Did airport security really need to be federalized?

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33
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. The TSA, ISA and other aviation agencies take their job very seriously, I work with them daily. The 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.

A private company has to lose "getting fired"? Ha! It's a whole company, lots of workers will lose their jobs, not to mention the owner of the company will lose it's business.

What do the federal security employees have to lose if there is a downed plane? Their job? Probably not, since they work for the government. What about the politicians? Nobody will blame them, and if they do, there's nothing we can do about it until re-election.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 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).

Nothing says they have to do a better job, but at the very least their primary motivation isn't going to be to maximize airline profits...something I don't believe is a good motivating factor for having good security.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33
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. The TSA, ISA and other aviation agencies take their job very seriously, I work with them daily. The 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.

A private company has to lose "getting fired"? Ha! It's a whole company, lots of workers will lose their jobs, not to mention the owner of the company will lose it's business.

What do the federal security employees have to lose if there is a downed plane? Their job? Probably not, since they work for the government. What about the politicians? Nobody will blame them, and if they do, there's nothing we can do about it until re-election.

OMG, it's a whole company with lots of workers? Such drama! So in other words the private company gets abolished (because companies like KBR who utterly fail go under) while the TSA would just let it slide. No accountability, none. They don't care about the safety of others or have any pride, because profit is for more of a motivator. Maybe you should look at some recent examples of your idea and get back to us.

I suppose the local police don't care either, where is your petition for privatised cops? Rent-a-cops rule!

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
[
Nothing says they have to do a better job, but at the very least their primary motivation isn't going to be to maximize airline profits...something I don't believe is a good motivating factor for having good security.

Maximizing profits is the ultimate factor in having good security! Maximize security...and then maximize profits! The company that doesn't maximize security will be the one losing much market share.

 

[BarneyFife]

IMO, I feel much more safer with security right now than I did pre 9/11. Now we have workers getting good benefits/pay and actually caring about their job and doing the best thing. Before, we had a bunch of guys making $6 hour and if they got fired, big deal, they could just walk to mcdonalds and make the same amount. I know someone that works in the airport and security is air tight. You can't even walk to the bathroom if you don't have the right id. IMO, I don't think blanco knows what he's talking about. He's just looking at the bottom line and nothing else. Maybe he should be an accountant.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 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

Well, no security is perfect...and perfect airline security would make the air travel system all but unusable. One of the best security measures might be to not allow ANY carry-on at all, but that would be a big problem with how the current system works...especially for those of us that travel with fairly expensive stuff and would rather not have some luggage monkey hurling it around out on the tarmac.

I think there is room for improvement, yes, but I also think that the goal of perfect security is one we can't reach. The best balance, IMHO, is decent security to keep out the everyday kooks, and good intelligence and police work to catch the good ones before they can do anything. Lest we forget, the most recent attack was not prevented by airport security...and in all probability, had the terrorists gotten to the airport, they would have succeeded.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Rainsford
[
Nothing says they have to do a better job, but at the very least their primary motivation isn't going to be to maximize airline profits...something I don't believe is a good motivating factor for having good security.

Maximizing profits is the ultimate factor in having good security! Maximize security...and then maximize profits! The company that doesn't maximize security will be the one losing much market share.

No it's not, that's my point. Having good security does not help profits at all, there is little economic motivation to have good security...and even if there was, airlines can't compete on security in any case, so where's the incentive?

 

[Fern]

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.

I think Tom's on the right path here.


To those who think it should a "free masrket" thing and left to the airlines to sort out, I have some quick thoughts:

Would it be the airline's loss if they were struck by a terrorist attack? I'm thinking that the insurance companies would bear the loss of money (lawsuits, the plane etc.). If so, how long before the insurance companies became the arbitors of security? Surely they couldn't afford (nor want) to insure carriers with inadequate security. It would too costly for the insurers. But that doesn't strike me as a proper role for insurers.

Are you proposing the courts be the judge (after an attack there would be lawsuits)? How fair a process could that possibly be? How long would that take? It would be years before the first suit was settled after appeals court and so on. Plus, would whole thing be anything other than a giant wet dream for trial lawyers? The consequences to this is a nightmare IMHO.

What if the terrorist decided to manipulate this "free market" system? They could announce that they were focusing their attacks on TWA or whatever specific carier. The insurance companies would likley drop their coverage. Without insurance, they likley wouldn't wanna operate. They'd be out of business. Maybe they'd have to pay a "ranson" to the terrorist or bribe them to name another company?

In this free market system, do we really want to let consumer "choose" their level of security? Why do we have seat belt laws etc? Does it really make sense to let cariers cut down on security to offer cheaper fares? That's the free market system. Why don't we let cariers decide their own level of airplane maintence? Those who cut back could offer cheaper fares, right?

How are consumers who are worried about good security going to be able to reasonably judge that? Some here have written that they can see for themselves in the check-in process. Well, that's kind of fvcking late isn't it? What are they to do, get through the line, decide the system sucks and then try to go back out and demand a refund. Plus, try to back out of line after your bags are checked in and see what kind of sh!t that causes. Not feasable by any stretch.

Wouldn't this free market approach expose us to the argument that we're dooming the poorer people to terrorist attacks. Hey, the "rich" can afford good security, the poor can't. Is that moral?

I could go on, but nah it's a legitimate federal government function.

Fern

 

[BlancoNino]

*sigh*

Fern, did airport security do anything wrong during 9/11? No, they did everything the *cough* GOVERNMENT asked them to do. There were government guidelines for what can be passed during airport screenings...they failed. There were government agencies (The FBI) who had information leading up to 9/11...they failed. There was a ton of government incompetence going on during 9/11...yet you think the only solution is more government? I just don't get fvcking get it...

What "choice" do consumers have when the federal government is involved in ALL airport screenings? They have one choice...the incomptent government's choice. That seems to be EVERYONE's favorite. Ha!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
*sigh*

Fern, did airport security do anything wrong during 9/11? No, they did everything the *cough* GOVERNMENT asked them to do. There were government guidelines for what can be passed during airport screenings...they failed. There were government agencies (The FBI) who had information leading up to 9/11...they failed. There was a ton of government incompetence going on during 9/11...yet you think the only solution is more government? I just don't get fvcking get it...

What "choice" do consumers have when the federal government is involved in ALL airport screenings? They have one choice...the incomptent government's choice. That seems to be EVERYONE's favorite. Ha!

See bolded part above.

After considering your free market suggestion for a few moments, the potential problems outlined in my above posts occurred to me. Thats why I prefer the government approach. The lesser of two evils, perhaps.

I am mostly Libertarian, and generally believe the free markets do a much better job than government. I must admit to feeling a bit odd arguing against free market in favor of government, I can't recall myslf ever doing that before. But I can't find a way around the problems I identified above.

Can you find a solution to the problems I mentioned above? (I'm a slow typist, that took me a while to compose. Was hoping that I would get a response to my points )

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

As I said above, it's foolish and naive to presume that corporations will act in the interest of public safety in order to maximize profits - the reality is frequently just the opposite. I am at a loss to understand how anyone could fail to see that, which is why I used the Ford Pinto and Valujet examples.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I say no. What makes the government do a better job? They don't have to answer to anybody but stupid politicians.

You are joking, right? :roll:

Last time I checked, at least in theory, "the government" you're talking about is the U.S. government of, by and for the people who are the citizens of the nation. The Preamble to the United States Constitution says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you don't think using the full resources of this government to identify and stop terrorists from killing hundreds or thousands of people within the public infrastructure is part of insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare, you need to understand those words and go back for a refresher course in civics.

Hell! Even the police cars of the L.A.P.D. say, To protect and to serve on them.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
*sigh*

Fern, did airport security do anything wrong during 9/11? No, they did everything the *cough* GOVERNMENT asked them to do. There were government guidelines for what can be passed during airport screenings...they failed. There were government agencies (The FBI) who had information leading up to 9/11...they failed. There was a ton of government incompetence going on during 9/11...yet you think the only solution is more government? I just don't get fvcking get it...

What "choice" do consumers have when the federal government is involved in ALL airport screenings? They have one choice...the incomptent government's choice. That seems to be EVERYONE's favorite. Ha!

George Carlin has a great take on choices. He said that we have plenty of choices in the US. 32 flavors of ice cream, 20 types of beer, 50 kinds of coffee, 200 tv channels, and 2 oil companies LOL. Anyway, I take offense at people like you who stereotype everything that the government does is bad. I work for the department of transportation and we all try hard to check the contractor, make sure he isn't overcharging, and making sure he's doing a good job. We look out for the taxpayer. I bet the people that do security have the same approach. What is your problem with this?

 

[sandorski]

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.

[/]

 

[extra]

Hell no. It leaves people with no choice.

I'd rather fly an airline with no security, no waiting in line, and on time flights. And you'd be allowed to bring guns on board. I'd choose a little more risk over standing in line, being harassed, and having your stuff stolen by the TSA because you couldn't carry it on. Screw the terrorists. I'd rather have more risk than have a hassle. If people don't want to accept risk, they can either not fly, or fly on an airline with higher security. I don't think the federal gov should be involved at all.

When I go home now I prefer taking the ferry, because even though it takes a long time, there is no security hassles, no bs, and I can just rent a stateroom and read a few books. The food is good, you get to see the scenery, etc.

All the airport security does is waste peoples time and stress people out, and of course give TSA employees free dvds, laptops, and high end digital cameras. (ask your friends who fly, I'm sure at least one has had stuff stolen).

If we just kept to ourselves, said screw you to the middle east, isreal, and everyone else, and minded our countries business and policed just our own country instead of the world, no one would hate us, and we wouldn't even have to worry about security. How many terrorists target switzerland?

If the government took all this money we spend oversees funding africa, isreal, overseas military bases, TSA, etc. We'd have wayyyy more than enough to have health care for everyone in america and free higher ed for everyone that wanted it.

PS: Don't ever put vicodin or percocet in your checked luggage! It *will* dissapear.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: extra
Hell no. It leaves people with no choice.

I'd rather fly an airline with no security, no waiting in line, and on time flights. And you'd be allowed to bring guns on board.

BWAHAHAHAHA! I love the idea of Wild West Airlines. Sure, there'd be death and destruction, but think of the entertainment value!

 

[extra]

I think that there would be no more death and destruction than there is now. We did fine with our planes in the 70's and 80's with little security.

Were you all scared to ride on planes during the 80's? No? What about if you went through some small airport somewhere that had no real security? Did your flight blow up? Or do you believe, like I do, that people are mostly good, and given the chance to be good, will generally do what is right? And if we all mind our own business and take care of our own people who are in need, no one will have a reason to even cross us or care what we are up to here in the land of the free?

The sad, tragic reality (and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this as it is not a nice thing to say) is that not all countries in this world have a society which has evolved to the point of most of the wests' societies. Nothing we can force upon them will speed up the process of their societies' growth. We have stay behind the scenes, guiding when we are asked to, but in general leaving them alone.

What do you all think would have happened had a peace-loving democratic society came to Europe in the days of the dark or middle ages? Say they came with their superior technology, with their words of wisdom. What would have happened? Could they have stopped the killing, the witch hunts, the senseless and sad violence? Could they have forced a change of heart among the people? Could they have made everyone understand? Sadly, I believe that the answer is no--the society had to evolve on its own. People had to grow to understand a different lifestyle and a better ideal. Today I believe there is no way we can *force* this upon people. We can work through trade and humanitarian aid to help people understand, but force is something these people will just not understand--it is not something we can use to our advantage (unless we wiped them out, but we are, thankfully, well beyond the point at which we would do something as terrible as that).

With that said, in my opinion I believe there is no way we should degrade our society and our ideals to their level. Insane security is lowering ourselves to their level, it is seeing the worst in people. Our society should be about seeing the best in people, it should be about hope and optimism, it should be about overcoming tragedy. It should not be about fear. Our government today (and i'm not going to turn this into a republican or democrat bash) relies on fear as their only tool for power and re-election. Were the founding fathers worried about fear when they wrote the documents that made this country what it is? Were the people in europe after WW2 afraid like they were after WW1? Or did they learn their lesson from WW1 and try to help rebuild and propagate modern society and rebuild the damaged countries instead?

We are living in fear of extremist muslims and terrorists that our gov., in the last 30years, has helped to create. It is time we said no to the insanity that it is bringing upon our culture and admit we made some mistakes, move on, and ignore those who would try to incite fear and terror.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: extra
Hell no. It leaves people with no choice.

I'd rather fly an airline with no security, no waiting in line, and on time flights. And you'd be allowed to bring guns on board. I'd choose a little more risk over standing in line, being harassed, and having your stuff stolen by the TSA because you couldn't carry it on. Screw the terrorists. I'd rather have more risk than have a hassle. If people don't want to accept risk, they can either not fly, or fly on an airline with higher security. I don't think the federal gov should be involved at all.
.
.
I think that there would be no more death and destruction than there is now. We did fine with our planes in the 70's and 80's with little security.

With your head where it is presently located, your next fart could cause a major nose bleed. You are without clue one about physics the physics of what could happen if any kind of projectile or explosion punctured the shell of a pressurized passenger compartment at 20,000 ft.

If that's what you want, I suggest that, the next time you fly, you should be required to buy all the seats on a plane piloted completely by remote control. Of course, you would be welcome to distribute as many tickets as you like to any confirmed, bomb toting terrorists who may want to join you.

At the risk of repeating myself, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The threats to our transportation and infrastructure are not imaginary so providing realistic security measures against them clearly falls under the Constitutionally mandated duties of the Federal government to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

 

[BlancoNino]

Does the federal government need to step in and start employing bouncers at bars too? I mean, if they're starting to take charge of business' security...?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Does the federal government need to step in and start employing bouncers at bars too? I mean, if they're starting to take charge of business' security...?

I know some people get high drinking in bars, but even when the IRA was blowing up English pubs, they weren't pressurizing them and flying the general public around at 20,000 ft. :roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Does the federal government need to step in and start employing bouncers at bars too? I mean, if they're starting to take charge of business' security...?

When terrorists start taking over bars and flying them into buildings, killing thousands of people in the process, your idea might be worth a look. Until then, it's an absurd analogy that has no relevance here.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: 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.

1. Yes it is true. Nothing prevented private enterprise from having sufficient security to prevent 9/11 from happening. The reason they didn't do so, is because the structure of capitalism as it's currently practiced, doesn't provide any incentive to do so.

2. Your figure of 99% is just something you pulled out of thin air, that isn't rational thinking, and is an example of what I mean by point number 3..

 

[Tom]

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.

What the government can do, that private companies can't, is provide the infrastructure, SECURITY, and enviroment that free enterprise can flourish within.

 

[trenchfoot]

correct me if i'm wrong pls...

i'm assuming the airlines paid most/all costs for providing security at the terminals prior to 9/11.

the day after 9/11 when it was necessary to tighten up security (thus adding ALOT of increased costs to the airlines) was it not the airlines themselves that wanted the feds to step in and take over the job of securing the airport terminals primarily because of said increased costs?

also, IIRC, the creation of the office of homeland security, of which the TSA was created (part of a purely political grab for tightly controlling all fed agencies by the bushies?) dovetailed nicely with fed control over securing the airports. a win/win for the airlines and the bushies.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Does the federal government need to step in and start employing bouncers at bars too? I mean, if they're starting to take charge of business' security...?

When terrorists start taking over bars and flying them into buildings, killing thousands of people in the process, your idea might be worth a look. Until then, it's an absurd analogy that has no relevance here.

It would interesting to see, on average, how many people die in bar fights a year vs in plane crashes a year.