The US Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) new requirements for enhanced measures related to personal electronic devices (PEDs) are now fully in swing in a range of last point of departure (LPD) airports globally. As a result, TSA has rolled back a full PED ban previously imposed on airlines operating from select Middle Eastern locations.
A quick recap of the last six months: TSA first issued a PED ban for select locations, hinting that computed tomography or CT systems at checkpoint could allow electronics to fly. US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kelly then spoke of a full ban for airlines inbound from foreign locations. Finally, the ban was turned off and airlines and airports hustled to implement additional security procedures with existing and available technology.
For detection technology solution providers, this uncertainty must be incredibly confusing. Having written two prior blog entries on the topic for regulators and security operators, this final entry focuses on considerations for technology providers as they grapple with an ever-changing landscape.
- Leave the Lab, Go Political
When the White House and DHS/TSA spoke of possibly banning PEDs, the airlines and airports organized and proactively engaged with the United States government at all levels to outline the negative impact a ban would have on US carriers, the US economy, and the travelling public. The airline and airport associations had a clear and direct message, with regular engagement at the highest levels of government to ward off a potentially damaging situation.
Where were the technology providers? I would bet most technology providers were behind closed doors working to convince TSA how their individual solution(s) could best mitigate the threat in the near term. Or, perhaps many technology providers were investing time commenting on airline or airport proposals to TSA.
Bottom line: Nerdy technical discussions do not float up to the US Secretary of Homeland Security. If technology providers want to push Congress and the White House to commit to more near-term funding and to deployment of upgraded technologies, they must articulate a message and tap into high-level political channels well beyond their comfort zone.
- Know Your Allies
Airlines want airports globally to do more in expediting security processes and driving a seamless experience for their customers. We have seen some of this over the last year with several US airlines purchasing aviation security technology for use in US airports and spearheading major trials. In fact, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) launched the Smart Security initiative with these objectives in mind, later partnering with Airports Council International (ACI).
It would behoove technology providers to link arms with the airline community in situations like the threatened PED ban. By clearly explaining to airlines the capabilities in the market and the key detection tradeoffs among different options, technology providers could very likely gain support from airlines in their approach and possibly win an advocate in lobbying DHS/TSA. In addition, enhanced dialogue as a group of technology providers with the airlines would enhance longer-term collaboration to drive government funding for the development and deployment of more effective and efficient solutions.
- Know There’s a Limited Window of Opportunity
Even though the new PED measures may prove incredibly cumbersome over the next five months, operators and the travelling public will eventually get used to them (e.g., liquids ban). Foreign airports will identify a way to return the operation as close as possible to its baseline level of efficiency. As a result, the burning platform will disappear. While the intel is fresh and the threat is top of mind, technology providers have a limited window of opportunity to rally potential advocates around the testing and deployment of next-generation cabin baggage screening systems at checkpoints, both inside and outside the US.
- Create a Business Case Over Detection
Technology providers must engage with relevant non-US airports to deeply understand the impact of the enhanced security measures on total security costs. Only with this information can technology providers determine how different and/or new technology could be of interest in the short and long term. Airports are not overly impressed by the detection benefit of one technology over another. Rather, they want to understand how they can remain compliant with requirements, while maximizing operational efficiency and customer experience. If two technologies (e.g., explosive trace detection or ETD vs. CT at checkpoint) address the same requirement, decision-making for most airports will revolve around cost and sustainability.
Crafting the optimal product roadmap and investment strategy as a detection technology solution provider is far from exact. Situations like the recent threatened PED ban, and an uncertainty as to what will come next, further underscore this challenge.
One thing is certain: Both good and bad products will reach the field. However, only by them reaching the field will we know into which category they fall.
We hope airports and airlines will collect robust data to understand the impact of the recent measures. Similarly, one can wish the community will continue to expedite paid carry-on screening technology trials in operational environments to analyze performance. Lastly, governments will hopefully increase funding for AVSEC technology R&D. Together, these activities will allow the community to make more informed decisions around PEDs and to understand how security measures will evolve in the years to come.
