The implementation of full-body scanning devices at airports and other travel points of entry appears to be a travel-safety tactic that plays better in Peoria than it does in Paris or Prague, according to findings by the Association of Corporate Travel Executives (ACTE) drawn from a survey of travel managers in the U.S. and abroad.

Nevertheless, there is one thing travel managers in this country and Europe agree on: the use of such machines has to be regarded as just “part of a comprehensive security program.”

Responses from U.S. participants polled (100) and their counterparts in Europe (70) indicated many believe these units were rushed into deployment (seven months) after the Christmas Day terror attempt. Many said that objections to full-body scanning, especially in terms of privacy, are likely to mount as more travelers come into contact with the scanners. Additionally, objections from health-conscious travelers (such as those who want to strictly limit their exposure to x-rays and even microwaves) might rise as time goes on as well.

However, ACTE executive Director Ron DiLeo said: “There is no serious indication that travelers would limit trips based on current exposure levels to this technology.”

U.S. respondents said that 28% of their travelers had expressed concern about having to pass through full-body scanners.

Of those with concerns, 12% said their travelers expressed health concerns regarding x-rays and magnetic beams, 4% said passing through scanners took too long; and 4% said passing through scanners was an invasion of privacy; and 32% said all of the above. The largest number, 48% said “not applicable.”

In Europe, the survey revealed much more concern expressed about passing through full-body scanners. In fact, 45% said their travelers expressed concern about having to pass through full-body scanners.

The Europeans reasons for concern were also more explicit:  10% said that passing through scanners took too long; 20% thought it was an invasion of privacy; 20% expressed health concerns regarding x-rays and magnetic beams and 40% said all of the above. Only 10% said “not applicable.”

When asked which statement most closely reflect your opinion regarding full-body scanners, the answers were more similar.

·         The technology is new and travelers have to get used to it, said 9% of Americans and 10% of Europeans.

·         It’s too soon to tell, said 23% of US respondents and 15% of Europeans;

·         Security officials have to do a better job addressing traveler concerns regarding potential problems with privacy and health issues, said 21% of Americans and 25% of Europeans

·         Full-body scanners should be regarded as part of an overall global security initiative (which has yet to be developed) said 21% of Americans and 25% of Europeans

·         Transportation Security Administration (TSA) rushed these devices into production following the latest security incursion; they require more testing, said 15% of Americans and 25% of Europeans

·         I have no confidence in these full-body scanners, said 11% of Americans and no Europeans.
 
More than half of both sets of respondents (53% of Americans; 60% of Europeans) said the TSA put too much stock in electronic security measures.
 
While Americans didn’t heap glowing praise on the TSA, most considered the TSA's performance to date good or adequate. No one said excellent, 32% said good, 47% said adequate, 19% said less than adequate and 2% said poor.  (Europeans were not asked about TSA performance. )

Opinions are still being formed on the subject of full body scanners. DiLeo noted, “The survey was limited by the number of people who have had the opportunity to pass through a full-body scanner, considering these machines are not yet fully deployed across the nation. The statistics are likely to change as more people are exposed to the technology. For example, 23% claimed it was too soon to tell what impact these devices had on travelers.”

DiLeo also stressed that “approximately a third of the survey's respondents cited multiple reasons (delays, privacy, and health concerns) for their objections to the full-body scanners, objections not likely to be resolved by a quick fix or a fast explanation.”

DiLeo pointed out that Europeans found the issue more clear-cut, with a more even split of travel managers reporting traveler objections to the full-body scanners. He added European travel managers are also more evenly split in their opinions regarding the shortcomings of these devices, indicating there is plenty of room for improvement with the first generation of full-body scanners, in testing and in public awareness regarding potential health issues.

The ACTE chieftain also claimed European travelers are not inclined to simply accept a government statement that they are “safe” without harmful effects and stressed that both European and U.S. travel-manager respondents believe their government security agencies place too much stock in electronic devices.