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

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.

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/check...screeners.html :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.