|
Originally Posted by gingersnaps
(Post 26565941)
And yet, Private Security is not the solution.
Private Security, at SFO, REFUSED to permit medically exempt liquids as a carry-on. Why then is Private Security better? Private Security, at SFO, cheated on covert testing! DHS IG John Roth has told us Private Security and TSA are no different in terms of success on covert testing. Why then is Private Security better? Many claim that Private Security would be fired for bad performance. WRONG. Private Security, at SFO, cheated on covert tests, and refused to allow medically exempt liquids; that Private Security STILL conducts screening at SFO. Why then is Private security better? Private security screeners, at SFO, were caught smuggling drugs. Why then is private security better? Airport security needs a readjustment. Private security is not the answer. Private for-profit security would immediately ask how many of the 22+ layers of security actually serve a purpose. As we know, the rest of the world seems to allow pax to keep their shoes on without planes falling out of the sky. For-profit security would also realize that multiple non-working bodies hanging around the checkpoint cost money and serve no purpose. I would be surprised if a for-profit security organization permitted their workers to play with their cellphones while on the job. Any spare free moments are not 'break time', they are time to be spent scrutinizing pax and co-workers - 'see something, say something'. |
Originally Posted by gingersnaps
(Post 26565941)
And yet, Private Security is not the solution.
Private Security, at SFO, REFUSED to permit medically exempt liquids as a carry-on. Why then is Private Security better? Private Security, at SFO, cheated on covert testing! DHS IG John Roth has told us Private Security and TSA are no different in terms of success on covert testing. Why then is Private Security better? Many claim that Private Security would be fired for bad performance. WRONG. Private Security, at SFO, cheated on covert tests, and refused to allow medically exempt liquids; that Private Security STILL conducts screening at SFO. Why then is Private security better? Private security screeners, at SFO, were caught smuggling drugs. Why then is private security better? Airport security needs a readjustment. Private security is not the answer. The article suggested that the airlines be responsible for their security and security be conducted by non-government employees. It is clear that the target was missed by having TSA involved in any role of transportation security. |
Originally Posted by gingersnaps
(Post 26565941)
And yet, Private Security is not the solution.
Private Security, at SFO, REFUSED to permit medically exempt liquids as a carry-on. Why then is Private Security better? Private Security, at SFO, cheated on covert testing! DHS IG John Roth has told us Private Security and TSA are no different in terms of success on covert testing. Why then is Private Security better? Many claim that Private Security would be fired for bad performance. WRONG. Private Security, at SFO, cheated on covert tests, and refused to allow medically exempt liquids; that Private Security STILL conducts screening at SFO. Why then is Private security better? Private security screeners, at SFO, were caught smuggling drugs. Why then is private security better? Airport security needs a readjustment. Private security is not the answer. Why are you against civilians having good jobs? <redacted by moderator> |
In The New York Times:
Catching a Flight? Budget Hours, Not Minutes, for Security Excerpt: *** While the T.S.A. says it is hiring and training hundreds of additional screening officers, matters are not likely to improve anytime soon. Airline and airport officials have said they fear that the current slowdown will last through the year and could cause a summer travel meltdown when travel demand peaks. *** T.S.A. officials say the main reason for the longer lines is an increase in the number of travelers this year. *** At the same time, he said, the number of T.S.A. screeners has declined by about 5,800 because of tighter budgets. The agency currently has 42,350 agents assigned for security checks. *** |
The article doesn't state how many of those 42K agents are actual working agents and how many are non-working LTSO, STSOs and BDOs.
|
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 26566699)
In The New York Times:
At the same time, he said, the number of T.S.A. screeners has declined by about 5,800 because of tighter budgets. The agency currently has 42,350 agents assigned for security checks. I do wish that article had allowed comments. |
https://www.usajobs.gov/Search/?Keyw...atusJobs=False
TSA has openings announced for 98 TSO positions, 2 of which are not TSO jobs at all. Look at USAJobs.gov and pay attention to the location of these jobs. I don't see how TSA can claim they are hiring hundreds of new screeners per week. |
I think some of the problem is that they have already hired hundreds of people who currently can't do anything besides stack tubs or stand around because they haven't received their 'academy' training and Neffy has stopped local training.
If they hire 4000 screeners today, background checks complete, it will take over a year-and-a-half before all of those screeners can actually do something productive. In the meantime, they're on the payroll but not able to do anything except stack tubs and collect a paycheck. SEA asked for a special waiver to be allowed to use local training. They had a lot of new hires on the payroll who were useless because they were waiting for 'academy' training. |
For peak hour processing of passengers, the TSA can reduce passenger wait+process times by least 25% on average at those times by one simple switch:
providing PreCheck LLL screening as default screening for all but 20% of passengers. That is without adjusting staffing levels. TSA won't do this and make PreCheck LLL type screening the default unless and until Congress makes PreCheck LLL screening the default by statute. I am not holding my breath -- much as some may wish ;) -- waiting for that to happen. |
TSA wait times experiences (2016)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/bu...ines.html?_r=0
I don't fly as often as many of you here but on my recent SJC-SNA trip last week, I didn't run into any abnormal lines at security. I do remember the line in SJC being about ~100 people long, while the Precheck line was empty and the line in SNA on a Mon evening was completely empty. (also both airports did not have a Precheck screening lane open so I still had to take out my liquids, laptop etc. :mad:) So for those of you with Precheck who are flying in and out of bigger airports at peak times, are you seeing the kind of lines being called out in the article? (In the picture in the article, you'll note the Premium lane is empty, although not sure if that includes Precheck or just premium passengers) |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 26570316)
For peak hour processing of passengers, the TSA can reduce passenger wait+process times by least 25% on average at those times by one simple switch:
providing PreCheck LLL screening as default screening for all but 20% of passengers. That is without adjusting staffing levels. TSA won't do this and make PreCheck LLL type screening the default unless and until Congress makes PreCheck LLL screening the default by statute. I am not holding my breath -- much as some may wish ;) -- waiting for that to happen. PreCheck screening should be the default screening method for everyone, not just 80% or fewer. What would be accomplished by withholding reasonable screening from 20% of the people? |
Because nothing keeps people safe like creating a massive line of 500+ just standing around.
Just completely ignore what happened in Belgium a few months ago... |
Moving over to the Checkpoints and Borders Policy forum, where there is already existing discussion about TSA lines / wait times. Thanks. /JY1024, TravelBuzz co-moderator
|
Originally Posted by Nathan Drake
(Post 26570731)
Because nothing keeps people safe like creating a massive line of 500+ just standing around.
Just completely ignore what happened in Belgium a few months ago... |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 26566291)
Why are you against civilians having good jobs? <redacted by moderator>
All the evidence indicates private security is no better. Being able to fire a person on demand does not mean better security. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:48 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.