First things first. TSA's name is being thrown around here as the whipping boy without any context or perspective. Allow me to provide that context and perspective.
All US commercial flight operators must adhere to the Code of Federal Regulations that spells out the standards for commercial transportation security (as well as other federal standards). The FAA used to have primary responsibility for the CFRs that apply to commercial aviation; that specific responsibility now belongs to TSA. The difference here is that these regulations existed long before TSA came into being, and the updated regulations define the current screening standards for TSA and private contractor screeners throughout the country.
The authority for the 49 CFR 1500 series derives from various United States Codes (49 U.S.C. 114, 5103, 40119, 44901–44905, 44907, 44913–44914, 44916–44918, 44932, 44935–44936, 44942, 46105). TSA's SOP is based on 49 CFR Part 1540 (and other series), which, in turn, are based on the US Codes I just listed. US commerical flight operators are bound to 49 CFR Part 1540 (and other related series, as applicable) NOT necessarily the TSA SOP. In other words, there may be some commonality between TSA screening procedures and non-TSA screening procedures (specifically contract screeners working for US carriers overseas), but the commonality is based on 49 CFR Part 1540 as opposed to the TSA SOP.
The point behind this lengthy explanation is that US commercial flight operators are obligated to the security standards promulgated by TSA (a responsibility once held by the FAA pre-9/11 and pre-ATSA) no matter where they operate. In the United States and certain overseas locations, TSA provides the screener workforce and further defines the "how" in the form of the TSA Standard Operating Procedure. At certain US locations and overseas, the airline provides its own screener workforce, but these contracted screeners are still obligated to meet the standards stipulated in 49 CFR Part 1540. Within the US, the contracted screeners follow the exact same TSA SOP as their TSA TSO counterparts. Outside the US, they follow 49 CFR Part 1540 which may have some commonality to the TSA SOP but is not, in fact, the TSA SOP.
If some overseas contractors perform random screening and others don't, then it means they have different procedures but still meet the same standard. I know that many of you will find this unacceptable, but I truly do not see the problem.
I do, however, have a problem with the context of the OP's rantings.
According to the OP, the AA contracted screener appeared to be courteous, polite and professional. At the conclusion of the screening, the screener thanked the OP and bade him a good day. Yet the OP uses a very disparaging reference to the female screener with a not-so-subtle term that I find highly offensive (and I'm a man). I'm surprised that the female members of this forum don't find this reference offensive or have chosen not to state their objections to the use of this term...concealed or otherwise. Then the OP crossed the line by actually calling this lady an idiot.
Here's where I know I will draw fire from the usual suspects and others who think passengers have a right to call screeners names under the First Amendment.
Not on my checkpoint. Calling my screeners names draws immediate negative attention from me, and this is where I use all my interrogator skills to confront the passenger in the most intimidating manner possible. Don't get me wrong, I go out of my way to be courteous and friendly, but once someone uses a patently offensive term directed towards one of my screeners, such as the one used by the OP, then I become a very unpleasant individual and use all my skills as a former intelligence officer to confront the offender. I offer no apologies to you who may find this offensive or who think that I'm exceeding my authority.
Criticize the process. But when you personally attack my screeners, verbally or physically, you've crossed the line and I will hold you accountable for your actions. I'm pretty good at it, too.
