TSA Promises to be everywhere...

[ConHog]

A. What else would I go by?
B. My God man; I, at no point, stated that you did...



... only that you're condoning intrusion into the private sphere while not extending it to the public.

An intruder isn't someone who the people who own the property usually are happy to work with. The airlines don't seem to be complaining.

Cue the "that's because they don't want to pay for the security" card.


LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

That is possible, or perhaps I just missed it, what are you saying about agencies and searches? Got a question for me?

yea, its in the post you just quoted above.

[fj1200]

An intruder isn't someone who the people who own the property usually are happy to work with. The airlines don't seem to be complaining.

Cue the "that's because they don't want to pay for the security" card.


LOL

Why would they? The $10BB payout in the TSA bill didn't hurt either.

[revelarts]

An intruder isn't someone who the people who own the property usually are happy to work with. The airlines don't seem to be complaining.

Cue the "that's because they don't want to pay for the security" card.


LOL

Why would they? The $10BB payout in the TSA bill didn't hurt either.

ANd Con you keep repeating that the "the airlines don't have a problem" with it. I've point this out before but you conveniently ignored it at least twice now. your wrong. Some have complained, (maybe they need to go to the media) and have wanted to do security themselves and many where going to ditch the TSA and start but the gov't said -no you don't, we are not going to allow you to anymore. - so the airlines decided to do as you imply so many times, that is, when the gov't speaks, STFU and get in line.

TSA shuts door on private airport screening program

"Washington (CNN) -- A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.

TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.

Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.

The push to "opt out" gained attention in December amid the fury over the TSA's enhanced pat downs, which some travelers called intrusive.

Rep. John Mica, a Republican from Florida, wrote a letter encouraging airports to privatize their airport screeners, saying they would be more responsive to the public.

At that time, the TSA said it neither endorsed nor opposed private screening.

"If airports chose this route, we are going to work with them to do it," a TSA spokesman said in late December.

But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.

"I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time," Pistole said."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/29/tsa.private/



He said airports that currently use contractor screening will continue to be allowed to...



for your safety that's all

aviation online magazine
http://avstop.com/march_2011/tsa_coo..._screening.htm

TSA Cooked The Books For Years On Costs, Federal Vs Private Screening
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a letter to Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) that confirms the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has used faulty data and withheld information when evaluating and comparing the costs of the all-federal screening model and an alternative federal-private screening program.

The Screening Partnership Program was established in the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) after September 11, 2001, to enable airport authorities to “opt-out” of all-federal screening and instead use private screening contractors under federal standards, supervision and oversight. Previously, TSA has misleadingly claimed that the cost of the privatized screening program is at least 17 percent higher than the cost of using screeners who are TSA employees.

“In essence, TSA cooked the books to try to eliminate the federal-private screening program,” Mica said. “GAO found that TSA ignored critical data relating to costs. In fact, according to TSA’s own revised cost study, the cost differential between the two screening models is closer to three percent, likely within the margin of error,” Mica said.

“And that still doesn’t account for various other ignored factors, including the cost taxpayers incur from TSA’s high attrition rate and the full cost of TSA’s bloated and unnecessary bureaucratic overhead. “I am investigating the full cost differential between the two screening models, and I believe the federal-private program model will prove to be less expensive and provide the best model for U.S. aviation security,” Mica said.

TSA has only accounted for a fraction of their personnel located at privatized airports, which result in duplicative costs that still have not been factored into estimates. Mica also said the federal-private screening model, through previous GAO evaluations, has performed significantly better than or equal to the all-government model. ...


...“I have also asked GAO to continue to review what other factors gave the all-government model a cost advantage. It is my intent to make certain that TSA cannot arbitrarily deny any future application from an airport to participate in the private screening program. “I am confident that the private sector can not only perform better, but do so at a lower cost to the taxpayers,” Mica added.

[LuvRPgrl]

ANd Con you keep repeating that the "the airlines don't have a problem" with it. I've point this out before but you conveniently ignored it at least twice now. your wrong. Some have complained, (maybe they need to go to the media) and have wanted to do security themselves and many where going to ditch the TSA and start but the gov't said -no you don't, we are not going to allow you to anymore. - so the airlines decided to do as you imply so many times, that is, when the gov't speaks, STFU and get in line.

SOME PEOPLE think if "they" say it, its true.

[ConHog]

SOME PEOPLE think if "they" say it, its true.

Shut the fuck up. Seriously. I don't defend my opinions on here any stronger than you or others do. Suck a big back of dicks if you can't deal with that reality.

[LuvRPgrl]

Shut the fuck up. Seriously. I don't defend my opinions on here any stronger than you or others do. Suck a big back of dicks if you can't deal with that reality.

Then quit lying,or at least respond to Rev's post.
But you are a liar, and thats why I hit your hot button. hahahhah
Not to hard to piss you off I guess.

[ConHog]

Then quit lying,or at least respond to Rev's post.
But you are a liar, and thats why I hit your hot button. hahahhah
Not to hard to piss you off I guess.

NM

[Jeff]

This one has an annoying auto correct feature to. UGH it will turn the simplest misspellings into a word that isn't even close to what you mean if you're not careful.

I have been complaining about that for a while now, example , I was talking to someone about the gully (we use to hang there as kids ) and the phone posted Gillette, now I am sure the woman I was talking to is thinking dang after all these years he is still hanging and doing what we did in the gully