Cordelli is right, this was a "Minimum wage screwup".
Why do you think we pay firefighters so much that literally 1000's apply for jobs when only 3 positions open up. We pay that premium because we don't want the lowest bidder to be the one that will come and save us or our property. We would rather set the pay scale so that we can choose the best possible candidate.

Skylink USA, your examples may have less to do with wage scales and more to do with individual incompetence because most people in those positins likely behave differently.

When the bills in House and the Senate wash out, regardless of federalization or not, none of the current security screeners better have their job. JMHO

Here is a a thought.
Do we need screeners at all?

You can get on a train without screening.
You can get on a bus without screening.
You can drive on a very busy freeway without screening.
You can drive up to the terminal without screening.
You can walk into an airport terminal without screening.
You can get on the subway without screening.
You can send mail without screening.

Think about it.

I have a metal comb that I have owned for about 10 years. It has been on, literally, hundreds and hundreds of flights--27 since 9/11. On Wednesday a security agent at PDX took great glee in taking away from me. (I ended up checking it in a box.) When I asked what they thought the chances were of an old lady 1k highjacking a plane with her comb, the National Guardsman said, "We have rules. We are not required to think". Therein lies the crux of the problem.

It is, I believe, generally accepted that El Al has the best airline security system in the world and that is precisely because their security agents are specifically trained to think. They have also been at war long enough to relieve them of the necessity to allow political correctness to blind them from simple common sense.

IMHO, reviewing the manifest 24-48 hours out, and looking for suspect profiles could easily have avoided the tragedies of 9/11. People who buy walk-ups should also always get a lot closer attention.

I seriously doubt that any amount of airport screening of baggage would have had any effect on 9/11 at all. There is evidence that the box cutters were not carried through security by the highjackers, but were instead smuggled in by employees. That makes perfectly good sense to me. I and my employees have travelled with Exactos and box cutters, and even before 9/11 they were frequently confiscated.

I can't believe that the highjackers, who were doing something that was so important to them that they were willing to give their life, would take the chance that they might be able to get a box cutter through security or take any chance of calling attention to themself. I personally believe that a huge portion of what has transpired with airport security in the last couple of months is a huge waste of resources that could be allocated far more wisely.

[This message has been edited by Punki (edited 11-03-2001).]

Very good point. I used to carry a small exacto knife with me for cutting out articles (clipping coupons?) and it was often scrutinized at security before 9/11.

I don't think this has been brought up (if it has please accept my apologies):

I assume federalizing airport security screeners would mean requiring them to have U.S. citizenship? That's been a prerequisite for people whom I know personally who work for Uncle Sam, even in non-security positions.

I get the impression that many of the current screeners are very recent immigrants. I don't have anything against immigrants (I was one myself), but I want my nation's security to be in the hands of fellow Americans who are more likely to have a desire to protect it.

Does anybody know if both the House and Senate versions of the bill would have stipulated US citizenship among the minimum requirements for these workers?

Yonatan

I'm very confused. I would have posted this under Airports, JFK. Unless the terminal is dedicated to a particular airline, and then I would have posted it to that Airline.

Please clarify. It seems you are saying medium is the guideline, not contents.

I overheard that story on C-Span, House session, and posted it to JFK. That wasn't "news" was it?

Sylvia

Dudemon,
I don't know how many firefighters you personally know, but the 2 I had dinner with last night would never work as screeners no matter what pay you pick. They are because being a firefighter allows them time off and schedules that allow many of them to work other jobs. A better example would be jail guards and I will be surprised if you can show me any examples of guard positions that draw those kind of numbers. You will find very high turnover, low satisfaction and most likely many unfilled job positions.

You will also find by objective standards that the best scoring applicants often are not the ones always hired by fire departments, because of gender and racial equity requirements. No matter how many times I have asked, no one with military or prior police experience has made any attempt to prove that raising the salary and making the position a federal/state law enforcement position will fix the problems. The job will always be boring and repetitive. Doing it correctly will result in complaints. Until 9-11 most articles about police talked about low morale and increasing numbers of civil rights complaints. An example of how some police respond in Cincinatti has been to only respond to 911 calls and stop being proactive on the streets.A year from now when that older lady starts screaming about being harrassed because she forgot to take out the scissors in her purse.

You can never get zero mistake security. I do agree that if you throw enough money you will get some better quality employees. My arguement is that it will not seriously change the overall situation. That has changed forever because of how people will respond to any hijacking attempts.

Finally I would like to know more about this incident. It seems curious that it happened right after the transportation secretary said he would accept zero mistakes. It seems like it could have been designed as much as a statement. I cannot believe that a person continued on after setting off an alarm. I would bet money that somebody set off the alarm and when wanded was passed on when the security person thought they had found what was detected. Has anyone seen a report that said more than it was closed after a security error, and without attacking the national guard and police, where were they? Everything I have seen says that police or troops are overseeing every entry. So how have federal positions made things better?


------------------
Robert

This has nothing to do with anything relating to the issues at hand. Not one of these people had as duties checking people for weapons, nor did any of them figure they could just eliminate the wanding of people who set off the detector. Lots of people goof off at work, hell, most of the posts here by people in the daytime are probably people goofing off, but that is considerably different then not wanting to do something and compromising security for an entire terminal.

