Originally Posted by
Texas_Dawg
A private screening agency, not wanting to piss off its customers (or the customers of the airlines purchasing their service), would have even greater incentives to treat you in such a manner.
I don't see how this could be true, unless pax had a choice of security provider through which they could be screened. And the thought of
thatjust makes me shudder: one's enough, thanks.
If getting caught doing so could result in a complaint to the airline employing my security firm, my bosses, and then me, then most likely not. A firm whose customers can quickly replace it with another is likely to employ managers that would fire me quickly for behavior that angers its customers.
Why would this assumption hold true in a monopoly scenario? No "customer" (e.g. airport) could easily replace one security agency with another, given the fact that any disruption of security services would lead to total chaos.
Further, the only body that could possibly oversee a private airport security company would be the government, who would 1) add a layer of bureaucracy to the process, and 2) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, due to budgetary concerns.