Fact Sheet: Security

• Global aviation security continues to evolve and improve
• Lack of coordination among regulators has resulted in reduced efficiency, greater costs to government and industry, supply chain interruptions and passenger dissatisfaction. Regulators, airlines and manufacturers need to work together to develop smarter and faster next-generation aviation security measures for airline passengers, industry employees and the cargo supply chain
• Governments can enhance the effectiveness of aviation security regulations by
• Ensuring compatibility with infrastructure and business processes
• Adapting to emerging threats, expected passenger numbers and cargo volumes
• Risk-based approach to aviation security will enable focus on bad people and bad things
• Risk- based approach also applies to screening of cargo and building secure supply chains
• IATA and industry stakeholders are working to define risk-managed approaches for security and facilitation by promoting:
• A roadmap to a Checkpoint of the Future
• Use of data to enable passenger differentiation
• Increased use of technology
• Repurposed checkpoints in the short to mid-term
• Secure Freight to strenghten the supply chain for cargo

Annual Industry Security Costs

• Aviation security is inherently a government function yet airlines pay in excess of $8.55 billion per year in security related costs
• Industry incurs the costs of
• Redundant security requirements
• Increased data collection and transmission
• Air marshals and air security officer programs
• Capital expenditures
• Inspections, audits, new procedures
• Security related delays and diversions
• Governments continue to view aviation security as a revenue source, evidenced by recent US proposals for additional tax on passengers and airlines

Advance Passenger Information

• Advance Passenger Information (API) refers to passenger data (usually biographic information from a passport) transferred from the airline to a government authority
• This is required by many governments for security, immigration and customs purposes
• The cost of transferring data to authorities is approximately $14 per flight or more than $100 million annually. Furthermore, some countries (Canada, Qatar) are now charging airlines a fee in order to transmit API data that these countries require
• International standards and guidelines are published by the World Customs Organization (WCO), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and IATA, but not all regulators accept the standard format
• New or differing requirements add to already significant development costs for airlines
• Passengers and airlines need governments to harmonize requirements, eliminate duplication and use internationally agreed upon standards

Passenger Name Records

• Many governments require access to Passenger Name Record (PNR) reservation data
• PNR can contain sensitive personal data, raising data protection and privacy concerns
• Bilateral agreements on the provision of PNR data have been reached between the EU, the US and several other key countries
• IATA developed a standard format for PNR data to encourage harmonization and reduce costs

Checkpoint of the Future

• Current screening is based on a 40-year old paradigm: finding metal objects to prevent hijackings
• Checkpoints are showing their age: throughput rates are falling, and can’t handle forecast growth in traffic
• Industry is developing a vision for an airport Checkpoint of the Future (CoF):
• Focuses on finding “bad people” vs. “bad things;” and replaces the “one size fits all” model with risk-based screening 
• Improves security while reducing costs, increasing efficiency, passenger experience
• Use information already provided to governments for customs and immigration purposes to segment passengers for screening according to what is known about them
• Does not involve profiling by race, religion, etc. Passenger information is already being used for customs and immigration 
• Random element to prevent predictability
• Roadmap envisions evolving today’s checkpoint via a three-stage approach:
• The 2014 model will focus on differentiated, less intrusive screening, shorter wait times, and technology and process improvements 
• The 2017 stage adds data-driven risk assessment with Identity authentication and verification. Less divesting of clothes, computers
• By 2020 the fully realized CoF is deployed with stand-off screening and risk-analysis enabling a seamless journey without removing items of clothing or unpacking carry-on luggage
• Component testing began in 2012 and will continue in 2013
• First generation Checkpoint of the Future to be deployed in 2014
• For more information: Checkpoint of the Future

Security Management Systems (SeMS)

• IATA’s SeMS provides airlines with a risk-based framework to create a security culture
• 243 IATA member airlines and 129 non-IATA airlines have implemented SeMS
• The IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) includes SeMS
• Regulators are increasingly making SeMS part of national aviation security policy
• Bahrain, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mexico, Panama, Syria and Turkey have mandated IOSA and the SeMS core elements

One-Stop Security

• One-Stop security promotes the concept that passengers and baggage do not need to be re-screened at a connecting airport if they were screened appropriately at their airport of origin
• One-Stop Security enhances passenger facilitation and reduces costly duplicative measures while maintaining security, and is allowed under ICAO Annex 17
• IATA is encouraging governments to recognize other countries’ measures to enable One-Stop security
• To do that governments need to:
• Receive assurance of adequate screening at point of origin
• Exchange information and improve collaboration
• One-Stop Security is operating domestically in some countries (US, Canada) and within the EU with some exceptions, most notably the UK and Ireland
• Since 2011 the EU also allows One-Stop security to passengers and baggage arriving from the US, and negotiations have started with Canada
• In 2012 Panama and El Salvador agreed to test a one-stop security system by validating the security measures in place in other countries

Secure Freight

• Regulators, manufacturers and freight forwarders share responsibility with airlines for creating a secure and trusted air cargo supply chain
• IATA is working to enhance supply chain integrity with its Secure Freight program which was launched in 2008
• Secure Freight aims to secure cargo supply chains by defining, auditing, and registering secure operators that act in conformance with a quality assurance system
• IATA is developing international security accreditation standards and a security audit for supply chain operators in a manner similar to the IATA Safety Audit for Ground Operators (ISAGO)
• IATA plans to achieve regulatory recognition by working collaboratively with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which has expressed support in principle for the project
• It is now being implemented in Malaysia. Ongoing pilots in Chile, Kenya, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Australia and the UK have formally acknowledged the Secure Freight guidance material and the value proposition to developing and emerging states 

Liquids, Aerosols and Gels (LAG)

• The threat of liquid explosives is real
• IATA believes that the LAGs restrictions should be lifted but:
• Artificial political or bureaucratic timelines should not drive process
• Must be a globally coordinated effort
• echnology needs to support decisions

Cargo Security

• Response to the October 2010 attempted cargo attack led to poorly thought out short-term measures
• IATA expended extensive resources to mitigate economic and operational impact to member airlines
• IATA supports
• Supply chain security to move inspection of cargo away from the airports
• Global harmonization of cargo security measures, under ICAO leadership
• Better screening technology
• IATA’s e-freight and Secure Freight programs must be taken into account by governments
• Historic agreement achieved in June 2012 when the US and EU plus Switzerland agreed to recognize each other’s air cargo security programs. US and Canada reached a similar agreement as well

 Updated December 2012