Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Law Clears the Way for Airports to Drop T.S.A. Screeners
nyt ^ | March 15, 2012 | Ron Nixon

Posted on 03/24/2012 4:23:41 PM PDT by re_tail20

A new law makes it easier for airports to replace federal screeners with private contractors, and several airports, after years of passenger complaints, are lining up to make the change.

San Francisco International is among a few airports that use private screeners.

The law was welcome news to Larry Dale, president and chief executive of Orlando Sanford International Airport, who said his airport’s request to opt out of using Transportation Security Administration officers last year was denied by the federal government.

Mr. Dale said his desire to use private screeners in place of T.S.A. personnel was motivated by hundreds of complaints from passengers, and added that he had his own problems with the agency’s screeners.

“We’ve visited a number of airports who have opted out of the T.S.A. screenings, and no one wants to go back,” Mr. Dale said. “We think this will be more efficient and customer-friendly for us.”

Since 2001, a little-known law has let airports seek permission to stop using federal screeners. But airport officials said that the T.S.A had been slow in allowing the switch, and last year the agency said it would stop accepting additional requests.

That angered Representative John L. Mica, Republican of Florida, whose district includes the Orlando Sanford airport. Mr. Mica, the chairman of the House transportation committee, included a provision in aviation legislation strengthening the ability of airports to use private screeners. The law passed last month.

A committee report found that private contractors could be more cost-effective than federal screeners. If the nation’s top 35 airports switched to private contractors, the report said, taxpayers would save $1 billion over five years.

In its own report last year, the agency estimated that private screeners would cost 3 percent more than federal ones...

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Travel
KEYWORDS: tsa; tsapervs

1 posted on 03/24/2012 4:23:52 PM PDT by re_tail20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: re_tail20
Since 2001, a little-known law has let airports seek permission to stop using federal screeners. But airport officials said that the T.S.A had been slow in allowing the switch, and last year the agency said it would stop accepting additional requests.

Of course they stopped accepting requests to drop them. Like all bureaus they think their survival is more important than the rights of people. Passing a law that doesn't require the approval of TSA in order to opt out is the only solution. You know most airports are going to drop them if this becomes law.

2 posted on 03/24/2012 4:29:08 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

New?

It was never a requirement that the screeners be Govt TSA.

The most liberal city in the nation, opted out form day one.

Earlier this year, the Transportation Security Administration halted a program that allowed airports to privatize their screeners, citing safety concerns, but airport administrators say TSA stopped the program with little warning and without adequate justification.

http://transportation.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1309


3 posted on 03/24/2012 4:33:56 PM PDT by NoLibZone (When will Obama call Trayvon's mom? He was quick to call Sandra Fluke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

Defeats the purpose: MassPort used a private security company out of Georgia, at Logan Airport in Boston which allowed the illegal alien and wanted Al-Queda operatives to board airplanes that would be used as bombs at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Those security ‘officers’ were from Somalia.


4 posted on 03/24/2012 4:34:15 PM PDT by GreatRoad (O < 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20
In its own report last year, the agency estimated that private screeners would cost 3 percent more than federal ones...

And I'd be 70% more likely to take additional flights.

This fall, my son and I are going to The Burgh, and rather than make a 1 hour flight, we'll take a bus, thanks to the TSA.

Really, why don't they let people bring anything they want on a plane? I know I'd feel (and be) safer if I and many of my fellow Americans were armed.

5 posted on 03/24/2012 4:36:24 PM PDT by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

Hip Hip Horay!


6 posted on 03/24/2012 4:36:24 PM PDT by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

Free markets solve problems and rewards the problem solvers.


7 posted on 03/24/2012 4:41:31 PM PDT by Lysander (Paul or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

Hey, how about we make TSA screeners exempt from bing sued or prosecuted for ‘profiling’

Then they would not have to screen grandma’s and crippled children “to be fair”


8 posted on 03/24/2012 4:44:09 PM PDT by Mr. K (If Romney wins the primary, I am writing-in PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

Is it a new law? Or is it just a bill? I refuse to fly with TSA running things. Haven’t since 2002.


9 posted on 03/24/2012 4:45:40 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (The only flaw is that America doesn't recognize Cyber's omniscience. -- sergeantdave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20
and people are going to think this is "progress", a move that acknowledges the "free market".

just OY.

