Rules for airports switching to private screeners

SteveC

SteveC

"Laconic"
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. airports that want to jettison federal passenger screeners and return to using private ones will get their first look Wednesday at the hoops though which they will have to jump to make the switch.

With some airports and members of Congress grumbling about screener shortages, long security lines and unresponsive bureaucracy at the Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson will unveil new guidelines at a meeting of the American Association of Airline Executives in Las Vegas, Nevada.

[/ QUOTE ]

Full Story Here.

Here's my favorite part (bold text by me):
[ QUOTE ]
Before the September 11 attacks, U.S. airports used private screeners. But in the post-9/11 drive to improve aviation security, most airports were forced to convert to using screeners that the TSA hired and trained.

However, five airports were allowed to continue to have private screeners under TSA supervision. Kent Ervin, inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, recently told a House of Representatives subcommittee that private and federal screeners "performed about the same, which is to say equally poorly."

mad.gif
 
Most of the pre-TSA screeners were hired by the TSA to save on training cost. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck....same people same crappy results.
 
I saw today on CNN how some of these fine people were arrested at MSY for taking items out of passenger bags. Not to mention how at D/FW they would complain how they had just too many people comming through their line and had no time to take their mid shift break. We are in a bad position with TSA and many people just do not realize.

One more suggestion why cant smaller airports that do not have so many flights in and out just use local police perform the function?
 
Would your suggestion be to have the same people doing the same job, but be accountable to a private company rather than the federal government? Or would you rather have police do the same job at almost 2 X's the current cost?

I agree that there are major problems within the TSA. I know that these problems consist mainly of personnel issues. These stem from the fact that the government had to do in less than 1 year, what would take a private contractor almost 3 years to do. Here are some numbers.


Aviation and Transportation Security Act signed 10/9/01

--4/30/02: 1st federal screeners arrive at BWI

--10/19/02: ALL 429 airports now have federal screeners working checkpoints.

--1/4/03: ALL 429 airports now have federal screeners also checking baggage.

TOTAL SCREENERS: Over 55,000 at peak (before layoffs)


If anyone out there thinks you could have done a better job, please make sure you become an active government contract bidder. Otherwise, instead of complaining about TSA, why don't you thank them for being there. Have you considered what it is like to be doing a thankless job that no one appreciates? Or having to talk down an upset passenger because his flight was late, and he feels that he can vent at us because we are the "evil" government organization that changed things for him? Does he realize that 90% of the people in that uniform are there because they genuinely care about the safety of american citizens? That many of them left better paying jobs to answer a call to civil service that often leaves them feeling weary and belittled?

I am not saying these things out of anger, but out of love for this country. I would not have taken this job if it were not for that. We are all human and make mistakes, but please do not take us for granted when we are only trying to do good.


--Steve
TSA screener
Hired 12/21/02
 
You know I don't usually respond to posts like this which are obivously going to start a flame war, but...

Yes the TSA had less than a year to get setup, but the fact of the matter is that they along with the DHS were simply a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy. Thankfully congress was intelligent enough to see that perhaps this organization would prove unnecessary and they put a sunset clause on it.

In my opinion most people have the following issues with the TSA:

Most people I believe question why a new govermnent agency is necessary to institue rules that the private companies could have instituted themselves. For example why was a new government agency needed to not allow box cutters on airplanes?

Yes the TSA did a wonderful job of weeding out screeners with questionable backgrounds, but given that airports are regulated by the FAA why didn't the FAA simply mandate the private firms to do these background checks and remove anybody with an incompatible background? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they required the airlines (private companies) to recheck all their pilots and the concession workers to get rechecked as well. Last I heard pilots worked for their airline and the guy slinging fries worked for Burger King etc. not the government.

So on these two points alone we can question why a new government agency was needed to screen passengers.

What about the new requirements for number of screeners etc? Again the government mandated that all cockpits have new locked (and bullet proof I believe) doors installed. Again this was government requiring private industry to do something. Happens all the time. Government regulates certain industries, but you don't see government creating new agencies to run a particular industry like you have with the TSA. If that were the case why aren't our nuclear powerplants run by government employees?

I think that people also take issue with some of the new rules / policies that came along with the TSA. The best example is the forfeiture of personal property that is prohibited on aircraft. Taking something from someone without the opportunity to have it returned is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Even criminals are given the opportunity to request seized belongings be returned (assuming they weren't obtain via illegal means). Before you scoff at that think about this: I suspect that one of the most seized items are pocket knives. A lot of people have carried pocket knives for years, some for decades. It becomes habit. You get up in the morning get dressed, put the pocket knife in your pocket. They are often treasured keepsakes that have been passed down from relatives and will hopefully be passed down to future generations. To have items such as this simply taken and thrown away (or sold on eBay) is criminal. Why the TSA hasn't instituted a policy of either checking the item until the owner returns or providing envelopes that, at the owner's expense, could be used to mail the item home is beyond me.

People also dislike the TSA and probably going to the airport in general since the minute they walk in they are suspect. Heaven forbid you buy a ticket at the airport or have a one way flight. The whole concept of innocent until proven guilty seems to be suspended at that airport. Along with the 1st Amendment. Yes, the 1st Amendment the right to free speech. I am aware of no other place in this country where there are signs posted that list the subjects which I cannot discuss.

Finally, I think the biggest issue people have with the TSA is that they really have done nothing to improve airport security. Think about it. Apart from what I've laid out for you already the biggest "change" that was instituted when the TSA tookover was that you couldn't get on the concouse without a ticket. I think that people either forget or are unaware this during the 70's this rule was also in effect due to all the hijackings that were going on. It quickly went the way of the dinosaur, because people realized it didn't do anything. If a terrorist organization can afford to send members to the U.S., feed them, pay for an apartment, pay for flight training, and pay for tickets to do "test runs" of the hijacking, why would they blink at having to pay for a ticket to case a concourse? I would bet a month's pay that right now there is at least one member of a terrorist organization on an airport concourse, and that he paid for a ticket. He could be there simply to research security or going home to visit his mother, but he (or she) is there. That might really shock some people. They might ask, "how did a terrorist get into an airport?". By knowing and following the rules to the letter, that's how. Just like the 9/11 hijackers. They didn't hide things in their shoes, or anything. They simply knew what they could take on board. Even with all the new rules etc. 9/11 could happen today. The terrorists would board the planes just as they did in 2001. They'd use different weapons, etc., but it could happen again. The biggest obstacle in front of a terrorist today are the cockpit doors, assuming that the terrorists don't manipulate the pilot into opening it during the flight.

These people (the terrorists) hate us with their entire being. We are repulsive to them, and they are willing to (and do) give their very lives if it means they kill just one of us. $200 for a plane ticket is nothing to them.

The point of all this is that people are beginning to realize that the TSA really is not necessary. Do we need airport security? Absolutely. Do we need an over-grown government agency to do the screening and oversight? No. We need to take a long hard look at airport security. Make necessary changes to existing policy and go from there.

Now, I just want to point out some things from your post that irritated me:

You say this:

[ QUOTE ]
...90% of the people in that uniform are there because they genuinely care about the safety of american citizens...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you say:

[ QUOTE ]
I would not have taken this job if it were not for [love for this country]

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to deliniate the TSA screeners into two groups: 1. Those who care about the safety of american citizens and 2. those who love their country.

If 9/11 had happened and the government had changed nothing (i.e. no TSA) would you have wanted a job as a screener? Would 90% of the TSA screeners gone out and gotten jobs? Putting you personally aside, I doubt that few of those people that flocked to the TSA would have flocked to be a privately employed baggage screener.

As always I have no annimosity towards you or the people who work with you. I am simply question what you've written. If anything I am irked by the people you work FOR who are using 9/11 to further their agendas.

Naunga
 
If I did not love this country or aviation, I would not be in this room. As I mentioned, there are loop holes in the system. I used to work at a major airport, as I entered a SIDA area, I challenged a young lady who had no ID on her person. She in a very snobish way told me she was with TSA. I was always under the impression that we all needed these badges to enter certain areas of the airport.

Another time at DCA, I had to yell at the girl who was going to examine my bags at the xray. Everyone just stood there like it meant nothing. They needed to know that they were protecting my career as well as my safety.

