Does the Screening Process Need Fixing?
 

This Iain Murray commentary offers some interesting observations on the cost of screening and suggests some alternatives. Here is a sample:

Yes, it is from a well known conservative publication, but let's try to bypass any politics and discuss the ideas. Some may be good.

So, what do we think here?

TSA has been an abject failure from the beginning, and continues to waste money and provide no measurable improvement is aviation security. Given the weight of the numerous failures documented by GAO, you'd think that rational leadership in Congress would recognize that we need to completely revamp and overhaul our approach to security.

Wait a minute. What am I doing, expecting rational leadership from Congress.....

the TSA needs a total rebuild.

It's too late. Whatever would replace the TSA would end up being essentially the same; part of DHS, same management, same screening force (where else would they come from ?). OK, some new legislation with teeth for accountability and oversight would be a big improvement, but the Great Security Machine is too well established to be reeled in now.

Tinker a bit with the TSA perhaps, and turn the screening over to the private sector. No more 'federal agent' cr@p, no more bottomless money pit. Won't happen.

To answer the question from the columnist, look at it from these points:

In 2008, the TSA claimed they have 43,000 screeners. This year, it now claims to have 50,000 people working for them (credit: FTer Radiogirl).

In an age where technology is rapidly displacing people in the private sector, the TSA manages to bloat itself.


About technology. The TSA has been around for about eight and a half years. The TSA has yet to "deploy" (one of their favorite words) better x-ray machines. I'm not talking about better monitors, sun shades or floor mats, but actual, better x-ray machines.

The TSA is still using technology from the 1970s at the checkpoints. 2-D x-ray machines that the TSA even points out in their own SOP Manual that doesn't pick up all gauges of wires. It's no wonder they fail so many GAO tests.

To put this into perspective, here are some things the TSA has purchased before purchasing better x-ray machines:

• Uniform changes (three times)
• "Engage" classes
• 'Puffer' machines that were doomed from the start
• Lifetime achievement awards (in 2004, when the TSA has been around for TWO years)
• A gym ($350,000)
• Silk plants and artwork ($500,000)
• First-birthday party ($461,000)
  (source for the last three)
• Should I bring up the $200+ million in SPOT?

I'm sure there are more, but that should answer the question.


The next time the TSA beats its chest about finding John Q. Moron who taped a brick of coke to his back or Jane Q. Moron who brought a plastic bag full of ganja, think about how many times the TSA has said they have passed the GAO's testing. It's the same number as number of terrorists the SPOT program has snuffed out.

May I ask the same question I have asked for some time now? Why does the general public not appear to have an issue with TSA, and in fact many laud it for being 'better' than screening in other airports around the world?

I recently had a series of flights at various airports in the UK and western Europe after a relatively long spell of US domestic travel, and was again struck by the differences in approach (and frankly the peace, calm, logic, and civility was what stood out most)

I read so often online from the infrequent traveller how 'poor' non-US screening is, and how the screening is substandard to TSA. Yet it appears that they don't understand the facts, and only look to the outward top layer, and take shoes off and barking to mean 'better'. Why are more of them not questioning this?

This is how I view TSA:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/...0c71e2a8f1.jpg

Can it be fixed and at what cost?

Probably because most people have never traveled outside the US, and many believe the propaganda TSA puts out. Most people fly a handful of times a year, at that much, so the show is for them. It LOOKS like they're doing something. And after all, if it's a hassle, security must be tight. And we haven't had any planes going down. It all makes sense right? :rolleyes:

And as many people don't fly very often, even if they don't like it, they don't make a big deal about it because they don't have to deal with it option. The ones who complain about the process are marginalized as "nuts", "natives", etc. So the net result is we get what we have now.

Despite the many public failures, TSA isn't going anywhere because Congress is afraid to take it out. If something happens, it will be there butt in the fire for reigning in TSA, and you KNOW TSA will be saying "Well, if you had let us do X, this wouldn't have happened." Until enough people complain to Congress to overcome that fear of not getting re-elected, nothing will change.

I think that the general public just doesn't understand what a mistake TSA is. Most kettles that I see might be flying for the first time, or only fly once or twice per year. However, for frequent travelers such as most FTers, we find it a big nuisance. We may deal with TSA two-six times per week, and possible more often!

When I was in London, I flew out of LHR. What an easy screening process! All I had to do was take off my belt and I went right through the WTMD. It was a nice change from the normal TSA screening.

As an addendum to Superguy's response, I would add that many not only believe the propaganda the TSA puts out but also that they, personally, will be a victim of a terrorist attack. Therefore, the more they see the TSA doing, the safer they "feel."

Further, many people have fallen for the blue shirt/tin badge ploy and believe that TSA is LE. Therefore, anything the LE does can only make us safer.

Thank you for your responses.

I believe that it is virtually impossible to fix a problem if the problem is not even identified or acknowledged.

+100000

The other problem is that TSA thinks they are doing everything perfectly well. They cant see what a CF TSA has become.

From what I've seen at most checkpoints and outside TSA HQ, I don't think many TSA employees use the gym.

It's only for the deep thinkers at HQ.

Several points to answer this:

1. The TSA was built in a knee-jerk fashion in response to 9/11.

2. When the TSA was assembled, it was also during a time when airport security was the butt of a lot of jokes in America, primarily due to most of the screeners having a very loose command of the English language. The TSA's hiring standards brought on people who do speak English fluently, and it part of eye (or ear) candy for the general public.

3. Answering the question about the "around the world" thing. The TSA is admittedly between a rock and a hard place, for them no news is good news. However, they feel they need to justify their existence given they haven't caught any terrorists when their agency has the perception among some of needing to do just that.

That's a long way of coming to this point: The TSA does many things to bolster its PR image.

- They purchased new police-style uniforms, which they even admit was done to command respect from the traveling public.

- They have many signs in airports citing "testimonials" from its screeners, most invoking 9/11 somehow. 9/11 is rapidly becoming shamelessly used. Rudolph Giuliani used it as a platform to run for president, and the TSA uses it to boost its perceived value and image. And here in the States, it's an unwritten law that if you attach 9/11 to something, you're vilified if you go against it.

- The TSA doesn't cater to the frequent fliers. They focus in on Ma and Pa Kettle. You have heard of the 70/30 rule of flying (70% of the airlines' revenue is dependent on 30% of its passengers), right? That basically means that the TSA wants to cater to the 70% that are infrequent fliers, the ones that are in awe and easily impressed by things at the airport, including those police-imitation uniforms (again, purchased to command respect) worn by the TSA.

So, to summarize those points, it's all about the PR and its image for the TSA.


I largely do the travel you mention (though no UK), and I see the same thing at Western Europe airports as I do with U.S. airports.

I don't share the same point of view about civility. People yelling at me (and others) to take liquids out is not what I see (or hear) in Europe. "Male assist, no alarm" yelled out is not something I hear in Europe either.

The TSA would like to advertise professionalism, but actions speak a lot louder than words (even if you shout them).

The difference between U.S. and European screening is that the Europeans don't feel the need to justify their existence. Yes, some European lines can sometimes be a little (and I mean a little) slower, but I find them to be competent and professional.


Again, the warm and fuzzies about the PR the TSA puts out.

The Europeans just do their job, there's no "sizzle" or PR with what they do.