There is debate across the globe as to whether aviation security is best provided by private sector contractors or by government agency employees. Here in the U.S., although it may seem that the TSA is ubiquitous, private screeners operate in 16 airports that range in size and geography from San Francisco International to Rochester, NY and Jackson Hole, WY.
U.S. Congressman Mica who heads the House Transportation Committee believes big money can be saved by employing the private sector in place of the TSA. A 2007 federal study showed that private versus federal cost 17% more. A subsequent GAO report released this year revised that number to 3%. But whether screeners are employed by the TSA or a private company, by law, everyone gets the same training, uses the same techniques and equipment.
Across the globe in Australia, the head of Chameleon’s Sydney office Kim Langton recently testified in front of a governmental committee on aviation security where the opposite argument was being made. Some feel that government agencies would do a better job at screening than current security companies in place at Australian airports. What’s more, they argued, customs, border patrol and immigration functions are not contracted out so why should aviation security be? Experts testified that private security workers are poorly trained and that employee turnover rates are high.
Ironically, in the U.S. the argument for using private sector is that employee turnover at the TSA is allegedly too high.
So what’s the bottom line?
I tend to prefer seeing a government agency in charge of securing aviation, personally. That’s not to say the private sector shouldn’t play a role or be involved. But I like to think that there is more potential synergy and room for shared intel within the government. Potentially. Also, one assumes that government has more resources to bring to the table. I took statistics in college and learned that numbers can be massaged to support either side. Of course we need to rein in costs and consider budgets but for me the bottom line is: are we doing the best possible job of keeping the public safe?
It isn’t a question of public v. private -some government employees will be proficient as will some private security employees, but neither public nor private can guarantee an acceptable level of security. The effort will always fall short until we can cut off the snakes’ heads.
How much cheaper would it be if we split lines into male and female and strip or x-ray searched all passengers? Would the personnel or the machines pick up everything? Would it work?
How much better would it be if we admitted this was a war and attacked the countries of origin? Are we willing to repeat previous victories or are we too timid?
It has become a strategic decision, and we must decide on the tactics we will employ and the goal we need to reach. It isn’t a civil rights issue; it’s a war. Do we want to win? Will we attack the terrorists’ host countries?
If we want to return to flying without fear, we will first have to win a nasty war and make the world believe what it did fifty years ago -that murdering innocent people had consequences.
Two quick comments, not really addressing the issue, but peripheral:
a) I always laugh to myself re airport security – no matter who is in charge at the moment – since the vast majority of folk who wear glasses are carrying two icepicks straight through the lines… Check-out how the wings of glasses taper to points inside the over-the-ear plastic… And I have to almost strip-down due to a metal plate in one leg from a motorcycle accident years ago! Ya gotta laff!
b) tk’s comment is dangerous. The vast majority of this planet’s inhabitants would make excellent next-door-neighbours – no matter their country of origin, culture, creed, etc. The problems arise with a few ratbags holding power. (The old tale: in a group of a thousand unarmed folk, and one ratbag has a gun… tell me who wields the power?) War will beget war, and it becomes not ‘who is right’ but ‘who is left’? Winning hearts is the way to go, and even understanding the right to ‘free speech’ also includes – at times – the ‘right to stay silent’ where a loose tongue may inflame a situation… Sometimes folk need to let things SETTLE down so as not to cause other folk to feel they have to BACK-down… Time – the great Tailor of human affairs (so much alteration!) – really does heal…