon passengers and cargo of the airline

industries, the levels of customer satisfaction were affected.

Keywords: aviation industry, security measures, customer satisfaction, air cargo, C-

TPAT
AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 4

Aviation industry satisfaction: a pre and post-9/11 investigation.

Introduction

The events that transpired on September 11, 2001 dramatically changed the way the

United States perceives its security posture within the aviation industry. Prior to 9/11, it was

identified that there was areas of security that required addressing such as the airlines hiring

personnel to be security screeners who failed to identify certain threats to passengers due to

inadequate training, high employee turnover, lower wages and poor benefits, and the hiring of

inexperienced and unskilled workers (Taylor, 2003). Today, one finds security at the airport to be

a shaky balance between a major or minor inconvenience and a thorough or wholly inadequate

security postures. Not only is this true for passengers but this is also the case for the other side of

aviation which is cargo movement. A thorough look into the differences between pre- and post-

September 11, 2001 security measures and its effects on the customer satisfaction rates for

passengers and cargo could determine future actions to be taken by the airline industry.

Pre-9/11 Security Measures

For anyone old enough to remember air travel prior to September 11, 2001, passenger

travel was vastly different. Watching a pre-9/11 movie or television show in which the characters

transit through an airport highlights the security measures or lack thereof. This author, for one, is

old enough to have travelled during those times. Beginning in the 1970’s, the main focus of

airport security was to prevent hijackers from bringing on board the aircraft metal objects which

they could use to initiate a takeover of the aircraft’s cockpit (International Air Transport

Association, n.d. p. 8). The general feeling at the time was a sense that airlines were considered a

low risk security threat and that the preventive measures at the time were adequate.
AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 5

The security protocols at that time allowed for blade lengths of up to 4 inches in length

which the Federal Aviation Administration did not consider a threat which metal detectors at that

time were not strong enough to detect nor were other items such as scissors, box cutters, baseball

bats, or even knitting needles considered harmless and innocuous (O'Connor, 2016). Before the

creation of the federal workforce under the Transportation Security Administration, airports

hired, managed and maintained their own private security forces to man and monitor the security

checkpoints (Seidenstat, 2004, p. 275). While the airport security forces directly ran their local

programs the Federal Aviation Administration was the overall regulatory agency that provided

security guidelines, oversight, and program evaluations as well as limited funding for airline and

airport security (National Academy of Public Administration, 2000). Across the board, most

airport security measures centered on x-ray machines, metal detectors, and wands for personal

screening of individuals.

With the pre-9/11 security posture, passengers moved relatively quickly through the

screening process with minimal setbacks unless security was minimally manned or another

unforeseen took place which created a slow-down at the checkpoint. It was even very common

for guests, friends or family, to accompany or meet passengers at the gate as they too could move

through the security checkpoint at will.

Post-9/11 Security measures

As most of today’s airline passengers are aware of, the post September 11, 2001 security

measures that were implemented drastically changed the way passengers and cargo transit via the

airways. These new measures were established to prevent future attacks from occurring. On

November 19, 2001, the 107th Congress signed into law the Aviation and Transportation Security
AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 6

Act with established the Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) (Transportation

Security Administration, 2018). As part of law, airport officials were able to decide either to

keep their original private security who follow TSA guidelines or to elect to have the federalized

TSA workforce maintain airport security. Regardless of the decision made, the new federal

guidelines brought forth key changes in the nation’s aviation industry security posture. Items that

were previously allowed to pass through the checkpoints were now considered contraband with

the extreme being the file portion on nail clippers were not authorized to be carried on an

airplane. Metal detectors were upgraded to more sensitive models and, beginning around 2007,

the TSA procured and placed into usage the millimeter wave and X-ray backscatter imaging

systems which are colloquially known as the infamous body scanners (Elias, 2012, p. 2). One of

the major changes that the TSA implemented was at the initial security checkpoint at the

entrance point to the screening area. This prescreening matches the traveler’s boarding pass with

a valid state or federal identification and cross-references the traveler’s name in a “no-fly”

database.

These security measures and protocols created several contention points. As part of

passenger ticket prices, the TSA has been federally authorized to implement a congressionally

mandated security fee or passenger fee as part of a way to assist in the financing of the security

protocols in the aviation industry which can be found the latest revision under Public Law 113-

294, dated December 19, 2014 (Transportation Security Administration, n.d.). The previously

mentioned pre-screening process is another point of contention among travelers. First, only

ticketed passengers are now allowed to go to the gates. For those who remember the days before

this measure, this was an inconvenience. No longer could one see off their loved one or friend

nor greet them directly at the gate. This is a relatively minor inconvenience when compared to
AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 7

others. Second, passengers, while waiting in line at security checkpoints, are potentially profiled

for abnormal behavior which might be indicative of potentially harmful actions. Many have

argued that this as an invasion of privacy and breach of civil liberties for a very large percentage

of airline travelers who pose zero threats (Ravich, 2007, p. 7). Third, especially at the busiest of

the major airports, long lines at the security checkpoints great frustration and even agitation in

the queue lines which could potentially present a false-positive for profiling by the TSA agents

which further exacerbates the issues when those individuals are pulled out for additional

screening measures.

After the increased security measures at the nation’s airports were instituted, various

levels of customer satisfaction were experienced. Surprisingly, just less than a year after 9/11,

the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) indicated an increase of satisfaction with

airline service which was higher than the previous five years which is an indication that

customers, at that time, were quite tolerant of any delays or inconveniences that the security

measures placed upon them (Anonymous, 2002). As recent as 2018, a study conducted by JD

Power indicates that North American airline passengers are stating their highest customer

satisfaction rates in the last 14 years even with several recent high profile customer service

related issues (Puckett, 2018).

Air cargo after September 11, 2001

After 9/11, the cargo sector of the aviation industry also experienced a significant impact

due to the increased security measures that were implemented. The United States Congress, in

2007, implemented legislation that required 100 percent of all cargo transported on passenger

aircraft to be screened and inspected by the Transportation Security Administration by August

AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 8

2010 (McNeill, 2010). These provisions also included any cargo that transited via general aircraft

cargo and maritime vessels that across the United States borders. As of 2010, 7.6 billion pounds

of cargo were carried aboard US airliners with nearly 20 percent of that cargo was carried aboard

passenger aircraft which, with the congressionally mandated requirement of 100 percent

screening, an enormous burden would be placed on an already strained security system (U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, 2010). One solution that greatly assisted in the security

screening demands was the creation of the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-

TPAT).

C-TPAT is a public-private sector partnership program that the US Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) initiated to assist in the monitoring and security of the United States borders.

The Security and Accountability of Every Port Act of 2006 established the regulatory structure

that industry partners abide by and that the CBP utilizes to provide program oversight (U.S.

Customs and Border Protections, 2018). The innovated side of C-TPAT is that it is not a

regulatory requirement but a purely voluntary agreement. Industry partners agree to place

security measures upon their supply chain which helps to reduce the security monitoring burden

that the CBP and TSA would need to initiate should the C-TPAT not exist. Even if the point of

origin of cargo is in another country, the industry partners must provide security measures

through the supply chain. Partners that can demonstrate via CBP oversight that their supply

chains are secure will have their cargo transit through border security checkpoints more rapidly

than others. This, in turn, creates far faster supply chains which means greater customer

satisfaction when a product can transit through the global marketplace rapidly. This synergy

between government bureaucracy and private sector has proven highly successful for a voluntary
AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 9

venture. These supply chains are still vulnerable and the requirement for constant surveillance

and oversight will remain a requirement.

The International Air Transport Association conducted an 8-question survey in 2015

asking 336 air cargo customers their experiences with results indicating that only 7 percent were

“very unhappy” and that speed was the main factor in customer satisfaction rates (International

Air Transport Association, 2015). A CBP backed survey conducted in 2010 found that 90

percent of businesses who had partnered with CBP as part of C-TPAT had never considered

departing from the C-TPAT program (Furia, Lee, Rexrode, & Ellis, 2010, p. 14). This is a

testament to the validity of the program when each partner can tailor their security requirements

to meet their specific needs and conditions and still maintain the exacting standards that CBP has

set for the program guidelines.

