|
Privatization? Really? Opinions:
Given Pistole's response to recent requests for privatization, is there any real reason to hope?
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26861865/detail.html |
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
(Post 15867149)
Given Pistole's response to recent requests for privatization, is there any real reason to hope?
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26861865/detail.html I'm thinking Pistole may have a change of heart when TSA funding is on the chopping block and some MOC is taking care of the folks back home. |
:D:D:D
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 15867258)
I'm thinking Pistole may have a change of heart when TSA funding is on the chopping block and some MOC is taking care of the folks back home.
|
Be careful what you wish for.
Thousands of TSOs will need work. If many airports privatize, the TSA will just speed up the schedule to put "security" at the train/bus stations. Ed |
Originally Posted by edmali
(Post 15868358)
Be careful what you wish for.
Thousands of TSOs will need work. If many airports privatize, the TSA will just speed up the schedule to put "security" at the train/bus stations. Ed |
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
(Post 15867149)
Given Pistole's response to recent requests for privatization, is there any real reason to hope?
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26861865/detail.html |
Reason to hope:
http://articles.ky3.com/2011-02-16/tsa_28549373 In a statement, the TSA administrator said, “I directed a full review of TSA policies with the goal of helping the agency evolve into a more agile, high-performing organization and . . . as part of that review, I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program . . . as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time." "That was not a reasonable decision,” said U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri. “It was not one the TSA was empowered to make and I think the principle of this alternative will be part of the final bill." On Tuesday night, Blunt added an amendment to a federal aviation bill on the Senate floor. The amendment says private security screeners should not be limited to only a few airports. It gives this federal argument heat on The Hill that could work in Springfield's favor. |
Originally Posted by battensea
(Post 15870514)
How would it help? Any contractors would still be required to follow procedures sanctioned by TSA.
Private screeners do a better job of detecting truly dangerous materials, don't participate in the more outlandish forms of DHS mission creep, and show willingness to improve their behavior when they're caught acting out. Once an airport goes private, it doesn't go back. That's probably your best proof that private screening is better. Private screeners are so much better than TSA clowns that if a few more airports get them, all airports will demand them. This will significantly reduce the size of the TSA "workforce", making it much easier to downsize. It's in our nation's best interest to reduce the TSA's # of government employees to the bare minimum. Privatization is a baby step in the right direction. |
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
(Post 15882047)
Private screeners do a better job of detecting truly dangerous materials
TSA generally refuses to release specific test failure rates. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:22 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.