Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
even if an airport opted out, they'd still have to follow the same protocols. so the complainers would have the same complaints.
Actually, they never touch your crotch. The only difference between the new pat down and old pat down is that they use sliding motions. I was trained by the military how to pat down prisoners, detainees and other personnel. TSA's pat down methods are not even close when it comes to the thoroughness of a military pat-down.
Your mileage may vary.
Which begs the question, how many underwear bombs are these pat downs going to find?
I know you're much brighter than what you just posted.
If the bad guys ever come up with a penis-bomb, then I suppose your point is valid. The question was about screeners touching the penis (or at least that's what I assumed). But if you want to get technical, I suppose screeners do touch the area where the leg meets the torso. They do not directly touch the penis.
This is no different than it was when the private contractors were conducting pat downs.
That's two points to you for being picky. I didn't realize how important verbiage was to some folks, so I guess I'll watch what I type so I don't confuse you.
Also, constitutionally the government cannot share any data obtained by tsa with the public at large. In other words, the government is not going to use your "naked" scan to blackmail you. Private companies are not held to the same standards and lawsuits against them regarding privacy violation would be difficult if not impossible.even if an airport opted out, they'd still have to follow the same protocols. so the complainers would have the same complaints.
That is exactly correct. It would still be the exact same procedures and passengers would still have to go to TSA, not the airport, to address complaints. The only difference would be in the style of uniform worn by the screeners and their wages.
Oh yeah, I forgot, one big difference: private screeners can have collective bargaining through their unions, federal screeners cannot.
So, you are happy with people groping your panties as long as they smile while they do it?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.
even if an airport opted out, they'd still have to follow the same protocols. so the complainers would have the same complaints.
Wrong.
The TSA says that any airports that opt out have to meet the same standards, but they cannot dictate the procedures involved. If the airport elects to employ courteous, well trained, professionals to meet those standards there would be a lot fewer complaints because they will not be dealing with bitter, power hungry, goods.
If there are scores of terrorists just waiting for the oppportunity to blow up planes then the answer is YES, DEFINITELY the TSA is cost effective.
However if there are no or very very few terrorists just waiting for the chance to blow up passenger planes then the answer is a resounding NO, TSA is a terribly inefficient use of the money.
So we really cannot know, can we?
So, you are happy with people groping your panties as long as they smile while they do it?even if an airport opted out, they'd still have to follow the same protocols. so the complainers would have the same complaints.
Wrong.
The TSA says that any airports that opt out have to meet the same standards, but they cannot dictate the procedures involved. If the airport elects to employ courteous, well trained, professionals to meet those standards there would be a lot fewer complaints because they will not be dealing with bitter, power hungry, goods.
