Privatization? Really? Opinions:
Feb 15, 2011 | 6:36 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
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
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26861865/detail.html
Feb 15, 2011 | 6:59 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,985
Given Pistole's response to recent requests for privatization, is there any real reason to hope?
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26861865/detail.html
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.
Feb 15, 2011 | 10:35 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,985
Feb 15, 2011 | 3:04 pm
#6
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: AA, DL
Posts: 328
Given Pistole's response to recent requests for privatization, is there any real reason to hope?
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26861865/detail.html
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/26861865/detail.html
Feb 17, 2011 | 9:12 am
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
Reason to hope:
http://articles.ky3.com/2011-02-16/tsa_28549373
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.
"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.
Last edited by ElizabethConley; Feb 17, 2011 at 9:23 am
Feb 17, 2011 | 9:17 am
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
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.
Feb 17, 2011 | 9:31 pm
#9
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: AA, DL
Posts: 328
TSA generally refuses to release specific test failure rates.