Hallelujah!!!
- Thread starter naunga
- Start date
ready2fly
Well-Known Member
Yellow man speak truth. I've been saying that all along. Funny how we "Liberals" seem to be more right than the Right.
(BTW - that was a FRIENDLY joke - NOT meant as a political stab. Before anyone get's their tighty whiteys in a wad - unclinch and laugh. Life is good. That is all. R2F)
(BTW - that was a FRIENDLY joke - NOT meant as a political stab. Before anyone get's their tighty whiteys in a wad - unclinch and laugh. Life is good. That is all. R2F)
naunga
New Member
Two points:
1. Even with the TSA gone things will not go back to pre-9/11. That I would never dispute.
2. If you concede #1 then you realize that private is a better way to go since private companies are funded by those using the airport, not by everyone who has a job in this country. The other benefit of not having the TSA is that the screeners will no longer have government backed authority to harass people.
Naunga
1. Even with the TSA gone things will not go back to pre-9/11. That I would never dispute.
2. If you concede #1 then you realize that private is a better way to go since private companies are funded by those using the airport, not by everyone who has a job in this country. The other benefit of not having the TSA is that the screeners will no longer have government backed authority to harass people.
Naunga
tonyw
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The other benefit of not having the TSA is that the screeners will no longer have government backed authority to harass people.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, this is not true. They will be government contractors, which means that, well, they'll be like the dudes in Abu Ghraib, for example. Or the guys that my mother used to work for before she took an early retirement. These folks are working on the ATC computer system overhaul, and if you think that the private sector bureacracy is any better than the public sector bureaucracy, ask her to tell you about the gross incompetence and stupidity she saw there.
That's why she took the early out.
The other benefit of not having the TSA is that the screeners will no longer have government backed authority to harass people.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, this is not true. They will be government contractors, which means that, well, they'll be like the dudes in Abu Ghraib, for example. Or the guys that my mother used to work for before she took an early retirement. These folks are working on the ATC computer system overhaul, and if you think that the private sector bureacracy is any better than the public sector bureaucracy, ask her to tell you about the gross incompetence and stupidity she saw there.
That's why she took the early out.
naunga
New Member
Good point.
Just to be clear: I would never assume that replacing a public bureaucracy with a private one would be an improvement.
One other point: I never understood the purpose of the TSA, given that the DOT has (or had) an organization to protect our ports etc. called the Coast Guard.
Had I been in office I would have expanded the mission of the USCG to include guarding airports, and while I know that a lot of the people in the military aren't much better than the TSA employees, but I'd much rather trust some 18 year old kid fresh out of boot to guard an airport than some 25 year old guy who just happen get swept along with the TSA.
And quicky a couple of things:
- Military is MUCH more disiplined than a "Government Agency"
- A government ageny isn't better or worse than a private agency, but labor practices in the private sector tend to be a little better since non-government employees as a rule don't feel like they are entitled to their jobs.
- I personally think that there needs to be some armed presence at the airports apart from local law-enforcement. I'm not talking M16's etc., but an MP or two (or four) at the checkpoint with a side-arm would be fine, BUT...I wouldn't trust the TSA with a squirt gun...hence why I would've put the Coasties in there.
Naunga
Just to be clear: I would never assume that replacing a public bureaucracy with a private one would be an improvement.
One other point: I never understood the purpose of the TSA, given that the DOT has (or had) an organization to protect our ports etc. called the Coast Guard.
Had I been in office I would have expanded the mission of the USCG to include guarding airports, and while I know that a lot of the people in the military aren't much better than the TSA employees, but I'd much rather trust some 18 year old kid fresh out of boot to guard an airport than some 25 year old guy who just happen get swept along with the TSA.
And quicky a couple of things:
- Military is MUCH more disiplined than a "Government Agency"
- A government ageny isn't better or worse than a private agency, but labor practices in the private sector tend to be a little better since non-government employees as a rule don't feel like they are entitled to their jobs.
