Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) have introduced the Abolish the TSA Act, which creates a three year period to separate out airport security regulation from the provision of actual screening.
- A new agency replaces TSA to oversee screening
- Screening would be carried out by private contractors
There are various issues to think about when considering whether or not TSA is the best possible way to manage airport security. For instance, two very separate questions are:
- Should the same agency regulate security and also carry out screening?
- If these functions are separated, should it be government employees or private employees performing the duties at the airport? (And how much of a difference will it make either way?)
Ben Schlappig of One Mile at a Time argues that private screening will be worse,
[W]e all know how capitalism works. It’s all about short term gains, so do you really think a private company will have the proper long term staffing levels, especially if it comes at the expense of margins? …Being short staffed is probably more “efficient” (for a company’s bottom line), but it’s not exactly helpful for the public, and I think we prefer a more “bloated” organization, in that sense.
He says “coming out of the pandemic, look at how well the TSA was staffed, compared to your local private business (whether it’s a hotel or restaurant)?” forgetting that TSA had massive staffing shortages. They gave up to 40% raises to attract more staff and retain existing ones, though.
To be clear, private staffed security isn’t ‘returning to pre-9/11’ it’s how things work at some major U.S. airports in the U.S. already. TSA sets screening standards, and employees of private companies carry out the screenings following those procedures. It’s also how things work in much of the world that’s considered safe today.
- San Francisco and Kansas City airports have had private screeners since the creation of TSA. Other airports have joined in the practice since then – though most that want to don’t run through the gauntlet of getting TSA approval, which is rarely forthcoming.
- Screening in Canada is done by government-certified screening companies. Most large airports in Europe have government-certified screening companies manning their checkpoints.
Ben says that private screeners would skimp on staffing, while government won’t. Yet a TSA-commissioned study found that private screening in US airports would be “as good as or better than” TSA screening.
While he acknowledges that San Francisco airport security is privately staffed under the Screening Partnership Program, Ben suggests that when screening is privately staffed “that the government wants companies to compete for these contracts.” One problem with the Screening Partnership Program is that the government hasn’t allowed airports to select the company that does the screening or run a competitive process. TSA has assigned the company.
But how does it work out in San Francisco? A Congressional study compared screeners at SFO (private) with those at LAX (TSA).
Comparing private screening at SFO with TSA screening at LAX, they found that because the private SFO screeners process 65% more passengers per screener than TSA screeners at LAX, switching to private screening at LAX would require 867 fewer screeners there, at annual savings of $33 million. This study also found the screener attrition rate to be 60% greater at LAX (13.8%) than at SFO (8.7%), which also drives up costs (and may slow down lanes as newbies learn the ropes after training).
In fact, private contractors are better at matching staffing to flight volumes. Screening companies have more staff flexibility – can staff up for peak periods “rather than having too many full-timers with nothing to do at non-peak times.” They can “match screener staffing levels to passenger traffic levels, both seasonally and during each day’s peaks and valleys.”
And you can hold private firms accountable for their performance. The only way to hold TSA accountable is congressional hearings and calls to give them even more money the more they fail. That’s the most perverse incentive there is for good security or for reasonable efficiency. Tens of thousands of TSA screeners have been accused of misconduct, half multiple times and there’s rarely any consequence.
Of course, TSA doesn’t actually protect us from terrorism. At most it shifts risks. In fact, the only data that the government has released suggests TSA doesn’t do a very good job of this. When internal testing found 90% and 95% failure rates detecting threats at checkpoints, the government just stopped releasing the data. If they’d meaningfully improved, they’d be crowing about this.
What protects us against terrorism is that:
- there aren’t actually a lot of people who want to die for their cause, TSA itself has filed in court documents that they’ve been unaware of actual threats to aviation that they’re guarding against, and they haven’t stopped any actual terrorists.
- reinforced cockpit doors do a lot to prevent terrorist takeover of planes, and
- mindset shift since 9/11 means you don’t appease terrorists to get through the incident, you fight back.
Ultimately, what we have now is a worst practice for security. We have TSA as both regulator and service provider. In other words, they regulate themselves. At a minimum the two functions should be separate whether it’s government employees at the checkpoint (working for a different agency) or private contractors.
Gary’s just a shill for the billionaires who want to turn the USA into a dystopia.
Screening doesn’t really stop 911 type terrorism, correct – it’s mostly theater in that regard to make us feel safer. But what screening does accomplish is stop transport of weapons on board which reduces the consequences of onboard violence.. Don’t give me the reply that weapons occasionally get through – no system is foolproof. The real question is whether the benefits are sufficient to warrant the costs and inconvenience to travelers. That’s a fair topic for debate.
Now with the advent of DOGE, there is a daily headline of mass hysteria warning about what governmental function or service shortcoming will occur with a manpower cut. Anyone who has worked in the private sector and has experienced the fat cutting over the last few decades (with fears of cutting to the bone) knows that these fears are overblown.
A rational look at the purported need for airport security and how best to achieve that end, and by whom, is not outlandish.
Team Gary 100%
When even the TSA admits (!!!) that private screeners would do a better job than they do, the debate is OVER, people.
Every one of the airports I have been through that uses private screeners (instead of TSA) has been a much more efficient, professional experience. Every…single…time.
Here’s the parallel: when your package absolutely positively MUST get there on time, who do you trust? It sure as hell ain’t the Post Office. It’s FedEx. Anyone who claims otherwise (like 1990) is a lying simp who worships at the altar of failed big government.
Bro you really don’t know shit about the TSA and its workforce and mission.
Nobody wants to privatize airport security to make it more efficient. What they want is to create almost 500 business opportunities around the country for their cronies that happen to own security services. It’s just that.
USPS Express Mail service has been far superior in reliability for me than FedEx and UPS, and having more options is better for me as a consumer than having fewer options.
Also, there are some functions of state and society that are, by measure of outcome, more efficiently done by/via government than by/via privatization and outsourcing to contractors would be.
@Gary “The issue here is that security oversight and standards setting shouldn’t be in the same agency that does the actual screening. That’s a conflict of interest, leads to no accountability, and inferior security.”
It’s better than what’s led us to Boeing self-regulating itself to repeat disasters and the FAA not having the teeth to fix DCA.
The fact that private security works in a few airports while TSA remains a large and intact organization for oversight doesn’t mean that will be the case when they’re torn apart and turned into a purely oversight agency. The FAA, USDA, CFPB, EPA, etc are all examples of regulatory agencies that are perennially shorthanded and targeted by anti-government politicians for complete destruction. Transitioning TSA from a boots on the ground approach immediately puts them in the same predicament, which puts us in the predicament with them.
Now that the union is gone, Tsa has been getting rid of long time “callout” offenders. Without the union, Tsa will now be able to set work schedules according to their airport needs. As far as the “failures” for catching weapons, a lot of that is the software they use which is stupid. On precheck, people are supposed to only have 1 to 2 electronic devices in their bag but of course everyone is entitled and they stuff their bag filled electronics. If a TSO were to take out the electronics (which the software sometimes hides a weapon making it almost impossible to detect), the lines would get long and people already think Tsa precheck lines are long. So more complaining for no reason from passengers. Private security isn’t going to fix anything, only cutting back on security will. Things would go a lot faster if people arrived 2-3 hrs prior to their flight, took out their electronics, wore none shiney/metallic clothing, weren’t over weight (extra fat makes the system think people are strapped with mass objects), sweaty or wet (people actually go through security with their pants wet with urine or poop), made sure their pockets were completely empty. Some people have to get pat down because they are boney or have a protruding bone (some peoples pelvis stick out more than others. Also, Tsa is supposed to check large mass objects in people luggage and imagine how many people fly with dildos and butt plugs that don’t get checked. TSA should continue to exist , Tsa has done a lot to improve the speed of security, but the one thing that could change is the liquid rule. People should be allowed to fly with liquids so long as they are tested in some way. I believe airports play a hand in that though. They make money when Tsa doesn’t allow liquids through. A lot of passengers are supportive of TSA, it’s just the ones that are entitled and ignorant that think TSA is pointless and should be gotten rid of.
The trouble is that this isn’t an effort on their behalf to improve security or improve processing times for passengers. It’s an effort to destroy a union and funnel government money into their friends’ pockets, and that needs to be kept in mind.
I’m not opposed to doing away with the TSA if they cannot be reformed and their union stripped of some of their untouchability. They were allowed to become overpowered and like police unions used to protect their worst, not their best.
Nobody hates TSA more than I do. I worked for them for 5 years. Its a terribly managed agency which rewards the dumbest of the dumb, and does everything it can to destroy the morale of and run out their best and most dedicated TSOs. But can we stop talking about that “90% failure rate” that was all the rage to throw around 8 years ago? There’s a reason they only made the results of their testing public once. It’s because that rate was from a specific series of tests they ran that were designed to test the limits of TSAs technology, ie sending through threat items that they knew the machines would not ordinarily detect. It was not a test of the screening Workforce. TSA made it public because they were in union contract negotiations and they wanted a trump card to bully the union negotiators with. At my particular airport we had a 95% pass rate on those tests because we had less technology available for us to use than big airports and relied more on actual human screeners. TSA still punished and remediated us along with everyone else.
Privatizing TSA will do nothing because every proposal I’ve seen will still leave in place the same morons in middle and upper management, only privatizing the actual screening workforce.
TSA has law enforcement entities as well. Where do they go? They have Criminal Investigators, Federal Air Marshals, and TSS “LEOs”. You can’t privatize those people.
@Thomas Quinn – the federal air marshal program should be shut down, more air marshals have been arrested than terrorists stopped, they’ve left more guns in terminals and on planes than they’ve stopped terrorists. In any case, read the post and you’ll see this is about separating out the functions of regulating security versus carrying out screening, and appropriate functions should be handled by a designated agency while the screening itself should be contracted out (or even just carried out by a different agency if you must but that’s less efficient).
Gary, you seem to be unaware that the Department of Homeland Security (DHSIG) Inspector General regularly reviews TSA. See: Oversight.Gov
So if the screeners become employees of a private company, I’d guess they can just call a one, two or even three day strike…..and like Europe, you’ll just cancel the entire schedule and not say shit about it.
@David “you seem to be unaware that the Department of Homeland Security (DHSIG) Inspector General regularly reviews TSA. See: Oversight.Gov”
And everything relevant looks like: