Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Sacramento International Airport Dropping TSA

http://www.fromthecapitol.com/sacramento-international-airport-dropping-tsa-3115

I thought Pistole Pete's vision was no more privatization (AKA release from working level TSA job creation quotas)?
I know neither SFO nor MCI are rife with happy experiences on this forum, and I can tell you from frequent personal experiences that ROC sux, (3 privatized examples), but this privatization is much bigger than Orlando-Sanford, and hopefully is a clue of things to come.
Especially positive news given the just "achieved" unionization of TS"O"'s. Perhaps there's still hope for this country. :) ^^^

http://www.fromthecapitol.com/sacramento-international-airport-dropping-tsa-3115

I thought Pistole Pete's vision was no more privatization (AKA release from working level TSA job creation quotas)?
I know neither SFO nor MCI are rife with happy experiences on this forum, and I can tell you from frequent personal experiences that ROC sux, (3 privatized examples), but this privatization is much bigger than Orlando-Sanford, and hopefully is a clue of things to come.
Especially positive news given the just "achieved" unionization of TS"O"'s. Perhaps there's still hope for this country. :) ^^^

Is there anything to prevent private contractor workers from joining the union? Is it restricted to federal employees?

http://www.fromthecapitol.com/sacramento-international-airport-dropping-tsa-3115

I love the comments under the article.

I'm sure the private company will be just as horrible as the TSA, but they can't hide behind the American Federation of Government Employees when they screw up. I hope more airports follow suit.

Is there anything to prevent private contractor workers from joining the union? Is it restricted to federal employees?
Good point and the answer is yes they can.

I love the comments under the article.

I'm sure the private company will be just as horrible as the TSA, but they can't hide behind the American Federation of Government Employees when they screw up. I hope more airports follow suit.


Good point and the answer is yes they can.

They can't join the AFGE which only represents the government workers. They would be eligible to unionize if their employees went through the process of organizing which includes a petition process, and an election. Note SFO TSOs are in the SEIO (Service Employees International).

castro

http://www.fromthecapitol.com/sacramento-international-airport-dropping-tsa-3115

I thought Pistole Pete's vision was no more privatization (AKA release from working level TSA job creation quotas)?
I know neither SFO nor MCI are rife with happy experiences on this forum, and I can tell you from frequent personal experiences that ROC sux, (3 privatized examples), but this privatization is much bigger than Orlando-Sanford, and hopefully is a clue of things to come.
Especially positive news given the just "achieved" unionization of TS"O"'s. Perhaps there's still hope for this country. :) ^^^

The AFGE has been the officially recognized federal TSO union for over a year. What happened this week is that TSA leadership and the AFGE agreed to terms of a contract which still must be ratified by the workforce.

I am interested to know what the intention is of those who support "privatization" of the TSO workforce. TSA still sets policy for security screening. Federal TSMs and an FSD still oversee the screening process. TSA will continue to develop training and testing of TSOs.

The contract to hire the "privatized" TSOs is a federal contract which means that it is awarded under the same protocols as any other federal contract. The SFO employees aren't any more accountable than TSA TSOs.

On the other hand, "privatization" will give the TSA a chance to point the finger at the contractors and the contractors to point the finger at TSA.

"Privatization" does nothing to reduce the federal (TSA) role in airport security, doesn't change the screening process including AIT or pat-downs, and gives TSA a built in contractor lobbying group who will argue for more resources devoted to screening.

Also for those of you who argue that TSA screening is unconstitutional, don't you think that the same argument applies to contractors. Remember the model that SMF and SFO are adopting is not private airlines deciding on the type of security required to use their product. "Privatization" in this case just means that a contractor hires TSOs who will enforce screening mandated by the federal government.

castro

"Privatization" in this case just means that a contractor hires TSOs who will enforce screening mandated by the federal government.

castro

And if we could extend this to every airport in the United States, we'd all be better off.

And if we could extend this to every airport in the United States, we'd all be better off.

Perhaps, but we would have to change the overall infallibility culture. Some of the worst treatment I've received is at SFO.

And if we could extend this to every airport in the United States, we'd all be better off.

In what ways would we "all be better off"?

In what ways would we "all be better off"?

The creation of TSA has proven to be one of the biggest mistakes we made in response to 9/11. Even those in Congress who once supported TSA now admit it was a mistake.

It is an indisputable fact that lax gate security was not the cause of the 9/11 hijackings. We established TSA in a fit of fear, creating an expensive and unnecessary federal workforce that provides no better security than the contract force it replaced. For example, the contract force at SFO routinely passes internal evaluations with a far higher score than any other "federalized" workforce.

What we have done by creating TSA is bring more felons into the federal government workforce, providing more opportunity for the criminal element to bribe airport security. Right now, DHS has more open investigations against TSA employees than against any other branch of the department.

To close out this trifecta of failure, we have increased the cost of flying and inconvenience to passengers through the massively ineffective Kabuki theater that TSA has established in every domestic airport. Complete with rude barking agents with chips on their shoulders who believe they have the right to abuse and humilate their fellow citizens under the color of law.

I suspect you see it differently, being as how you are a TSA employee, but it is what it is - you are a member of the single most despised part of the entire federal government.

Enjoy your day as you fondle grandmothers, the disabled, and toddlers.

In what ways would we "all be better off"?

Oh boy, here it comes. Flood gates have been opened!

The creation of TSA has proven to be one of the biggest mistakes we made in response to 9/11. Even those in Congress who once supported TSA now admit it was a mistake.

It is an indisputable fact that lax gate security was not the cause of the 9/11 hijackings. We established TSA in a fit of fear, creating an expensive and unnecessary federal workforce that provides no better security than the contract force it replaced. For example, the contract force at SFO routinely passes internal evaluations with a far higher score than any other "federalized" workforce.

What we have done by creating TSA is bring more felons into the federal government workforce, providing more opportunity for the criminal element to bribe airport security. Right now, DHS has more open investigations against TSA employees than against any other branch of the department.

To close out this trifecta of failure, we have increased the cost of flying and inconvenience to passengers through the massively ineffective Kabuki theater that TSA has established in every domestic airport. Complete with rude barking agents with chips on their shoulders who believe they have the right to abuse and humilate their fellow citizens under the color of law.

I suspect you see it differently, being as how you are a TSA employee, but it is what it is - you are a member of the single most despised part of the entire federal government.

Enjoy your day as you fondle grandmothers, the disabled, and toddlers.

