What if?
 

Someone suggested that screening should once again be the job of airlines. And at length, it caused me to wonder: What if they don't WANT it again? Has anyone ever asked them if they are unhappy losing the job?

Only way I can see them possibly taking back this can of worms is with the passage of a tax law that puts every penny then spend on security into a tax credit that they can get regardless of being in profit or loss. That way, the taxpayers, not the stakeholders of the company, pick up the tab.

And then I can also see the more ethical companies wanting the establishment of standards that have to be met so that the chronic chiselers don't get a benefit without helping to insure the stability of the whole industry. Because the grounding of planes in 2001 was as devastating to airlines nowhere near the event as to those directly involved. It is also a matter of protecting their stakeholders from the lethargy of competitors in the industry.

And I suppose the airports would need a function within their facility police to insure the facility is also protected. Since they mostly live off fee income, any airline using gates at an airport would pay the cost of protecting the facility.

I've got a flexible attitude about this. With some attention to these details, I can see it working. But any change in America does require either a lot of insider influence or a very activist minority. Do either exist?

Why should taxpayers foot the bill for protecting a commercial entities asset's?

In the original attacks, one of the concessions the airlines asked for and got was a release of liability for responsibility for the damages caused to the Pentagon and the Trade Center. This was part of the airline bailout provisions.

The airlines were released on the theory that if they were held liable for the damages caused in the attacks, they would be bankrupt, and subsequently there would be no airlines left. Part of this bailout was the federalization of Argenbright and the creation of TSA.

Great deal for the airlines: They (and their insurance carriers) escape responsibiilty for the damages from the attacks and they get to wash their hands of security in the future.

Not so great a deal for the traveling/taxpaying public, as we can all see the outcome of this knee jerk reaction. We have an ineffective, witch-hunting, ever broadening, checkpoint agency, intent not on securing passengers and airliners, but creating SSI which is neither sensitive nor secure and is questionable information, make work programs such as ID checkers, gate molesters, passenger x-ray machines and the like.

The airlines no longer care since it is no longer on their balance sheets, they do not have to carry liability insurance and their airplanes are full.

Remember, the airlines were in serious financial trouble before the 9/11 bailout. If they had not been bailed out, AAL/UAL would likely have filed for a reorganization (Chapter 11) not liquidation (Chapter 7) bankruptcy to escape creditors and continued flying. If they did liquidate, one thing is certain: travel demand exists and new carriers, probably cheaper, more efficient, more innovative would have sprung into existence.

To fix the problem:
1. restore tort liability to the airlines and their insurers.
2. make the airlines responsible for their own security and its costs.
3. defund the public screening portion of the TSA.

If the airlines see value in having the TSA/government do airport screening then they can decide to pool their resources and pay the government to do the work. Otherwise, they can choose alternatives, knowing that they are liable and accountable for the safety of their passengers and aircraft. I seriously doubt an airline accountant would recommend purchasing unproven "bodysnatcher" technology with undemonstrable benefits. Likewise, if the screening mechanism were not cost effective, the airlines could solve the problem by the simple technique of fireing/non-renewal of the contracts.

Do we need a TSA? Probably, we do. At least some incarnation of it. But do we need Thousands Standing Around? No. TSA should be a small 2000 sq foot office somewhere in Virginia analyzing information and developing strategies to recommend to the airlines and their regulators (DoT/FAA).

One thing I've learned about "government officials" is that they like big offices. So, to minimize the growth of a government agency and keep it truly mission focused, limit their space.

I'm not really arguing in favor of anything. I'm just saying that with airlines only barely surviving, they would fight any attempt to make them take back a job that involves an increase of costs. I can't really say I'm in favor of taxpayers picking up the tab, either. But I think that is a likely consequence of following the plan of "giving it back to the airlines". After all, they are not without influential friends on the Hill. I just think these things have to be faced anytime a person says "get rid of TSA". I mean, sure, we can go back to just letting people go straight to the seats on a plane with zero screening. That would involve no cost at all. And I suppose if the airline chose the cheap way out, namely, trusting passengers to mean no harm, they'd be incurring a risk by avoiding a cost. Maybe there's some twisted way that accountants can sell that to management.

But that's a scenario I expect not to see. So I'm throwing up scenarios that are alternatives to the status quo that might happen and that would mean the end of the cursed TSO's. Though I can easily see laid-off TSO's showing right back up working for private security. But maybe with a changed set of rules.

But IIRC (and I cannot be bothered digging out my last eticket for a flight to and within the USA to see exactly what the charges were) there are a raft of additional charges on tickets, remitted to the government to offset the cost of security - so passengers (clients of the airlines) are paying for the TSA already, if they are also being subsidised by the US taxpayer, all fool them!

The operating cost is a very minor part of the equation. While the airlines love it that the cost is pushed onto the taxpayer, they aren't so keen about the add-on fees. The airlines see the cost as "national security" and have (easily) convinced the government that it's government's role. Government, never one to duck an ego stroke, and never one to taking on an expansion of responsibility eagerly took over screening.

The largest part of the equation is liability. The airlines simply don't want the liability. If something happens, the airlines can point the finger at government and argue that it's their responsibility. Given the potential legal liability, this dwarfs any annual operating cost.

At the same time, the government has - essentially - a blank check. There is no incentive to keep hassle & costs down. There is no negative impact (in fact, it would be a positive) if a lot of folks stopped flying. In keeping with the liability point, the airlines really have no ability to change the TSA.

Unless or until the costs imposed by TSA on the airlines exceed their willingness to accept liability (or insure against it) the TSA will continue down the path of reckless harassment & unchecked spending. If the airlines lose more than they gain, then we'll see some influence. But that's a LONG way off.

That's utterly ridiculous. When things like AA 587 and Colgan 3407 happen, you can be damn sure those airlines make sure they have liability insurance.


Sounds good, but I'm not ready to pay a minimum of $1,000 for a ticket from San Francisco to L.A. even with 28-day advance purchase.

Don't be so sure that sounds totally ridiculous, because it would take something like that for airlines to assume all that responsibility and get insurance coverage.

It has actually been discussed before, both here in this forum and in general public.

As I understand it, the biggest hangup has to deal with liability. It's not necessarily liability insurance, but rather who assumes liability should something happen.

Take the liability angle aside for a moment. The biggest reasons, I think security will never go private again is the combination of the airlines not willing to take on that added expense, plus the government never willing to let go of power once they get it.

In addition, there is a certain percentage of the public, and even the flying public, that is convinced that the current methodology is the correct one and that it is preventing additional terrorism. That percentage may even be a majority. I, for one, am not among that group.

IMHO, we have traded a portion of our liberty for the perception of security.

Well, that sort of answers the question whether airlines in charge of security is a viable option. The preceding messages seem to indicate that door is closed. But are there other open doors? Also, I'd not be so sure government ever gives up power. I mean the subprime panic wasn't a result of government giving up power. It was a case of government having the power and just not using it. I know there's a whole section of the political system that supports the nonexecise of government powers. But so long as government pre-empts a field, that assures no one else will fulfill whatever role it is. So when a decisions is made, perhaps secretly, for government to stop doing something it formally has taken over, then that job ceases to be done.

Anyway, if secure flying is a benefit, how can it be achieved. I'm fully convinced from months here that the protocol now in place is unsatisfactory at least to people here.

Forgive my bluntness, but ... in my opinion, your question is flawed.

We can never "achieve secure flying". Security is not a "yes/no" characteristic. We can't say "this flight is secure" or "this flight is not secure". It's all a matter of degrees. Some flights are more secure than others. Flights today might (or might not be) more secure than flights ten years ago. And so on.

The question, really, should be this. What security procedures are worth implementing? For each procedure one might consider implementing, there are benefits: the increased safety provided by the procedure. There are also costs: the time required to perform the procedure, the money required to pay for the procedure (both in people and equipment), the loss of liberty inherent in the procedure, and so on. For each procedure, we can discuss whether the costs outweigh the benefits.

After all, we could always implement security procedures like "Con-Air" uses for all commercial flights. It would certainly be much more secure than current commercial air travel. But very few people would choose to fly commercially under those conditions.

On the other hand, we could go back to a wild-West "buyer beware" sort of security, where we don't do anything, and tell passengers that the airlines don't make any guarantees regarding safety. It'd be cheap. But, again, very few people would choose to fly commercially in that sort of environment.

The level of security we want lies somewhere between those two extremes. Where, exactly, is that? Well ... that's what we like to fight about discuss in these forums.

I'll stipulate that "secure flying" does not imply perfect security, a standard that no human being can achieve. So if we can't be perfect, does that imply that no effort is worthwhile? I'm going to take the position that perfection is unreachable everywhere in human activity, that all human beings make efforts anyway, that therefore the issue of perfection is implicitly excluded from all such discussions by common agreement.

In addition to the airlines not wanting to take on the security job again, I'm not so sure that the general public wants the airlines to take it back. Remember how no one ever watched the monitors? Or how spotty screening seemed to be... I was in a small airport once when the rent-a-cop did a complete dump out of my carry on because he saw something "suspicious".

IMHO, the biggest benefit of creating the TSA is that it creates one "company" we can all be angry with rather than the haphazzard ways it was implemented previously. I actually don't have any grievances with the TSA as a whole... they are doing exactly what they've been told to do and funded for. Problem is that there's no end to the madness.

Haha. That's right. One evil whipping boy. But people who hate TSA are probably thinking "if its a company function, I can fly with a different airline". Yeh, that's the one huge advantage of anything done by the private sector. You can always threaten the employees with withdrawing your business. And, who knows, maybe some clever airline would actually DO a good job to steal customers from another airline!

In our economic system, perfection and its attempt bears a cost. The cost may be in time or dollars, but it is a cost that must be paid nonetheless.

At some point the additional cost may exceed the additional benefit. A simplistic example is that as it becomes more aggravating to fly, some people will choose to drive. There are studies that show that driving is more dangerous than commercial flying, at least on a basis of passenger miles. It can be said then that as we try to achieve safety perfection at the airport we encourage safety imperfection in other places.

Since we can not have perfect safety and air travel security, let's set two goals either of which can be monitored effectively if permitted:

1. Any change in policy or procedure must be accompanied by a corresponding cost justification analysis that includes both the direct and indirect benefits and costs. The current system seems to be more of a "let's throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks" rather than the result or reasoned and scientific analysis. Is that hard work? You bet. But, hard work is what is needed on the front side to avoid the travesties on the back side.
   
2. Any change in policy or procedure must be publicly available with the authority and justification to enact such policies documented. The traveler needs to know the rules to which they are subject. Certain procedural items may need to be SSI but these should be minimized and there should be some independent authority established to serve in a credible watchdog capacity for the agency.