Originally Posted by
Bart
I don't disagree with you that gate security didn't cause the hijackings. I do disagree with you that private security companies could do better. Let me define, at this point, what I mean by private security companies: companies hired by airlines to perform passenger screening in accordance with FAA regulations and other applicable policies independent of TSA efforts. Contrary to popular belief, there are no private security companies working today at airports under this definition. There are a small handful of non-TSA employees who work at airports performing these functions, but they are, for all intents and purposes, more like government contractors than they are true private security companies. They are hired, trained and evaluated on the exact same standard as TSA employees. The only difference is their uniforms and personnel management system.
You left out one critical difference, Bart. Contractors can be easily terminated, unlike federal employees. Which is why TSA should have used the model currently in place at SFO - a group of contract employees working under the supervision of a TSA FSD. Much cheaper in the long run for the taxpayer, and with no loss of effectiveness.
Originally Posted by
Bart
Having said that, TSA is far superior to the private screening companies that existed pre-9/11. The training is far superior, the resourcing is far superior, and the cooperation with other agencies is far superior.
Even if that is indeed the case, so what? We've already established that the 9/11 hijackers did not succeed because of lax gate security. Other than providing guaranteed federal employment, we've got this "wonderful" improved above the wing security, when we should have been concentrating on under the wing security.
Originally Posted by
Bart
I think the screening technologies TSA has brought about are needed and far superior to anything the private companies were able to develop.
Again, so what? Essentially what you're saying is that we've bought the security version of a Hummer, when all we needed is a Chevrolet.
Originally Posted by
Bart
Yeah, you're right, federalizing checkpoint screening was not a direct remedy. And you can blame media hysteria for part of that. If you recall, there were a lot of news stories that came out during that time pointing out the flaws in airport security screening and only inflamed demands for a federalized screener workforce. But I disagree with you that there's a better alternative than TSA. I think TSA does fulfill this function; and I think TSA still has room to grow and improve.
And where was the federal leadership when all these hyped up media stories were flying about? Absent, because it served the purpose of the leadership in looking for justification to solve a problem that didn't really exist.
I do think there is a better alternative than TSA. It's been proven in random testing over the past several years. It's call Team SFO, the contract operation that routinely outperforms its TSA brethren.