This paper examines how Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) responded to the security challenges posed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It analyzes DFW's immediate crisis communications, the specific security measures implemented beyond FAA mandates, the financial impacts including budget cuts and proposed passenger fee increases, and ongoing capital development concerns such as the controversy over Terminal D's proximity to a radar approach control facility. The paper also explores emerging technologies like facial recognition software and the airport's efforts to balance heightened security requirements with its longstanding commitment to customer service and operational efficiency.
"Dallas/Fort Worth Airport initiated some big changes in 2000, changes that will make air travel safer, easier and more convenient for our customers and make getting around inside the Airport quicker and simpler — improvements that will serve the needs of our customers well into the 21st Century."
What a difference a year can make. In 2000, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport was most concerned with providing "world-class service and amenities." Since declaring that intent in their 2000 Annual Report, released to the public in early 2001, safety and security issues have come out of the shadows. In the wake of September 11, 2001, airport officials, the traveling public, the media, the industry, and the government have all struggled to reassess the role of security and to incorporate stricter rules into daily life.
Immediately after the events of September 11, DFW officials did an outstanding job of communicating with the public and transforming the airport into a secure and reassuring environment for the 61 million travelers passing through it every year. A total of 22 press releases — including 6 addresses from senior management — were issued between September 11 and the end of that month. While this pace declined in subsequent months, it had not yet returned to the pre-September rate of roughly two press releases per month. The emphasis on frequent and open communication apparently had a positive effect, as travelers began returning to Dallas skies in greater numbers than projected. DFW and American Airlines recently announced the addition of 21 nonstop daily flights between April and June 2002.
As important as communication is, it must be backed up with concrete action to yield these kinds of results. Some of the steps DFW took in September to improve security included:
At the same time it was implementing these and other enhanced security measures, the airport was adjusting its annual budget. A $4.5 million loss was projected for fiscal year 2001, which ended September 30. To cover the shortfall, an immediate budget cut of $10 million was made as part of a contingency plan. Ongoing capital development plans, however, remained in progress and on budget. The airport is in the first stage of a Capital Development Program projected to cost $2.6 billion and take five years to complete.
Among the capital developments continuing as planned were the construction of a new terminal (Terminal D) and an Automated People Mover. Terminal D has been referred to as the "Crown Jewel" of the Capital Development Program. This 2-million-square-foot terminal — featuring 23 wide-body swing gates, 120 ticketing positions, a Federal Customs Inspection Facility capable of processing 2,800 passengers per hour, and an integrated hotel — is scheduled for completion in 2005. It has raised security questions since the planning stages, and the concern is not so much what will happen inside the terminal, but what is happening outside it.
An elevated access road planned for the new terminal would pass within 20 feet of a terminal radar approach control facility. That facility handles 4,300 to 5,000 aircraft arriving or departing DFW, Love Field, and other smaller regional airports. According to an FAA-commissioned report, the facility could be largely destroyed by detonating a 1,000-pound truck bomb on the road. Stating that other changes to the project would enhance security and that surveillance cameras placed along the road — which will be designated a no-stopping, no-standing, and no-parking zone — constitute sufficient precautions, the FAA approved the road over the objections of air traffic controllers. The controllers had supported construction of a large blast wall, even though it would offer only limited protection, carry a substantial cost (DFW already plans to spend approximately $1 million per day on Capital Development Program projects), and occupy land intended for other uses.
The airport has since taken steps such as removing signs pointing to the facility, building a smaller blast wall, and reinforcing the windows and wall panels of the roadside portion of the facility. The dispute among the FAA, air traffic controllers, and DFW illustrates the complexity of issues that the industry, the government, and the public will have to face in the coming years as they try to balance heightened security concerns, tighter regulations, and convenience. In this instance, the compromise solution is probably a reasonable one — by all accounts, none of the parties are completely satisfied with it.
"Badge checks, access doors, and police deployment"
"Fee increases and bomb detection spending plans"
"Facial recognition, efficiency goals, and lasting commitment"
You’re 39% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.