FREE E-Newsletter
Wings Magazine
Subscribe
  ABOUT US   |   CONTACT US   |   SUBSCRIPTION CENTRE   |   ADVERTISE   |   SITEMAP
MAGAZINE
Current Issue
Past Issues
News Archives
Web Exclusives
Video
Photo Gallery
 
MARKETPLACE
Aviation Books
Job Board
Classifieds
New Products
COMMUNITY
Events
AME Hall of Fame
100th Anniversary
Aviation Quiz
Association News
 
RESOURCES
A-List
E-Newsletter
Links
Sitemap
Careers in Aviation
Publications
Helicopters Magazine Careers in Aviation
Drew McCarthy McCarthy: Editorial

In August, the Conference Board of Canada released its summer 2006 report

Written by Drew McCarthy   
 
 
 
 
 
In August, the Conference Board of Canada released its summer 2006 aircraft and parts industry report. With the caveat that it was done before the alleged airline bombing plot arrests in the UK, the report predicts double aerospace industry profits in Canada for 2006.

The “good news” report forecasts profits of $802 million in 2006 with profits exceeding $1 billion next year and continuing to rise through 2010. But, can anyone take this to the bank? Louis Thériault, director, Industrial Outlook at the Conference Board of Canada said in a press release that near-record numbers of international travellers in 2005 and continued strong demand in 2006 has invigorated the industry. But on a cautionary note, he went on to say that it is too early to say whether “the threat of terrorism will affect airlines’ longer-term plans to purchase new aircraft.”

And once again, five years after 9/11, there is palpable unease in the air. Since the UK arrests, an Air Canada Jazz regional jet out of Montreal made an unscheduled landing at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, after an unknown and unclaimed package was reported on board; an Excel Airways Boeing 767 made an emergency landing in southern Italy after a bomb scare; the US Air Force was called in to escort a Washington-bound United Airlines flight from London that was diverted to Boston after a confrontation with a passenger; a pair of Dutch F-16s escorted a Northwest Airlines flight bound for India back to Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport after suspicious passenger behaviour; and a flight to New York from Atlanta was diverted to Charlotte, N.C., after a flight attendant found a bottle of water and then smelled something suspicious on the plane.

These were not overreactions. In today’s world, they were rational responses to potential, perceived threats. Aviation has always focused on safety and it is now in the process of focusing on security.

Improved airport screening technologies that include more sophisticated x-ray systems, radio frequency identifying devices, and sensor technology will soon be making their way onto the market. The question of affordability is key. The public expects them, and, in fact, is wondering why they’re not already in place.

In order to move forward, a hard and fast distinction must be drawn between safety and security. Security of person and property is the domain of the state and as such should be fully funded by the state. These costs cannot be borne by airports that will then have to pass these costs on to operators. Philosophically, the principle of “user pays” cannot be applied when it comes to the question of protecting citizens from attack.

Terrorism has focused much of its efforts on aviation, and in particular, commercial aviation. By doing so, it seeks to undermine one of the world’s most dynamic and important economic drivers. Commercial aviation is not a world unto itself. What happens in commercial aviation will ultimately affect all of aviation, and what happens in all of aviation will ultimately have an effect on the entire Canadian economy.