Did airport security really need to be federalized?

[BlancoNino]

I say no. What makes the government do a better job? They don't have to answer to anybody but stupid politicians. The government has nothing to lose if they let terrorists on a plane. Airline companies, on the other hand, have everything to lose if they let a terrorist on a plane. If airline companies were in charge of security, they'd be doing a much more efficient job which would benefit everyone at the cost of no tax dollars.

The senate voted 100-0 to pass this. What does that say about Republicans and Democrats? If something major happens, both are quick to think that more government is the only answer.

Discuss.

 

[PrinceofWands]

In my opinion the major difference is politics. The government can force policies that, while doing nothing to provide protection, provide the illusion of protection and action that reassure the masses and get the politicians re-elected. A private company would be able to provide equal or better security, but wouldn't waste tax dollars on appearances - thereby losing elections.

 

[IrateLeaf]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
In my opinion the major difference is politics. The government can force policies that, while doing nothing to provide protection, provide the illusion of protection and action that reassure the masses and get the politicians re-elected. A private company would be able to provide equal or better security, but wouldn't waste tax dollars on appearances - thereby losing elections.

The political stuff aside.
It was found that private companies did not pay there employess enough money for the employee to want to do a good job.
Time and time again items that should not have been allowed on a plane were allowed by civilian private company employees.
there also was no consistencie from company to company.
No there was not one companie involved. each Airport hired its own secutiry and screening!

prince of wands was correct in saying the by making it federal it provides the illusion of protection and action that reassure the masses.

I`m sorry but it had nothing to do with anybodies re-election. tell one instance where somebody ran on the platform -- Elect me because the federal govrnment provides better security...lolol

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I will say, the TSA employees seem much brighter and more motivated than the private ones ever did. Time and time again when I was a teenager I'd fly out of Newark airport and the screeners barely spoke English and were very obviously not even looking at their screens.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I will say, the TSA employees seem much brighter and more motivated than the private ones ever did. Time and time again when I was a teenager I'd fly out of Newark airport and the screeners barely spoke English and were very obviously not even looking at their screens.

Times have changed. Given the conditions, don't you think it's possible that private business could have gotten better, rather than federalizing the whole thing?

 

[Tom]

The structure of private industry creates no incentive for individual companies to spend money on security, if it did 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

As humans, we have to be smart enough to organize ourselves rationally for whatever purpose. Sometimes the best way is private capitalism, sometimes issues are better met through government.

People who automatically think private industry is good and government is bad, are not thinking rationally, they're practicing a weird kind of religion.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Tom
The structure of private industry creates no incentive for individual companies to spend money on security, if it did 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

As humans, we have to be smart enough to organize ourselves rationally for whatever purpose. Sometimes the best way is private capitalism, sometimes issues are better met through government.

People who automatically think private industry is good and government is bad, are not thinking rationally, they're practicing a weird kind of religion.

1) That's not true. Prior to 9/11, if security had been federalized, it would have been like the post-office. After 9/11, whether the government was running it or not, the job would have been done much better. The problem is that the free markets weren't aloud to even try. Nobody would fly on an airline company that looked like they didn't care about security...thus the incentive to hire better staff and do a more thorough job. Did you bother thinking this one through?

2) Sometimes? How about 99% of the time the best way is through the free markets?

3) Wow.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: IrateLeaf

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
In my opinion the major difference is politics. The government can force policies that, while doing nothing to provide protection, provide the illusion of protection and action that reassure the masses and get the politicians re-elected. A private company would be able to provide equal or better security, but wouldn't waste tax dollars on appearances - thereby losing elections.

The political stuff aside.
It was found that private companies did not pay there employess enough money for the employee to want to do a good job.
Time and time again items that should not have been allowed on a plane were allowed by civilian private company employees.
there also was no consistencie from company to company.
No there was not one companie involved. each Airport hired its own secutiry and screening!

prince of wands was correct in saying the by making it federal it provides the illusion of protection and action that reassure the masses.

I`m sorry but it had nothing to do with anybodies re-election. tell one instance where somebody ran on the platform -- Elect me because the federal govrnment provides better security...lolol

That's not my point. Politicians retain power by providing the illusion of action. If it became public perception that a politician was not trying to help the people, then that politician might very well find himself out at the next election. By supporting a plan to federalize security all of the politicians can be seen to be 'doing something', even though actual safety is not much improved.

Having worked in private security for years I can agree with what you say, but not that federalization is the only option. If you want better people pay them more and give them benefits. The two ways to do that are to charge more on contracts and lower the administrative or corporate profits. To give you an idea of how rich security corporations get on contracts, $7-9/hr is about average pay, with high-end armed contracts paying the officers as much as $12/hr. The security company would charge $15-20/hr at the low end, and as much as $30-50/hr at the high end. That's a pretty big disparity.

Saying that fed's took over because they're better at it is just silly. The real issue is that there is no oversight and rules for private security, allowing the business/corporate end of the field to become rich while providing substandard service. When Wackenhut started taking over prisons they had to create a new paradigm which included qualified personnel receiving fair wages and benefits. The result is a super-efficient prison security force.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Tom
The structure of private industry creates no incentive for individual companies to spend money on security, if it did 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

As humans, we have to be smart enough to organize ourselves rationally for whatever purpose. Sometimes the best way is private capitalism, sometimes issues are better met through government.

Government is a fundamental mental contradiction. Therefore, it is patently irrational.

People who automatically think private industry is good and government is bad, are not thinking rationally, they're practicing a weird kind of religion.

The results of government have been what I would call a religion. Voting (a mass ritual), songs, slogans, chants, pledges, parades, preaching, symbols, uniforms, relics.... all aspects of a religion.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I guess I'm agnostic on the wisdom of federalizing airport security, but if anything I guess I favor it in that it provides a greater measure of consistency. I am certainly not blind to the inefficiencies of big government (I was a military attorney for six years and saw things in the federal civil service that blew my mind in that respect), but at least the government generally doesn't see everything in terms of costs vs. profits the way private industry does.

Most of the people here are probably too young to remember the Ford Pinto controversy of the 1970s (I was just a kid, but being raised by a judge helped me better understand the legal interplay at work). Essentially, the Pinto had a known safety problem in that the location and design of its fuel tank made the car somewhat more prone to explosion when it was rear-ended, compared to other small cars. This in and of itself might not have been a huge liability problem, but ultimately a class action suit was brought, and the plaintiffs, through the discovery process, found a memo internal to Ford, discussing the cost-effectiveness of fixing the Pinto. The memo concluded that although the existing design would predictably kill a certain percentage of people, it would be cheaper to pay off the families who sued Ford for wrongful death than to fix the car.

This is a good illustration of why privatizing airport security is, IMO, not a great idea. The airlines will do as little as they can legally get away with. The same people who decided you should have to pay for your bag of nuts (believe it or not, there was a time that a full meal was provided free on nearly every flight) are going to put as few dollars as possible into security, knowing that the actual odds of a terrorist act are relatively small, and as long as they satisfy the legal requirements, they retain plausible deniability as to their own culpability. Indeed, the 1996 Valujet crash revealed that many low-cost airlines operated under a business model of buying the cheapest used planes available and running them with as little maintenance as possible.

 

[Rainsford]

As good as the free market is, we need to remember that the free market is not the answer to all of our problems...mostly because the free market guarantees nothing beyond maximizing profits for corporations. And that is NOT a good motivator for security. Airlines don't compete on security, they can't, unless the entire structure of the air transit system is changed...no more shared terminals, different security checkpoints for all airlines...there are a lot of problems with the idea.

But the real issue is that security that worked for the airlines would have the goal of maximizing profits, NOT keeping us safe. Federal airport security has the goal of moving things along as quickly as possible, but if the choice comes down to people missing their flights or becoming annoyed with the process and cutting back on security, the choice will ALWAYS be whatever makes air travel the safest. Airline security, on the other hand, would always put security second...there would be no economic incentive to increase security at the expense of airline profits. There just aren't enough terrorist attacks to make it worthwhile for them.

Like I said, the free market is great at things that it can deal with...but there are some things that just don't lend themselves to a free market system...and defense, intelligence and security are among them.

 

[BlancoNino]

Profits won't be maximized unless customer casualties are minimized.

This is the same tired argument. When the free markets do something, it's all in the name of greed and evil profits, but when the government does something...well...cue the Hallelujah Chorus.

 

[BoomerD]

The bad part of it is, that with a few exceptions, most of the people you now see in TSA uniforms, are the same people you saw dressed in the private security uniforms before 9-11. About the only difference, is that now, you have to be a citizen of the USA to be hired, whereas before, that wasn't an issue, and there were even many illegals working as airport screeners. SFO had huge problems with this after the law was changed. Wages and benefits went up for the screeners, but not much else really changed. The security people who get paid to test airport security still manage to sneak all kinds of crap past them on a regular basis. Things may be a little tighter for a while, but within a few weeks, there will be so much fuss raised, that it will relax again. The gov't will be able to say "see how well we're protecting you", and the sheeple will feel safer.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Profits won't be maximized unless customer casualties are minimized.

This is the same tired argument. When the free markets do something, it's all in the name of greed and evil profits, but when the government does something...well...cue the Hallelujah Chorus.

Way to attack the Army, Navy, CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, Air Force, NSA, etc. Why do you hate America? Should we outsourse all of our national security to Black Water maybe? sometimes coporations with only profit in mind are not the best solution. As bad as the TSA is now, pre-911 it was much much worse under privite companies.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Profits won't be maximized unless customer casualties are minimized.

This is the same tired argument. When the free markets do something, it's all in the name of greed and evil profits, but when the government does something...well...cue the Hallelujah Chorus.

Customer casualties ARE minimized...that was my point. Terrorist attacks on airlines are rare enough that it makes economic sense for the airlines to take the gamble and loose a few hundred passengers every once in a while. That's how the free market works, it's cold blooded. I don't think profits are evil in any way, and as I said, the free market is good for a LOT of things. But it's not magic, and we don't do ourselves any favors by pretending that it's some miracle cure for all the problems in the world. To most of us, the acceptable number of dead airline passengers is zero...but that view is not supported by economic realities, any airline executive who put absolute security over profits would be fired...and he should be, that's the economic reality of the business.

Again, I'm all in favor of the free market most of the time...but it is NOT a perfect solution to every problem.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Profits won't be maximized unless customer casualties are minimized.

This is the same tired argument. When the free markets do something, it's all in the name of greed and evil profits, but when the government does something...well...cue the Hallelujah Chorus.

Way to attack the Army, Navy, CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, Air Force, NSA, etc. Why do you hate America? Should we outsourse all of our national security to Black Water maybe? sometimes coporations with only profit in mind are not the best solution. As bad as the TSA is now, pre-911 it was much much worse under privite companies.

Your post doesn't deserve a response.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The bad part of it is, that with a few exceptions, most of the people you now see in TSA uniforms, are the same people you saw dressed in the private security uniforms before 9-11. About the only difference, is that now, you have to be a citizen of the USA to be hired, whereas before, that wasn't an issue, and there were even many illegals working as airport screeners. SFO had huge problems with this after the law was changed. Wages and benefits went up for the screeners, but not much else really changed. The security people who get paid to test airport security still manage to sneak all kinds of crap past them on a regular basis. Things may be a little tighter for a while, but within a few weeks, there will be so much fuss raised, that it will relax again. The gov't will be able to say "see how well we're protecting you", and the sheeple will feel safer.

Don't you think that makes a difference? When you treat a group of people like professionals, instead of two-bit rent-a-cops, you will get far more professional behavior from them. I certainly have little love for airports security, being a frequent traveler and all, but while I don't think security is perfect...I think it's a good filter on the more basic threats to aviation. I'm pretty confident a group of smart, dedicated and well funded terrorists could get through, but airport security is great at keeping everyday loonies at bay.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Profits won't be maximized unless customer casualties are minimized.

This is the same tired argument. When the free markets do something, it's all in the name of greed and evil profits, but when the government does something...well...cue the Hallelujah Chorus.