These are just 2 examples. So please do not feed me the line of how you love your country. I am more interested in protecting the passengers that ride on planes. I would rather pay more money to know that the people checking me were the most qualified. Not to mention how I was at a small station one gate the agents would check the passengers close off the boarding area and not be seen until 1 hour before scheduled departure. Who is paying for these people on their free time? We are now paying for the same rent a cops in different uniforms. Yes there are good ones, but not enough and the attitudes are not the best I have ever seen.
 
As we have know found out the gov't standards werent much better, if any, than the training given to them previously. The biggest difference know is they make more money and have benefits.
 
Who really believes that private screeners will cost more?

I think free enterprise will work here.

Also, I like the idea that a screener is not immune to discipline!
 
It may not cost more, but we'll have the same jokers doing it who thought that getting a job at the Starbucks in the terminal was a promotion.

You know, the ones who didn't speak any English, would tell you to do things and when you looked at them to ask them what they said would go off on a rant? The ones who I wanted to shove into the X-ray machine to scan for evidence of any brains?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Who really believes that private screeners will cost more?

I think free enterprise will work here.

Also, I like the idea that a screener is not immune to discipline!

[/ QUOTE ]


--Sorry for the late response but I've been away from a comp. for a while.--

John, if you think that the current screeners are immune form discipline, then I would have to guess that you have never been in the military or federal service before. I have served in both the army and navy and if anything, the degree of discipline that is doled out could be compared to fascism due to the inexperience of most of the managers. By being employed by the federal government we have in effect been relieved of some rights. The biggest example of this was when the president signed an executive order preventing screeners from gaining collective bargaining rights by joining a union. He said he did this due to the nature of our job and its relation to national security. Yet, his own agents in the secret service are union members. ???

I will have a full point-by-point response to naunga's statement above, tonight after I get back from work.
 
I think John was referring to discipline regarding their actions on the job. I agree that taking away collective bargaining may be taking away some rights, but I don't think that was what he was referring to. I imagine at most airports the discipline is left up to whoever is in charge of TSA at that airport. So, that is why some airports are better than others when it comes to TSA. You'll have some managers that run the operation as it should be run, and some that are just there for the paycheck. Those are the guys that let their screeners get away with whatever they can because they can't be bothered to do anything about it. It may be government funded, but it runs the same way it did before 9/11 in most cases.
 
Discipline? non-existent.

I paid a visit to the airport manager's office at SYR.

I wanted to know how come there are always twice as many TSA people on break, smoking out side as there are in line (with only ONE station open.)

He appreciated my question. He showed me copies of numerous letters of complaints from various sources about the TSA screeners and their poor performance.

He said he made copies and passed them on to the TSA Coordinator (is that the right title?) at the airport. As far as he can tell, they are still sitting in the coordinator's desk. He is very frustrated that there is no accountability or responsibility.
 
Talking about the complaints, when I worked the ramp at D/FW, there used to be two lines to go through. There all employees had to go through security. Flight crews especially Champion Air used to shove thier way to the front of the line, then the ticket agents always had an idiot or two who felt they needed to get to the airport at the last minute. It is bad enough when the line was long and slow, but as I mentioned the TSA lead would vent since she could not have her break and feed her face. I was once in MSP and noticed more TSA agents hanging around sitting on tables and talking to each other a great impression.

We did not make the rules, we were just trying to live with them. It is sad to say that if security went private, many stations would be in trouble not to mention the quality of the people doing the job. If passengers are willing to pay more to ensure their security, then maybe it is time to reconsider the issue.
 
Well, here goes.


[ QUOTE ]

Yes the TSA had less than a year to get setup, but the fact of the matter is that they along with the DHS were simply a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy. Thankfully congress was intelligent enough to see that perhaps this organization would prove unnecessary and they put a sunset clause on it.


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no "sunset clause" for DHS. This was the largest reorganization of the government since the Department of Defense was created in 1949. TSA is just a small part that has been provided with an option to change its work operations in the future.


[ QUOTE ]

In my opinion most people have the following issues with the TSA:

Most people I believe question why a new govermnent agency is necessary to institue rules that the private companies could have instituted themselves. For example why was a new government agency needed to not allow box cutters on airplanes?


[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe because they got through on 9/11???


[ QUOTE ]

Yes the TSA did a wonderful job of weeding out screeners with questionable backgrounds, but given that airports are regulated by the FAA why didn't the FAA simply mandate the private firms to do these background checks and remove anybody with an incompatible background? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they required the airlines (private companies) to recheck all their pilots and the concession workers to get rechecked as well. Last I heard pilots worked for their airline and the guy slinging fries worked for Burger King etc. not the government.


[/ QUOTE ]
You are right about the backgrounds for private corporations. I worked for American at the time and know of quite a few people that were terminated due to their backgrounds. Especially the many illegal aliens working there.


[ QUOTE ]

So on these two points alone we can question why a new government agency was needed to screen passengers.


[/ QUOTE ]
How about you question the effeciency of the pre-9/11 companies that were not able to stop the trajedy from happening?


[ QUOTE ]

What about the new requirements for number of screeners etc? Again the government mandated that all cockpits have new locked (and bullet proof I believe) doors installed. Again this was government requiring private industry to do something. Happens all the time. Government regulates certain industries, but you don't see government creating new agencies to run a particular industry like you have with the TSA. If that were the case why aren't our nuclear powerplants run by government employees?


[/ QUOTE ]
What do you think the FAA is? Not only is this an agency that regulates the industry, but it governs it, and maintains absolute authority. If you are truly against the government creating organizations to run a particular industry, then I must deduce that you are in favor of privatizing ATC. If you are then I believe you should help lead the charge towards that. Would you like to see the federal reserve go private? Don't forget your nuclear powerplants are regulated by the fed.


[ QUOTE ]

I think that people also take issue with some of the new rules / policies that came along with the TSA. The best example is the forfeiture of personal property that is prohibited on aircraft. Taking something from someone without the opportunity to have it returned is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Even criminals are given the opportunity to request seized belongings be returned (assuming they weren't obtain via illegal means). Before you scoff at that think about this: I suspect that one of the most seized items are pocket knives. A lot of people have carried pocket knives for years, some for decades. It becomes habit. You get up in the morning get dressed, put the pocket knife in your pocket. They are often treasured keepsakes that have been passed down from relatives and will hopefully be passed down to future generations. To have items such as this simply taken and thrown away (or sold on eBay) is criminal. Why the TSA hasn't instituted a policy of either checking the item until the owner returns or providing envelopes that, at the owner's expense, could be used to mail the item home is beyond me.


[/ QUOTE ]
There is a policy on this. In summary, the policy says that an item not allowed into the sterile area falls into one of two categories. These categories are "known hazards" and "dual-use items."
--A known hazard is an item that has the sole pirpose of injuring or killing a person. A dual-use item is something that has a common non-dangerous use, but used in a certain manner, may pose a threat. These dual-use items, such as your "keepsake pocket knife," are dealt with in a way so as to always give the passenger an opportunity to save the item. ALWAYS. Not the case with known hazards. At some airports there are even checkpoint mailing services provided by a private company.
--The 4th Amendment protects against "illegal search & seizure." As soon as a passenger sets foot on airport property, they and their property are subject to any "lawful search." This is called "implied consent."


[ QUOTE ]

People also dislike the TSA and probably going to the airport in general since the minute they walk in they are suspect. Heaven forbid you buy a ticket at the airport or have a one way flight. The whole concept of innocent until proven guilty seems to be suspended at that airport. Along with the 1st Amendment. Yes, the 1st Amendment the right to free speech. I am aware of no other place in this country where there are signs posted that list the subjects which I cannot discuss.


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no suspension of a person's 1st at the airport. That is ridiculous. You and any other person can discuss ANY subject you would like. You are welcome to say or scream any of those danger words on that list of yours if you would like to. But, as an adult with a right to free speech, you must also be willing to accept all the extra negative attention that you will receive. Those signs are simply a way of trying to prevent people from getting into that mess in the first place.


