Like most of you, I try to read news items that might have any effect on my business travel. So as I scanned a recent article in USA Today referencing Homeland Security’s test of an anti-missile device on commercial aircraft, it seemed relevant. Well, as it turns out, it was as relevant as the PFC’s that shroud my airfares.

The article pointed out that Homeland Security was spending $29 million to test this device on three American Airlines aircraft. So far, so good as the idea seems reasonable. After all, I remember up close and personal the missile scare at London Heathrow in 2003 (and it’s a pretty unsettling feeling to think someone is pointing at you with something more than their index finger). Good news to know … until I kept reading and something just was not adding up. Later in the same article, Burt Keirstead, director of commercial aircraft protection for BEA Systems (the company awarded the contract) is said to say that the systems could be installed for somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million per plane. OK, my consumer radar starts to perk up after reading that comment. Uh, with 3 test planes, the company itself says the device will cost between $1.5 million and $3 million total (use the same math as me) and yet Homeland is spending $29 million on the contract? I want to know what’s with the roughly 90% margin. Now, another comment in the article mentions that it is unclear how much it would cost to maintain the system. Maybe it’s me, but if I had to replace the entire device more than once at it’s full original cost, it’s not a product I am going to be trusting to keep a heat seeking missile off my butt. So at most, I’m in this test at $6 million. OK, we’re down to an 80% margin. Hey, I value my life as much as the next passenger, but I’m thinking we aren’t even into this test and it’s more about profiteering than security.

Furthermore, he article says “The Defense Department uses laser-jamming technology on its planes, but using the systems on commercial airliners is much more controversial because of concerns about cost and maintenance. “If this is going to break down every other month vs. every fifth year, obviously that’s a big, big difference,” says Jim Tuttle of the Homeland Security Department’s Science and Technology division.” These comments and observation brings me to another round of bright thinking. If the Defense Department already uses the technology, then why the heck shouldn’t we use that? It would seem to me that if it works, and as well, I’d think they have tested it many times to date, then isn’t it better to extend that same proven technology than to start all over because the Homeland Security is a different budget and different part of the Federal Government? Again, if the Defense Department uses the technology, should we not already know the cost and maintenance of the program? Heck, I’ve watched enough of those Top Gun movies to know that that laser-jamming stuff saves the good guys most of the time.

I just don’t know. I began to read the article to stay up on news that could effect my business travel and ended up with another lesson in what seems to be profit margins from Federal contracts, an uneasy feeling that no one seems to know if it works and how well and yes, another reminder that being safe as a traveler is a personal kind of thing.

But all the economics and other technology topics aside, what really made me chuckle was the statement that “officials emphasize that no missiles will be test-fired at the planes…” My final question, do the bad guys know this?