- I personally think that there needs to be some armed presence at the airports apart from local law-enforcement. I'm not talking M16's etc., but an MP or two (or four) at the checkpoint with a side-arm would be fine, BUT...I wouldn't trust the TSA with a squirt gun...hence why I would've put the Coasties in there.
Naunga
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
- A government ageny isn't better or worse than a private agency, but labor practices in the private sector tend to be a little better since non-government employees as a rule don't feel like they are entitled to their jobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the truth. Alot of people won't admit to it, but that's exactly what you get all too often with government employees.
[ QUOTE ]
- I personally think that there needs to be some armed presence at the airports apart from local law-enforcement. I'm not talking M16's etc., but an MP or two (or four) at the checkpoint with a side-arm would be fine . . .
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with a military presence at any civilian airport. There are lots of domestic issues that have cost a great many U.S. problems and deaths. To invoke military security at airports would be a slap in the face to citizens in communities that have been plagued with "domestic terrorism" for decades, without any military intervention...
Just my view...
- A government ageny isn't better or worse than a private agency, but labor practices in the private sector tend to be a little better since non-government employees as a rule don't feel like they are entitled to their jobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the truth. Alot of people won't admit to it, but that's exactly what you get all too often with government employees.
[ QUOTE ]
- I personally think that there needs to be some armed presence at the airports apart from local law-enforcement. I'm not talking M16's etc., but an MP or two (or four) at the checkpoint with a side-arm would be fine . . .
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with a military presence at any civilian airport. There are lots of domestic issues that have cost a great many U.S. problems and deaths. To invoke military security at airports would be a slap in the face to citizens in communities that have been plagued with "domestic terrorism" for decades, without any military intervention...
Just my view...
flyover
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear: I would never assume that replacing a public bureaucracy with a private one would be an improvement.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? That the TSA would degenerate into what it is, was completely to be expected.
The old security system was as bad as it was only because the airlines did their best to keep cost down while meeting mandates. There are plenty of models in the world for good private security.
There are a lot of issues here. Government mandates, fiscally failing airlines, etc. But it was inevitable that the TSA is what it is. Your USCG idea might be a good one. But cost comes into play again. Just how much do you want to spend on front of the airport screening? How much are we going to allow common sense and good practices to replace the current senseless system? How far can we get the government out of it? (Not far I'm guessing).
It is killing me to watch the TSA run off my customers, especially here in ATL.
Just to be clear: I would never assume that replacing a public bureaucracy with a private one would be an improvement.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? That the TSA would degenerate into what it is, was completely to be expected.
The old security system was as bad as it was only because the airlines did their best to keep cost down while meeting mandates. There are plenty of models in the world for good private security.
There are a lot of issues here. Government mandates, fiscally failing airlines, etc. But it was inevitable that the TSA is what it is. Your USCG idea might be a good one. But cost comes into play again. Just how much do you want to spend on front of the airport screening? How much are we going to allow common sense and good practices to replace the current senseless system? How far can we get the government out of it? (Not far I'm guessing).
It is killing me to watch the TSA run off my customers, especially here in ATL.
naunga
New Member
I think you misunderstand.
I wouldn't accept spending ANY money on the FRONT of airport screening. Which I whole-heartedly agree that it is.
And I don't care if they put the Marines in there, if all it continues to be is a front.
I want to see smart security that does not cause me to loose my civil-rights and/or implied freedoms (such as being able to go to a public airport to do nothing, but watch airplanes etc.)
Rules such as not being able to get past security without a ticket, removing of shoes, etc. aren't going to make things any safer.
I personally would like to see security in layers.
- A sensible check point with an armed presence (i.e. USCG). Where things like knives etc. are NOT ALLOWED no matter who you are, however people's personal affects should not be taken away and simply discarded or kept by the security people. They should be put in an envelope and either sent to the persons residence, or held in trust until that person returns to retrive them. Sounds silly, but pocket knives can become a part of a person's life and often times carry a lot of sentimential value esspecially for people in the Boy Scouts, vets, etc.