[ QUOTE ]

Finally, I think the biggest issue people have with the TSA is that they really have done nothing to improve airport security. Think about it. Apart from what I've laid out for you already the biggest "change" that was instituted when the TSA tookover was that you couldn't get on the concouse without a ticket. I think that people either forget or are unaware this during the 70's this rule was also in effect due to all the hijackings that were going on. It quickly went the way of the dinosaur, because people realized it didn't do anything. If a terrorist organization can afford to send members to the U.S., feed them, pay for an apartment, pay for flight training, and pay for tickets to do "test runs" of the hijacking, why would they blink at having to pay for a ticket to case a concourse? I would bet a month's pay that right now there is at least one member of a terrorist organization on an airport concourse, and that he paid for a ticket. He could be there simply to research security or going home to visit his mother, but he (or she) is there. That might really shock some people. They might ask, "how did a terrorist get into an airport?". By knowing and following the rules to the letter, that's how. Just like the 9/11 hijackers. They didn't hide things in their shoes, or anything. They simply knew what they could take on board. Even with all the new rules etc. 9/11 could happen today. The terrorists would board the planes just as they did in 2001. They'd use different weapons, etc., but it could happen again. The biggest obstacle in front of a terrorist today are the cockpit doors, assuming that the terrorists don't manipulate the pilot into opening it during the flight.


[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing to improve airport security? Have you forgotten that there have not been any aviation related terrorist attacks since 9/11? As far as the sterile concourse thing, TSA is currently testing the removal of this restriction at 8 airports around the country.


[ QUOTE ]

These people (the terrorists) hate us with their entire being. We are repulsive to them, and they are willing to (and do) give their very lives if it means they kill just one of us. $200 for a plane ticket is nothing to them.


[/ QUOTE ]
So what. Let them hate us. I'm not rolling out my welcome mat for anyone who uses violence as a means to achieve a political agenda. We should not as hell give in to their demands. I hope that one day we can destroy these extremists, and that is not gonna happen without a fight!


[ QUOTE ]

The point of all this is that people are beginning to realize that the TSA really is not necessary. Do we need airport security? Absolutely. Do we need an over-grown government agency to do the screening and oversight? No. We need to take a long hard look at airport security. Make necessary changes to existing policy and go from there.


[/ QUOTE ]
TSA will be around for much longer than you and I. Their role at the checkpoints around the country may change, but they are also responsible for many other things.
--Besides screening activites at airports, they are now responsible for EVERY aspect of American Commercial Aviation.
--TSA has offices all over the world that work with ICAO carriers that fly to the U.S.
--TSA is also responsible for all security related to marine ports, domestic rail, and road commerce including mass transit.


[ QUOTE ]

Now, I just want to point out some things from your post that irritated me:

You say this:

[ QUOTE ]
...90% of the people in that uniform are there because they genuinely care about the safety of american citizens...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you say:

[ QUOTE ]
I would not have taken this job if it were not for [love for this country]

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to deliniate the TSA screeners into two groups: 1. Those who care about the safety of american citizens and 2. those who love their country.

If 9/11 had happened and the government had changed nothing (i.e. no TSA) would you have wanted a job as a screener? Would 90% of the TSA screeners gone out and gotten jobs? Putting you personally aside, I doubt that few of those people that flocked to the TSA would have flocked to be a privately employed baggage screener.


[/ QUOTE ]
My wording was obviously wrong if you got this impression. I meant that there may be two types of people that took this job.
1) Those that took the job to protect the citizens of this country (a call to duty).
2) Those that took the job primarily for financial reasons.
Whether or not I, or anyone else would have flocked to this job had it not been federalized is difficult to answer. There was definetly a sense of urgency and patriotism after 9/11. Almost like that after WW II, but on a different scale. Yet, why would someone want to join something like that if nothing had changed? Wouldn't they just become part of the problem then?


[ QUOTE ]

As always I have no annimosity towards you or the people who work with you. I am simply question what you've written. If anything I am irked by the people you work FOR who are using 9/11 to further their agendas.
Naunga


[/ QUOTE ]
It is sad to see something that has the opportunity to be so great, steered in the wrong direction.




