ronin308

Actually the airports that now use private screeners dispel both of your "issues".

1. The screening equipment at those airports such as SFO are still owned by the TSA and future equipment purchases are funded by the TSA. There is nothing stopping the TSA from owning the equipment and having the staffing of the checkpoints done by a private contractor. This is something done in hundreds if not thousands of federal, state and local government buildings today.

2. Not sure what you're talking about with the respect to the past, but the contract between the private screening company and the TSA or other supervising agency can require the publishing of stats and more importantly specify penalties for not meeting them. This can include customer service metrics, checkpoint throughput requirements and success at "red flag" style testing.

Keeping the screening process internal to the TSA ensures there will be no real accountability for poor performance.

Private companies have proven that the screening process can be more efficient, less expensive and offer the same or better level of security than the TSA doing it themselves.

davidviolin

That's all there really is to say about it. Not sure why this is even a discussion. Look around the world. Europe for instance. Security lines are MUCH shorter with private staffing. Because the COMPETE for the contracts, they know they need to PERFORM.

uofmgrad87

Everyone seems to be forgetting the most important reason the TSA was even created. before 9/11, the screeners were not unionized. When the TSA was created, all of the old private companies laid off the employees, as they no longer had work to do. The TSA then hired the same people right back, but under a union contract. The same person who was "incompetent" before 9/11 was suddenly "competent" when they became a dues paying union member.

ronin308

Let's be clear that almost every airport in the US is run or owned by a government agency so there is no way to not have "the government" involved in the decision.

My question is who creates the accepted minimum standard and how is the creation and updates to the standard paid for?
How will compliance be verified and how is that verification paid for?
Currently the federal government funds these efforts, partially via the security fees collected on a ticket.
The federal government via the FAA prior to 9/11 and TSA post 9/11 pays for almost all of the security upgrades as well.

mikeef

"If you come to Orlando airport or Sanford airport, what is going on is almost criminal to American citizens, and our international guests, the way they are treated," said Mica, head of the Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on government operations, which held a hearing on private screeners. 'This is the mess we've created."

"We also recognize that the government is to blame for creating this mess," continued Mica. "Instead of taking the time to examine if there were actually any failures at the airport on 9/11, we rushed to federalize an organization that clearly should have been left in private hands. Thus, we are putting into effect the following reforms:

• We are ordering the immediate privatization of the TSA. Current TSOs will be able to apply without prejudice.
• We are eliminating badges and giving TSA employees red uniforms so that they will not be confused with law enforcement officials.
• All screening will return to pre-9/11 levels. Metal detectors will be the only method of screening. Liquids will be allowed in all quantities, given that the only proof we've seen of exploding liquids without a chemistry set is in a Die Hard movie. Employees who touch a customer's resistance will be subject to immediate termination and prosecution.
• Identification will no longer be a legal requirement to fly, although airlines may request it. The position of BDO will be eliminated.
• Each private company will develop a customer service plan to manage customer complaints. Payments will be based on customer service scores and companies that do not meet standards will be fired.

It is only by completely reforming the system that we will be able to save any semblance of respect and dignity at the checkpoint."

Bolding mine.

Mike

FredAnderssen

Post hoc ergo propter hoc error. Also, I thought the TSA was created to prevent potential terror events from occurring, such as can occur when one smuggles guns, knives, and bombs onto airplanes. In this, they've failed miserably. The rates of "red team" bomb smuggling tests in 2007 showed a miss rate of 70 percent at LAX and 60 percent at O' Hare. I can drag up a lot more statistics than this regarding knives, guns, and who actually caught the underwear and shoe bomber. Hint: it wasn't the TSA.

Eyecue, are you really proud of your "perfect" record now? It's only sheer dumb luck that the TSA hasn't been at the helm of another 9/11 type catastrophe. (and the fact that terrorists know better than to try to attack the reinforced cockpit doors)

Bad analogy. The DEA doesn't have a fixed point and the resources to stop all the drugs entering the country, nor does it have a fixed point or the resources to stop all drugs being created in people's homes or back yards. That would probably take completely suspending the constitution and using our entire GDP to pay for that kind of policing.

Bad analogy. The U.S./Canada border is 5,525 miles long, the longest, least militarized border in the world; the U.S./Mexico border is 1,989 miles long; and we have 12,383 miles of coastline. Even our military couldn't patrol that much distance.

Bad analogy. There are over 300 million people in the U.S., all who have the potential of being part of organized crime. Do you really think the FBI has the resources to keep a watch on that many people? One would need several orders of magnitude more resources to pull that off, not to mention the total suspension of the constitution, which the FBI and the NSA are arguably doing already.

Bad analogy. There were 131 million returns filed in 2009. That's 131 million ways for people to cheat on their taxes. It isn't the fault of the IRS that we have a system that allows people to sneak in bad data. Just like guns, knives and bombs with the TSA, some cheats are bound to get through.

Bad analogy. The Secret Service certainly doesn't, shouldn't, and couldn't have knowledge of what everyone is doing with their color printers in their homes. There is also the issue of several secret printing presses missing in the Middle East and North Korea. Why do you think the Secret Service has the power to police foreign governments?

Non sequitur. Or as my mother always likes to say: two wrongs don't make a right. Stop worrying about what congress is doing and start cleaning up your own organization.

It's both, and it's not the only issue. There are the molestations and not following SOP regarding a variety of things (acceptance of ID, confiscating of canes etc), too. It's endemic to your agency, which implies that it has approval from the top, since after all these years it only has gotten worse.

Probably. But I think it's high time to try SOMETHING new. How could it be worse than the organization you work for?

davidviolin

I agree with most of your points. However, I do think one needs to be in possession of a valid ID to fly. I for sure would not want to be on a plane without people who can properly ID themselves.

Instead of going back to old metal detectors, I would speed up development of new technology. Scanners you can walk through without separating yourself from your bags or items would save a lot of trouble. Its not a matter of IF such technology will be available, but WHEN.

FredAnderssen

Why? What's so scary about someone not having an ID on an airplane? Do you think people need an ID to take the bus, the train, or ride in a taxi?

How does my identity affect your safety?

Caradoc

Let's all not forget that Mica's real motivation here is monetary, not normalizing the behavior.

He's got quite a stake in privatizing, and it's not to his constituency. Covenant's based in his home district...

WillCAD

Those private screeners all did their job PERFECTLY on 9/11. No prohibited items got through them.

Actually, TSA has a 0.0% success rate for "doing what it was created to do."

How many terrorists has TSA caught? 0.0

How many terrorist attacks has TSA stopped? 0.0

How many terrorist plots has TSA uncovered? 0.0

TSA is a complete failure. It has not done what it was created to do, even once, even a little, even partially, in its entire 12 years of existence.

Congratulations.

davidviolin

Several reasons comes to mind. In an emergency, the airline should be able to know exactly who is on the plane.

I don't know about you, but I would not want known terrorists on FBI's watch list to be able to travel under false names.

Spoddy

This is why right here.

mikeef

I agree with Part A, but it's the airline's responsibility, not the government's, to know who is on the plane in case of emergency.

As for Part B, a fake ID (or a Costco card, for that matter), will get the person on the plane. We don't require an ID to board a bus, train or any other form of transportation. No reason why a plane should be any different.

And before we get the standard "No one has ever flown a train into a building before," I'm sure we can all think of ways that someone can do some damage from a train.

There are bad people out there and bad things happen, but "Papieren Bitte!" is not the appropriate response.

Mike

davidviolin

Although I dislike TSA as much as you do, I have to question how you know for sure 100% your "facts".
I mean do you have proof that TSA never stopped a terrorist? They have stopped hundreds of people with guns in their bags, knowingly or not knowingly. How do you know that they were not planning on using those guns once airborne? How do you define "stopping a terrorist"?

davidviolin

I can think of far worse things to do with a high jacked 747 than with a greyhound bus.

Oh, and just FIY, Amtrak and Greyhound DO require ID's.

If checking Government issued ID's against a database of known criminals, does not make it any harder for criminals to get around, what do you suggest is a better way of stopping criminals from flying?