Skip to main content
Log in

A risk and cost-benefit assessment of United States aviation security measures

  • Published:
Journal of Transportation Security Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper seeks to discover whether aviation security measures are cost-effective by considering their effectiveness, their cost and expected lives saved as a result of such expenditure. An assessment of the Federal Air Marshal Service suggests that the annual cost is $180 million per life saved. This is greatly in excess of the regulatory safety goal (societal willingness to pay to save a life) of $1–$10 million per life saved. As such, the air marshal program fails a cost-benefit analysis. In addition, the opportunity cost of these expenditures is considerable, and it is highly likely that far more lives would have been saved if the money had been invested instead in a wide range of more cost-effective risk mitigation programs. On the other hand, hardening of cockpit doors has an annual cost of only $800,00 per life saved, showing that this is a cost-effective security measure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahrens M (2007) U.S. experience with smoke alarms and other fire detection/alarm equipment. National Fire Protection Association, April 2007

  • Anderson T (2006) Terror may be at bay at port; shipping hubs too vulnerable. The Daily News of Los Angeles, 18 May 2006

  • CRC (2007) Homeland security department: FY2008 appropriations. CRC Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, August 20, 2007

  • FAA (2002) FAA sets new standards for cockpit doors. Federal aviation administration office of public affairs press release, January 11, 2002

  • FAA (2003) Airlines meet FAA’s hardened cockpit door deadline. Federal aviation administration office of public affairs press release, April 2003

  • Gerges FA (2005) The far enemy: why Jihad went global.. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson A (2004) Air marshals cover only a few flights. Washington Times, August 16, 2004

  • Hudson A (2005) Flight marshal numbers disputed, agents criticize data ‘padding’. Washington Times, March 3, 2005

  • John R, Rosoff H (2007) Estimating likelihood of terrorist attacks by modeling terrorist beliefs and motivations, first annual DHS university network summit on research and education, Department of Homeland Security, Washington D.C., March 15–16, 2007

  • Kaye K (2007) More pilots bring guns on flights. South Florida Sun-Sentinel, February 13, 2007

  • Kearney S (2005) Air marshal’s role now VIP security. The Australian, 9 December 2005

  • Kramer M (2004) The perils of counterinsurgency: Russia's war in Chechnya. Int Secur 29(3):5–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little RG (2007) The economic costs and consequences of terrorism. In: (ed) Cost-effective strategies to address urban terrorism: a risk management approach. Edward Elgar, UK, pp 98–115

  • Lott JR (2004) Marshals are good, but armed pilots are better. Wall Street Journal Europe, January 2, 2004

  • Maley P (2008) Overhaul cuts sky marshals by a third. The Australian, January 23, 2008

  • Mandel DR (2005) Are risk assessments of a terrorist attack coherent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 11(4):277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meckler L, Carey S (2007) Sky patrol: U.S. air marshal service navigates turbulent times. Wall Street J, February 9, 2007

  • Meeks BN (2004) For air marshals, less equals more. MSNBC, September 15, 2004

  • Melchers RE (2001) On the ALARP approach to risk management. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:201–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller J (2002) Harbinger or aberration? Natl Interest, 45–50, Fall

  • Mueller J (2006) Overblow: how politicians and the terrorism industry inflate national security threats, and why we believe them. Free, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy P, Hudson P (2003) Heroes foil Qantas hijack attack. The Age, May 30, 2003

  • Paté-Cornell ME (1994) Quantitative safety goals for risk management of industrial facilities. Struct Saf 13:145–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paté-Cornell ME, Guikema S (2002) Probabilistic modeling of terrorist threats: a systems analysis approach to setting priorities among counter-measures. Mil Oper Res 7(4):5–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Plum MM et al (2004) Novel threat-risk index using probabilistic risk assessment and human reliability analysis, Report No. INEEL/EXT-03-0111, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, February 2004

  • Poe T (2005) Department of homeland security appropriations Act, 2006: Amendment No. 10. House of Representatives, May 17, 2005

  • Prentice BE (2008) Tangible and intangible benefits of transportation security measures. Journal of Transport Security 1(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid SR (2000) Acceptable risk criteria. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2:254–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler T, Enders W (2005) The economic impact of terrorist attacks. In: (ed) Transnational terrorism: an economic analysis. Elgar, UK, pp 11–34

  • Schneier B (2006) Beyond fear: thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. Copernicus, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitz R (2004) Weaker than we think: Al-Qaeda may have already fired its best shot. American Conservative, December 6, 2004.

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith P (2007) The airport security follies. nytimes.com 28 December 2007

  • Stewart MG (2007) Life safety risks and optimisation of protective measures for terrorist threats to built infrastructure. International forum on engineering decision making: optimal strategies for disaster and hazard mitigation. Sydney University Press, pp 19–30

  • Stewart MG (2008) Cost-effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for protection of buildings against terrorist attack. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers 22(2):115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart MG, Melchers RE (1997) Probabilistic risk assessment of engineering systems. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart MG, Mueller J (2008a) Assessing the costs and benefits of United States homeland security spending, Research Report No. 265.04.08, Centre for infrastructure performance and reliability, The University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, April 2008

  • Stewart MG and Mueller J (2008b) A Cost-Benefit and Risk Assessment of Australian Aviation Security Measures, Security Challenges, (in press)

  • Tengs TO, Graham JD (1996) In: (ed) The opportunity costs of haphazard social investments in life-saving. Risks, costs, and lives saved: getting better results from regulation.. American Enterprise Institute, Washington, pp 167–182

  • Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS et al (1995) Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 15(3):369–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi WK (2000) The value of life in legal contexts: survey and critique. Am Law Econ Rev 2(1):195–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Zycher B (2003) A preliminary benefit/cost framework for counterterrorism public expenditures. RAND, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of this work was undertaken while the first author was a visiting scholar at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University. He greatly appreciates the assistance and financial support of the Mershon Center. The first author also appreciates the financial support of the Australian Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark G. Stewart.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stewart, M.G., Mueller, J. A risk and cost-benefit assessment of United States aviation security measures. J Transp Secur 1, 143–159 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-008-0013-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12198-008-0013-0

Keywords

Navigation