Sacramento International Airport Dropping TSA
Aug 7, 2012, 10:50 am
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,098
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
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
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.
Aug 7, 2012, 2:52 pm
#17
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MEL, PER, PBO, occasionally ships, oil rigs and other places that no sane human being should ever find themselves
Programs: IHG RA, PC Plat, QF Plat/LTS
Posts: 804
Aug 7, 2012, 3:30 pm
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Upstate NY or FL or inbetween
Programs: US former CP Looking for a new airline to love me
Posts: 1,674
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 
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.
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.
Aug 9, 2012, 3:43 pm
#19
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Programs: AA PLT, 1.8mm
Posts: 6,988
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.
Aug 9, 2012, 7:36 pm
#20
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,565
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.
Aug 10, 2012, 3:14 am
#21
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
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 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.
Aug 11, 2012, 7:20 pm
#22
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
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 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 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
Aug 11, 2012, 7:37 pm
#23
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
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 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.
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 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
Aug 11, 2012, 7:40 pm
#24
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Aug 11, 2012, 7:44 pm
#25
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
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 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.)
Aug 11, 2012, 8:41 pm
#26
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,565
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.
Your former boss is lining his own pockets thanks to the decisions he made as DHS Secretary. Imagine that.
Aug 12, 2012, 2:28 am
#27
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
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.
Aug 12, 2012, 7:36 am
#28
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
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.
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.
Your former boss is lining his own pockets thanks to the decisions he made as DHS Secretary. Imagine that.
castro
Last edited by castrobenes; Aug 12, 2012 at 7:45 am
Aug 12, 2012, 7:51 am
#29
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
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.
castro
Aug 12, 2012, 7:58 am
#30
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
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
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