Newsstand - All eyes on SFO contractor Covenant Aviation Security, LLC, after security lapse

On this day, at 11:30 a.m., a 22-year-old Taiwanese student ducked under a rope at terminal 3, pushed aside a table and sprinted past security guards. Screeners did not follow the woman. They contacted TSA and airport law enforcement officials but by the time a description of the passenger could be issued, she had boarded her United Airlines flight. Forty-five minutes after the breach, SFO's Federal Security Director Ed Gomez ordered an evacuation of the terminal.
..
The TSA circulated digital images of the passenger to airports nationwide. When United flight 284 landed in Baltimore, a post-board screening identified the woman. FBI agents detained then released her after questioning. She is currently awaiting federal trial.
..
TSA officials were quick to praise their dragnet.
..
"You tell me that a former screening company would be able to contact [the airports] and coordinate such a sophisticated process in relatively little time," said TSA spokesperson Brian Turmail. But SFO's Gomez admitted that the screeners made a mistake.


http://www.sanbrunobart.com/Airport/News/030215.shtml

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by HeHateY:
Forty-five minutes after the breach, SFO's Federal Security Director Ed Gomez ordered an evacuation of the terminal.
</font>

Is this the ONLY thing these morons know how to do?

NOTE: This MORON is a FEDERAL Employee.

The gist of the post is that the SFO screeners failed to do their job. Plus they did not get a description of the woman, which is a basic requirement for these things. Following is not part of the procedure however. Since the screeners at SFO are private, they are no better than the federalized screeners that everyone seems to want. With several companies wanting to get into the screening game, the inconsistencies will make the TSA's problems mild in comparison.

------------------
"All life is a concatenation of ephemeralities" - Alfred Kahn, American economist

Oh, PLEASE!

Not getting the description is the reason for MOST terminal evacuations.

To make it sound like only the "private" screeners make this mistake is a STRETCH.

That was not my intent, my point is that private screeners are no better than the federalized screeners. Those who think that going private will somehow make it all better are very sadly mistaken.

------------------
"All life is a concatenation of ephemeralities" - Alfred Kahn, American economist

Getting them OFF of the Government Payroll is a VAST improvement.

Again, if you think the gov't will save money with private screeners, you are sadly mistaken. Private screeners will be paid the same, and will have comparable benefits. Since these companies will be contracted by the gov't, AND will have to show a profit, the costs will be greater than they are now. If paying more, and having fewer "gov't" employees is your idea of an improvement for the taxpayer, then I fail to understand your economic model.

The bottom line is that going private will cost more in the long run and provide no better "security" than what we have now at best.

------------------
"All life is a concatenation of ephemeralities" - Alfred Kahn, American economist

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Again, if you think the gov't will save money with private screeners, you are sadly mistaken. Private screeners will be paid the same, and will have comparable benefits. Since these companies will be contracted by the gov't, AND will have to show a profit, the costs will be greater than they are now. If paying more, and having fewer "gov't" employees is your idea of an improvement for the taxpayer, then I fail to understand your economic model.

The bottom line is that going private will cost more in the long run and provide no better "security" than what we have now at best.

</font>


Private contractors can often be less expensive than government employees. Private contractors can be more efficient too.

K-12 private schools spend much less per student, on average, than public schools, and are generally much better.

Private trash collection is more efficient and cheaper than public, in general.

I could go on and on.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:

Private contractors can often be less expensive than government employees. Private contractors can be more efficient too.

K-12 private schools spend much less per student, on average, than public schools, and are generally much better.

Private trash collection is more efficient and cheaper than public, in general.

I could go on and on. </font>

You could go on and on, but those examples do not equate in what it would take to go back to private screeners. Number one, pay and benefits must be kept at the same level as they are now. Number two, the number of screeners must be kept at the same levels. And number three, somewhere in there the private contractors must turn a profit.

Since number 1 states that pay and benefits remain the same, no savings there.

Number 2 states that the number of screeners remains the same, no savings there.

Number 3 is the intangible, profit. Since there MUST be some profit generated, costs WILL go up, that is a fact.

The sunset clause to the homeland security bill has that poison pill inserted to pretty much assure that going back to "private" screeners becomes cost prohibitive. Plus the fact that almost all screeners have, or are about to finish their one year probation period. Then they become PERMANENT gov't employees making it much harder to let them go. Other gov't jobs will have to be found for them. So it is not a cut and dry issue by far. For my part, I am leaving 4 days prior to my probation period ending. There ARE better jobs out there.