Customer casualties ARE minimized...that was my point. Terrorist attacks on airlines are rare enough that it makes economic sense for the airlines to take the gamble and loose a few hundred passengers every once in a while. That's how the free market works, it's cold blooded. I don't think profits are evil in any way, and as I said, the free market is good for a LOT of things. But it's not magic, and we don't do ourselves any favors by pretending that it's some miracle cure for all the problems in the world. To most of us, the acceptable number of dead airline passengers is zero...but that view is not supported by economic realities, any airline executive who put absolute security over profits would be fired...and he should be, that's the economic reality of the business.

Again, I'm all in favor of the free market most of the time...but it is NOT a perfect solution to every problem.

And where is the government gamble? What does the federal government have to lose if they screw up? They don't own the airlines...and what's worse is that if they do screw up, they'll probably use federal tax dollars to compensate the company. What a mess.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
As good as the free market is, we need to remember that the free market is not the answer to all of our problems...mostly because the free market guarantees nothing beyond maximizing profits for corporations. And that is NOT a good motivator for security. Airlines don't compete on security, they can't, unless the entire structure of the air transit system is changed...no more shared terminals, different security checkpoints for all airlines...there are a lot of problems with the idea.

But the real issue is that security that worked for the airlines would have the goal of maximizing profits, NOT keeping us safe. Federal airport security has the goal of moving things along as quickly as possible, but if the choice comes down to people missing their flights or becoming annoyed with the process and cutting back on security, the choice will ALWAYS be whatever makes air travel the safest. Airline security, on the other hand, would always put security second...there would be no economic incentive to increase security at the expense of airline profits. There just aren't enough terrorist attacks to make it worthwhile for them.

Like I said, the free market is great at things that it can deal with...but there are some things that just don't lend themselves to a free market system...and defense, intelligence and security are among them.

I want to counter one point you're trying to make; that's the difference between actual security and the illusion of security. Governments deal in illusion more than reality. Not saying private security would be better, but I don't like to see people assuming that the actions of government agencies are rationally intended to increase security. They simply aren't. As I said before, it's about making the public believe the government is doing something. That's it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Profits won't be maximized unless customer casualties are minimized.

This is the same tired argument. When the free markets do something, it's all in the name of greed and evil profits, but when the government does something...well...cue the Hallelujah Chorus.

Customer casualties ARE minimized...that was my point. Terrorist attacks on airlines are rare enough that it makes economic sense for the airlines to take the gamble and loose a few hundred passengers every once in a while. That's how the free market works, it's cold blooded. I don't think profits are evil in any way, and as I said, the free market is good for a LOT of things. But it's not magic, and we don't do ourselves any favors by pretending that it's some miracle cure for all the problems in the world. To most of us, the acceptable number of dead airline passengers is zero...but that view is not supported by economic realities, any airline executive who put absolute security over profits would be fired...and he should be, that's the economic reality of the business.

Again, I'm all in favor of the free market most of the time...but it is NOT a perfect solution to every problem.

And where is the government gamble? What does the federal government have to lose if they screw up? They don't own the airlines...and what's worse is that if they do screw up, they'll probably use federal tax dollars to compensate the company. What a mess.

The federal government incentive is that they are elected, and anti-government rhetoric aside, I think a lot of federal employees tasked with protecting their fellow citizens take the job seriously. You don't think soldiers are in it for the money, do you?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Rainsford
As good as the free market is, we need to remember that the free market is not the answer to all of our problems...mostly because the free market guarantees nothing beyond maximizing profits for corporations. And that is NOT a good motivator for security. Airlines don't compete on security, they can't, unless the entire structure of the air transit system is changed...no more shared terminals, different security checkpoints for all airlines...there are a lot of problems with the idea.

But the real issue is that security that worked for the airlines would have the goal of maximizing profits, NOT keeping us safe. Federal airport security has the goal of moving things along as quickly as possible, but if the choice comes down to people missing their flights or becoming annoyed with the process and cutting back on security, the choice will ALWAYS be whatever makes air travel the safest. Airline security, on the other hand, would always put security second...there would be no economic incentive to increase security at the expense of airline profits. There just aren't enough terrorist attacks to make it worthwhile for them.

Like I said, the free market is great at things that it can deal with...but there are some things that just don't lend themselves to a free market system...and defense, intelligence and security are among them.

I want to counter one point you're trying to make; that's the difference between actual security and the illusion of security. Governments deal in illusion more than reality. Not saying private security would be better, but I don't like to see people assuming that the actions of government agencies are rationally intended to increase security. They simply aren't. As I said before, it's about making the public believe the government is doing something. That's it.

I don't disagree, but the illusion of security has value too. You'd still be fairly safe on a plane if you didn't have to go through security at all, part of the job of airport security is to make people FEEL safer, and as you said, that's something the government is pretty good at doing.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Profits won't be maximized unless customer casualties are minimized.

This is the same tired argument. When the free markets do something, it's all in the name of greed and evil profits, but when the government does something...well...cue the Hallelujah Chorus.

Way to attack the Army, Navy, CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, Air Force, NSA, etc. Why do you hate America? Should we outsourse all of our national security to Black Water maybe? sometimes coporations with only profit in mind are not the best solution. As bad as the TSA is now, pre-911 it was much much worse under privite companies.

Your post doesn't deserve a response.

Because your OP is not well thought out. We federalize national security, period. You have a problem with federal troops, then petition the Pentagon to get Walmart to fight in Iraq. You want competitive bidding in the airport security? Each low class company under bidding each other with illiterate screeners and cheap equipment? Does each company or airport have it own standards? If you let the feds make all the standards and buy the equipment (no one else can afford it), then you basically have the TSA paying $9/hr to a company who pays the screeners $6/hr instead of paying $10/hour to the screener. I bet the quality goes way up!

We already have competitive bidding for the Presidency, it got us a TSA screener in a suit.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The federal government incentive is that they are elected, and anti-government rhetoric aside, I think a lot of federal employees tasked with protecting their fellow citizens take the job seriously. You don't think soldiers are in it for the money, do you?

They are elected every 4 years. But where is to say that federal employees would do a "better" job? At the very least, we are wasting tax dollars (and yes, I know the federal government is wasting tax dollars in plenty of other places, but lets try to stay on topic).

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The bad part of it is, that with a few exceptions, most of the people you now see in TSA uniforms, are the same people you saw dressed in the private security uniforms before 9-11. About the only difference, is that now, you have to be a citizen of the USA to be hired, whereas before, that wasn't an issue, and there were even many illegals working as airport screeners. SFO had huge problems with this after the law was changed. Wages and benefits went up for the screeners, but not much else really changed. The security people who get paid to test airport security still manage to sneak all kinds of crap past them on a regular basis. Things may be a little tighter for a while, but within a few weeks, there will be so much fuss raised, that it will relax again. The gov't will be able to say "see how well we're protecting you", and the sheeple will feel safer.

Don't you think that makes a difference? When you treat a group of people like professionals, instead of two-bit rent-a-cops, you will get far more professional behavior from them. I certainly have little love for airports security, being a frequent traveler and all, but while I don't think security is perfect...I think it's a good filter on the more basic threats to aviation. I'm pretty confident a group of smart, dedicated and well funded terrorists could get through, but airport security is great at keeping everyday loonies at bay.

Does it make a difference? MAYBE, but I wouldn't want to bet any serious money on it. Even with the enhanced security since 9-11, there have been WAY too many incidents to make me believe it's anything but window dressing. If they wanted to REALLY make us safer, and not just give the illusion, then we'd have lots of restrictions on carry-ons, much like they have implemented in the UK after the recent incident. Also, ALL aircraft cargo should be inspected and searched. They go through our luggage, but air cargo gets only a cursory inspection at best.
Port security is another big gaping hole in our HSA coverage. Out of the millions of containers that enter our country daily, only about 5% get inspected properly.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273184_containers08.html

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

And where is the government gamble? What does the federal government have to lose if they screw up? They don't own the airlines...and what's worse is that if they do screw up, they'll probably use federal tax dollars to compensate the company. What a mess.

Maybe you should stop talking about issue you have no clue on. The government has the whole US economy to lose if there is a downed plane. Not to mention the political backlash of those in power. What does a private company have to lose, getting fired? Oooooh. We can see in iraq how the quality of work is from Haliburton, you want them for security? The TSA, ISA and other aviation agencies take their job very seriously, I work with them daily. They have strict certification requirements - but their hands are tied due to cost and acceptable lines at checkpoints.

In other words, stop with the ignorant post.