I get that you don't like TSA and think I am a dirt bag for working for the organization. But all of that is non-responsive....

If every airport chose to privatize tomorrow, the screening process would stay the same. The TSOs are guaranteed jobs with the private contractor. TSA management and policies stay the same. AIT and pat-downs don't change.

castro

Oh boy, here it comes. Flood gates have been opened!

If they relaxed the rules. They can lifted the ticketed passengers only. They will able allowed go into the entire concourse again.

I get that you don't like TSA and think I am a dirt bag for working for the organization. But all of that is non-responsive....

If every airport chose to privatize tomorrow, the screening process would stay the same. The TSOs are guaranteed jobs with the private contractor. TSA management and policies stay the same. AIT and pat-downs don't change.

castro

And the ones with attitude like supervisor screener Tigabliti at HOU on Saturday will get fired a lot sooner than your current cohorts.

Tolerance for attitude problems is very low in the private sector Castro. I suggest that you start to learn that.

Be careful what you wish for. SFO's contractor (CAS) is horrible - real bunch of idiotic jerks in that organization.

Perhaps, but we would have to change the overall infallibility culture. Some of the worst treatment I've received is at SFO.

Agreed. I've had the same experiences at SFO, as well as MCI.

My worst opt-out experience was at SFO, where the supervisor tried to intimidate me into providing my BP & ID for a comment card, and then called to have my opt-out recorded :rolleyes:

The AFGE has been the officially recognized federal TSO union for over a year. What happened this week is that TSA leadership and the AFGE agreed to terms of a contract which still must be ratified by the workforce.

I am interested to know what the intention is of those who support "privatization" of the TSO workforce. TSA still sets policy for security screening. Federal TSMs and an FSD still oversee the screening process. TSA will continue to develop training and testing of TSOs.

The contract to hire the "privatized" TSOs is a federal contract which means that it is awarded under the same protocols as any other federal contract. The SFO employees aren't any more accountable than TSA TSOs.

On the other hand, "privatization" will give the TSA a chance to point the finger at the contractors and the contractors to point the finger at TSA.

"Privatization" does nothing to reduce the federal (TSA) role in airport security, doesn't change the screening process including AIT or pat-downs, and gives TSA a built in contractor lobbying group who will argue for more resources devoted to screening.

Also for those of you who argue that TSA screening is unconstitutional, don't you think that the same argument applies to contractors. Remember the model that SMF and SFO are adopting is not private airlines deciding on the type of security required to use their product. "Privatization" in this case just means that a contractor hires TSOs who will enforce screening mandated by the federal government.

castro

Privatization gives the airport/airlines the ability to point out that they too were not happy with federal TSA screeners. It matters little that government will still have oversight of screening operations.

Also, this country does not need 50,000~ expensive federal employees with federal benefits to screen bags and people. This is a job more rightly the responsibility of the airport/airlines being it is their property that is being protected.

Removing government from screening operations as much as possible helps resolve the non liability of government employees and places retention of civilian employees more in line with job performance.

Bottom line is that TSA has failed on every level and doesn't deserve the job of airport security screening.

If every airport chose to privatize tomorrow... The TSOs are guaranteed jobs with the private contractor.

SFO's contractor (CAS) is horrible - real bunch of idiotic jerks in that organization.

Coincidence? :p

Coincidence? :p

No. My perspective from ROC is that the TSA oversight of McNeil there is frequent, intrusive and medieval, almost as if the TSA is out to prove no contractor could possibly provide world class security :rolleyes: like TSA can.
You can think linearly if you want, Castro, claiming that all will still be the same if private security is provided with federal oversight, but the fact is that the current (slow) trend, Pistole Pete not withstanding, is away from TSA providing security at the "officer" level. There are no examples of private security airports clamoring for TSA to provide security at their location.
As more and more airports swap to private security, more people will begin to question everything about the TSA. That is scrutiny that the culture of clowns at TSA and DHS cannot withstand.

I went through SMF yesterday. the wait for the MMW was 6 people deep, so they opened the WTMD so I didn't have to opt out. One thing I noticed about the TSA working there is that there are a lot of morbidly obese people in the blue shirts. Getting these people off of gov't health benefits and WC and onto a private contractor's plan would probably save the gov't millions.

If every airport chose to privatize tomorrow, the screening process would stay the same. The TSOs are guaranteed jobs with the private contractor. TSA management and policies stay the same. AIT and pat-downs don't change.

castro

Not necessarily. Getting rid of the federalized workforce is just step one of the TSA overhaul. Getting rid of the AIT, the shoe carnival, and the other idiotic and useless policies currently in force would come next.

I note you didn't bother to challenge any of my assertions. Must be tough to accept the fact that you are nothing more than a bit player in the largest theater production in the world.

Not necessarily. Getting rid of the federalized workforce is just step one of the TSA overhaul. Getting rid of the AIT, the shoe carnival, and the other idiotic and useless policies currently in force would come next.

I note you didn't bother to challenge any of my assertions. Must be tough to accept the fact that you are nothing more than a bit player in the largest theater production in the world.

there is an aspect of farce to every security operation that I've ever watched. Most countries conduct their farces without feeling over sex organs or even touching you, most of the time. There is no question that the scum at the top of DHS and TSA are sexual deviants getting off on that aspect of their farce. That "something special" that they've added.

Not necessarily. Getting rid of the federalized workforce is just step one of the TSA overhaul. Getting rid of the AIT, the shoe carnival, and the other idiotic and useless policies currently in force would come next.

I note you didn't bother to challenge any of my assertions. Must be tough to accept the fact that you are nothing more than a bit player in the largest theater production in the world.

I didn't respond to your post because statements about how much you hate TSA are non-responsive to my argument that the contractors are the same as TSA.

I fail to see how privatizing the TSA workforce leads to removal of the AIT or any TSA policies.

Some have argued that the best way forward to less intrusive airport security is to return responsibility to the airlines. That makes complete sense because it would be in the airlines interest to reduce the costs associated with airline security, and less intrusive security would be a feature that airlines could use in their marketing.

But that is not the model we have under ATSA. The contract these companies will have is with TSA. Their operating income will be provided through the TSA budget. It isn't in these companies interest for TSA to go away or have less of an airport footprint.

If you doubt the power of contractors, consider the AIT implementation which was funded by the stimulus plan. I have no idea exactly what happened. But I am certain that the manufacturer's of the AIT had a role in lobbying congress.

castro

No. My perspective from ROC is that the TSA oversight of McNeil there is frequent, intrusive and medieval, almost as if the TSA is out to prove no contractor could possibly provide world class security :rolleyes: like TSA can.
You can think linearly if you want, Castro, claiming that all will still be the same if private security is provided with federal oversight, but the fact is that the current (slow) trend, Pistole Pete not withstanding, is away from TSA providing security at the "officer" level. There are no examples of private security airports clamoring for TSA to provide security at their location.
As more and more airports swap to private security, more people will begin to question everything about the TSA. That is scrutiny that the culture of clowns at TSA and DHS cannot withstand.

The sample is too small and the timeframe is to short to draw any conclusions.

I could also say that of the 460 plus airports that are federalized, less than 5 airports of any size are actively privatizing. But the law has only recently changed. And a pro-labor administration gets to set most of the rules. More will privatize. But you need a few more before you can claim there is a trend. The reality is that the political environment will determine the number of airports that choose to privatize.

And you will need a few years of metrics to compare the results.

castro

If they relaxed the rules. They can lifted the ticketed passengers only. They will able allowed go into the entire concourse again.

This is not a part of privatization. Actually the contractors won't have an incentive to do this because it increases their costs.

castro

I don't expect the security experience will change if it is privatized - if anything, I expect TSA may demand more rigorous pax treatment from privatized staff.

I do hope it will reduce the longterm federal medical and retirement benefits that taxpayers have to pay. I also hope it will eliminate the confusion about TSO status as 'federal officers' (entitled to cut in line or detain people or cross-examine people, etc.)

I didn't respond to your post because statements about how much you hate TSA are non-responsive to my argument that the contractors are the same as TSA.

The real reason you didn't respond is that you know that the rationale supporting the creation of TSA was and is a farce. Poor airside security wasn't the cause of 9/11, and you know it.

I fail to see how privatizing the TSA workforce leads to removal of the AIT or any TSA policies.

Because once you privatize security, innovation and efficiency would be possible. The only thing your leadership wants is more control over passengers, because more control equates to more budget money.


Some have argued that the best way forward to less intrusive airport security is to return responsibility to the airlines. That makes complete sense because it would be in the airlines interest to reduce the costs associated with airline security, and less intrusive security would be a feature that airlines could use in their marketing.

And yet your management fights these arguments, because they don't want to lose their jobs.


If you doubt the power of contractors, consider the AIT implementation which was funded by the stimulus plan. I have no idea exactly what happened. But I am certain that the manufacturer's of the AIT had a role in lobbying congress.
castro

AIT happened because your former boss pushed for them, even though experts advised him that they have at best a 60% chance of detecting the items they are designed to detect. He did this, and his company now represents the contractor that supplies scanning equipment to TSA.

Your former boss is lining his own pockets thanks to the decisions he made as DHS Secretary. Imagine that. :rolleyes:

Some have argued that the best way forward to less intrusive airport security is to return responsibility to the airlines. That makes complete sense because it would be in the airlines interest to reduce the costs associated with airline security, and less intrusive security would be a feature that airlines could use in their marketing.


This would be the worst possible development, because the airlines (and their contractors) are private companies and do not have to worry about anyone's constitutional rights. The TSA is part of the government, so they have to follow the constitution. If you feel that the TSA violated your fourth amendment rights by performing an illegal search, you can take it to court. If it is a private company, you can do nothing except take your business elsewhere, if there is anywhere else to go.

The real reason you didn't respond is that you know that the rationale supporting the creation of TSA was and is a farce. Poor airside security wasn't the cause of 9/11, and you know it.

With all due respect, I think I am in a better position than you to address why I didn't respond.

This is irrelevant anyway. It is also true that 9/11 didn't happen because of the absence of a central federal organization determining airport security procedures that will be implemented by private screeners whose organization employer has a contract with the federal government to provide screening.


Because once you privatize security, innovation and efficiency would be possible.

Innovation and efficiency how? They have to follow the same SOP as every other airport.

The only thing your leadership wants is more control over passengers, because more control equates to more budget money.



And yet your management fights these arguments, because they don't want to lose their jobs.

SPP doesn't change the number of jobs at TSA HQ.

AIT happened because your former boss pushed for them, even though experts advised him that they have at best a 60% chance of detecting the items they are designed to detect. He did this, and his company now represents the contractor that supplies scanning equipment to TSA.

Your former boss is lining his own pockets thanks to the decisions he made as DHS Secretary. Imagine that. :rolleyes:

AIT was still in the testing stage when Kip Hawley was in office. The decision to go with a nationwide implementation happened after he left office.

castro

This would be the worst possible development, because the airlines (and their contractors) are private companies and do not have to worry about anyone's constitutional rights. The TSA is part of the government, so they have to follow the constitution. If you feel that the TSA violated your fourth amendment rights by performing an illegal search, you can take it to court. If it is a private company, you can do nothing except take your business elsewhere, if there is anywhere else to go.

I agree with this.

castro

I agree with those who write that TSA has not done an outstanding job of managing the TSO workforce. However I don't think it is a natural conclusion that a private contractor would do a better job. Contractors respond to an entirely different set of economic incentives than truly competitive private businesses.

Some of the worst boondoggles in history have been committed by contractors. And whenever you complain about highway workers sitting down on the job while traffic builds, remember that those are contract employees not direct employees of the government.

castro

With all due respect, I think I am in a better position than you to address why I didn't respond.

This is irrelevant anyway. It is also true that 9/11 didn't happen because of the absence of a central federal organization determining airport security procedures that will be implemented by private screeners whose organization employer has a contract with the federal government to provide screening.


Innovation and efficiency how? They have to follow the same SOP as every other airport.



SPP doesn't change the number of jobs at TSA HQ.



AIT was still in the testing stage when Kip Hawley was in office. The decision to go with a nationwide implementation happened after he left office.

castro

Chertoff. The guy who went on the national news channels pushing for TSA Strip Search Machines without disclosing he had a personal financial interest in the game.

I agree with those who write that TSA has not done an outstanding job of managing the TSO workforce. However I don't think it is a natural conclusion that a private contractor would do a better job. Contractors respond to an entirely different set of economic incentives than truly competitive private businesses.

Some of the worst boondoggles in history have been committed by contractors. And whenever you complain about highway workers sitting down on the job while traffic builds, remember that those are contract employees not direct employees of the government.

castro
Forgive me, this isn't directed at you as an individual, but your reply sounds suspiciously like "they won't be any better than us". I wish you had said "we can and will do better - and you may even see the improvements in your lifetime."

Do you think that TSA, by and large, is doing an acceptable job? No significant need for improvement? Is it currently an organization you take pride in?

In another post, you mentioned that TSOs in uniform are held to the same standards as many other employees - their behavior reflects on the organization. When I pointed out the problems (and consequences) of trying to address a TSO's behavior (cutting in line because "We're federal officers"), you were silent.

There have been enough posts on other forums (and private PMs on this forum) to convince me that TSOs who complain that management consistently chooses not to address problem employees, that management is consistently ignorant of SOP (which is possibly why managers back employees who are wrong) are telling the truth.

Is this really the best the organization can do? Have you never seen a fellow employee act out of line? If so, what did you do about it? Did you speak up (see something, say something)? Or did you tacitly support that employee's wayward actions? If you did, you put me potentially at risk.

I think the reason most of us are against profiling is because it is highly unlikely to be implemented 'Israeli-style'. If TSA (officially) starts profiling, it will likely nominate TSOs (management favorites), give them a big pay raise, buy a bloated, expensive 'training package' from a vendor with TSA connections, send the favored TSOs to 2 weeks of training and call it an effective program.

And the truth is (as BOS has recently confirmed), TSA already profiles. It 'profiles' old women and little children and attractive women and women travelling alone and folks with language or hearing difficulties because they are easier to bully into submission (didn't work so well with John Tyner or Rand Paul, probably why healthy able-bodied men are usually left alone). TSA profiles (see BOS for details) those suspected of other, non-TSA concerns - drugs, for example. And TSA 'reverse' profiles - there is absolutely no other explanation for how two bricks of very dangerous stuff in a bag that had already been pulled for a bag check weren't caught in Fayetteville - the 'reverse' profiling assumed all servicemen are good guys.

I've stated I don't think private contractors will improve the experience, partly because I think TSA will monitor private contractors in a way it does not currently monitor its own staff. I think private contractors will be held to a higher, more rigorous standard (more offensive to pax). I'm not concerned about inconsistencies between contractors because I already experience that every time I approach a checkpoint; indeed, I've been at a checkpoint and heard two TSOs arguing about proper SOP in front of pax. I think folks are just so tired of the nonsense that it seems like anything has the potential to be better.

I also find it hard to believe that a private contractor who ran an outfit the way EWR and HNL and BOS are being run would get away with ignoring a Congressional demand to appear.

One tiny point: you are clearly well-informed about the agency. Could you address something posted recently? There have been recent reports (and an explanatory rumor from a source considered highly reliable and level-headed on this forum) that TSA HQ has announced a crackdown on the 3-1-1 baggies - forget to remove it or deliberately don't remove it and you will be thoroughly screened and then sent to the back of the line to repeat the process. It has already been happening. Is this true? Is it truly the hallmark of a professional organization? Does this punitive action actually contribute to effective, efficient screening in any way?

This is irrelevant anyway. It is also true that 9/11 didn't happen because of the absence of a central federal organization determining airport security procedures that will be implemented by private screeners whose organization employer has a contract with the federal government to provide screening.


How is it irrelevant? Why do we have this massive, expensive and unnecessary federal workforce? You've forgotten the totally absurd "to professionalize, we must federalize" rant we heard so often after 9/11?

The fact of the matter is that the taxpayers are paying far more for TSA than we did for the contract security in place before 9/11. What possible rationale can you put forward for maintaining the status quo?


AIT was still in the testing stage when Kip Hawley was in office. The decision to go with a nationwide implementation happened after he left office.


You expect anyone to believe that Chertoff - who is profiting from that decision - had nothing to do with it?

In any event, the decision - no matter who made it - was insanely stupid, given that we are spending 178,000 per unit to field something that has at best a 60% success rate.

I agree with those who write that TSA has not done an outstanding job of managing the TSO workforce. However I don't think it is a natural conclusion that a private contractor would do a better job. Contractors respond to an entirely different set of economic incentives than truly competitive private businesses. .

castro

A private contractor still follows the same rules and process. They are not as worried about the image of the TSA and showing force. The premise of the process is that EVERYONE is a criminal trying to cause harm.

< snip>

In any event, the decision - no matter who made it - was insanely stupid, given that we are spending 178,000 per unit to field something that has at best a 60% success rate.

60% success rate? :confused:
Please define success.

Even the TSA blog has given up on claiming success because the whole fleet of N.O.S.'s across the whole damn country discovers just 1 or 2 tubes of toothpaste per week. (The rest appears to be drugs- fodder for an entirely different thread.)

I don't think that even if you, as Pistole attempted in congressional testimony, claim success for a N.O.S. alarming on pocket lint :rolleyes:, you can back up a 60% success claim.

60% success rate? :confused:
Please define success.

Even the TSA blog has given up on claiming success because the whole fleet of N.O.S.'s across the whole damn country discovers just 1 or 2 tubes of toothpaste per week. (The rest appears to be drugs- fodder for an entirely different thread.)

I don't think that even if you, as Pistole attempted in congressional testimony, claim success for a N.O.S. alarming on pocket lint :rolleyes:, you can back up a 60% success claim.

Shortly after the underwear bomber did his thing, a high level DHS delegation traveled to a number of major international airports outside the United States, including those such as AMS who were then evaluating the AITs. This delegation was told that if the UWB had been screened using the AIT, they would have had a 60% chance at best of detecting the device he was wearing.

The German government experienced an even lower success rate.

The German government has stopped the roll out of full body scanners in the country's airports. It says they simply create too many false alarms.

After a series of tests, German officials say the new scanners have a false alarm rate of nearly 50 percent, including mistaking underarm sweats for a dangerous chemical.

About 250 full body scanners are currently in use at dozens of U.S. airports including Detroit Metro. They cost about $170 thousand a piece.
Folks who have protested the scanners due to privacy concerns about the detailed images they provide say this is evidence they should not be used.

"The German experience has demonstrated exactly how ineffective the devices are. When they can't distinguish between body sweat and explosives, or the pleats of someone's pants and an underwear bomb- they're not making anyone safer," said John Verdi of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The TSA tells ABC News it will not comment on Germany's decision or study of the scanners.

Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/full-body-scanners-unreliable-to-use,-germany-says#ixzz23NgGSdMm

Basically, every time you see one of the AITs at a US airport, you are witnessing 171,000 wasted tax dollars.

