Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Associated Press: TSA to allow Orlando-Sanford (SFB) Airport to use private screeners

Some news out of Florida today:

The Associated Press (posted on Miami Herald's website):
TSA to allow airport to use private screeners
Posted on Monday, 06.11.12 (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/11/2844191/tsa-to-allow-airport-to-use-private.html)

A short quote:

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Transportation Security Administration will allow Orlando Sanford International Airport to opt out of using only federal agents for security screening.

TSA made the announcement Monday, which will allow the airport to go forward with changing to private security operations under federal supervision. The agency previously denied Sanford's application.

Step one: Privatize airport security under TSA guidelines.

Step two: Replace all current screeners and supervisors with military veterans returning home. Not only are you getting people infinitely more qualified to actually provide a layer of security instead of a layer of stupidity, but you're taking jobs away from the pizza-box dwellers and giving them to those who've truly earned them.

Step three: Increase passenger safety and satisfaction. Save billions of dollars.

Step two: Replace all current screeners and supervisors with military veterans returning home. Not only are you getting people infinitely more qualified to actually provide a layer of security instead of a layer of stupidity, but you're taking jobs away from the pizza-box dwellers and giving them to those who've truly earned them.

I'm all in favor of supporting our veterans ...

... but securing an airport checkpoint is qualitatively different from securing an honest-to-goodness war zone. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the skills learned on a battlefield would automatically translate to an airport checkpoint. (After all, someone once said that the chief job of the military is to kill people and break stuff ... neither of which should be happening at a checkpoint on a regular basis ...)

OP wasn't it enough that you started this thread back in March? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1324472-orlando-sanford-sfb-files-paperwork-replace-tsa-private-screeners.html :rolleyes:

Step two: Replace all current screeners and supervisors with military veterans returning home. Not only are you getting people infinitely more qualified to actually provide a layer of security instead of a layer of stupidity, but you're taking jobs away from the pizza-box dwellers and giving them to those who've truly earned them.

That would be a huge insult to our veterans. They deserve better than working for airport security. Besides, it would hurt the image of the military if any employees engaged in inappropriate actions.

OP wasn't it enough that you started this thread back in March? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1324472-orlando-sanford-sfb-files-paperwork-replace-tsa-private-screeners.html :rolleyes:

The paperwork was approved-- that is news. If you think a thread is a duplicate and should be merged into another thread, you can always use the RBP button.

That would be a huge insult to our veterans. They deserve better than working for airport security. Besides, it would hurt the image of the military if any employees engaged in inappropriate actions.

Many veterans come home to no job at all. I think the bigger insult to them is that they sit unemployed while GED-toting career failures hired off a pizza box are tasked with securing air travel.

The paperwork was approved-- that is news. If you think a thread is a duplicate and should be merged into another thread, you can always use the RBP button.

No, he don't have to push RBP. Just leave behind for now.

I'm all in favor of supporting our veterans ...

... but securing an airport checkpoint is qualitatively different from securing an honest-to-goodness war zone. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the skills learned on a battlefield would automatically translate to an airport checkpoint. (After all, someone once said that the chief job of the military is to kill people and break stuff ... neither of which should be happening at a checkpoint on a regular basis ...)
But a veteran has at the very least proven that they have a degree of discipline and are able to be trained. Beyond opening a pizza box, that is.

But a veteran has at the very least proven that they have a degree of discipline and are able to be trained. Beyond opening a pizza box, that is.

Many (if not most) TSOs exhibit the same ability.

And furthermore, some of the offenses that people complain the most about regarding TSOs could be characterized as militaristic attitudes (e.g. barking at passengers, verbal aggression, demands of unquestioning obedience). A veteran might be more likely to bring those attitudes into their work as a TSO in inappropriate ways.

All I'm saying is ... being good at one job doesn't automatically make you good at an unrelated job. Serving in the infantry and serving as an airport screener are largely unrelated jobs.

Many (if not most) TSOs exhibit the same ability.

And furthermore, some of the offenses that people complain the most about regarding TSOs could be characterized as militaristic attitudes (e.g. barking at passengers, verbal aggression, demands of unquestioning obedience). A veteran might be more likely to bring those attitudes into their work as a TSO in inappropriate ways.

All I'm saying is ... being good at one job doesn't automatically make you good at an unrelated job. Serving in the infantry and serving as an airport screener are largely unrelated jobs.
So you would rather have pizza box applicants?

Serving as an banking executive and serving as a TSAer are largely unrelated. Armed forces vet and TSAer are not. Both are charged with protecting the country.

So you would rather have pizza box applicants?


Lovely non-sequitur there. :rolleyes:

But if you're going to go there, let me point this out. The US Army recruits on pizza boxes, too:

http://duranads.com/Seattle_ARMY_Greg_9-8.gif

Yet we seem to hold these pizza-box-ad-responders in higher respect than those who respond to pizza-box-ads from TSA.

My point: I'm not concerned about where someone finds out about a job. I'm concerned about whether or not they're qualified to do the job. The previous job held may, or may not, have any relevance to that question.


