Originally Posted by
petaluma1
Granted this is old but:
This is not as old:
http://reason.org/files/overhauling_...t_security.pdf
If I am correct, private screeners can be fired on the spot for not following SOP; that can't and doesn't happen with government screeners. And that's the best rationale of all for private screeners.
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.
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
You must have me confused with someone else.
I am not against the idea of Manage Inclusion but I do think initial screening should use the same standards as Pre Check for everyone. I do have serious doubts that TSA BDO's can pick anyone out of a crowd who is a lesser threat. I don't think I posted against free rides for Pre Check and I certainly don't support the proposed law that would end Pre Check for those who haven't paid. I have benefited from that exact situation several times.
But I am definitely Pro, I am Pro to the idea of ending the reign of TSA. It was a bad idea in the beginning and has proven over time to be a bad idea going forward.
Now, I asked several questions of you in an earlier post and you have conveniently not addressed a one of them.
Can you only attack but never respond to other ideas?
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.
Originally Posted by
gingersnaps
...This thread is based on the premise that private screeners provide no meaningful benefit to the traveling public, so we shouldn't clamour so desperately for private screeners.
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.
Originally Posted by
gingersnaps
Are you sure it is cheaper? Here is the law:
‘‘§ 44919. Security screening pilot program
‘‘(f) QUALIFIED PRIVATE SCREENING COMPANY.—A private screening company...will provide compensation and other benefits to such individuals that are not less than the level of compensation and other benefits provided to such Federal Government personnel in accordance with this chapter.
By law private companies must provide compensation and benefit not less than provided to TSA screeners, so how could that make private cheaper?
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.
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
I'm not sure that the premise "there is a push for private screeners" is correct in the first place unless Gingersnaps knows things that the rest of us don't.
Regardless, I think this was more of an effort to just stir the pot than any real concern about the subject and no matter what anyone else has to say they will always be wrong.
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".