Thats my two cents.
--Steve
 
[ QUOTE ]
This was the largest reorganization of the government since the Department of Defense was created in 1949. TSA is just a small part that has been provided with an option to change its work operations in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is something I've always wondered. Why isn't the DHS under the Dod? Aren't "homeland security" and "defense" pretty much the same thing?
[ QUOTE ]
How about you question the effeciency of the pre-9/11 companies that were not able to stop the trajedy from happening?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the private screeners that let the "dual-use" box cutters through or the CIA, FBI and INS that let the terrorists into the country in the first place?
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget your nuclear powerplants are regulated by the fed.

[/ QUOTE ]
And even if they weren't, they still put out less pollution than a fed regulated coal plant. Nice scare tactic, but it doesn't work.
[ QUOTE ]
There is no suspension of a person's 1st at the airport. That is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Never seen anyone have their 1st ammendment rights violated at the airport, so I have to agree with you. You can scream about bombs and hijackings all you want, just be prepared to deal with people taking you seriously and clubbing you on the head.
[ QUOTE ]
Have you forgotten that there have not been any aviation related terrorist attacks since 9/11?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't give the TSA credit for that, though. If I recall correctly, there weren't many BEFORE 9/11 on US soil either.
[ QUOTE ]
TSA will be around for much longer than you and I.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it stays in its current persona, that frightens me. There are a LOT of changes that need to be made for TSA to be effective. Right now it's more like the post office than an arm of security. There is too much bueracracy, and not enough accountability. TSA is too quick to pass the buck onto other departments for things that it has dropped the ball on. Most of these are problems that could occur with a private company as well. However, private companies have more incentive to perform. If they don't, they lose their contract. TSA is gonna have its budget every year whether they perform well or not. The fact that there are complaint letters from passengers that are being ignored burns me up. To me, that is a total lack of respect for the people who (either through taxes or "fees" placed on their tickets) are paying your salary.
 
Thought I would chime in on the good ol TSA talk... You guys want an inside look here it is.

I used to be a screener, I helped in the TSA rollout here in DEN as I was in the first training class.

I took the job for many reasons, a few of which are...
1. I just graduated college and needed a job to pay for flight training
2. I wanted to do something to help the country and this seemed to be a good fit.
3. I got hired as a Lead which paid between $35-$45,000 a year and that seemed like good money!
4. It was at the airport and I wanted to learn anything I could as I figured it would be a nice resume builder down the road.

Like I said, I was in the first training class so out of several thousand people that applied they only took about 200 or so, basically the cream of the crop. Alot of people had advanced degrees and most had at least a 4yr degree (myself included). Well as training proceeded we started to discover the bad parts of the TSA.

Training was 6-7 days a week but they told us we would get paid for it so that was OK. Oh oops, sorry guys this is straight time, you only get paid for 40 hrs a week even though you worked 55+. My reaction, "oh well, we still get paid good and the training is only for a few weeks" Well after going a few weeks without getting a paycheck I started to get upset a tad. I mean this is the government right, shouldn't be a problem getting the employees paid?

Well after a few weeks of complaining I finally got a paycheck. A very inaccurate paycheck! Turns out even though they told me I was hired as a Lead they decided that the private company that conducted all interviews did them wrong and the TSA decided that they would make everyone a "basic screener" and then promote them from within during the On The Job training at the airport.

Around this time is when I got pissed, and many of those people with the advanced degrees and experience threw in the towell and got out. I only wish I would have done the same at this point.

Back to the events at the airport. Now that everyone was a basic screener the "good old boy" system started up. The TSA began to divide up into a few groups, ex-military, and ex-screeners (from the old private screeners), and then there were the new people like me that were sorta left out in the cold as we were the smallest group. By this time most of those high qualified/higher paid screeners were gone.

I ended up not getting the Lead position I was hired into thus I never did see that pay I was promised at the beginning. Many of the people from my training class had quit and moved on to something else. I tried to hang in there but when I discovered that my Lead's previous job was (I kid you not!) "Fry Manager" at Burger King, I almost lost it... On top of that I was constantly having to explain how to operate the ETD (that machine that sniffs for bombs) and keep the line rotating due to the horrible leadership skills of my Lead. (I will admit her blonde hair was long and she had some fairly large...yeah!) This quickly became a common theme with the TSA here in DEN and I finally had enough. The people in charge were either some dumb-ass, and/or someone who thought they were still in the army.

When I quit, I would say that only about 10% of my original training class was still around, everyone else had already seen the light.

A few other points I would like to bring up.

The old private screeners made more money than the TSA people. The difference is the TSA starts you at a dollar or two more an hour. Some people went from making $20+/hr to making $13'hr. Thats a tough hit!

Some TSA folks didn't get a pay check for a over 4 months.

I never did get paid for even close to the hours I actually worked... Can't prove it as they didn't have a time card system.

It took them well over 6 months to give me my vacation pay after I quit (yes, I gave the two week notice).

As someone who worked for the TSA and saw it from the ground up at a major airport, I can say this:

I believe the TSA is a JOKE and a WASTE of money!!

Just my thoughts, my experiences...

Bring on the private screeners please!
 
I could agree more about TSA. They are needed and the sad part is in certain areas of the country better help was needed. As I said please do not give me this love of country jazz. I used to leave my job on the ramp at night just to watch all the TSA people sound asleep at their posts. How would I feel better? I have seen more people get in trouble dealing with bags than anyone can imagine.

When TSA first started there were no ID badges. The next set had their names but no pictures? Would that make you feel any safer?

There are cities like Atlanta that need a better system than the private one they had. There it was a bunch of people who just did not care. A bunch of kids on an ego trip.

I do not say we should dump the TSA but it does need a band aid. Lets face it we all got caught with our pants down. We just need to solve the problem.
 
[ QUOTE ]


I believe the TSA is a JOKE and a WASTE of money!!

Just my thoughts, my experiences...

Bring on the private screeners please!

[/ QUOTE ]


I say bring back the private screeners or hire some screeners that will actually earn what they are being paid. Starting pay at DTW is now almost $14.00/hr.
 
[ QUOTE ]

This is something I've always wondered. Why isn't the DHS under the Dod? Aren't "homeland security" and "defense" pretty much the same thing?


[/ QUOTE ]
Creating an agency with the sole mission of providing domestic security provides it with complete autonomy from other branches such as Justice and Treasury. This limits the tree of command, power, and responsibility to that department only. It also needed to be seperate from DoD to prevent the public from getting the impression that they were falling under a police state type of system. DoD can also take proactive "actions" overseas. DHS consists of these agencies. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Information Analysia and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, Office of the Inspector General, Office of the Secretary for Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Secret Service.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about you question the effeciency of the pre-9/11 companies that were not able to stop the trajedy from happening?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the private screeners that let the "dual-use" box cutters through or the CIA, FBI and INS that let the terrorists into the country in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]
Pohtatoe or Pahtahto? Box cutters are not dual-use since there is no reason a passenger would have a need for that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget your nuclear powerplants are regulated by the fed.

[/ QUOTE ]
And even if they weren't, they still put out less pollution than a fed regulated coal plant. Nice scare tactic, but it doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Scare tactic? I thought the idea of privatizing ATC was scary enough?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no suspension of a person's 1st at the airport. That is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Never seen anyone have their 1st ammendment rights violated at the airport, so I have to agree with you. You can scream about bombs and hijackings all you want, just be prepared to deal with people taking you seriously and clubbing you on the head.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, sir.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you forgotten that there have not been any aviation related terrorist attacks since 9/11?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't give the TSA credit for that, though. If I recall correctly, there weren't many BEFORE 9/11 on US soil either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Private screeners 1, TSA 0.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TSA will be around for much longer than you and I.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it stays in its current persona, that frightens me. There are a LOT of changes that need to be made for TSA to be effective. Right now it's more like the post office than an arm of security. There is too much bueracracy, and not enough accountability. TSA is too quick to pass the buck onto other departments for things that it has dropped the ball on. Most of these are problems that could occur with a private company as well. However, private companies have more incentive to perform. If they don't, they lose their contract. TSA is gonna have its budget every year whether they perform well or not. The fact that there are complaint letters from passengers that are being ignored burns me up. To me, that is a total lack of respect for the people who (either through taxes or "fees" placed on their tickets) are paying your salary.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
No argument here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top