^^

Have each airline decide it's own security and let the customer choose whether they want to fly the airline with little security and perhaps more risk, or the airline with lots of security and maybe (or maybe not) less risk.

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

In thinking about it, I bet the could do it pretty easily. Hire enough people to be screeners, and get them up to speed with SOP, and make sure they understand they are accountable for their actions.

When the various checkpoints across the country close, the new screeners will come in to make sure things are setup properly. In the morning, the pax will interact with the new screeners..

As a private business would not a screening contractor have to face different liability and administrative search requirements than a government agency? The way I understand case law, and I am not nor do I pretend to be anything other than a novice observer, the administrative search that allows the current discretion requires a governmental agency to perform the such. Can they contract out this governmental function? A simple yes or no will suffice. I am not fishing, just asking.

The government only needs the Admin Search as an end run around the Constitution. A private business doesn't need this.

The airlines would just add it as a part of the contract of carriage that you must be screened to their standard to enter their terminal.

Yes, they can contract it out.

Even in the 70s, when all airport security was private, courts found that airport screening was part of a federal anti-hijacking effort and was an administrative search. U.S. v. Davis

Kip Hawley is a lying SOB. He knows damn well that TSA wouldn't have prevented 9/11.

My simple TSA deconstruction - eliminate the position of federalized TSO. Transfer the responsibility for airport security back to the Department of Transportation. DOT/FAA creates the position of Airport Security Director at every US airport, and gives this individual a small, professional staff to oversee the contractors who will be hired to perform the actual screening under rules promulgated by DOT/FAA, not the brown shirts in DHS.

We don't need to replace the TSA; it just needs to be run more efficiently without wasting taxes and still keeping safety as a priority.

Replace the TSA agent whose sole job is to repeat the same thing over and over again with a looping video and audio monitor. Heck, a CD player bought at CVS for less than $20 set to auto-repeat does the same job than hiring the TSO for what $20,000/yr per head?

Replace the TSA agent whose responsibility is to cart back the trays over to the landside with say, a conveyor belt or a angled railing that automatically does the same job.

These two would save lots of money just in labor expenses alone.


For international travel, just implement an exit immigration procedure. Lots of countries do this; that's why they have two stamps to put into our passports: one for entry, second for exit. Probably the UK, US, Mexico and Canada are the only four countries that I know of that doesn't have an exit immigration process.

Can you imagine the mess if the rules were defined by each airline, or each airport? You would have to re-clear security when making a domestic connection, if the originating airline or airport had different rules than your connection.

From a practical point of view, we need a single national standard on what is allowed into the secure area and onto a plane. While I suppose that could be defined by an industry group like the Air Transit Association, the federal government is the obvious choice.

Who actually enforces those standards (TSA, DOT, airlines, airports?) is a whole separate issue, of course.

Millions of people get on buses, trains, and subways every day in the US with no screening.

If we can define the "what", without specifying the "how," then we may be on to something. The "how" is the problem. There are many of us that agree that the current "how" is a sham and may be worse than worthless. It may, please excuse my suggestion as it is shocking, include an incarnation of the TSA that only basically resembles what we have now. But, it may not. We have to get smart. We can not keep on throwing things against the wall just to see what sticks.

Well, actually we can, but we shouldn't.

Absolutely not. I should never have to ask permission to leave a country. It's one of the few things that I think the US does well concerning security and immigration.

Heck no! Airports/airlines would be free to compete based on "security" vs. security. The passengers would be able to choose airports/airlines that offer the level of security/harassment they feel comfortable participating in. The federal government should have zero say in the matter. It just makes things worse.

You should watch the movie Please Remove Your Shoes for some good suggestions. Pretty much TSA, DHS, FBI, and foreign equivalents all view knowledge as their precious and they don't want to share. They keep it hidden in a corner and stroke it and then when something happens they say "yes, we knew that was a problem,but we weren't going to tell you "

Agencies should share knowledge.

I can't remember the other suggestions off the top of my head.

I think at this point as a practical matter, the federal government is too deeply involved in airport "security" to cede control to the airlines. Even if TSA were to be disbanded, the feds would still control what private contractors were required to do at the airports, which could just lead to greater abuses/incompetence. I don't think there is much point in getting rid of TSA, better to somehow change the culture at TSA.

If I were in charge I would move TSA from DHS to the Department of Transportation. I would shift screening priorities to cargo and go back to pre 9/11 levels for passengers. I would also let go of all but the few professional TSOs, raise pay levels for TSOs, and hire some new TSOs (although far less than are currently employed) who are capable and have a security background---and thus have a leaner but skilled workforce.