Airports Want TSA out

[revelarts]

Free market to the rescue


..
One of America’s busiest airports, Orlando Sanford International, has announced it will opt out of using TSA workers to screen passengers, a move which threatens the highly unpopular federal agency’s role in other airports across the nation.


“The president of the airport said Tuesday that he would apply again to use private operators to screen passengers, using federal standards and oversight,” reports the Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/14/2692799/sanford-fla-airport-wants-to-opt.html).

With Sanford International having originally been prevented by the TSA from opting out back in November 2010 when the federal agency froze the ability for airports to use their own private screeners, a law passed by the Senate last month (http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-passes-bill-allowing-airports-to-evict-tsa-screeners.html) forces the TSA to reconsider applications.
Larry Dale hinted (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-sanford-airport-tsa-20120313,0,1439550.story) that the move was motivated by the innumerable horror stories passengers have told of their encounters with the TSA, noting that the change was designed to provide a more “customer friendly” operation....

The agency has been slow to reissue the guidelines on the the rule change, prompting Republican Representatives John Mica of Florida, Darrell Issa of California and Jason Chaffetz of Utah to press TSA head John Pistole to implement the mandate.
Appearing at Orlando Sanford International yesterday (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-13/tsa-chief-pistole-pressed-to-expand-private-screeners), Mica said he had written to 200 airports advising them of the opportunity to op out of using TSA screeners.
Orlando Sanford is in the top 30 busiest airports in the world, with large numbers of takeoffs and landings. The TSA has been keen to downplay the opportunity for airports to dispense with their screeners, fearing a mass exodus that could undermine the justification for the agency’s continued existence,


http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/14/2692799/sanford-fla-airport-wants-to-opt.html
http://www.infowars.com/major-us-airport-to-evict-tsa-screeners/

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33736-TSA-Promises-to-be-everywhere/page3&highlight=orlando

[jimnyc]

You beat me to posting this, just finished reading myself!

Should be interesting if they "get permission" to do so. Hopefully others would follow suit. If they have guidelines set, and an airport foots the bill for security and meets those guidelines, then they should be able to do so. Then we can see how long things go before people scream bloody murder when a private company wants to perform a pat down or make them go through a screener/scanner!

[revelarts]

Depend if the "guidelines" include those provisions. And if they are just "guidelines" then there may be some feliblity.
Especialy since the activity is security BS anyway.
And if the people gripe the guidelines should change, that's what self rule is about right.

[Thunderknuckles]

"The TSA has been keen to downplay the opportunity for airports to dispense with their screeners, fearing a mass exodus that could undermine the justification for the agency’s continued existence"

That's the scary part. If the TSA can't justify its existence at the airport, they will try and migrate toward other modes of transportation where they can. Railroads and trucking come to mind. Who knows, maybe even random pedestrian checkpoints and patdowns :terror:

[fj1200]

"The TSA has been keen to downplay the opportunity for airports to dispense with their screeners, fearing a mass exodus that could undermine the justification for the agency’s continued existence"

That's the scary part.

That's not the scary part, it's the part that gives hope.

[Thunderknuckles]

That's not the scary part, it's the part that gives hope.
My friend, Gov't agencies are like living creatures. They will do what they must to survive. Don't think for an instant the TSA will not do what it can to survive.
This is assuming the Gov't doesn't outright deny every airport request to go private.

[fj1200]

My friend, Gov't agencies are like living creatures. They will do what they must to survive. Don't think for an instant the TSA will not do what it can to survive.
This is assuming the Gov't doesn't outright deny every airport request to go private.

You clearly haven't read any of my posts, especially those regarding the TSA. When Congress forces an agency to allow an opt out of the TSA I have hope that the agency will soon be seen as pointless. That doesn't mean that vigilance is not required.

[cadet]

You clearly haven't read any of my posts, especially those regarding the TSA. When Congress forces an agency to allow an opt out of the TSA I have hope that the agency will soon be seen as pointless. That doesn't mean that vigilance is not required.

"There is nothing more permanent then a temporary Gov't solution."

[fj1200]

"There is nothing more permanent then a temporary Gov't solution."


... vigilance...

Mm hmm.

[logroller]

"The TSA has been keen to downplay the opportunity for airports to dispense with their screeners, fearing a mass exodus that could undermine the justification for the agency’s continued existence"

That's the scary part. If the TSA can't justify its existence at the airport, they will try and migrate toward other modes of transportation where they can. Railroads and trucking come to mind. Who knows, maybe even random pedestrian checkpoints and patdowns :terror:

Well sure; given unfettered freedom to travel I'd probably kill myself...and others. Thanks TSA, I had no idea how dangerous this cupcake frosting could possibly be--crisis averted :rolleyes: