Homeland Security

I am Bill Jennings, Executive Director of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority and I am honored to appear before the Aviation Subcommittee today.

I would first like to take this opportunity to welcome you to the Orlando International Airport and to thank you for choosing to conduct this Congressional hearing at our Airport.  As a matter of background, for 2001, this Airport was the 15^th busiest in the U.S. as measured in total annual passengers and the 5^th busiest (behind Atlanta) as measured by annual origin and destination ("O&D") passengers.  This latter ranking has a direct bearing on many of the issues I will address today since it is primarily the airport's O&D passengers that influence the size of its passenger screening check points and passenger check-in facilities.

In preparing for my remarks on the topic of "Federalization of Aviation Security", I have separated my comments into three areas:

1.     TSA Role and Relationships with the Airport

2.     Passenger Screening Checkpoints

3.     100% Checked Baggage Screening

First, I will open with a few remarks about the Airport's relationship with the TSA and its contractors.  Despite what at times had been a bumpy relationship, the cooperation and efforts of the TSA and its contractors have improved.  However, a focus on security and customer service issues must continue.  These issues are critical to the travelling public and the industry as a whole.

Second, let me briefly review the matter of federalizing passenger screening checkpoints.  On July 29, the TSA and its employees took over operations of this terminal's east screening check-point.  On September 9, the TSA took over operation of the west check-point.  In general, the transition has been relatively smooth but there have clearly been transition issues as the new TSA workforce moves into the respective check point areas.  My staff has worked closely with the TSA and their consultants to reconfigure and expand the existing passenger screening check-points to meet changing operational issues.  Expansion of the east and west passenger screening check-points will serve to reduce many of these problems as will the hiring of adequate numbers of trained TSA staff.  The reconfiguration and expansion projects are underway and are estimated to be completed in November 2002.

Next, I would like to address the issues surrounding the deployment of 100% baggage screening equipment.

Following the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act in November 2001, this Airport began to evaluate a series of alternatives throughout our terminal regarding the placement of Explosive Detection Systems ("EDS").  Like most airports, our options to retrofit our terminal with dozens of SUV sized EDS units were limited and not without problems.  At first, the use of Explosive Trace Detection ("ETD") equipment was not understood to be an available option.  The focus was on only using only EDS equipment.  Also, in order to resolve alarms in checked baggage, it was the common understanding at that time that the passenger would be present with the TSA to open baggage in order to resolve alarms.  On this basis, we moved forward with concepts that favored placing EDS in close proximity to the ticketing area in a way that could most reasonably facilitate passenger and alarm resolution. 

By the spring, TSA began to consider alterations to this premise in favor of a more quickly deployed alternative that could include a combination of EDS and ETD equipment.  It became more evident that implementing an integrated EDS solution would likely become a second phase after first meeting the December 31, 2002 deadline with a more labor intensive EDS/ETD solution.  This Airport then adapted its plan to focus on a phase 1 plan that could be implemented to meet a year-end deadline and quickly transition into a permanent integrated baggage screening solution.  At this time, it still seemed to be probable that EDS equipment would be optimally placed near ticketing areas.  In the case of this airport, that led us to an option to place EDS equipment in the office space behind airline ticket counters.  This plan was first shared with Raytheon and then later Boeing and in large part was adopted as our phase 1 plan now under final review by the TSA.  Changes to that plan, specifically the placement of ETD equipment at or near airline ticket counters, have drawn a strong negative reaction from many airlines.  At the center of their concerns are issues regarding use of ETD equipment and passenger flow and crowding in the airline ticketing lobby area.  Only the proper modeling and simulation of this element of the plan will satisfy both airport and airline concerns over the proper placement and use of ETD units.  This modeling is not yet complete but is expected to be completed soon.

At this juncture, there are several additional points I need to share with the Subcommittee.  First, it should be understood that any airport's phase 1 solution for 100% baggage screening that heavily relies on ETD equipment will result in the hiring of TSA staff with a short tenure.  In the case of the Orlando International Airport, there are proposed to be approximately 186 ETD units and approximately 800 ETD operators.  If phase 2, an integrated baggage screening solution, is implemented within approximately one year of the current deadline, then most of those employees will give way to more automated EDS based baggage screening systems.  Second, now that alarm resolution no longer needs to occur with the passenger and bag present, this direction then opens up alternatives to airports to centralize baggage screening in areas not readily accessible to the public.  For the Orlando International Airport and the TSA, a centralized 100% baggage screening solution will require less staffing and equipment.

We have learned recently that the TSA has approved such a plan for the Atlanta airport that will construct two centralized baggage screening systems.  This clearly appears to be a good decision for Atlanta.  It will require one additional year to complete beyond the current deadline and allow alarm resolution without the passenger being present.  Recall that Orlando and Atlanta are numbers 4 and 5 on the list of the five busiest O&D airports in the country.  I recommend that the TSA apply similar reasoning to Orlando and other Cat X airports and work quickly to proceed directly to a centralized solution that will result in labor, equipment and cost efficiencies to the TSA and achieve far greater convenience to the flying public.  The ability to enhance security at a significant cost savings to the TSA and taxpayers should be examined closely and I urge Congress and the TSA to do so.

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today and am available to answer any additional questions.