- Plain clothed security personell past the checkpoint. I know there are logistical issues with this, but I'm sure they can be worked out
- Secure the cockpit on the planes with bullet proof doors.
- Finally, the airlines MUST know who is in this country that may be a threat. In fact: if at all possible those people who may be a threat shoud never enter this country to begin with, or at the very least be arrested should they try to cross the border.
That's my "solution"
Naunga
I wouldn't accept spending ANY money on the FRONT of airport screening. Which I whole-heartedly agree that it is.
And I don't care if they put the Marines in there, if all it continues to be is a front.
I want to see smart security that does not cause me to loose my civil-rights and/or implied freedoms (such as being able to go to a public airport to do nothing, but watch airplanes etc.)
Rules such as not being able to get past security without a ticket, removing of shoes, etc. aren't going to make things any safer.
I personally would like to see security in layers.
- A sensible check point with an armed presence (i.e. USCG). Where things like knives etc. are NOT ALLOWED no matter who you are, however people's personal affects should not be taken away and simply discarded or kept by the security people. They should be put in an envelope and either sent to the persons residence, or held in trust until that person returns to retrive them. Sounds silly, but pocket knives can become a part of a person's life and often times carry a lot of sentimential value esspecially for people in the Boy Scouts, vets, etc.
- Plain clothed security personell past the checkpoint. I know there are logistical issues with this, but I'm sure they can be worked out
- Secure the cockpit on the planes with bullet proof doors.
- Finally, the airlines MUST know who is in this country that may be a threat. In fact: if at all possible those people who may be a threat shoud never enter this country to begin with, or at the very least be arrested should they try to cross the border.
That's my "solution"
Naunga
naunga
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with a military presence at any civilian airport. There are lots of domestic issues that have cost a great many U.S. problems and deaths.
[/ QUOTE ]
I interpret the law which keeps the military out of civilian affairs like this: since the airspace of the U.S. is controled by the Federal Government and not state Governments, is regulated and secured by the DOT, and the USCG (until post-9/11) was the enforcement arm of the DOT and not entirely part of the military, then the USCG would be allowed to protect an airport which is a facility who's sole purpose is to enable the utilization of the National Airspace.
As far as the domestic issues go, I totally agree that more needs to be done, without involving the military the state and city governments along with the Federallies need to pony up and get more, well-trained cops on the streets. Instead of cutting the size of police forces and look of ways to bring the rich in.
Come to Cleveland sometime and checkout the stupid management that has been going on. Like just a couple weeks ago, they laid all new ramps on the sidewalks up and down a main road, which is riddled with pot-holes the size of Texas, all while cutting over 300+ cops, fire, EMS, etc.
Again my 2 cents.
Naunga
I have a problem with a military presence at any civilian airport. There are lots of domestic issues that have cost a great many U.S. problems and deaths.
[/ QUOTE ]
I interpret the law which keeps the military out of civilian affairs like this: since the airspace of the U.S. is controled by the Federal Government and not state Governments, is regulated and secured by the DOT, and the USCG (until post-9/11) was the enforcement arm of the DOT and not entirely part of the military, then the USCG would be allowed to protect an airport which is a facility who's sole purpose is to enable the utilization of the National Airspace.
As far as the domestic issues go, I totally agree that more needs to be done, without involving the military the state and city governments along with the Federallies need to pony up and get more, well-trained cops on the streets. Instead of cutting the size of police forces and look of ways to bring the rich in.
Come to Cleveland sometime and checkout the stupid management that has been going on. Like just a couple weeks ago, they laid all new ramps on the sidewalks up and down a main road, which is riddled with pot-holes the size of Texas, all while cutting over 300+ cops, fire, EMS, etc.
Again my 2 cents.
Naunga