Pup7

I actually never said they were, but be it GS/SV/WG - whatever - the series is quite irrelevant, because the principle and practice are the same.

I also don't doubt there's a boatload of what you describe going on - but you're speaking of huge Federal contracts (I would imagine that complete privatization of security certainly counts as one, yes), not an individual physician or nurse or two as in my case, as our authorization for hiring isn't the same and the staffing agencies aren't specifically contracted to the Feds in the same way.

WillCAD

I don't know how true that is - even firing for cause has to have a certain documentation process, and in most firms there is a gradual escalation of discipline for rules infractions except for the most serious ones. But I agree, it is one of the most common rationales for privatizing passenger screening.

Even when you can kick a screener to the curb instantly for an infraction, though, that's not going to happen as much as some folks might think when the rules they are supposedly violating all include the word "discretion", which is often interpreted to mean that decisions are entirely up to the screener.

I favor using PreCheck's physical screening methodology (clothes on, laptops IN, WTMD w/ wanding to resolve alarms, NoS only as an escalation under supervision of a LEO), but I don't favor the government running a PreCheck equivalent background check on anyone who wants to buy a plane ticket. That's private, personal information they're digging up on you, and I favor strict limits on the government's (and individual government employees') access to such information, absent a compelling need. And if there is a compelling need, it better be in the open and require a justifiable warrant.

And I disagree with that basic premise. Private screeners DO provide a meaningful benefit to the traveling public, in lower cost to the taxpayer.

It's been said numerous times in this thread - if they do the same job, using the same methodologies, are supervised by the same FSDs, and get the same results, but do so 40% cheaper than TSO, there is no compelling reason to keep the TSOs.

I am not sure I agree with the idea that private screeners would be more accountable to the public or could be held more strictly to the rules that TSOs flaunt constantly, as I said above, but this is only one of several reasons why some folks are clamoring for privatization.

As others have said, compensation and benefits to employees are only part of the cost of any business. There is also overhead - and government is notoriously bloated and inefficient at overhead.

Private companies' health insurance, for example, can be shopped around to get the best deal, saving the company a lot. Private companies' uniforms and other hardware can also be shopped around at each airport instead of nation-wide, throwing open the opportunity for local sourcing and lower prices. And then there is the elephant in the room - TSA is overstaffed. They use six TSOs when two will do, leaving four to stand around gabbing or phone surfing. Private firms can also do things like purchase automated tub stackers that reduce staffing needs at the c/p (which TSA can't do).

So yes, private firms could save a lot of money by not being bound by bloated government overhead requirements.

I think I understand where Ginge is coming from. This thread is not so much about a general push for privatization as it is about the constant calls for it from FTers and various blog commenters on air travel related news articles.

To me it appears that the main motivation among such people for wanting privatization is the belief that private screeners will be more accountable for rude, inefficient, or illicit behaviors than TSOs, and the cost savings is really more of a side issue used to convince those who are on the fence. As I said above, I have my doubts about that, which is why I'm not 100% committed, but I do lean toward the idea that private screeners could, possibly, be a better solution, given good enough oversight by the government.

But the government of the US is not widely known for giving "good enough oversight".

Boggie Dog

We agree on this point. I have never made the distinction but when I say I favor Pre Check type screening for all as a starting point I am thinking the physical part of the screening.

Besides TSA already has massive databases to consult for almost all travelers without needing a background check. It is those information streams that are consulted before a ticket is issued. TSA can grant PreCheck for most passengers now without having to do a background check. Criminal history and other records are readily available to TSA.

eyecue

This is an interesting take on the past, present and future.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...e_the_tsa.html

Credit to the author and website American Thinker

FlyingHoustonian

I hope his "espionage thrillers" are not as poorly written as this article.

There are many problems with this article...too many for me to type up now, but it is a false comparison he makes with pre-11 Sep 01 screeners missing guns (which TSA regularly misses now) versus them missing new contraband now, with the facts some missed, what at the time were, legal to carry on board items.

We have private screeners now at major airports like SFO. TTPs have changed along with policy. His weird muslim brotherhood and black panther reference is also odd at the end but that is for another posting.

DaveBlaine

We had private security.

Then 9/11 happened.

You want that to happen again?

I read somewhere that "those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

sbrower

I think the correct quote is "those who make up history are doomed to make posts that aren't very responsive."

What factor in "private security" was related to 9/11? Oh, that's right, none. In fact, the hijackers didn't even need box cutters (which were allowed) because it was airline policy to respond to hijackers. Why? Because hijackers who made demands (up to that time) had the plane fly somewhere, the passengers mostly got off, the hijackers mostly got arrested.

