10 is Enough (Years for TSA): How to Provide Better Airport Security at a Lower Cost

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Fisher1949, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    The folks at Reason are prolific TSA critics.
  2. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Argggggg. :mad:

    The most effective way to increase the screening quality and eliminate this dual role is to devolve the screening function to the airports, which should be able to carry it out either by creating its own screener workforces (meeting TSA selection, training, and performance requirements) or by contracting with a TSA-approved security company of its choosing. If the cost comparison between TSA screening at Los Angeles International Airport and the outsourced screening at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is accurate, applying SFO-type best practices nationwide could reduce screening costs by about 40%.

    This is not the right answer. SFO is my home airport, I've gone through it a zillion times. The screeners there are just as bad as the TSA. They grope people, they steal stuff, they yell at people. I fail to see how private screeners using TSA best practices ("best practices" -- now there's a laugh) is going to improve airport security.
  3. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Exactly. "TSA best practices" is a laughable contradiction in terms. Without the umbra of the TSA to shield their activities, the screeners at SFO wouldn't continue to get away with the same acts the TSA does.
  4. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    The author here is really focusing on budgetary and efficient use of manpower. In my view the TSA should be placed under control of the FAA, with screening functions carried out by the private sector. This eliminates the mission creep outside of airports, but the next step is of course to do away with the theatre, Scope-N-Gropes, etc. and start focusing on customer service.

    How competitive was the bid in SFO, when does it come up for renewal, is there a review process for complaints that could effect the contract? The last part is probably the most important, since the TSA as it is now has no interest in dealing with complaints from travelers.

    The company I would like to see handle screening is whoever the people work for in ATL in INTL arrivals. They're smiling and friendly when directing people to the areas they need to go. I saw one guy really go out of his way to help someone when their bag wasn't showing up on the carousel recently. Then I go through the glass doors to the TSA checkpoint and listen to a TSA employee in a poor fitting uniform drone on about laptops as if he's about to fall asleep. It's like night and day.
  5. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    I understand, but the discussion is backwards. The TSA is a corrupt organization, and not only that, but a very corrupt Un-American one at that. The charter that allowed the TSA to be created needs to be repealed (in my opinion). As long as all of that is still in place we will still have people being groped, yelled at, etc. - no matter who is doing the screening. It needs to end.

    Once the TSA is gone, then focusing on budget and efficient use of manpower becomes a more reasonable discussion.
  6. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    I agree: at this moment the privatization discussion is part of the problem.

    My bottom line is the 2010 "enhanced screening" ENDS immediately. And this requires severing the head of this agency. No deal on the rent-a-goon competitive bidding until that happens.
  7. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    The despotism of the TSA: A concept left-right-center can agree on. From Current:
  8. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Kind of like privacy. :) It's that same type of coalition - right-left-center.

    And KrazyKat, I like your sig file with the Bruce Schneier quote.
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Privatization and TSA screening methods are issues that can be pursued separately. There is no need to wait until TSA adopts more humane, intelligent screening methods before we start kicking them out of our airports.
  10. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Yeah - the way I see it is as a matter of speed versus ease.

    Going directly for the jugular, so to speak, and focusing on forcing an end to scope-n-grope, is more likely to bring public attention and criticism to scope-n-grope and thrust it into the public spotlight (as though it weren't there already).

    Replacing Terrorist Searching Americans with private screeners, on the other hand, will have one of two possible outcomes:
    -TSA's workforce is cut due to lack of necessity, leading to fewer TSClerks to protest further reform
    -TSA's workforce is reallocated and more TSClerks are stuffed into fewer airports, leading to more of their fat asses seen lazing about doing nothing (what they're best at) and inviting public criticism over inefficiency.

    These would lead to greater public, and Congressional, antipathy toward TSA and would make it easier in the long run to effect change, because problems would be more evident and/or there would be less resistance (ha-ha) to reform since TSA would lack the numbers to say "X many TSClerks think this is necessary!" It would probably take longer, though, because the point of malleability would need to be reached first before proceedings to gut scope-n-grope could begin.

    I agree, though, that both issues can be pursued independently of each other as well.

Share This Page