New Security Bill Passed
 

Just watching CNN and watching the politicians get so exciting about "raising the bar", "making the sky's safe", "just in time for the holiday travel season"

The following, which has some, but very little to do with increased security took these guys two months to come up with. Sad. Very sad.

The negotiated deal (from CNN web page)

Within a year, all screening will be done by federally employed U.S. citizens

After three years, airports can request that private contractors handle screening

Federal workers allowed to unionize, but not strike

Five airports to take part in pilot programs to test security approaches

Passengers charged fee of $2.50 for each leg of trip, $5 maximum, to cover costs

Full systems to detect explosives operational by 2003

New database to allow cross-checking of names on watch lists

Number of air marshals increased

Very sad.

Another federal bureaucracy. More unionized people supporting more bloat. The republicans caved in of course. I feel so much safer.

I saw Michael Boyd on CNN, and he made a lot of sense in warning us that we're now WORSE off than because this legislation was passed. I did some research on the web, and ended up at http://www.aviationplanning.com . This is some of the stuff that as a frequent flyer I am truly afraid of.

A New Screening Boss. Oops, No, It's Same One, Actually. The DOT gets immediate oversight of screening. Oh, great! Via the FAA, it's these incompetents who have oversight right now. As soon as this bill is signed, the airlines will no longer be the de facto employers of screening companies. The DOT will be the employer, for a year or so while they "train" a federal force. Right now, when a security failure occurs, the FAA/DOT makes a big PR stunt out of it, blaming the big bad airlines. As of next week, it'll be the DOT that will have the responsibility. Guess what we'll hear when failures occur, as they will, after next week? Nothing, because it'll be the full responsibility of the DOT. The FAA/DOT have no historical scruples about covering things up. Even things that have killed people. [My note: the FAA never took any action as a result of GAO surveys showing that guns were successufly smuggled through the security; now these guys are in charge.]

Assigning Training To An "F" Student. And we can really look forward to these new Federalized screeners. First, the legislation has no discussion of what the "training" really must be, what the real standards must be, and - importantly - what the accountability will be. So, we can expect the usual fine work done by the DOT. And let's remember, it's the FAA/DOT who is two years beyond a Congressional mandate to impose basic standards for baggage screening. Sloppy work is not an impediment to career growth in Washington. Obviously, it makes no difference to Congress either.

Yeah, But We Can Fire These Federal Employees. Join us in the real world. First, that assumes the there will be competent supervision of airport security - which, for the record, there won't be. Second, take a look at the rest of the government, the standards will be so sloppy that nobody'll get canned for anything short of a serial murder. (In two years - write this down - national media will be doing investigative reports on this.) And finally, this part of the legislation will last only until a union grievance is filed, or somebody takes it to court. Don't believe it - nobody will get fired in these jobs. Heck, look at the crummy job done by Jane Garvey. If she gets away with it, the worst baggage screener can plan on a long career and a cushy retirement.

Screening All Checked Luggage - A Big Time Placebo. And, in a bold courageous move, the House made sure that all bags will be screened for explosives by 2003. Nobody asked if it can be done. Nobody asked if we have the right equipment, which, of course, we don't. Earlier article.

No Accountability. Since 9/11, Norman Mineta and Jane Garvey have never been held accountable for the security mess. They are above it all. Here's the point: this legislation institutionalizes the cover-up of the massive negligence of the FAA/DOT before 9/11 and since. It's like putting Bonnie & Clyde in charge of bank security.

Overall, this legislation is absolute dishonest garbage. It will not make us more safe, because it intentionally covers-up and protects the people whose negligence helped make 9/11 possible.

I got back from a fun week in Mexico and encountered extremely heavy security IMHO:

my trip report about Oaxaca:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum81/HTML/002331.html

To sum up, they thoroughly searched our luggage and carry-ons. On one leg, they did it twice. Besides the usual careful checking of pax, tix and passports three times and the metal detectors, they wanded virtually every pax a second time at the gate.

All these employees doing this checking were private.

I am very distraught about this bill having passed and its implications, a growing new federal workforce. Private contractors can always do a better job given proper incentives and oversight.

The USA has a very safe food supply and you could make the same argument that "food is too important to leave to the private sector because they always just want to cut costs" and you can end up with federalizing everything.

The reality is that security is in everyone's interests so that there are no more incidents. Incidents are bad for business.

It is a sad day. 50 years ago Dr. Deming talked about typical US response is management blaming the workers for failing to do proper inspections when the tools provided didn't do the job. I'm sure most airport screeners wanted to do a good job but a few didn't or couldn't. Instead of weeding these few out and improving the equipment, we get rid of all of them. Obviously a political move. Maybe we should federalize all Firestone workers to solve the tread separation problem too. I'm sure once the Federal workforce is in place, you will see either no change or worse screening until the equipment is updated.

outoftown, you are WAY OFF here!

Dr. Demming and his TQM methods certainly helped FPL and Xerox overcome many of their problems. The difference between FPL, Xerox and Airport Security is that FPL and Xerox had employees that were capable of doing the job but not empowered to do it properly, and not empowered to make the changes necessary for ongoing improvement.

I have nothing against the airport security people, they are working for a living. They could be on welfare, foodstamps, committing crimes and so forth. They are trying to get ahead in life and making an effort. The problem I have is that these security people have no business being in the job they are, allmost all of them belong back at Wendy's flipping burgers. There are a few good security people, A FEW, and they will probably wind up working in the same position as a Federal Employee. It is sad, as it is not the fault of these not so smart emplpyees, they just should have not been hired in the first place.

Airlines are only interested in profits, and I will not belive that the airlines will put security before profits. I don't think that Demming's TQM method will solve any issues here. The issue is GREED on behalf of the airlines and the goverment not enforcing rules.

I will only feel safer when screeners are US Marshels or Local/State/Federal Police.

Again, this is not the fault of the current screeners, is the fault of the greedy airlines and the government. Just because you can cook a hanmburger at Wendy's does not give you the required brains to be a security screener. So, replace 90% of the screeners, but don't replace them with anyone but those who are trained with weapons and have real smarts.

[This message has been edited by JRF (edited 11-25-2001).]

The "greedy airlines" argument does not "fly". And I agree that federalizing will make security if not worse, no better, and certainly much more expensive. And it will cut out innovation that could improve air travel by leaps and bounds.

There is a clear economic argument that can be made rationally, having to do with supply and demand.

Security was/is exactly what the customers, the travellers, want to pay for.

Before 9/11 it was lax because that was what the customers wanted to pay for. Now it is a lot better and people are willing to pay more. Unfortunately it took a terrible event to change things.

All activities have risk. You could make a car that could protect people close to 100% in the event of a 50 mph crash, but noone would be willing to pay for it.

Another example is air crashes. Air crashes carry horrendous costs for airlines. Customers will not tolerate them. You see airplanes that are for all intents and purposes almost crash free today.

Yes, the government "regulates" jets, but it is Boeing and Airbus and Bombardier and General Electric that engineer and build safer and safer planes, in response to the customers' demand.

People in the USA travelling domestically are unwilling to pay for 100% risk free air security.

The federalizing of the security force will raise costs to travellers and give little or nothing in return. The airlines are the ones who respond to what their customers want. Now we have a new tax flowing directly to some federal agency that is not accountable in any way to customers.

The airlines are now in a passive role. Customers have no say in their security. If anything it will be worse and it will certainly be much more expensive.

I'm curious - why do you think it is possible to make airline travel 100% safe? Also, invoking the 'law' of supply and demand may work in limited instances, but of course there are all kinds of restrictions on this 'law', through government regulations, lack of the ability to simply create new airports without any consideration other than the need for more capacity, etc. IMHO, it is laughable to suggest that customers are getting 'exactly' the security they're willing to pay for, since you are assuming a perfect economic model based solely on INFORMED consumer demand and also that your statement is verifiably correct. And obviously the demand was NOT informed since the government did not assign the proper level of risk to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And as to airlines giving the customers what they want?? Are you serious? Then WHY did consumer dissatisfaction with airline delays and congested schedules reach the point this past year to where the airlines had to move fast to prevent congressional legislation? And finally, I would respectfully disagree - it's ALWAYS about money, and in this case the airline profits. Profits are crucial to a free market economy, but if you seriously sit there and think that saving money was not a concern of the airlines and why they went hand-in-hand with the FAA in putting unqualified people into security positions, then you're being naive.

There is a happy mid-point in this whole security discussion, where some people should admit that the airlines bear a lot of responsibility, the government bears a lot of responsibility and the people bear some responsibility for this mess we're in right now. But all I see is almost every major player scrambling like the dickens to avoid any responsibility for pre-9/11 and now post-9/11 security issues. The plain facts ate that the government failed long-term prior to 9/11 in responding sufficiently to prior American deaths in terrorist attacks, they failed miserably in their counter-intelligence efforts to prevent attacks, they failed to engage moderate Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia in discussions to clamp down on extremist elements, the airlines in conjunction with the FAA failed to implement their own security procedures even with these poorly trained and motivated workers and then paid pennies on the dollar for the joke fines they finally had to pay, and we failed as consumers to demand better of the airlines when incident after incident of security breaches and air rage continued unabated.

We need airlines. We need people to fly. But this war is not over when the last Al-Qaeda in Kandahar sings - it will continue for perhaps the rest of our lives. That means a fundamental paradigm shift in our thinking and certains ways of living is needed, whether people like it or not. Instead of the airlines tinkering with frequent flyer programs and people fretting over their next upgrade and whether Platinums are being unfairly hosed by HoKey, why not spend some of that energy considering the important issues here, which I definitely have seen in a number of threads and applaud?

Today I was watching Fox new's show with Forbes and a few other talking heads and the issue of border security arose - when an older guest raised the issue of the 5000 dead as a good reason to apply the quotas we ALREADY HAVE and to prevent illegal immigration, one of the younger guests exasperatedly exclaimed, in effect, to get over it and stop using that as an excuse. Think about the implications of this financial maven, whose sole concern became later apparent, that the economy move forward and not be burdened by any restrictions, surely to favor his stock holdings. Get over it? When hell freezes over.

One other thing - ask yourself why all these companies laying off people, if they really cared in any real way about their employees, simply didn't put to the employees a vote:
mandatory, across-the-board pay reductions of 15% (for example) or involuntary layoffs?
The answer, if you missed it earlier, is MONEY. I would have accepted reduced pay and/or hours to help out if my company had offered (no, I wasn't laid off), whether the harder times were due to the weakening pre-9/11 or post 9/11 economies. Companies exist these days for shareholder value, not employeee value, for the most part, and shareholder value is about PROFITS. There are exceptions, but in general, that's the way it is now.

Finally, I'm sick and tired of drunk passengers, and I would gladly vote to eliminate ALL alcohol on board. I have one drink when I fly, by the way, but it's totally unneccesary. For those who drink for sedation purposes, buy prescription drugs. They got rid of cigarettes over the objections of a higher percentage of smokers, they can sure get rid of the booze. Greyhound doesn't serve booze on board and to be quite honest (with notable exceptions), flying coach these days with my knees jammed into the seat in front of me with is less comfortable than a Greyhound, albeit safer and faster. As far as I'm concerned, coach IS Greyhound, with wings. Finally, having a couple of belts and driving home from the airport is REALLY smart, and I'd like to say to anyone in this forum who has driven home buzzed that you don't have a right to drink on a plane.

Mileage runs? No thanks - I appreciate why people do it and salute your ingenuity, but I'll reserve my travel for actual business needs and personal fun irrespective of the number of miles and bonuses that count towards elite status. Since I live in Kansas City, it's at most 4 hours to anywhere in the continental U.S., and I'll just grin and bear the discomfort and no longer worry about the upgrade game like I used to. It has become a 3 ring circus and I no longer wish to be a clown in it http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

I am sorry Richard, but I disagree with almost everything you said! Security is no better today then it was before 9/11. So they take my fingernail clippers? Like this does little to solve the problem. While air travel will never be 100% safe, I think the post above this one in conjunction with post above yours pretty well addresses the issue and are correct? Perhaps you are one of the security screeners?

Flying has not been fun for quite some time, and the many of the reasons are due to thinking like you express in your post.

JRF: Can't understand your comment. Security today is *significantly* better than it was before 9/11, *assuming* that the goal is to avoid passengers taking sharp objects (knives, box cutters, guns) in their carry-on luggage.

Now, I am a big critic of many things being done in the name of security. But, *assuming* that you think there is a need to avoid 9/11 type incidents (by that I mean to avoid people bringing sharp objects so that they can take control of the aircraft).

Are the methods being used excessive? I think so, but that is a personal opinion. One reason I think the methods are excessive is because the crew and passengers would not provide the same reaction (turn over control of the aircraft) after 9/11.

Oh, security is better? How about the guy that got through with the knives? If you wanted bad enough to get through security with bad things you still could. Remeber the guy that had the gun in his briefcase? If you really wanted to take down a plane you still could. Do you think the bad guys are stupid? Security on ElAl is is good, the rest, no comparison.

I am not going to comment any further on this issue, as those of you who think security is just fine now, I hope you work for my compitition!

Of course security is better now.

Picking the fingernail clippers makes it sound ridiculous, but that is not all that is better.

Here are three more improvements that I think are very significant (I leave aside the hoohaw about IDs because I think that does very little)

1. you hear about it when someone gets a knife through security. Before, you never heard about it and it must have happened all the time.

2. screeners search carry-on bags more thoroughly, more often, now.

3. people at the gate are randomly (or according to profiles) selected for more complete searches, extra wanding, etc.

Absent a new federal workforce of 28,000 people, laws could have been passed requiring airlines to screen and x-ray all baggage by 2004, enforced by a few inspectors. Just like the safety of the US food supply.

Oh, forgot the most important improvement:

Pax now know they are the real bulwark against hijacking and hijinks in the sky (skyjinks?) instead of expecting to be passive participants. Eliminates most shenanigans on board, moves the problem to the Flight 800 type issue, but how is federalized screeners going to solve that?

Federalized screeners won't solve the problem you're intimating, apparently that of an outside threat. As a matter of fact, neither would private screeners. But whoever said INTERNAL security at an airport was going to solve that problem?

There are a lot of types of debate techniques being exercised on this board in different discussions, and this is a perfect example of one of them. This is an example of misdirection. Rather than resort to this, just debate the points being made rationally, as we'll all benefit from rational discussion even if we find out that we personally are wrong.

One thing they're doing that I DO feel good about - requiring these security personnel to be American citizens. Before the politically correct comments descend upon me, my grandfather immigrated from Italy and was proud to become a citizen - I personally believe taking that step shows a deeper commitment. Is it 100%? Of course not - but it's a good step and one overdue. I don't believe the FBI or CIA or other federal security agencies hire (well, for advertised positions!) anyone other than American citizens, and since most other countries I can think of do the same, then why shouldn't we? We're founded on immigrants, it's true, but those immigrants wanted to become citizens, and if others want to be here and not be citizens, I **** well support their right but they should not have all the same opportunities and status that Americans do, including the right to vote (which they don't).

All this may be well and good, but where does it say anything about uniform implementation and enforcement of security proceedure? You still have old people being searched and nitpicking over nail clippers and the same ordinary personal we've always carried with no second thoughts and no problems. There is also the increasing time spent waiting in either the ticket or security lines which also must become more efficient. They still don't get it.