Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
This is an argument filled with revolving mirrors.
The airlines already had the opportunity to fund their own airport security. In 2001, the average airport security screeners earned minimum wage or pennies above minimum wage. The technology airport security screeners used were obsolete. There was no uniform standard of screening performance; there was no true oversight by the federal government. The Department of Transportation conducted infrequent inspections that were oriented towards administrative procedures rather than screening performance. In other words, it didn't matter how well a screener performed; it didn't matter if the screener had high absenteeism; it didn't matter if the screener was a US citizen. However, if the files weren't straight, then there was hell to pay.
I'm not saying that TSA is the solution, but it is a step towards the right direction. TSA screeners have to qualify for the job and they have to stay qualified. No other government agency tests their employees as frequently as the TSA. If a screener fails to qualify during an annual certification test, that screener is terminated for cause. In other government jobs, federal employees can fight this type of termination; TSOs cannot. It is a condition in their contract; it is part of the law passed by Congress.
As for technology, look to Congress for that. TSA is powerless to introduce new technologies. Only Congress can fund any new technologies or improvements to existing technologies. As for the technology itself, the x-ray machines, walk-through metal detectors, hand held metal detectors, baggage screening x-rays and explosive detectors are all much needed steps towards the right direction that would not have been possible under pre-9/11 conditions. As a general rule, corporations are very stingy when it comes to spending any money towards security and tend to take the cheapest route possible.
Procedures are the only problem I have with TSA. I think TSA has plenty of room for improvement in that area. I understand the concept of body scanning, but I believe TSA should exercise more common sense. The problem with the airlines is that they tend to sacrifice security for customer satisfaction. In other words, airlines tend to take the path of least resistance even when security procedures require more scrutiny. This was the type of security that was in place pre-9/11. TSA's decisions are more closely tied in with law enforcement and other federal agencies; although there certainly is room for improvement. Airline decisions were based on whether or not risking pissing off a paying customer. That makes for a serious weakness in security.
The final aspect is cost. It's a smoke and mirrors argument. I predict that airlines won't flock to private security because doing so will cost them more. It is cheaper for the airlines to allow TSA to absorb all the costs. Otherwise, if the airlines go with private security, the private contractor screeners will have to meet the exact same hiring qualifications as TSA, will have to undergo the exact same training as TSA, will have to be paid a wage that is competitive with TSA wages, will have to re-qualify every year just like TSA, will have to implement the exact same screening procedures as TSA.
Why would the airlines want to inherit this headache?
I am always amazed how people can predict the future.
The odds of airlines opting out of TSA screenings is exactly 0.0% because the airlines do not have a choice. The odds of airports opting out are higher, in fact, it has already begun.
OK, airlines/airports, I used the terms interchangeably, you win for being picky.
Which airports have opted out? The small category IV airports which are cost ineffective for TSA. These are the airports that TSA has encouraged to opt out and go private because it is more cost efficient. The reason they are cost efficient is because these are either seasonal airports or airports with one or two daily flights.
I don't believe any of the major airports will opt out, especially the category X or category I airports (major and minor hub airports). For them, it is simply not good business sense.
Pointing out the difference between an airport and an airline is being picky? If you say so.
Orlando Sanford International Airport Opts Out from TSA Screening | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul