Private security screeners an alternative to TSA at airports?
Representative John Mica (R-Florida) believes that using private security screeners at airport checkpoints is more efficient and cheaper; last November Mica sent letters to roughly 200 airports urging them to switch from the TSA to private screeners; seventeen airports in the United States currently use private screeners, including San Francisco International, Kansas City International, and Jackson Hole; advocates believe that private security firms offer better customer service and perform better because they are more easily held accountable; others are more skeptical, citing the fact that private screeners must follow the same procedures as TSA screeners and that it is uncertain whether using them actually saves money
Representative John Mica (R- Florida), the new chairman of the House Transportation Committee is a firm advocate for airports to use private security screeners at checkpoints.
Private security firms at airports must follow the same procedures and use the same equipment as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) does, but some, like Mica, believe that they do a better job.
In the past, Mica has said, “The private screening under federal supervision works and performs statistically, significantly better. So our main purpose here is in getting better screening and better performance, not to mention that we can get better cost for the taxpayers.”
Last year, before taking over as chairman of the committee, Mica sent letters to roughly 200 airports encouraging them to switch from TSA screeners to private contractors.
Airports like Kansas City International have already made the switch to private screeners.
Kansas City International director Mark VanLoh believes that security screeners from private security firms are better.
On NPR, VanLoh said that because private security screeners are not federal employees, they are more easily held accountable.
“If they don’t meet the performance goals or maybe they’re consistently rude, or maybe they miss objects that go through the machine, they are terminated. I can’t remember how easy that would be to do with a federal employee. I don’t think it is,” he said.
According to Robert Mann, an aviation analyst and former airline executive, “It is likely that a private contractor would manage front line employees to a different customer service standard than would a federal work force.”
He believes that “if [private contractors] are required to use the same technology, if they’re required to meet the same screening standards and techniques, then the likelihood is it’s a nicer wrapper on the same process.”
Kansas City is one of seventeen airports in the United States that have made the switch. Other airports currently using private security screeners include San Francisco’s international airport, Jackson Hole Airport, and Tupelo Regional Airport in Tennessee.
Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, airports were given the option to use private screeners or TSA.
Private screeners are required to operate security lines the same way and follow all TSA guidelines for security checkpoints including the removal of shoes, the use of full-body scanners, and the same pat-down procedures. Moreover, private security firms are actually hired by the TSA and operate under its supervision.
Others are not as convinced as Mica is that private security screeners are better, citing the fact that they must follow the same procedures and guidelines as TSA screeners.
It is also unclear whether using private screeners saves money.
Mann believes that it matters little where security screeners get their paychecks from, whether its directly from the TSA or a private contractor.