Shortly after the underwear bomber did his thing, a high level DHS delegation traveled to a number of major international airports outside the United States, including those such as AMS who were then evaluating the AITs. This delegation was told that if the UWB had been screened using the AIT, they would have had a 60% chance at best of detecting the device he was wearing.

The German government experienced an even lower success rate.



Basically, every time you see one of the AITs at a US airport, you are witnessing 171,000 wasted tax dollars.

I suspect there are also some generous maintenance contracts.

The TSA is part of the government, so they have to follow the constitution.
I assume by "constitution" you mean the constitution of the Souhegan Kennel Club (http://www.souhegankennelclub.org/new-constitution.php) or the Sacramento Valley MG Car Club (http://www.svmgcc.org/bylaws.htm), because there's precious little evidence that the TSA "has to follow" the Constitution of the United States of America (http://constitutionus.com/). Unless by "follow the constitution" you mean stating that passengers give up all their rights when they enter an airport checkpoint. :rolleyes: Or that stopping a passenger based on the language on his shirt, or reading a doctor's client records, or strip searching elderly women is "following the Constitution."
If you feel that the TSA violated your fourth amendment rights by performing an illegal search, you can take it to court.
Oh, yeah, everyone has the time and money to sue the Federal gov't. Even those who do (go, Jon!!) get run around by procedural nonsense. "If you don't like it you can sue" is no way to run anything.
If it is a private company, you can do nothing except take your business elsewhere, if there is anywhere else to go.
It would be much easier to sue a private company for strip searching elderly women, pulling a young woman's shirt down, abusing disabled children, and stealing food from diabetics that to sue the Feds. Or, yeah, I could take my business to another airport or airline.

I assume by "constitution" you mean the constitution of the Souhegan Kennel Club (http://www.souhegankennelclub.org/new-constitution.php) or the Sacramento Valley MG Car Club (http://www.svmgcc.org/bylaws.htm), because there's precious little evidence that the TSA "has to follow" the Constitution of the United States of America (http://constitutionus.com/). Unless by "follow the constitution" you mean stating that passengers give up all their rights when they enter an airport checkpoint. :rolleyes: Or that stopping a passenger based on the language on his shirt, or reading a doctor's client records, or strip searching elderly women is "following the Constitution."

No court has ever ruled that the TSA is exempt from the constitution. You may believe that they are not following (your interpretation of) the constitution, but they are still bound by it. Lawsuits against the TSA have been filed and are progressing, albeit slowly.


Oh, yeah, everyone has the time and money to sue the Federal gov't. Even those who do (go, Jon!!) get run around by procedural nonsense. "If you don't like it you can sue" is no way to run anything.

It's better than "if you don't like it, you're out of luck" like it would be with a private company.


It would be much easier to sue a private company for strip searching elderly women, pulling a young woman's shirt down, abusing disabled children, and stealing food from diabetics that to sue the Feds.

No it wouldn't. On what basis would you sue? You agreed to it when buying your ticket, end of discussion. As I said earlier, private companies are not bound by the bill of rights, so you would have no basis for a lawsuit.

Or, yeah, I could take my business to another airport or airline.

They are all likely to be about the same.

They are all likely to be about the same.

Actually, one of the biggest complaints about TSA I see here is that the TSA experience is not the same at different airports --- in fact, it can vary pretty wildly.

Actually, one of the biggest complaints about TSA I see here is that the TSA experience is not the same at different airports --- in fact, it can vary pretty wildly.

I don't particularly care when the physical handling (degree of) varies from airport to airport.

I do care when the inconsistency results in something that has been openly allowed at other checkpionts gets confiscated. There should be no inconsistency in determining whether or not an object is a threat or not.

If my single chapstick is OK without a baggie at one airport, it should be allowed at all airports.

No court has ever ruled that the TSA is exempt from the constitution. You may believe that they are not following (your interpretation of) the constitution, but they are still bound by it. Lawsuits against the TSA have been filed and are progressing, albeit slowly.
Of course no court has been as blunt as to rule that the TSA is exempt from the Constitution. But the court cases either drag on for years (Nicholas George and the Arabic flash cards (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/993966-college-student-detained-philadelphia-4.html)) or the TSA gets a slap on the wrist (Phil Mocek) or TSA promise real hard to stop doing something if you'll just go away (Steve Bierfeldt and the $4700). TSA's approach has clearly been "we'll try everything we can until we're told it's not Constitutional" rather than "we won't do [x] because it wouldn't be Constitutional." And Congress keeps looking the other way and shoveling money into TSA.
It's better than "if you don't like it, you're out of luck" like it would be with a private company.

No it wouldn't. On what basis would you sue? You agreed to it when buying your ticket, end of discussion. As I said earlier, private companies are not bound by the bill of rights, so you would have no basis for a lawsuit.
I doubt Tom Sawyer agreed to having his colostomy bag ruptured when he bought a ticket. Sharon Cissna didn't agree to removing her breast prostheses when she bought a ticket. I doubt this woman from Texas (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni-pr/1221710-paltry-settlement-tsa.html) agreed to have her blouse pulled down, while being laughed at by male screeners, when she bought her ticket. I doubt Lenore Zimmerman (among many others) agreed to a strip search and a bleeding leg when she bought a ticket.

If a bumbling employee of a private company tried any of these stunts, you bet I'd have the basis for a lawsuit. Not because the private company failed to observe the Bill of Rights, but simply on the basis of assault, intimidation, and injury.
They are all likely to be about the same.
Perhaps, perhaps not. There's scope for an airline to differentiate themselves on the basis of respectful, reasonable, intelligent security screening. But even if they're all the same, (a) that would be better than the incompetent inconsistency of the TSA, and (b) they could all be held accountable to a greater degree than the TSA currently is.

I wonder if it would be considered assaulting a "federal officer" if one were to knock the sh!t out of a contractor goon.

How is it irrelevant? Why do we have this massive, expensive and unnecessary federal workforce? You've forgotten the totally absurd "to professionalize, we must federalize" rant we heard so often after 9/11?

The fact of the matter is that the taxpayers are paying far more for TSA than we did for the contract security in place before 9/11. What possible rationale can you put forward for maintaining the status quo?

It's irrelevant because the choice isn't between a Pre-9/11 aviation security model and TSA. The choice is between contract and federal screeners both following the same SOP with TSA calling the shots in both cases. The amount of money spent of screening doesn't change.

