As I've pointed out before, Rep Mica's private security "opt-out" proposals are not a step towards freer skies. SFO (San Francisco) is one of the airports that has had a private contractor doing the TSA's bidding for years. It is also one of the first airports to have installed scanners. So, how does the "customer service" of these private screeners compare with the TSA's own goons?
A friend flew through SFO over the holidays. She was selected for the scanner, and opted for the so-called pat down. She tells me this is no ordinary pat-down (as we've been hearing from numerous passengers who have gone through the same). Her main example of the incredible intrusion on personal privacy is that the screener put her gloved hands in her underwear. She also notes that the screener did not change her gloves before or after doing so.
There is no difference between the so-called privatized security that Mica proposes and TSA security theater, except that tax dollars enrich a government contractor. What we need is actual private airline security, paid for and provided by the airlines.
You wrote:
ReplyDeleteThere is no difference between the so-called privatized security that Mica proposes and TSA security theater, except that tax dollars enrich a government contractor. What we need is actual private airline security, paid for and provided by the airlines.
My question: How would a private airline security procedures be different than either TSA or the gov't contractor procedures?
@Anon - There is no way to know what the airlines would do or not do. However, I do know that airlines are trying to make a profit, which means that they must compete with the other airlines for providing the best service for the best price. Part of "best service" is safety, and another part is customer relations. An airline that can out-compete in safety and friendly service would be in a better position to make a profit. An airline that is viewed as unsafe and/or for treating all of its customers like criminals would be in a worse position to make a profit (leaving wide open an opportunity for a competitor to innovate in these areas). It's simple economic incentives at work.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a moral argument here: it's the airline's profits on the line, so why are the taxpayers paying for it? Furthermore, non-flyers and infrequent flyers are paying just as much as frequent flyers to protect the airline's property and interests.