Originally Posted by
davidcalgary29
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.
The passengers might not have the choice in who provides security, but the airlines and airport operators would. And these are people with a much greater incentive to respond positively to passengers' complaints than the TSA will ever have.
Originally Posted by
davidcalgary29
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.
True monopoly only comes from government. And that's what I am opposing. Without the TSA being forced upon people, the airport operators could and likely would hire a new firm to provide the security if the airlines and their customers were constantly complaining about the current provider.
Originally Posted by
davidcalgary29
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.
The only body that needs to oversee the security is the airport operators and airlines. There is no need for the state to monopolize this task. It does so simply for the benefit of its controllers and their hired hands; to
the detriment of the much larger population.