Serving as an banking executive and serving as a TSAer are largely unrelated. Armed forces vet and TSAer are not. Both are charged with protecting the country.

But in completely different ways.

The vast majority of TSOs are not trained in the use of firearms in order to perform their duties, because it's not relevant. All members of the armed forces are trained in the use of firearms, because it's directly relevant. (They are "armed" forces, of course.) The missions are different; consequently, the means used to accomplish those missions are different.

And one could easily argue that banking executives also have a charge to protect our country. Banks are subjected to a host of regulations in the name of "homeland security". (Their effectiveness or appropriateness is, of course, a debate for another forum.)

Again, back to my point: prior experience in an unrelated job does not, a priori, make one qualified for the next job.

Again, back to my point: prior experience in an unrelated job does not, a priori, make one qualified for the next job.

And prior experience in some jobs is a disqualified for certain future jobs.

Like being a convicted heroin dealer is an immediate and prejudicial disqualifier for being a pharmacy technician - or being a TSA employee is a disqualifier for any job that requires ethics.

And prior experience in some jobs is a disqualified for certain future jobs.

Like being a convicted heroin dealer is an immediate and prejudicial disqualifier for being a pharmacy technician - or being a TSA employee is a disqualifier for any job that requires ethics.

We're drifting from the point.

Up-thread, T.J. Bender said that he'd replace all TSA screeners and supervisors with returning armed forces veterans, because they would be "infinitely more qualified". I don't think that conclusion follows as naturally as one might expect.

Up-thread, T.J. Bender said that he'd replace all TSA screeners and supervisors with returning armed forces veterans, because they would be "infinitely more qualified". I don't think that conclusion follows as naturally as one might expect.

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It's only the veterans of affairs like Abu Ghraib that I'd expect to end up in the TSA.

But if you're going to go there, let me point this out. The US Army recruits on pizza boxes, too:

http://duranads.com/Seattle_ARMY_Greg_9-8.gif

Wow -- I thought the misspelling of "Multiply" was photoshopped, but the actual pizza box in the picture (posted on duranAds.com) really has that misspelling printed on it.

The Transportation Security Administration has given preliminary approval to a plan that would allow Orlando Sanford International Airport to use private security screeners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/tsa-tentatively-okays-private-screeners-in-orlando/2012/06/16/gJQAceuehV_blog.html

RatherBeOnATrain beat you by about a week ;)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1355677-associated-press-tsa-allow-orlando-sanford-sfb-airport-use-private-screeners.html

RatherBeOnATrain beat you by about a week ;)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1355677-associated-press-tsa-allow-orlando-sanford-sfb-airport-use-private-screeners.html

Thanks. ^ I'll alert the mods. I'd missed it here and the link I posted is dated today and on Drudge.

By the way, Mrs. Fredd and I were seated in a restaurant area near gates 70-71 right next to a "Team San Francisco" check point a couple of weeks ago. We could clearly see and hear a trainer haranguing his troops that the "TSA would like any excuse to get rid of us" and urging them to redouble their efforts.

That's why I don't necessarily see privatization as a panacea, even though I ordinarily tend that way. I've noticed that "Team SFO" sometimes tries to out-TSA the TSA.

Thanks. ^ I'll alert the mods. I'd missed it here and the link I posted is dated today and on Drudge.

By the way, Mrs. Fredd and I were seated in a restaurant area near gates 70-71 right next to a "Team San Francisco" check point a couple of weeks ago. We could clearly see and hear a trainer haranguing his troops that the "TSA would like any excuse to get rid of us" and urging them to redouble their efforts.

That's why I don't necessarily see privatization as a panacea, even though I ordinarily tend that way. I've noticed that "Team SFO" sometimes tries to out-TSA the TSA.I already alerted the mods :) but if the TSA redoubles their efforts, doesn't that mean 2x the screw-ups ;)

Also, FWIW, Sanford is not Orlando. It's almost as bad as calling MHT Manchester/Boston, but harder to get to.

Also, there's few flights to anywhere from Sanford, unless you don't mind connecting in Iceland. I would if there were any mileage earning opportunities :-)

I already alerted the mods :) but if the TSA redoubles their efforts, doesn't that mean 2x the screw-ups ;)

Or at least twice the officiousness. ;) We've mainly transferred there and our recent experiences have been okay, other than the loss of the WTMD option at the first elite checkpoint we hit after arriving internationally and transferring to domestic. :(

Over the years we've definitely seen barking and yelling there. A couple of times it was upsetting to watch employees yelling at obviously foreign Asian tourists at the international check point. It seemed, among other things, just plain odd in light of their dealing with foreigners all day there.

Still, we opted out at the international checkpoint a couple of weeks ago and have no complaints at all about the way we were treated, setting aside my objections to the entire procedure.

Also, FWIW, Sanford is not Orlando. It's almost as bad as calling MHT Manchester/Boston, but harder to get to.

Also, there's few flights to anywhere from Sanford, unless you don't mind connecting in Iceland. I would if there were any mileage earning opportunities :-)

Ha! Thanks. ^ It's buried in the first sentence of the article I posted but I missed it, what with the blaring "Orlando" in the headline I quoted. Apparently it's international?