------------------
"All life is a concatenation of ephemeralities" - Alfred Kahn, American economist

Having been involved in frequent cost trades between government employees and private sector contractors, I can say that the big ticket item for government employees is the long-term liability that taxpayers incur with retirement and health benefits. When contracting for a service, the government pays for a fraction of these costs through the overhead rates a contractor charges. Since a great majority of contracts are competed, the government gains the advantage of competition for the best value. Day-to-day salaries of Argenbright or TSA screeners makes relatively little difference in the yearly cost of a services contract.

The big difference here is to whom will the private screeners be under contract. The biggest business-related problem I have with the TSA is that they are not stakeholders in the viability of the airline industry. Any government agency regulating the public can essentially blow them off. We've all seen the TSA take the art of "blowing off the taxpayers" to a new level.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
(Are terminal evacuations) the ONLY thing (the TSA) know how to do?</font>

Standard Operating Procedure seems to be when a breach takes place, a terminal is evacuated.

People ***** and moan that the TSA are useless because they allow such breaches to take place and claim that the private screeners would be so much better at preventing it.

Looks like the private screeners can be just as fallable as the TSA.

Until the idiot airport authorities and airlines demand that the paths out of the checkpoint be as rigidly secured as the paths into the checkpoint, idiot passengers are going to breach them and require a terminal evacuation. It's not like more than a score of people exit screening stations at one time, so funelling them into a single corridor, two people wide, would cause a snafu at the screening station. This would also prevent breaches by people going through the "exit" section and then mixing with screened passengers. Not to mention the exit needs more than one person whose back is to the entrance, as they are watching folks leave. You need two people at the entrance looking for folks cutting and two watching passangers exiting. The extra staffing is an insignificant price to pay to prevent breaches.

Frankly, there is also no excuse why the screening stations cannot be walled off to prevent anyone from "skirting the edges". You need to get past that checkpoint, you go through the detector. If your law enforcement or airport authority, you set it off and they let you pass.

And since multiple terminals allow free transit between them (to support the tight connection times of a hub-and-spoke system), when they breach one terminal, they often breach all the terminals.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:

Private contractors can be more efficient too.
</font>

Somehow, the notion of mixing "efficient" and "security" troubles me; I prefer "courteous, thorough and competent".

But then I am still reluctant to fly the airline that once had an amalgamation of the words "Value" and "Jet" on the side of their airplanes.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FliesWay2Much:
The biggest business-related problem I have with the TSA is that they are not stakeholders in the viability of the airline industry. </font>

This is a great insight. But, they really are stakeholders. They may not realize it yet. But they are.

The reality is that we can expect that the TSA will cozy up the airlines sooner or later. They have to because it is pax who pay the bills through the ticket prices and ticket taxes.

FW2M's analysis is spot on.

richard, I what think FW2M meant by stakeholder is that the TSA is not a direct stakeholder. I don't the point is lost on him that if the airlines fail, the TSA is hosed.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by essxjay:
FW2M's analysis is spot on.

richard, I what think FW2M meant by stakeholder is that the TSA is not a direct stakeholder. I don't the point is lost on him that if the airlines fail, the TSA is hosed.</font>


I interpret it to mean that they don't treat the airlines as partners in any way. Obviously if the airlines fail, the TSA won't be thrilled, but it is true that so far they don't seem terribly interested in treating pax as customers, the way the airlines do.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SEA_Tigger:
Standard Operating Procedure seems to be when a breach takes place, a terminal is evacuated.

People ***** and moan that the TSA are useless because they allow such breaches to take place and claim that the private screeners would be so much better at preventing it.</font>

That's the whole problem - terminal is breached, terminal is evacuated.

Regardless of who makes this stupid decision, it's still stupid. Nobody bothers to do any kind of probability analysis as to whether such a breach is likely to result in danger to an aircraft or the airport.

Instead, the passengers are thoughtlessly dumped out into the street, someday possibly to be greeted by a real explosive device.

Because of this stupid act first, think several days later, passengers are probably placed into more danger than they would be if more thoughtful solutions were pursued. Kind of reminds me of the movie Die Hard where the terrorists already know what the FBI is going to do as a result of the FBI's single-page playbook (in the movie).



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry