Sorry for the inconvenience...
Mar 20, 2003 | 12:55 am
#31
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10
Hey folks, first time poster here. I just read how some folks think that in another two years TSA goes away and private security takes over again. This is partial possibility. Yes, there is a built in sunset clause that allows for private security companies to contract with the airlines for screening services. The issue is far deeper though. The ATSA requires that in the event of a re-privatization of screening services the contractor must maintain the same staffing, pay, benefits, and it will still be under TSA oversight. Tell me, and be truthful. What airline is willing to fork out 4.8 billion dollars annually for this operation? Additionally, if an airline chooses this route, who do you think will pay? Taxpayers fund this operation now, and we have many, many taxpayers. However, the entire working United States does not travel by air every day, so I believe there may be a problem with money there. It could make air travel unaffordable for the average person, or drive some air carriers who are on the bubble right into chapter 7. Personally, I don't see any air carrier stepping up to the plate for a piece of that action. The air carriers have it made. Screening services provided, and the liability is no longer on them. Pretty sweet deal. If it goes private, only the federal screeners will be replaced with private screeners. Federal supervisors, managers, directors, etc. will still be controlling the checkpoints and operations daily. Procedures will remain the same no matter who pays for the screeners. So my question to the board is this: What will the difference be with private screeners versus federal screeners? Same cost, same procedures and the same administration controlling operations. I fail to see any difference save one. Either the taxpayers foot the bill, or the traveling public picks up the tab. Thanks for your time reading my post and for any input you may provide.
Mar 20, 2003 | 5:43 am
#32
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 221
There will be no difference at all except that if they do go private, ticket prices will go sky high and the airlines will be totally finished, no coming back from that either. The bill creating the TSA was written so that, even though there is an out, it will be cost prohibitive. At least now the screeners have to be US citizens.
Mar 20, 2003 | 7:22 am
#33
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
jailer1...welcome to FT!! I agree with you that no airline is going to want to touch this bloated bureaucracy with a 10' pole.
What I fear is that if and when terrorism progresses beyond airports, does TSA create new bureaucratic divisions?
First time there's terrorism at a shopping mall, we get a 40,000 strong Mall Security Agency ( MSA). Then someone takes out a stadium and we get the Stadium Security Agency (SSA). There is no end to where this could go. TSA could eventually be the largest employer in the US. Will we be any safer?? I doubt it. We'll just lose more and more of the daily freedom we used to enjoy.
What I fear is that if and when terrorism progresses beyond airports, does TSA create new bureaucratic divisions?
First time there's terrorism at a shopping mall, we get a 40,000 strong Mall Security Agency ( MSA). Then someone takes out a stadium and we get the Stadium Security Agency (SSA). There is no end to where this could go. TSA could eventually be the largest employer in the US. Will we be any safer?? I doubt it. We'll just lose more and more of the daily freedom we used to enjoy.
Mar 20, 2003 | 8:23 am
#34
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
Welcome to FlyerTalk, jailer1.
That's a very good point. However, the job that the TSA is doing right now is unacceptable. Hopefully legislation will be introduced disbanding the TSA completely and turning aviation security over to private, competent firms who do not spend money insanely. Much as I would like to see the security fee that is extorted from me every time I fly dropped completely, I would be willing to extend it for use by private security firms only. At $10 per pax per trip, the private security firms will have no problem paying for themselves and we will be able to eliminate the financial and fascist albatross that currently hangs about the necks of the traveling public.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
That's a very good point. However, the job that the TSA is doing right now is unacceptable. Hopefully legislation will be introduced disbanding the TSA completely and turning aviation security over to private, competent firms who do not spend money insanely. Much as I would like to see the security fee that is extorted from me every time I fly dropped completely, I would be willing to extend it for use by private security firms only. At $10 per pax per trip, the private security firms will have no problem paying for themselves and we will be able to eliminate the financial and fascist albatross that currently hangs about the necks of the traveling public.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jailer1:
Hey folks, first time poster here. I just read how some folks think that in another two years TSA goes away and private security takes over again. This is partial possibility. Yes, there is a built in sunset clause that allows for private security companies to contract with the airlines for screening services. The issue is far deeper though. The ATSA requires that in the event of a re-privatization of screening services the contractor must maintain the same staffing, pay, benefits, and it will still be under TSA oversight. Tell me, and be truthful. What airline is willing to fork out 4.8 billion dollars annually for this operation? Additionally, if an airline chooses this route, who do you think will pay? Taxpayers fund this operation now, and we have many, many taxpayers. However, the entire working United States does not travel by air every day, so I believe there may be a problem with money there. It could make air travel unaffordable for the average person, or drive some air carriers who are on the bubble right into chapter 7. Personally, I don't see any air carrier stepping up to the plate for a piece of that action. The air carriers have it made. Screening services provided, and the liability is no longer on them. Pretty sweet deal. If it goes private, only the federal screeners will be replaced with private screeners. Federal supervisors, managers, directors, etc. will still be controlling the checkpoints and operations daily. Procedures will remain the same no matter who pays for the screeners. So my question to the board is this: What will the difference be with private screeners versus federal screeners? Same cost, same procedures and the same administration controlling operations. I fail to see any difference save one. Either the taxpayers foot the bill, or the traveling public picks up the tab. Thanks for your time reading my post and for any input you may provide.</font>
Hey folks, first time poster here. I just read how some folks think that in another two years TSA goes away and private security takes over again. This is partial possibility. Yes, there is a built in sunset clause that allows for private security companies to contract with the airlines for screening services. The issue is far deeper though. The ATSA requires that in the event of a re-privatization of screening services the contractor must maintain the same staffing, pay, benefits, and it will still be under TSA oversight. Tell me, and be truthful. What airline is willing to fork out 4.8 billion dollars annually for this operation? Additionally, if an airline chooses this route, who do you think will pay? Taxpayers fund this operation now, and we have many, many taxpayers. However, the entire working United States does not travel by air every day, so I believe there may be a problem with money there. It could make air travel unaffordable for the average person, or drive some air carriers who are on the bubble right into chapter 7. Personally, I don't see any air carrier stepping up to the plate for a piece of that action. The air carriers have it made. Screening services provided, and the liability is no longer on them. Pretty sweet deal. If it goes private, only the federal screeners will be replaced with private screeners. Federal supervisors, managers, directors, etc. will still be controlling the checkpoints and operations daily. Procedures will remain the same no matter who pays for the screeners. So my question to the board is this: What will the difference be with private screeners versus federal screeners? Same cost, same procedures and the same administration controlling operations. I fail to see any difference save one. Either the taxpayers foot the bill, or the traveling public picks up the tab. Thanks for your time reading my post and for any input you may provide.</font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Mar 20, 2003 | 1:47 pm
#35
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17
(Just a temporary cease-fire, or moment of silence.)
With the news of the events that are taking place in Iraq, whether or not you agree with the decisions leading up to these events, please take a moment to show our troops your support. If you know someone who has a spouse or loved one serving, please take some of your time to offer them any needed assistance, let them know that our troops are in your thoughts and prayers.
[This message has been edited by cmhscreener (edited 03-20-2003).]
With the news of the events that are taking place in Iraq, whether or not you agree with the decisions leading up to these events, please take a moment to show our troops your support. If you know someone who has a spouse or loved one serving, please take some of your time to offer them any needed assistance, let them know that our troops are in your thoughts and prayers.
[This message has been edited by cmhscreener (edited 03-20-2003).]
Mar 20, 2003 | 2:12 pm
#36
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLT and that's that!
Posts: 8,350
jailer1 ... aren't you the guy that suggested the way to cut down on LAS security lines was for the airlines to spread their schedules out better?
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/000168.html
------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 03-20-2003).]
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/000168.html
------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 03-20-2003).]
Mar 25, 2003 | 3:42 pm
#38
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17
Originally posted by Spiff
You're making friends fast here with that opening statement.
not looking for friends.
Originally posted by Spiff
Physically, taking off one's shoes for your amusement is not a daunting task.
not doing it for amusement, only to resolve an alarm.
Originally posted by Spiff
How nice that you took the 'due to economical needs'. Therefore, nobody forced you to take this job. Claiming that you 'are only doing as you were instructed' isn't going to get you any sympathy here.
not looking for sympathy, but, if you are: you can find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.
You're making friends fast here with that opening statement.
not looking for friends.
Originally posted by Spiff
Physically, taking off one's shoes for your amusement is not a daunting task.
not doing it for amusement, only to resolve an alarm.
Originally posted by Spiff
How nice that you took the 'due to economical needs'. Therefore, nobody forced you to take this job. Claiming that you 'are only doing as you were instructed' isn't going to get you any sympathy here.
not looking for sympathy, but, if you are: you can find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.
Mar 25, 2003 | 4:23 pm
#39
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ohioan
Posts: 65
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cmhscreener:
Originally posted by Spiff
How nice that you took the 'due to economical needs'. Therefore, nobody forced you to take this job. Claiming that you 'are only doing as you were instructed' isn't going to get you any sympathy here.
not looking for sympathy, but, if you are: you can find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.[/B]</font>
Originally posted by Spiff
How nice that you took the 'due to economical needs'. Therefore, nobody forced you to take this job. Claiming that you 'are only doing as you were instructed' isn't going to get you any sympathy here.
not looking for sympathy, but, if you are: you can find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.[/B]</font>
Mar 25, 2003 | 5:02 pm
#40
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLT and that's that!
Posts: 8,350
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cmhscreener:
Originally posted by Spiff
Physically, taking off one's shoes for your amusement is not a daunting task.
not doing it for amusement, only to resolve an alarm.</font>
Originally posted by Spiff
Physically, taking off one's shoes for your amusement is not a daunting task.
not doing it for amusement, only to resolve an alarm.</font>
------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
Mar 25, 2003 | 5:21 pm
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Tampa, Florida, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,664
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cmhscreener:
Originally posted by Spiff
You're making friends fast here with that opening statement.
not looking for friends.
Originally posted by Spiff
Physically, taking off one's shoes for your amusement is not a daunting task.
not doing it for amusement, only to resolve an alarm.
Originally posted by Spiff
How nice that you took the 'due to economical needs'. Therefore, nobody forced you to take this job. Claiming that you 'are only doing as you were instructed' isn't going to get you any sympathy here.
not looking for sympathy, but, if you are: you can find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.</font>
Originally posted by Spiff
You're making friends fast here with that opening statement.
not looking for friends.
Originally posted by Spiff
Physically, taking off one's shoes for your amusement is not a daunting task.
not doing it for amusement, only to resolve an alarm.
Originally posted by Spiff
How nice that you took the 'due to economical needs'. Therefore, nobody forced you to take this job. Claiming that you 'are only doing as you were instructed' isn't going to get you any sympathy here.
not looking for sympathy, but, if you are: you can find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.</font>
Mike
Mar 26, 2003 | 9:38 am
#42
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
Ahh, so it comes some pages after contempt and disgust. Thanks!
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 03-26-2003).]
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cmhscreener:
not looking for sympathy, but, if you are: you can find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.</font>
not looking for sympathy, but, if you are: you can find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.</font>
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 03-26-2003).]
Mar 26, 2003 | 9:42 am
#43
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
Exactly! Or for having the SSSS stigma stuck on one's BP.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Can't have been an alarm if screeners are demanding we take them off before going through the metal detector.
</font>
Can't have been an alarm if screeners are demanding we take them off before going through the metal detector.
</font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
