My Airport Operations

<!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> <object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui> </object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0pt 5.4pt 0pt 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0pt; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1028" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->

Privatization of Airport Security: A new challenge

Recently, and due in large part to the public outcry against new US TSA “Pat down” procedures and Congressional calls for reform, perhaps best summarized by Florida’s  Congressman John L. Mica, (R-FL) Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stating:

“While we understand the purpose of the recent changes in procedure, TSA has again missed the mark,” Mica said. “Treating every passenger as a suspect or criminal is an inefficient use of scarce resources, and the agency needs to focus on those who truly pose a security threat.”¹

Rep. Mica has openly encouraged many of the nation’s 200 largest airports to opt out of TSA, referring to the Agency as a “"bloated, poorly focused and top-heavy bureaucracy."²

Frequent flyers of the last decade have been witness to a steady progression of ever more complicated security procedures designed to thwart would be terrorists, smugglers and a pantheon of ne’er-do-wells.  Each and every traveler, fumbling as they remove their shoes, frantically tossing bottles of liquids into nearby trash receptacles, tossing the forgotten cigarette lighter to the floor and kicking it  inconspicuously out of sight , wrenching computers and electronic devices from their carrying cases hastily thrown on moving conveyor belts; this scenario has become the norm at today’s modern security checkpoint.  Is it hardly a wonder today’s air traveler is up in arms? 

Despite the Agency’s seemingly limited successes, touted weekly on their website at http://www.tsa.gov/ can the privatization of airport security as a whole truly keep the traveling public safer and more secure while providing a “customer friendly” airport environment?

For many, such as Larry Dale, president of Orlando Sanford IAP, "The TSA has grown too big and we're unhappy with the way it's doing things. My board is sold on the fact that the free enterprise system works well and that we should go with a private company we can hold directly accountable for security and customer satisfaction."^3.  Other cities climbing onboard the “dump the TSA” bandwagon include: Los Angeles, Washington DC metro and Charlotte, NC.

For airports, balancing security concerns, customer service and passenger facilitation can be a daunting task at the very least, becoming ever more complicated as technology continuously evolves. 

In 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act mandated that the Screening Partner Program (SPP) be adopted to allow screening by private companies under federal oversight.  To this day, most travelers do not know if personnel manning the security checkpoints, or patrolling the airport grounds are government or private company employees.  Supporters of privatization, such as Jackson Hole Airport’s director Ray Bishop are convinced privatization of screeners “delivers better customer service and security."

Citing more efficient management, better complaint response times, enhanced flexibility and free market costing environment, proponents and users of privatized airport screening are staunch in their resolve as to the benefits of revamping the system along privatized lines. Private firms winning bids must – by law-comply with all TSA regulations, meet ICAO core training standards along with those cited in US 49 CFR, Section 1546.407.⁴  How often and to what extent these standards are monitored and the efficacy of screener personnel testing and evaluations among private companies is an issue yet to be assessed.

Discussions such as these, on the privatization of security screeners belies a far more fundamental debate – should airport security as a whole, be privatized?  Is there a more efficient system – relegating government and CAA’s to oversight duties, while airports and airlines compete in the free market for “best price” and most qualified private security firms?  At the heart of this issue – is airport security governmental or private by nature.

No one can honestly argue the fundamental role and responsibility of government in the transportation sector.  Providing for the safety and security of citizens and transient passengers is an inherent duty of any State. 

However, proponents of privatization of government services -  be they private prisons , psychiatric care  during the “progressive era”, or aviation security screening today - often forget that governments and private industry have two very different and very opposing fundamental mandates.  While governments have a responsibility of service and protection of its peoples, private corporations have but one goal – to make money for stockholders, owners and operators.  These two diametrically opposed values have all too often led to abuse, corruption and collusion throughout man’s history.  Are we in the industry truly prepared to take the step in turning over the aviation security function to a world where, “Contracting increases opportunities for corruption.”⁵ With so many tax dollars at stake, there are great temptations for politicians to exchange lucrative airport screening contracts or subsidize private security financing schemes for campaign contributions.

 Despite all the rhetoric of  enhanced  passenger facilitation, increased management efficiency and greater customer service touted by the proponents of privatization, the fact remains regardless of who performs the actual airport screening, or day-to-day security function, the ultimate responsibility for oversight, regulatory compliance, training standards and evaluation will remain by legislative mandate with the US TSA.

Therein lies the rub, as observed by the famous bard William Shakespeare back in 1594.   Perhaps best stated by IATA’s Steve Lott⁶, "Regardless of who’s performing security, they’re working with a government process that is generally outdated and less efficient,"  It would appear that what is needed at this point in time is not a privatization of employees or piecemeal relegation of aviation security to the private sector – shades of Blackwater (now Xe Services LLC ) – but rather revamping  TSA, Homeland Security and a re-assessment of its oversight function. 

Conclusion

It would appear, when all is said and done, privatization of the airport screening function as well as airport security as a whole may not be the panacea airport administrators and the traveling public has been “sold”.   Wrought with issues in and of itself, the concept of privatization may prove more of a detriment than an enhancement to aviation security in the long term.

Resources may be better spent investing in overhauling the existing AVSEC bureaucracy, returning to the guides, principals and procedures dictated by law, and investing in the secure, timely and cooperative exchange of intelligence – moving a critical line of defense from the airport terminal to interdicting the bad guys at the point of ticket sales.

Footnotes

1. Rep John L. Mica, Press Release, Transportation Committee Leaders Call for Review of Pat Downs, 19 November 2010.
2. Airports toy with the idea of tossing the TSA ,Harriet Baskaas,  MSNBC.com 1/4/2011
3. IBD
4. § 1546.407   Training, testing, and knowledge of individuals who perform screening functions.
5. Natalie Phillips, "Ex-Corrections Chief's View Takes New Turn," Anchorage Daily News, February 16, 1998.
6. Steve Lott IATA Corporate Communications, North America +1 202 628 9292 lotts@iata.org

You Tube :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbVUWHp3YOg