I'm not arguing for the status quo. I'm arguing most of the people supporting the replacement of TSA screeners with contract screeners have no idea what they are talking about. They think the discussion is about the AIT debate, the Constitution, or pat-downs.

Elsewhere you argue that replacement of TSA screeners with contractors prepares the groundwork for removal of other aspects of aviation security you oppose. Let me present to you a different prediction.

Contractors, as you correctly observe below, are already heavily invested in the aviation security infrastructure. Once they are profiting off screener labor, they will oppose any attempts to reduce the role of screeners at the airport. They may not lobby in public, but their voice is very loud behind closed door.

Pre-emption: You may suggest that the solution is to change the relationship between TSA/DHS/USFG and lobbyists. That might actually work as a solution. However, you actually have to enact lobbying reform rather just use this as a means to get out of this argument.


You expect anyone to believe that Chertoff - who is profiting from that decision - had nothing to do with it?

In any event, the decision - no matter who made it - was insanely stupid, given that we are spending 178,000 per unit to field something that has at best a 60% success rate.


All of these decisions happened through the use of contractors which you seem to support. If you oppose these things, it seems logical not to expand the role of contractors.

castro

Forgive me, this isn't directed at you as an individual, but your reply sounds suspiciously like "they won't be any better than us". I wish you had said "we can and will do better - and you may even see the improvements in your lifetime."

Do you think that TSA, by and large, is doing an acceptable job? No significant need for improvement? Is it currently an organization you take pride in?

In another post, you mentioned that TSOs in uniform are held to the same standards as many other employees - their behavior reflects on the organization. When I pointed out the problems (and consequences) of trying to address a TSO's behavior (cutting in line because "We're federal officers"), you were silent.

There have been enough posts on other forums (and private PMs on this forum) to convince me that TSOs who complain that management consistently chooses not to address problem employees, that management is consistently ignorant of SOP (which is possibly why managers back employees who are wrong) are telling the truth.

Is this really the best the organization can do? Have you never seen a fellow employee act out of line? If so, what did you do about it? Did you speak up (see something, say something)? Or did you tacitly support that employee's wayward actions? If you did, you put me potentially at risk.

I think the reason most of us are against profiling is because it is highly unlikely to be implemented 'Israeli-style'. If TSA (officially) starts profiling, it will likely nominate TSOs (management favorites), give them a big pay raise, buy a bloated, expensive 'training package' from a vendor with TSA connections, send the favored TSOs to 2 weeks of training and call it an effective program.

And the truth is (as BOS has recently confirmed), TSA already profiles. It 'profiles' old women and little children and attractive women and women travelling alone and folks with language or hearing difficulties because they are easier to bully into submission (didn't work so well with John Tyner or Rand Paul, probably why healthy able-bodied men are usually left alone). TSA profiles (see BOS for details) those suspected of other, non-TSA concerns - drugs, for example. And TSA 'reverse' profiles - there is absolutely no other explanation for how two bricks of very dangerous stuff in a bag that had already been pulled for a bag check weren't caught in Fayetteville - the 'reverse' profiling assumed all servicemen are good guys.

I've stated I don't think private contractors will improve the experience, partly because I think TSA will monitor private contractors in a way it does not currently monitor its own staff. I think private contractors will be held to a higher, more rigorous standard (more offensive to pax). I'm not concerned about inconsistencies between contractors because I already experience that every time I approach a checkpoint; indeed, I've been at a checkpoint and heard two TSOs arguing about proper SOP in front of pax. I think folks are just so tired of the nonsense that it seems like anything has the potential to be better.

I also find it hard to believe that a private contractor who ran an outfit the way EWR and HNL and BOS are being run would get away with ignoring a Congressional demand to appear.

One tiny point: you are clearly well-informed about the agency. Could you address something posted recently? There have been recent reports (and an explanatory rumor from a source considered highly reliable and level-headed on this forum) that TSA HQ has announced a crackdown on the 3-1-1 baggies - forget to remove it or deliberately don't remove it and you will be thoroughly screened and then sent to the back of the line to repeat the process. It has already been happening. Is this true? Is it truly the hallmark of a professional organization? Does this punitive action actually contribute to effective, efficient screening in any way?

I'm not going to address the 3-1-1 issue.

This post is about my perception because that is what you asked about. I am not going to give details because they are unimportant. My perception is my perception, just as yours is yours. But if you ask me why I do things. Here goes.

I am not in a position to commit the TSA to do anything. In this forum, I don't speak for the agency. I speak for myself.

I am proud of my role in the agency and the things I have done to improve it. I am proud of my airport, and I am proud to be an agency employee. But I also realize we have made mistakes. At work, I have seen TSA improve dramatically. Sometimes I have seen those changes happen on a daily basis.

castro

Predictions -

In 4 years whether Romney or Obama wins, I predict the following:

Fewer than 15 large airports (Cat 1, 2, and x) will go SPP employing fewer than 5% of the TSO workforce.

The pat-down will change but not go away. Flyertalk consensus will be that it is worse, and that we are on the brink of TSA going away.

Total number of all TSOs (SPP and federal) will be less than 37,000 due to budget constraints not SPP.

I will be still employed as a federal employee in aviation security in a management position. (In other words the manager job will exist but may be renamed).

I will keep posting here each year, so I will see if my predictions hold true.

castro

I wonder if it would be considered assaulting a "federal officer" if one were to knock the sh!t out of a contractor goon.

SFO and a number of other airports are SPP. Go to one of them, opt out, and take a swing at the private contractor doing the screening. Tell us what happens...

castro

Predictions -

In 4 years whether Romney or Obama wins, I predict the following:

Fewer than 15 large airports (Cat 1, 2, and x) will go SPP employing fewer than 5% of the TSO workforce.

The pat-down will change but not go away. Flyertalk consensus will be that it is worse, and that we are on the brink of TSA going away.

Total number of all TSOs (SPP and federal) will be less than 37,000 due to budget constraints not SPP.

I will be still employed as a federal employee in aviation security in a management position. (In other words the manager job will exist but may be renamed).

I will keep posting here each year, so I will see if my predictions hold true.

castro

If TSA doesn't tighten up its hiring standards and continues having a bunch of TSA Thugs on the payroll I'm not so sure your predictions will come true.

Things like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5kCLTjL3Is&feature=player_embedded continue to happen and TSA Managers seem unable to take control of the problem. Problems like the BDO issue at JFK, and I'm sure that problem is not limited to JFK, discredits TSA in the most severe way. TSA has lost the public's trust. Without that trust the course forward for TSA is going to be hazardous.

