The key with the knives guy in Chicago was that after private security caught his two knives, they not only let him thru but the security guys were reported to have kept the knives for themselves. This was 6 or more weeks after 9/11 and neither public shame nor threat of losing business for the owners kept these dorks from petty theft accusations. Enough.

Will Fed employees do better? I dunno. Will they cost more-$2.50-$5.00 a ticket ain't much, is it? Can they do worse? Hard to see how.

At this point, the only arguements are political. Government isn't the enemy, we'll see if can be an efficient friend.

The only thing I guarantee is that for $30,000 a year, we'll have more alert, more dedicated, more attentive people than we did at $15,000 a year. And the open-market folks will (if they're honest) be the first to state and admit to that.

JRF: Security is *significantly* better because:

1) it is now against the rules to bring those items. (On 9/11, at 8am, if you had walked up to the uniformed police officer and said "can I bring this box cutter on board?" the answer would have been "yes".)

2) it is irrelevant, to the real question, whether 1 or 2 or 100 people have brought in a weapon (every reported instance was an error) in the last 80 days. No one will plan a 9/11 event, involving 4 aircraft, based on the fact that they have a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting a weapon through security (even if it is a 1 in 100 chance).

I agree with Mountain Trader...you're just not going to get the caliber of employee you need at $15K a year. And having supervisors breathing down their necks or "upgrading" the requirements will only lead to even higher turnover if the pay isn't there. Why should a capable person subject himself/herself to those demands and conditions if more pleasant jobs pay the same? I know I wouldn't.

And when someone works 2 or even 3 jobs that all pay around $6 an hour, they probably won't be on their toes mentally. Casinos learned that long ago with dealers. Airports didn't because cost was their bottom line.

We are where we are because the old system failed. The new one is guaranteed to have flaws and problems, but people can complain to Congress or use their vote, and I think at least that makes them feel better than under a private system where the bottom line was cost and airlines rather than passengers were the "customers."

Of course you can get the caliber of person you are looking for. It depends on simply setting certain standards. You could require screeners (private) to go through a course with mandated topics, demonstrate proficiency through a test, etc.

No different from becoming a contractor or getting your real estate license.

I will repeat: the best security I've been through was recently in Mexico with wholly private screeners. Many have had the same experience overseas.

Actually, it's $35K and it includes benefits. You know what Argen-not-bright is paying these jokers? About all they deserve, which is $7 an hour, with no benefits and no sick leave or vacation time.

You are so right though. You will get much, much better people applying for these positions. Holy cow, they're going to be paying a living wage. With the economy slowing, there are a lot of people who, while they don't want to do airport security for the rest of their lives, will take these jobs while they're looking for something else because they can actually make a living doing this and it pays more than unemployment.

The last time I made $7 an hour, I was a lifeguard in college.

http://europe.cnn.com/2001/US/12/29/....ap/index.html

Burnstein flew from Tampa to Atlanta before switching flights and continuing to Memphis International Airport.

Burnstein was preparing to board a flight back to Atlanta on Friday afternoon when he was selected for a random search, said Larry Cox, Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority president. That search turned up a loaded 9mm Beretta semi-automatic pistol in Burnstein's carry-on luggage,

The real security we all have is our vigilance. We cannot depend upon some central screening authority.

Each passenger knows that he/she assumes some responsibility for the safety and security of fellow pax.

We are a *lot* safer now, and unfortunately a lot wiser.

We need a security plan that allows those of us least likely to be a problem to proceed as normally as possible, yet also stops those not thus qualified for additional scurity measures.

We need a security card, issued after review, which would let the 1k businessman, the 26 year old Mom from Iowa with a stroller, the nun from LA, pass thru security quickly. And it would not be issued to a 28 year old ex-con, recent Muslim convert with psychological problems, a new passport and bombs in his shoes. Call it reverse profiling-you qualify, you get a card, we screen you but only minimally.

Time to get real, folks. If my passport is renewed, I'll go thru a new security check. Just give me another 10 years when they focus on the real potential problems.

I know some will howl about invasion of privacy. But we currently have a system that requires more government review when you get a driver's license or buy a dog. Different times mean different answers.

As for those who say "The other passengers will step in"-dream on. If Nike man lites the shoes in the john, we've got 180 bodies in the Atlantic. Those Charles Bronson deals-they're movies. They have retakes. In real life, you get one chance. If you're lucky.