Conclusion

The events that transpired on September 11, 2001 had an effect on the airline industry

which, in turn, affected customer satisfaction rates whether they be passengers, consumers of

products moved by air cargo or others who depend upon the airline industry. Prior to 9/11, the

security measures that were set in place were considered quite lax as compared to today’s current

security protocols. A very limited number of items were considered contraband for air travelers

and passing through the security checkpoints was relatively easy for passengers and any other

person as long as one could make it through the metal detectors. Risks of an airline hijacking in

the United States was considered extremely low at the time thus security measures were less than

spectacular. After the terrorist attacks, things drastically changed. The congressionally created

Transportation Security Administration introduced updated security measures and protocols and
AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 10

made changes in an attempt to prevent such actions from ever taking place again. Every

passenger is scrutinized beginning with a pre-screening of identification and boarding pass to

body scanners and stronger metal detectors. As an initiative to extend expanded security

measures to air cargo, the US Customs and Border Protection partnered with industry in the

voluntary C-TPAT agreement to implement supply chain security measures from end-to-end. C-

TPAT has proven as successful as it was innovative in that cargo moves rapidly through security

measures in the supply chain and maintains effective safety with high satisfaction ratings. As

with C-TPAT, findings for satisfaction for airline passengers was higher than would be expected

when one considers the level of inconvenience that the post-9/11 security measures and protocols

have placed on travelers.

AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 11

References

Anonymous. (2002). U.S. airline customer satisfaction at six-year high. Quality Progress, 35(7),

19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214742787/

Elias, B. (2012). Airport body scanners: The role of advanced imaging technology in airline

passenger screening. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.

Furia, P., Lee, J., Rexrode, D., & Ellis, J. (2010). Customs-trade Partnership against terrorism

2010 partner survey. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Retrieved March 3, 2019,

from https://mohawkglobalta.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/C-TPAT-Partner-Survey-

2010.pdf

International Air Transport Association. (n.d.). The impact of September 11, 2001 on aviation.

Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.iata.org/pressroom/documents/impact-9-11-

aviation.pdf

International Air Transport Association. (2015, June). 2015 Global shipper survey. IATA Cargo.

Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/Documents/2015-

global-shipper-survey.pdf

McNeill, J. (2010, June). Air cargo security: How to keep Americans secure without harming

the economy. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://www.heritage.org/homeland-

security/report/air-cargo-security-how-keep-americans-secure-without-harming-the-

economy

National Academy of Public Administration. (2000, December). Enhancing airport security:

Phase I report. Washington, DC: Author

AVIATION INDUSTRY SATISFACTION 12

O'Connor, L. (2016, September 11). This is what it was like to go to the airport before 9/11.

Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/airports-before-

911_us_57c85e17e4b078581f11a133

Puckett, J. (2018, May 30). Airline customer satisfaction is up, believe it or not. The Points Guy.

Retrieved March 3, 2019, from https://thepointsguy.com/news/airline-customer-

satisfacion-is-actually-improving-believe-it-or-not/

Ravich, T. (2007) Is airline passenger profiling necessary? University of Miami Law Review Vol.

62, Iss. 1 Retrieved from at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol62/iss1/2

Seidenstat, P. (2004). Terrorism, airport security, and the private sector. Review of Policy

Research, 21(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00075.x

Taylor, A. (2003, December). The evolution of airline security since 9/11. Retrieved March 2,

2019, from https://www.ifpo.org/resource-links/articles-and-reports/protection-of-

specific-environments/the-evolution-of-airline-security-since-911/

Transportation Security Administration. (2018, April 25). Mission. Retrieved March 2, 2019,

from https://www.tsa.gov/about/tsa-mission

Transportation Security Administration. (n.d.). Security fees. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from

https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees

U.S. Customs and Border Protections. (2018, September 21) CTPAT: Customs trade partnership

against terrorism. Retrieved March 3, 2019, from

https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/ctpat

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration. (2010, May 28)

“What we do: Layers of security,” Retrieved from

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/index.shtm