[BigKahuna]

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. ;-)

[The Westerner]

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.

[Mr. Rabbit]

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.

[Hoffer Rand]

...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.

[Falconspeed]

“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.