BA May Demonstrate Competitive Advantage of Perceived Safety

'One level of security' may not be what the flying public wants. Not only does the government-mandated program not allow for deviation (thus making the system's weaknesses easier to exploit), a government-mandated minimum is just that -- a minimum -- and it covers only what the government thinks is important, often driven by political favors that need to be repaid.

Competition to provide 'the safest' airline may prove to be a better solution. Airlines can use expert advice to see just what threats are most-likely, and which countermeasures are most-likely to thwart them, leading to efficiencies unheard-of in government programs, while having the added benefit of confusing terrorists, who can't possibly learn each airline's systems.

As we told you Saturday, British Airways, the largest airline outside the US, is now considering adding anti-missile technology to selected aircraft. Reporters were told by an airline spokesperson that BA is talking with both Boeing and Airbus about what such installations would take.

The industry is becoming increasingly aware of the threat that (particularly) small, portable shoulder-fired missiles could pose to passenger flights. Last year, in Kenya, such a missile missed an Israeli airliner; this year, several people have been caught with these weapons, most-recently, an August arrest of suspected smugglers in the USA.

Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, last week warned of the threat, as well. BA did in fact stop flying to Saudi Arabia in the wake of an alleged plot to take down an airliner there; it resumed its service to the oil-rich nation just last Friday.

Just what technologies BA is considering have not been made public; therefore, estimates of costs, deliveries and implementation dates would be purely speculative.

The additional equipment -- for detection as well as for deployment -- is readily-available in military applications; but several obstacles prevent 'bolt-on' implementation: military equipment is generally not available to civilian markets; its life is generally shorter than airline applications would demand; its calibration and sensitivity can also be issues -- a Rafale, for instance, has a radically different mission than an A340 does. Colateral considerations -- microwave emissions, for instance -- can also pose health hazards when some military equipment is used outside its intended arena. Some military protocols -- IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe), for instance -- are unnecessary for airliner technology, where anything would naturally be considered "foe" rather than "friend."

If BA is succesful, though, in achieving even the public relations coup that such an anti-missile system could signal, its competitive advantage in the market could be considerable: who would want to fly on the "unprotected" competition?

FMI: www.britishairways.com