I would also venture to say that if the CEO's telephone rang, it would get answered. If the Nurse had a code warning, she would take care of it, and if a visitor came into the legislator's office, she would see to it he was taken care of. The minimum wage guards just didn't feel like wanding the people that set off the walk throughs, which is considerably different then the examples above.

Why federal supervision of a private system won't work:

CNN's series on Airline Security
PART ONE: THE SYSTEM
Airport security: A system driven by the minimum wage

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...1.mainbar.html

I agree with Punki: Lots of money and billions of hours of wasted time likely would not have made any difference on Sept. 11. The prison-lockdown atmosphere of our airports is ridiculous and, if seen by bin Laden, must provoke a chuckle. ("stupid Americans.")

Mineta, along with all other bureaucrats, failed to do anything useful on that terrible day. Our reward for their incompetence? Mineta recently declared war on the few remaining business travelers left in the system. His announcement that they will shut down terminals and cause massive delays will inevitable lead to fewer travelers, not more.

No system of security screening will ever work perfectly, especially when the screeners are searching for innocuous non-weapons like nail clippers, nail files, pocketknives, scissors, etc.

No matter who employs the screeners, and no matter how educated, motivated, highly paid and conscientious they are, the system will reamain broken until they go back to looking for real weapons like guns and large knives.

As long as the screeners are told to search for and confiscate safe objects from non-hijackers, we can rest assured that airlines will continue to bleed and need periodic infusions of cash.

sure, they're all subject to terrorism. but none of the modes you mentioned can result in the death of 5,000 people if only a few people have a sharp object in their possession.

at least the other things you mentioned require more involvement that can be expensive, require more expertise, or greater logistics.

I recently flew EWR-LAS-SNA over multiple days.

At EWR - my briefcase loaded with electronics and tools was x-rayed, then hand inspected with swabbing done not just on the outside, but in each compartment that was opened one at a time, then it was x-rayed again with a supervisor reviewing contents as well. 5 minute wait in line - 15 minute check.

At LAS - no line, no check, just x-ray - 1 minute.

At SNA - 1 hour and 25 minutes in line, no check, just x-ray.

Now, which one of these federally supervised (FAA) security checkpoints was operating incorrectly?

When is a bomb risk not a bomb risk? When you're in Las Vegas and Orange.

When is a gun not a security risk? When you're in Syracuse.

The system is broken and has been for years.

For all of those that would say "why pull out my corkscrew" and "good screening would not have stopped the 11th", I say so what.

The next time an unscreend gun is pulled on a plane, or a non-x-rayed piece of checked baggage blows-up, and one or hundreds die, may be the time you realize that we should have federalized the system, and standardized each check-point in the system. I hope that day never comes, but it's foolish to believe that it is so remote a possibility that we need not bother to do anything.

We are way overreacting, as we always do when it comes to airplanes. Thousands die from so many other preventable causes everyday, but we do little about it. Shootings, robberies, car accidents, rapes, etc,etc. This is life as we know it. Yet, when 100-200 die in a plane crash, accident or bomb, we go crazy. Thousands did at the hands of others everyday, but 100 in a plane crash is so different??

Thinking and trying to screen every single person everyday getting on a plane is reactionary and emotional.

Sept 11 will not happen again, even with our current screening, or what we had then. Sept 11 succeeded because we let them. It has nothing to do with the screening process.

And if you think spending 10's of BILLIONS of dollars on bomb sniffing machines will help, you are fooling yourself too.

Everyone assumes these measures from IDs, to eye scans to national IDs to xrays to body searches are the 100% answer. Get real.

Say that to the families of the dead of Pan Am 103, who have been clamoring for x-raying checked baggs for years.

Or just wait until it happens again, and I'll bring this thread to the top so you can say it to the actual next family who loses a loved one.

Yes thousands die every day.

20 in a bus crash but not because the driver didn't bother to check anything

2 in a murder but not because the victim didn't bother to check anything

10 in a fire but not because the landlord didn't bother to check the fire escape

Those that will die in the next airplane terrorist incident will perish because the airlines and people like you thought thorough checks were too much trouble. Too much for who? Not the families of the dead.

[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 11-04-2001).]

I have yet to see a compelling argument that explains the correlation between salary and security. Will placing these individuals on the federal payroll improve their vision, enhance their common sense, or increase their dedication to their duties? I think not. I believe that the better solution lies in a variation of the European model.

• Have federal supervisors with the ability to immediately suspend those that are not performing according to standard.
• Set a minimum standard (read higher) wage for screeners that encourages longevity.
• Establish a bonus system that rewards the discovery of manifestly dangerous items, e.g. guns & knives.
• Establish a uniform set of standards for all security checkpoints.

I believe the key is having a fed supervisor on the spot to monitor the area and to be ultimately responsible for security. However, under any future regime, I am 100% certain that failures will occur and that "the other side" will use them as an example that they were actually correct. How can I be so certain? All involve HUMANS! Another thing of which I am certain: whichever way the federalization question goes, this thread will rise like Lazarus when something does happen.

There is one phrase that I never want to hear at a security checkpoint: "It's good enough for government work."

CWPFLY