Some U.S. Airports Use Private Security Screening Companies...

... [However], there are currently 22 airports -- including San Francisco’s and Kansas City’s -- which have been allowed to participate in what the federal security agency call its “Screening Partnership Program.” In fact, since 2004, all commercial air facilities falling under federal security oversight (they’re known as “federalized airports”) can apply to privatize their security screening services.

How effective is private security screening versus the screening provided at airports by TSA? The answer is difficult to determine, but several government or government-sponsored studies say that private screeners, when properly supervised, are at least as efficient and possibly less expensive. Two different high-profile think tanks, the conservative Heritage Foundation and the libertarian Cato Institute, also maintain airports would be better served by having private security screening companies rather than TSA. The fact that more than 450 U.S. airports still have TSA screeners may indicate those facilities are largely satisfied with the way things are, however.

An August 2016 article at the Marketplace.org website lists pros and cons of having private security versus the type TSA provides. Some airports having private screeners do caution that replacing federal security screening takes time and does come with some risk. For one, there’s no guarantee a private screening company won’t fail and need speedy replacement by the airport’s leadership, which can be highly disruptive. Because TSA must provide passenger security screening regardless of circumstances, airports operators can be assured that at least some screening will always be available because federal screeners also can’t strike or walk off the job.

In the end, it’s most likely the case that air travelers don’t particularly care just who it is that’s screening them when they go through a security checkpoint as long as they’re fast, efficient, courteous and – most importantly -- effective.

I've been through San Francisco and Kansas City and their private security checkpoints (not to mention other U.S. airports where TSA runs those checkpoints). I didn't notice any difference in how they conduct operations, either. And it was probably just me, but I thought the private screeners were a little friendlier -- though I also freely admit I'm not a fan of the "guv'mint" version of government. ;-)

Hi BigK, since these Gestapo, oops, US checkpoints fail at their intended mission often enough to be worrisome, my concern is entrusting confidential/secure personal data to private cos. However, the Obama Admin already opened that barn door when it outsourced data analysis to private (spy) orgs like Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike.

2 posted on 08/26/2019 9:33:31 AM PDT by The Westerner (Protect the most vulnerable: get the government out of medicine, education and our forests.)

The original whining that got us this federal beast called the TSA was that the airport rent-a-cops were rent-a-cops. And now we’ve come full circle, and they’re using rent-a-cops. So why, again, do we even need the TSA? Shut it down and spend the money on the wall.

...air travelers don’t particularly care just who it is that’s screening them when they go through a security checkpoint as long as they’re fast, efficient, courteous and – most importantly -- effective.

Two thoughts. First, I know a young lady in my church who became a TSA agent. Nice young lady, but let's just say she operates at about 20W incandescent most of the time. The main criteria for hire seems to be affirmative action. Second, I've been saying for years that the next terrorist attack is going to walk across our southern border, while we're all standing in our socks in a TSA line.

4 posted on 08/26/2019 9:53:25 AM PDT by Hoffer Rand (God be greater than the worries in my life, be stronger than the weakness in my mind, be magnified.)

“No guarantee a private screening company won’t fail.” True.

It is also true that TSA screening cannot guarantee success. Taking off shoes and belt before a flight is unreasonable. Just export all muslims in America and reject all muslims from other countries.

“Hi BigK, since these Gestapo, oops, US checkpoints fail at their intended mission often enough to be worrisome, my concern is entrusting confidential/secure personal data to private cos. However, the Obama Admin already opened that barn door when it outsourced data analysis to private (spy) orgs like Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike.”

I agree with you one-hundred percent.

“The original whining that got us this federal beast called the TSA was that the airport rent-a-cops were rent-a-cops. And now we’ve come full circle, and they’re using rent-a-cops. So why, again, do we even need the TSA? Shut it down and spend the money on the wall.”

Yeah, that hysteria over a border wall has at turns made me laugh and then enraged me and then made me laugh again, and over and over.

So yes; let’s get that wall built and if TSA loses a few bucks in federal funding in order to get it built, well... that’s life in the big city, methinks. ;-)

“Taking off shoes and belt before a flight is unreasonable.”

I think we’re the last country that still requires airline travelers to remove their shoes as they go through security. What’s up with that?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.