If you feel you disagree, read the actual 9/11 report where 15 days before 9/11 the head of the pilot's union security committee testified that "if you put a noose around the neck of my flight attendant I will admit you to the flight deck." What has the TSA done to make sure that nothing that can be used as a noose is brought through the checkpoint?

DaveBlaine

Whoa! Easy there Chief.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security/ The TSA is not my fault.

However, it was created due to perceived need to replace private screening.

Am I wrong?

BSBD

TSA/DHS were created in order to calm a frightened public. Lots of people erroneously believed then, and still do today, that 9/11 events were precipitated by airport screening failures.

Boggie Dog

Were the box cutters, knives, or other items prohibited by the FAA on 9/11?

I believe that 9/11 was a failure of government!

Himeno

DHS and TSA should never have been created. There was simply no reason to do so (other then a scared, paranoid public screaming at the government to "do something" and fear mongering politicians and security officials seeing it as an opportunity to take more control).

DHS is utterly unneeded and should be broken apart and its agencies returned to where they were before 2001.

At most TSA should be a part of the FAA as no more then an office setting standards to private companies (said standards not to be controlled by paranoia such as the shoe carnival and war on water) and run tests on the airport/airline contracted security screeners.

N830MH

Yes, they all prohibited by the FAA during 9/11. That's why the security is very bad right before 9/11. That's why they replaced the old private contractor. It was ITS, Global Security, and a few others, as well. That's why they already have Worldwide Security administration & Global Aviation during that time before TSA takeover on November 19, 2002.

Boggie Dog

If you do a bit of research I think you will find that those items were in fact not prohibited at that time which is why 9/11 was a failure by government and not a failure of the screeners.

FlyingHoustonian

One could write that about a lot of topics that also are not correlated in any form or fashion.

Private Security did not cause the events of 11 Sept 2001 in the United States.

As others have noted, the items used that day were not prohibited.
Not really sure how that equates to the current feckless and incompetent nature of the current DHS system and TSA...but please enlighten us.

KRSW

ROC also has private screeners running the checkpoints. They still have to follow the idiotic rules set by TSA, BUT they are definitely friendlier. One of the members of my party was selected for secondary and the private security guards were apologizing the entire time for inconveniencing her. It's a step in the right direction.

9/11 happened because nothing like it had ever happened before.

THIS SAME FLAW EXISTS IN TSA TODAY. Someone tries to blow up their shoes, TSA responds with the shoe carnival. Some idiot tries to blow up his underwear, TSA responds by strip searching everyone. Note that all of these changes were AFTER someone tried them. Another attack WILL happen again at some point.

Let's, for a moment, review pre-9/11 hijackings/attacks. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but I believe the last hijacking which took place from a commercial flight originating from US soil was 1983. So for 18 years, there wasn't a single hijacking incident of a commercial airline with the pre-9/11 rules and contractors. You have to go all the way back to 1972 to find a single passenger death from a hijacking attempt on US soil. 30 years. I'd say that's a pretty damn good track record. And there were a ton of hijackings in the 1960s/1970s.

The best weapon we have today are pax & flight crews who aren't willing to take s*** from anyone. If someone tries to attempt anything they're quickly subdued by the pax around them. Just keep the guns/knives off the planes and it's a level playing field. We even saw this happen on United 93 on 9/11. Once pax learned the hijackers' intent, they did what our government failed to do and stopped the hijackers.

I agree with the others -- DHS needs to be dismantled. It's "become too big, too expensive, and too bloated to effectively perform its job." And that's how a Secret Service friend of mine described it. He said his own agency's turned to mush since becoming part of DHS.

We (the public) also need to understand the difference between threats and risks. Threats are possible things which could happen. An earthquake, a meteor strike, someone plowing through your house due to a diabetic event, someone smashing your car window & grabbing whatever they can, etc. These are all threats. Risk is factoring in the likelihood of these events happening. Once you start factoring this in, our government's security priorities (and spending) are completely pear-shaped. Factor in causes of death and we've really got it wrong.

Even if we did away with TSA and had NO ONE manning the checkpoints, just a metal detector and pax's goodwill of grabbing a LEO when the machine would chirp, air travel is still infinitely safer than the car ride to get to the airport. Even if you were traveling on 9/11. Roughly 99.993% of people flying on 9/11/2001 survived. That's on the ACTUAL date. For the year of 2001, that brings you up to 99.999981%. More people were killed while walking in 2001. More people were injured in their showers in 2001.

Humans are very poor judges of risk. It gets me to see how many billions we've wasted against a boogeyman, which is real, but is a MUCH smaller risk in our lives than we are told by the media and the government. Remember, there's no profit in telling people everything's fine.