AAFrequentFlyer

Starting November 19, the US airports will have a chance to go back to private security firms. Private firms would have to meet TSA standards. The TSA would reportedly still have control of airport security, but the amount of control has not been yet been specified. Any new rules could determine how many airports stick with the current system.

What are the opinions about this? Are you in favor or not, and does it really make a difference?

travleis

The flaws and vulnerability of the current system has been well documented at many airports.
Will private firms be worse?

(This past weekend I was walking by the outside of a security gate at the end of a shift and overheard a management person yelling at his huddled up team for all their screw-ups that day. "If you guys can't do this right we can bring in a whole new crew if we have to, OK?!" was the last thing I heard. Not very comforting).

ChristieP

I seriously doubt that any major airports will go back to private security screeners. In the summer of 2002, I was part of a team of government contract employees who flew around the country assessing and hiring the new TSA employees. Suffice to say that only the best made it through the selection process, and only the best of the best made it through the background checks to stay on the job. Not many people are willing to do a job where you invade people's privacy, and deal with a strict security environment, every day.

Also, seeing as how the major players in the former arena (Globe and Argenbright) have released all of their employees who had some skills in this area, it would be difficult for them to rehire and train personnel to meet TSA's standards. And when you consider that these companies' personnel who were able to pass the TSA's tests were hired by the TSA, the pool of potential employees shrinks even further.

AAFrequentFlyer

ChristieP,

With all due respect to your inside knowledge, I have to disagree with you and agree with ABC World News Tonight report. TSA's budget is being cut and they are already short of cash. ABC reported that after polling many of the major airport managers, it's clear that most will opt out for private security. The airline/airport business just can't afford to have people stuck in long security lines because of shortage of agents. It will drive the customers away. It does make business sense.

clarkgriswold

"Homeland Security"!

Grammy and grampy have to take their shoes off now, and that makes us all safer!

The blind leading the blind!

Margie

IMO I hope our airport does not go back to a private security firm. With the new security, lines at our airport move faster, checks are more thorough (although I am sure there are flaws - but not as many as before!) and the screeners actual look 1) awake 2) interested in their job and 3) trained and professional.

ChristieP

If airport managers complain too much about long lines, then perhaps they should figure out a way to give the TSA more money to rehire the screeners they laid off when the airports complined they were "overstaffed" in spring 2003. Seriously. At this point, any private screeners will likely be people who couldn't pass the TSA's test the first time. I'd much rather get to the airport a little earlier than go through screening with the private screeners again. (BTW, the annual turnover rate with the private screeners was 150%, and they made an average of $8 per hour.)

J_Correa

Since the TSA has taken over airport security, I have noticed that the screeners are more professional, more efficient, and better trained than they were before.

During peak times, the lines are longer than they were before, but I don't think it has much to do with the quality of the screeners, but rather the increase in overall security.

As far as privatization goes, if the standards can be maintained, I don't care either way.

Loki

"Suffice to say that only the best made it through the selection process, and only the best of the best made it through the background checks to stay on the job."

Ever see the folks at JFK? this just makes me laugh. I'm sure it's true in some places, but...maybe the major cities are anomalies. I find them to be much more stupid/lazy/nasty in the international terminals.

I'm for privatization all the way.

Leona

I suppose that with a budget of $8 an hour to pay "the best of the best", how "best" can we expect them to be?

Does anyone know why people who are wearing sneakers are not required to remove them? Wasn't the shoe bomber wearing sneakers?

clarkgriswold

Sneaker-wearers in general have smellier feet, so it was thought best that they not be asked to remove their footwear.

jor

You always get what you pay for. An $8 per hour job will never attract the best. The airport's McDonald's has better career oportunities. The pay needs to be higher and the standard and background checks more strict. I do not believe that a for-profit firm can handle proper security because profits are always the bottom line in the business world.

Considering we are spending $168 billion to "secure" Iraq's future I think we can spend more money at home to defend our own airliners and people.