Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Two Airports Ask for Private Screeners

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 03:46 AM
Original message
Two Airports Ask for Private Screeners
Two Airports Ask for Private Screeners
By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, July 28, 2005
(07-28) 01:16 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Airport officials complain about federal security screeners, but only two airports so far have asked to switch to privately employed workers.

For the past nine months, airports have been able to apply to the government to opt out of the federal screening system, but only Sioux Falls Regional Airport in South Dakota and Elko Regional Airport in Nevada have done so.

The House Homeland Security subcommittee that covers infrastructure protection was holding a hearing Thursday to examine why.

The Transportation Security Administration, created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was ordered by Congress to replace private screeners hired by airlines with a better-paid and better-trained federal work force. Mike Marnach, director of the Sioux Falls airport, said it is time to try something other than the government model.
(snip/...)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks fr posting this
Now I'll know not to fly through those two airports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. about the Federal Screeners"model":
"We like it, it's OK, but I'm not sure it's the most efficient for the taxpayer," Marnach said. The airport plans the switch in the fall.

"efficient for the taxpayer" = cheap labor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. "not efficient for taxpayer" = My Buddy's Security Company Gets a Contract
Remember it is all about the hookup with Bush & Co.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brainshrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. Never trust a corporation when lives are on the line.
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 08:24 AM by brainshrub
The purpose of all corporations is to internalize profit and externalize costs. If this means they have to cut corners at the expense of security, they will do it.

The cost of using public employees might be higher, but that's because the government's accounting model must reflect the actual cost of providing a service; unlike a private companies accounting where everything is skewed to maximize profits for the owners or stockholders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smb Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. The Choice
Expensive staff who stand around and pretend to provide security versus cheap staff who stand around and pretend to provide security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm with you.
There was a story on the news this morning about a retired 62-year-old female Wisconsin schoolteacher who was convicted of "assaulting a federal officer" this week and could be sentenced to up to a year in jail and fined $100,000 for snapping during a humiliating public "feel-up" at a small, regional Wisconsin airport and touching the screener's breasts in response to having hers pawed.

Whether its done by the feds or by underpaid private stooges doesn't really matter. As currently carried out, airport "security" is anything but.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. That's all we need...
To be felt up by someone who only 6 months earlier decided to go into the "exciting world of airport security" after seeing that "call 1-800 now!" infomercial on afternoon TeeVee... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 10th 2017, 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC