The answer, to my mind, is "No." But that comes with an observation and an alternative.
The article states:
'Fearmongers might howl, but abolishing the agency wouldn’t make air travel less secure. Given the TSA’s 95 percent failure rate, it would likely make it more secure. The airlines themselves should bear the chief responsibility for protecting planes and passengers at airports. After all, they have powerful financial incentives to ensure that flights are free of danger, while at the same time minimizing the indignities to which customers are subjected. Their bottom line would be at stake. The TSA feels no such spur.'
Ah, yes, the "for-profit is smarter and more effective than public leeches" argument.
But privatized, airport-based security is what we had pre-9/11, and my memory is not so short as to remember what a shambles that was, with minimal standards enforced willy-nilly by cheapest-bidder rent-a-cops. Those "powerful incentives" existed then and, frankly, the airlines and airports were much more responsive to not inconveniencing paying customers.
Hijackings, terrorist attacks, those are all one-off and rare events that no sane business plan spends more than the minimal amount of money on. Turning the security of airplanes back over to folk who are more interested in this quarter's earnings (and consumer ratings) is not a good idea.
Especially if those firms are required to enforce the same security regulations and requirements that the TSA does. Because that's where the real problem lies: what we are currently doing for airport security is not just annoying, but of dubious effectiveness. While the lack of a major terrorist attack on commercial airliners since 9/11 might imply that the TSA is doing something right, tests of how poorly they are behaving demonstrate that the threat out there must not actually be all that high. If Evil Terrorists were out to blow up or take over planes, the craptastic detection numbers at the security checkpoints demonstrate that's not how they are trying to do it.
So let's go on lopping off heads at the top, where the buck stops, but let's also re-evaluate what we're actually doing at those airport check points. Yeah, it's embarrassing to go back and say, "Maybe we don't need to put everyone through those disintegration chambers we spent gazillions of dollars on, so let's take them out," but that conversation needs to take place no matter who's paying the paychecks of the folk manning the checkpoints.
Figuring out a more effective, and sustainable, passenger security check regimen should be step 1. Replacing the TSA has little to do with that, and arguably will be a hindrance since for-profit privatizing of that security process will be motivated by primarily by something other than security. Reform what we are asking the TSA to do first, before discussing who best can do it.
Agreed. I'm with "close the TSA" but don't want to replace it with anything. Closing the TSA in favor of corporate security would be worse than the awful situation we have now.
Yes lets ignore the fact that pre Sept 11, almost every single hijacking was done by people who wanted to live, and, prior to (and until replaced by the incompetent TSA) private security did a better job stopping dangerous weapons from making it on planes, all while cost billions less than the TSA (and not using untested radiation)!
While pre Sept 11 the official policy was to negotiate with terrorist, now with most full sized jets having secured cockpits, panic buttons (and in many cases capable of remote control), there is less need than ever to have incompetent criminals assaulting fliers (especially senior citizens, children, and the handicapped )!
Fire the entire lot!!!
+John Bump I think there's value in some simple, straightforward screening of passengers — at the level of pre-9/11, for example. That seemed to do the job eliminating the normal, basic threats. That needs someone manning it. I don't have a problems with the TSA in that role, in conjunction with improved counter-intelligence would seem to be adequate.
I flew for business, pre and post. I felt safer with the armed military in the airports over disinterested TSA who stole luggage contents.
Let's remember: that's a minimum wage gig……. How good you gonna get?
Well, armed military (I remember traveling in October 2001 well) certainly were helpful for … well, armed attacks on airports. Not so much for terrorists sneaking on aircraft or people in bomb vests.
As for pay … hmmm
A Transportation Security Officer is an entry-level TSA airport security position. TSOs fall in the D and E pay bands, depending on their skill level and their experience. As of January 2013, D-banded TSOs receive annual salaries of between $25,518 and $38,277, while E-banded officers are paid between $29,302 and $44,007. These salary bands do not include the additional locality pay that TSA employees working in high-cost areas are eligible to receive.
So, yeah, even with bennies (which look pretty good), that doesn't seem likely to pull in the Best and Brightest.
+Dave Hill $500 isn't minimum wage, (but it should be close). Still, $30k ain't bad today (sorry)…….
Training!