I have an idea about airport security . . .

Sep 23rd, 2001, 03:57 PM
  #1  
Wondering
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I have an idea about airport security . . .

In my industry, bonuses are paid to employees to provide incentives for them to do a good job. But as far as I know, there is no such incentive system for baggage screeners and security ground workers at airports. The only system we have is to spot-check their performance by having testers try to get various fake weapons through security.

What if we instituted a bonus system applicable to baggage screeners in airports and ground workers? It would work like this. Any screener or ground worker who discovered a weapon or other dangerous device attempting to be placed or brought on a plane would receive a bonus. The amount of the bonus would depend on the difficulty of catching the item and the risk it would impose if brought on board.

Bombs would be worth, say, $250,000. Plastic gun = $50,000. Knife or box-cutter = $5,000. Flammable liquids = $2,500. (These are just examples. I don't know what the real amounts would be, because that depends on budgets, etc.) Amounts like this would get them to pay attention. Also, the ground workers who inspect planes would receive amounts if they find dangerous items concealed on a plane during their inspections prior to boarding.

Also, I would have smaller bonuses for finding fake weapons in a test. If an employee is actually paying attention and catches a fake grenade going through baggage screening, that ought to be worth $500.

The rewards would be split among the workers who are manning that particular security station device when the item is caught, to avoid controversy about who is entitled to which bonus.

This plan would allow us to pay baggage screeners more, but it would also make sure that the most alert screeners get that money.

What do you think?
 
Sep 23rd, 2001, 06:08 PM
  #2  
Here'sAnotherIdea
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Have U.S. airports make accommodations for smokers so they aren't passing back and forth through security and having to be re-checked all the time, which slows down the process. It's time for the PC smoking police to realize the unintended consequences of the rules they've implemented. This would be an easy-to-implement improvement and need not be done in a way that would require any non-smokers or employees to put up with it, either.
 
Sep 24th, 2001, 12:38 AM
  #3  
micia
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
OK. Your idea could be good.
It might work.
The thing is..... all ideas are good at this moment as we know the system as it is, is not good enough.

Please you two posters above, please go tell your ideas to the FAA.
On their site they are asking for peoples ideas and suggestions.
I made a poster here and it is titled
"For those that have/had ideas for the FAA, please read".
I left the site addresses on this post.
Even if you don't take a look at it, I'm sure you can still find the page by going to the FAA directly. Please get your ideas in.
 
Sep 24th, 2001, 03:11 AM
  #4  
Jim Rosenberg
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks for posting that! Topping it for others.
 
Sep 24th, 2001, 03:56 AM
  #5  
Wait a minute..
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wondering -- do post your idea on the FAA website.

"Another Idea" -- are you nuts? Do you mean we should abridge security for an addiction? How hard would it be for a tobacco addict to "slip" back to the non-secure area, receive contraband from someone else, then "slip" back into the secured area? If you absolutely cannot survive without that burning stick of nicotine, then petition the airports to supply a secured smoking room.

Unbelievable.
 
Sep 24th, 2001, 03:58 AM
  #6  
Wait a minute
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
For "Wondering" _ http://www.faa.gov/apa/pi1main.htm
 
Sep 24th, 2001, 01:50 PM
  #7  
ttt
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
ttt
 
Sep 24th, 2001, 02:13 PM
  #8  
Here'sAnotherIdea
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wait a minute, read the post again. The idea is to have the smokers NOT passing back and forth through security, which is what they are doing now. The NON-SMOKING ANYWHERE rule is what is abridging security. You are exactly right -- there should be smoking areas INSIDE the secure area.
 
Sep 24th, 2001, 10:36 PM
  #9  
Rebecca
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
VERY GOOD IDEA! You really should let the FAA know this idea. Keep us posted as to what the outcome is.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 12:03 AM
  #10  
xx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

My first thought was hey, if I'm a guy whose wife works at the airport, I'll slip a knife or scissors in a bag at her check point & help her get the bonus so I can quit my job. Then I realized they'd put "me" in jail, too! But what would happen if I somehow managed to slip the weapon into some unsuspecting passenger's bag (which could easily be accomplished if I worked at the airport too.)

Just musing, I don't know anyone who works at an airport. I think it's overall a really great idea, but the potential for abuse is there. Hopefully the new regulations would tighten the system where that type scam would be very hard to pull off.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 02:04 AM
  #11  
Texas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

You'd need to screen the screeners when they report to work. That should be done anyway, if it's not already.

Great idea.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 05:57 AM
  #12  
lisa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Another idea: All luggage tags "match" the ticket/boarding pass of the passenger electronically. Once the baggage is checked electronically and passengers have boarded, any baggage that does not match up to a passenger on the flight is removed from the airplane.
(I know this won't stop the suicidal terrorists, but it is a safeguard none the less)

By the way, I'm with XX - I think that some employees may plant weapons - especially if the bonus is too high.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 08:45 AM
  #13  
Stella
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Pay bonuses to employees to provide incentives for them to do their job? Jeez, how about their paycheck? I see now we're to be blackmailed by slackers. "Pay me big bucks or I'll look the other way." You insult the hardworking and dedicated people who do that job with such a suggestion.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 08:53 AM
  #14  
Wondering
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I don't have to insult the "hardworking people" who do these jobs. The facts do that for me.

Turnover is 126% a year; at Denver, it is 400% a year.

These people miss a large percentage of weapons in tests. Screeners have missed sticks of fake dynamite tied together and wired to an alarm clock, for cryin' out loud.

If you are suggesting that their paychecks ought to provide incentive enough, maybe you'd have something if we actually gave them a decent paycheck. Did you know that you make $6.00 an hour as a baggage screener, for a whopping $12,500 per year (assuming no vacation)? My cleaning person gets several times that per hour to mop my floors.

As experienced travelers, we all know that these people frequently do not take their jobs seriously, and engage in banter and gossip rather than making a sincere effort to catch bad guys.

So yes, incentives might make sense. Clearly the current system is a dismal failure.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 09:02 AM
  #15  
Joanne
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Stella, incentive and bonuses are not demeaning, they're a fact of corporate life, from retail clerks to CEOs.

Do you really work full-out at your job all the time, or is there some aspect of it that you'd try a little harder if accomplishments were tied to $$?

As far as fraudulent bonuses, the passenger would have to be ticketed, and would have to incur a penalty that bigger than the bonus. That would not only dissuade cheating, it would pay for the bonuses!

As far as "slipping a weapon into some unsuspecting pasenger's bag," well, nowadays we're all obliged to be suspecting and to not let our luggage out of our sight, so too bad, that "unsuspecting passenger" should get the fine or whatever the penalty is, for carelessness.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 09:03 AM
  #16  
texan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think a better "incentive" would be a better trained and knowlegeable security force, and also better paid. If they do end up being federal employees, that would be a big improvement.

I don't think a bonus would be needed. With a dedicated employee, they would be proud of the job, and dilligent at work. Their "bonus" would be doing a good job, knowing the importance of their position to national security. Personally, I wouldn't mind such a job.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 09:08 AM
  #17  
juli
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
With all these big corporate cuts backs I am going to get laid off soon. If I knew that I could make a decent living I would be more then willing to take the job of making our airports safer. I would consider it a challenge to catch the "bad guys".
Sign me up
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 09:10 AM
  #18  
Stella
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Texan - Thanks for putting it better than I did. And Joanne, No, there isn't any aspect of my job, the one I get paid to do, that I'd do better, or at all for a bonus.
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 11:51 AM
  #19  
Antoinette
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
We must pay the security workers at airports better! I was stunned to read that these adults make $6 an hour! This is an insult not only to the workers but also to passengers who naively assume that these folks are making a living wage to protect us from terrorists! $6 an hour is something paid to a high school kid in an after-school job. It is not a wage paid to an adult who is entrusted with the well being and safety of the hundreds of thousands of airline passengers who travel each day. This pay rate just illustrates that low esteem these folks are held in by the powers that be. And, if you contrast this with the high six and seven figure incomes of the airline bigwigs (who obviously have not done such a great job of things if you go by the $15 million bailout) it just makes you sick. I know that the security personnel are hired by an outside agency and not the airlines. However, it should not take a rocket scientist to be able to see the disparity in the pay rates and correct them. Lives are the bottom line here- not the almighty dollar!
 
Sep 25th, 2001, 01:08 PM
  #20  
Sue
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

In my estimation, for the job they've been doing, the average security check employee is WAY OVERPAID @ 6.00. The system needs a complete overhaul, including tossing out incompetents. Only employees who are dedicated & professional as well as effective deserve to keep their jobs & be paid the higher wage.

Sue
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:11 AM.