Contract Screener Program "Reform"

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, Apr 22, 2013.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Overlooked in the shuffle of the Boston bombings, a bit of pushback & some lies from the pro-union crowd ...

    The cost (< TSA) is supposed to be set when the contracts are bid, so this seems mostly B.:trash:. and certainly no worse than relying on Thousands Standing Arounds endemic morons.

    Y'all Politics: Thompson Introduces Bill to Reform TSA’s Contract Screener Program (Apr 15 2013)

    Based on data provided by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), over the last five years it has cost American taxpayers an additional $75 million to maintain contract screeners in the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) over what it would have cost to provide security through TSA. Further, TSA has reported that numerous security breaches, including contract screeners not detecting prohibited items and improperly clearing passengers, regularly occur at SPP airports. There have been documented cases where contract screener personnel mishandled sensitive security information and at least one instance where a private security company thwarted covert testing of contract screeners by tracking testers throughout the airport and alerting screening personnel.
  2. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I don't think anyone here needs to be convinced that a government pseudo law enforcement agency like the TSA should not be tasked with monitoring itself. The errors the TSA has found in contract screener operations would have been glossed over within their own agency. I don't think I have to "prove" that statement, given what we've seen in government agencies in general and law enforcement in particular, I'd say the statement is self-evident.

    It is in the best interests of public safety for contract labor to do the screening and the TSA to do the monitoring of these activities. I am cynical about the politicians who push for this, because I'm pretty sure all they see are dollar signs. I doubt they give a cr@p about public safety or government accountability. Whatever. I do care, and I think contract labor screeners under TSA supervision are our best option.
  3. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Remove the clause about "TSA stuporvision," and I'll agree with you.

    The TSA is irrelevant to real security, as has been clearly shown by their track record.
  4. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Here's the problem.

    "Based on data provided by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),"
    Caradoc likes this.
  5. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    Because thing like this have never, ever, happened when it was regular TSA employees involved. :rolleyes:

    And what's this about?

  6. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I share your opinion with respect to the competency and integrity of the TSA. Their over reach, series of poor leaders and bad decisions have made them a laughingstock. This is unfortunate. There is a legitimate need for a federal agency to regulate transportation security. It's a crying shame the TSA's leadership turned their agency into a synonym for government excess.
  7. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    As I recall, wasn't it the FAA that regulated transportation security in the pre-TSA days?

    You know, the days before the "cooperate with hijackers" policy was exploited by the 9/11 terrorists, and a bunch of opportunistic bastards decided that it was actually a "security" issue and convinced the general public that lackwits, thugs, thieves, and molesters could do a better job of preventing "danger" while they profited from the fear?
  8. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Well, I'm not going to win this one. I do think the TSA was good in theory but utterly malfeasant in execution. The moral depravity of its leadership has caused big problems.
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Well, not really. It was created for the wrong reasons (e.g. "federalize to professionalize") from the start.
  10. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    Ummm hmmmm... And we've seen how well that worked with the US Postal Service, right?
  11. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Our elected officials excel at making theories go to crap in implementation.
  12. RB

    RB Founding Member

    That's because they are crappots.:rolleyes:
  13. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I've never understood why FAA wasn't in charge of all aviation related government activities, including security other than to attribute it to governmental corruption and ineptitude.

    Wouldn't it make sense for the agency that is already coordinating aircraft safety, air traffic and airport standards handle the security checkpoints as well? At lest it might, might, be a more cohesive effort than this disjointed system.

    Of course, blame shared is justice denied, so maybe this works out for both agencies.
  14. RB

    RB Founding Member

    They were before the Reign of TSA Terror.
  15. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Except that it was overseen by FAA but delegated to the individual airports, staffed by contractors and paid for by the airlines. Had the screeners been FAA employees it may have turned out better. Not that FAA is a bastion of virtue, but their low standards are still vastly higher than those of TSA.

Share This Page