All of these decisions happened through the use of contractors which you seem to support. If you oppose these things, it seems logical not to expand the role of contractors.

castro

So are you saying that the contractors that manufacture the machines are the same as (or affiliated with) the contractors that provide screening through SPP?

Predictions -

In 4 years whether Romney or Obama wins, I predict the following:

Fewer than 15 large airports (Cat 1, 2, and x) will go SPP employing fewer than 5% of the TSO workforce.

The pat-down will change but not go away. Flyertalk consensus will be that it is worse, and that we are on the brink of TSA going away.

Total number of all TSOs (SPP and federal) will be less than 37,000 due to budget constraints not SPP.

I will be still employed as a federal employee in aviation security in a management position. (In other words the manager job will exist but may be renamed).

I will keep posting here each year, so I will see if my predictions hold true.

castro

Real encouraging to hear that the grope will change and get worse. I don't know how it could, but I trust you to know what you're talking about on this.

So are you saying that the contractors that manufacture the machines are the same as (or affiliated with) the contractors that provide screening through SPP?

Nope. I have no idea who the SPP contractors are, and it would be silly to assume that the current contractors would be the ones if the program goes national.

I am saying that if you support the current screening procedures and believe that what is needed is better management, and you believe that contractors will provide that management, then you should support SPP.

If you support a greatly diminished federal role in aviation security, that is not what you will get with SPP. If you also support changes in screening procedures, that is also not a part of SPP. The introduction of contractors, who profit from federal involvement in aviation security, precludes those types of reform.

castro

Real encouraging to hear that the grope will change and get worse. I don't know how it could, but I trust you to know what you're talking about on this.

I said that the flyertalk consensus of the new procedure is that it is worse. I didn't say it would actually be worse.

castro

Nope. I have no idea who the SPP contractors are, and it would be silly to assume that the current contractors would be the ones if the program goes national.

I am saying that if you support the current screening procedures and believe that what is needed is better management, and you believe that contractors will provide that management, then you should support SPP.

If you support a greatly diminished federal role in aviation security, that is not what you will get with SPP. If you also support changes in screening procedures, that is also not a part of SPP. The introduction of contractors, who profit from federal involvement in aviation security, precludes those types of reform.

castro

I think it's a bit like the national elections. We know what we have with TSA now and there's just no sign of improvement; if anything, things are getting worse. SPP is still a bit of an unknown - maybe it will be better, maybe the same, hard to see how it could be worse because it will be under the oversight of the same agency that's so unpopular now. Federalization didn't professionalize the work force, but it is saddling the taxpayers with expensive federal benefits going forward.

Ultimately, I hold an errant screener responsible, his/her co-workers who refused to call him out for his misconduct equally responsible, and the management chain who sets the tone and refuses to address the problems most responsible of all (and this is not a criticism leveled at you personally).

I think it's hard to defend the mess EWR has become, and it seems to me that it's a failure of will or competence at the management level that allows it to continue to be a problem airport. You may disagree - if so, I'd like to know where you think the blame lies.

Now whenever I fly, because I am an 'involuntary medical opt-out' (physically unable to use the AIT), I get hands in my pants and shirt and between my legs every single time I fly - along with struggling to keep an eye on my bags without generating retaliation from the screeners. I can't say I find it very encouraging going forward when you post that the gropes will not only persist, they will get worse.

And honestly? I don't scare easily, but what happened at Fayetteville did scare me.

All of these decisions happened through the use of contractors which you seem to support. If you oppose these things, it seems logical not to expand the role of contractors.

castro

Contractors didn't make the decision to deploy those useless machines. Your bosses did. That you don't understand this basic fact suggests you are truly clueless as to how the federal government works, or are simply not interested is a rational discussion of this issue.

I'm not going to address the 3-1-1 issue.

Good move on your part, because it is an indefensible policy.


I am proud of my role in the agency and the things I have done to improve it. I am proud of my airport, and I am proud to be an agency employee. But I also realize we have made mistakes. At work, I have seen TSA improve dramatically. Sometimes I have seen those changes happen on a daily basis.
castro

Wow. You are proud of the fact that your agency perpetrates a massive fraud upon the traveling public every day? That it was created under false pretenses, that it continues to operate under false pretenses, shredding the Constitution as it does?

Must be pretty strong kool aid they dole out at your union meetings.

I said that the flyertalk consensus of the new procedure is that it is worse. I didn't say it would actually be worse.

castro

With all due respect (sincerely), you are using almost exactly the same language another TSO used here when gleefully posting about the 'changes' to come when the AITs were introduced and the wands went away. His point, of course, was that from the pax perspective, it would be worse, but from the TSOs perspective, it would be better. I don't think pas discontent with the new procedures has been limited to a few disgruntled folks on this forum.

Walk in my shoes for a moment (not at the checkpoint, of course). I already get a full-body grope every time I fly, rarely performed with any degree of respect or 'professionalism' (and I've gotten pat-downs at airports around the world - I use the word 'grope' because it is markedly more invasive than anything I've experienced elsewhere). (On one notable occasion when the grope was actually performed without undue invasiveness and I tried to provide feedback on that particular screener, management prevented me from doing so). You defend this practice as acceptable and predict changes that will be regarded as an improvement? But that won't be welcomed here?

Color me skeptical.

I think it's no coincidence that the former head of TSA publishes a book saying that the lga restrictions should be abolished and TSA HQ's immediate reaction is renewed attention to lga enforcement.

Perhaps someone could tell me why taxpayers are wasting all this money on large screen TVs, expensive taped loops and outdated signs (at boondoggle contractor prices) if they are ineffective.

And they are ineffective, or there wouldn't be a need for this renewed attention to lga's. And if the problem is that the TSOs have been lax, well, how is that the fault of the pax? Why aren't managers and TSOs being disciplined for supporting such laxness? Why is TSA taking a punitive approach against pax instead?

I think it's a bit like the national elections. We know what we have with TSA now and there's just no sign of improvement; if anything, things are getting worse. SPP is still a bit of an unknown - maybe it will be better, maybe the same, hard to see how it could be worse because it will be under the oversight of the same agency that's so unpopular now. Federalization didn't professionalize the work force, but it is saddling the taxpayers with expensive federal benefits going forward.

Ultimately, I hold an errant screener responsible, his/her co-workers who refused to call him out for his misconduct equally responsible, and the management chain who sets the tone and refuses to address the problems most responsible of all (and this is not a criticism leveled at you personally).

I think it's hard to defend the mess EWR has become, and it seems to me that it's a failure of will or competence at the management level that allows it to continue to be a problem airport. You may disagree - if so, I'd like to know where you think the blame lies.

Now whenever I fly, because I am an 'involuntary medical opt-out' (physically unable to use the AIT), I get hands in my pants and shirt and between my legs every single time I fly - along with struggling to keep an eye on my bags without generating retaliation from the screeners. I can't say I find it very encouraging going forward when you post that the gropes will not only persist, they will get worse.

And honestly? I don't scare easily, but what happened at Fayetteville did scare me.

I think that the federal employee benefits and employee management are strong arguments. I will counter that under SPP that the contractor and TSA will point fingers at one another, and observers have not said that any of the SPP airports are that different than TSA.


I haven't been to EWR, so I can't comment on it specifically.

However I agree that the responsibility for TSA's problems is with the organization. To the extent that any employee within the organization doesn't take ownership of problems, they are part of the problem.

I don't believe discipline is the solution to problems. However I do believe that you can't find the solution unless misbehavior is dealt with appropriately. It's hard to keep good employees if you let poor employees become the norm. As a manager, I have fired employees.

This is not the place to share my management philosophy, but let me assure you that I don't tolerate garbage in the workplace.

castro

I think that the federal employee benefits and employee management are strong arguments. I will counter that under SPP that the contractor and TSA will point fingers at one another, and observers have not said that any of the SPP airports are that different than TSA.


I haven't been to EWR, so I can't comment on it specifically.

However I agree that the responsibility for TSA's problems is with the organization. To the extent that any employee within the organization doesn't take ownership of problems, they are part of the problem.

I don't believe discipline is the solution to problems. However I do believe that you can't find the solution unless misbehavior is dealt with appropriately. It's hard to keep good employees if you let poor employees become the norm. As a manager, I have fired employees.

This is not the place to share my management philosophy, but let me assure you that I don't tolerate garbage in the workplace.

castro

Too bad I never fly through your airport.

I mean that.

With all due respect (sincerely), you are using almost exactly the same language another TSO used here when gleefully posting about the 'changes' to come when the AITs were introduced and the wands went away. His point, of course, was that from the pax perspective, it would be worse, but from the TSOs perspective, it would be better. I don't think pas discontent with the new procedures has been limited to a few disgruntled folks on this forum.

Walk in my shoes for a moment (not at the checkpoint, of course). I already get a full-body grope every time I fly, rarely performed with any degree of respect or 'professionalism' (and I've gotten pat-downs at airports around the world - I use the word 'grope' because it is markedly more invasive than anything I've experienced elsewhere). (On one notable occasion when the grope was actually performed without undue invasiveness and I tried to provide feedback on that particular screener, management prevented me from doing so). You defend this practice as acceptable and predict changes that will be regarded as an improvement? But that won't be welcomed here?

Color me skeptical.

Maybe the confusion here is my fault. I don't know about any potential procedural changes. I was making a prediction that a pat-down change will happen not telling you that I know anything about one that is actually planned.

You seem to be arguing about the intrusiveness about a hypothetical procedural change that hasn't even been planned yet, which would be absurd.

In terms of your last comment, I believe everyone should be treated with respect. It is unacceptable to treat anyone with rudeness for whatever reason that they get a pat-down.

castro

Contractors didn't make the decision to deploy those useless machines. Your bosses did. That you don't understand this basic fact suggests you are truly clueless as to how the federal government works, or are simply not interested is a rational discussion of this issue.


When you read this, move your finger very slowly so that you can understand. I am not absolving (hint-that means excusing) TSA leadership from any responsibility for installing the AIT.

I am arguing that decision took place in an atmosphere only made possible because contractors were ready to sell them the machines. Remember SPP does not remove the AIT.

Concentrate real hard here because you're almost there... The contractors profit (they make money) by selling services to the government. Historically (that means in the past) contractors have had influence over the government officials that purchase their services.

If you're goal is to reduce the federal role in airport screening, adding contractors into the process prevents (stops) that from happening.







Wow. You are proud of the fact that your agency perpetrates a massive fraud upon the traveling public every day? That it was created under false pretenses, that it continues to operate under false pretenses, shredding the Constitution as it does? .

This is exactly what I said verbatim...good summary skills


Must be pretty strong kool aid they dole out at your union meetings.

I am not eligible to join the union, wouldn't join if I could, and don't support the AFGE.

castro

Maybe the confusion here is my fault. I don't know about any potential procedural changes. I was making a prediction that a pat-down change will happen not telling you that I know anything about one that is actually planned.

You seem to be arguing about the intrusiveness about a hypothetical procedural change that hasn't even been planned yet, which would be absurd.

castro

All right. You said "The pat-down will change but not go away. Flyertalk consensus will be that it is worse, and that we are on the brink of TSA going away."

I interpreted that to mean the gropes are here to stay (not a surprise, unfortunately). In your next sentence, you say that FT'ers (pax) will think that 'it' is worse. I assumed that 'it' referred to the gropes that 'will change' in the previous sentence

I wasn't looking for an argument, just explaining to you why I interpreted your words the way I did.

And I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I have had patdowns overseas. What I get every time I fly is by no stretch of the imagination an accurate use of the word 'pat'. When fingers contract and grip my legs or hit body parts with enough force to cause me to flinch, it is no longer a pat. I don't use the word to be gratuitously inflammatory, I use it because it is much more accurate. And yes, I realize that you are most likely not the individual responsible for TSA's choice of language. ;).

When you read this, move your finger very slowly so that you can understand.

castro

Really?

I am arguing that decision took place in an atmosphere only made possible because contractors were ready to sell them the machines. Remember SPP does not remove the AIT.

Ah, the "contractors made the machines and that forced me to buy them" rationale.

LOL, you just keep digging yourself in a bigger hole.

Concentrate real hard here because you're almost there... The contractors profit (they make money) by selling services to the government. Historically (that means in the past) contractors have had influence over the government officials that purchase their services.

Your smarta** attempts at humor aside, no contractor forces the government to purchase anything. In fact, you continue to display your absolute ignorance as to how government procurement works. But keep on digging. :D

If you're goal is to reduce the federal role in airport screening, adding contractors into the process prevents (stops) that from happening.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. But thanks for playing.