10 posted on 03/24/2012 4:45:58 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (obamacare is an oxymoron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59

“Passing a law that doesn’t require the approval of TSA in order to opt out is the only solution.”

Since when have mere Laws mattered to this corrupt admin’s agenda?


11 posted on 03/24/2012 4:48:07 PM PDT by carriage_hill (I'll "vote for an orange juice can", over Barry 0bummer and another 4yrs of his Regime From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Most 'airports' will use the cover of the TSA to save them from liabilities if another terrorist act is performed.

As of now there isn't enough incentive for airports to do otherwise.

12 posted on 03/24/2012 4:51:45 PM PDT by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
As of now there isn't enough incentive for airports to do otherwise.

According to this article many airports feel that hundreds, if not thousands, of customers complaining about TSA is enough incentive. As they continue to lose flyers do to TSA screeners they will replace them. Leaving the decision up to TSA however will not get the job done. TSA lets all sorts of Mulims through screening now, if TSA lets a terrorist through that kills thousands of people, the airport that refused to go to private screeners will not be immune to prosecution, on the contrary they will be more liable for not opting out of TSA.

13 posted on 03/24/2012 5:01:54 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Ooops. Just read where ‘airlines’ were granted special limitations on air carrier liability regardless of fault. Cool, once again taking the incentive away from proper security.


14 posted on 03/24/2012 5:08:42 PM PDT by Theoria (Rush Limbaugh: Ron Paul sounds like an Islamic terrorist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

I think I read that a couple of years ago Gov. Perry attempted to opt out of the TSA and the Feds said...fine, no airplanes will land in Texas.

Or did I dream that?


15 posted on 03/24/2012 5:24:15 PM PDT by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreatRoad
MassPort used a private security company out of Georgia, at Logan Airport in Boston which allowed the illegal alien and wanted Al-Queda operatives to board airplanes that would be used as bombs at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Maybe, I misunderstand your post. But the 9/11 perpetrators had valid ID and box-cutters were not prohibited. Do you really think the Federal Government will do better?

16 posted on 03/24/2012 5:34:23 PM PDT by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

Even if the private screeners had to to follow the same TSA rules, I highly doubt they would scream at passengers waiting in line, karate chop you in the nuts “for security” and be a lot less theft from luggage.


17 posted on 03/24/2012 5:37:21 PM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20

How did this bill ever pass without the Unions screaming bloody murder??


18 posted on 03/24/2012 5:39:58 PM PDT by submarinerswife (Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results~Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_tail20
A committee report found that private contractors could be more cost-effective than federal screeners. If the nation’s top 35 airports switched to private contractors, the report said, taxpayers would save $1 billion over five years.

The downside is that then the TSA goons will descend on Amtrak and Greyhound. The Amtrak Police Chief has already thrown TSA out of his Savannah Georgia station.

19 posted on 03/24/2012 5:44:33 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Mitt Romney is SEVERELY conservative - and I'm SEVERELY against giving him my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

True that TSA and Govt agencies aren’t very efficient. I thought one of the operatives name was on a wanted list at the time he passed through the gate. In general, The private company they used at MassPort was a disaster.


20 posted on 03/24/2012 5:45:46 PM PDT by GreatRoad (O < 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

True that TSA and Govt agencies aren’t very efficient. I thought one of the operatives name was on a wanted list at the time he passed through the gate. In general, The private company they used at MassPort was a disaster.


21 posted on 03/24/2012 5:49:40 PM PDT by GreatRoad (O < 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone; re_tail20
TSA has disputed the report’s numbers. It says its studies show that federalized screeners are 3 to 9 percent more cost-effective than private ones. A report by the Government Accountability Office agreed with TSA, although it did note minor deficiencies in its methodology.

So computer-generated reports based on bias-selected data has more relevancy than valid data from verified sources? Shades of MANNipulations!

22 posted on 03/24/2012 6:43:00 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: berdie
Follow the money............

Chertoff

$1B+ contracts

Dallas/Ft Worth Airport.......Houston Airport

That's a lot of money............for screeners and backscatter x-ray machines

23 posted on 03/24/2012 9:14:30 PM PDT by Sarajevo (Money cannot buy happiness, but it's more comfortable to cry in a Mercedes than on a bicycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson