Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Airport to Switch to Private Screeners
AP ^ | 7/27/05 | Leslie Miller

Posted on 07/27/2005 6:51:18 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

A South Dakota airport intends to replace its federal screeners with private workers, the first change allowed since the government took over aviation security after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mike Marnach, director of the Sioux Falls Regional Airport, said it is time to try something other than the government 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.

Five airports that already use private screeners under a pilot program will continue to do so, the Transportation Security Administration said Wednesday in announcing it has approved the switch for Sioux Falls.

The airport in Elko, Nev., has applied to opt out of the federal system.

Marnach pointed out that the private screeners working on Sept. 11, 2001, did what they were supposed to.

"Boxcutters and 3- 1/2 inch knives weren't prohibited and the terrorists knew that," he said. "My board thinks private companies didn't get a fair shake."

Rep. Peter DeFazio, a member of the House Homeland Security subcommittee that planned a hearing on the subject Thursday, opposes private screeners.

"I won't be flying out of Sioux Falls," said DeFazio, D-Ore. "Before 9-11, screeners had trouble in tests detecting fully assembled large caliber handguns and today that's not a problem."

Like all airports, Sioux Falls will not be able to choose which company provides the screening service. The TSA will make that selection from a list of 34 approved companies.

The agency, created after the Sept. 11 attacks, was ordered by Congress to replace private screeners hired by airlines with a better-paid and -trained federal work force.

More than 50,000 screeners were hired in less than a year, though that number has been trimmed to about 45,000.

Congress also ordered five commercial airports to use privately employed screeners who are hired, trained, paid and tested to TSA standards, to serve as a comparison to the federal employees. Those airports are in San Francisco, Rochester, N.Y., Tupelo, Miss., Jackson, Wyo., and Kansas City, Mo.

Marnach said all the TSA screeners at Sioux Falls Airport will have a guaranteed job with the private screening company for at least 90 days. Then, he said, their employment will depend on how well they perform.

Airport officials say they are concerned that they would be sued if private screeners failed to prevent a terrorist attack. A law passed in 2002 gave limited legal protection to some companies involved in anti-terrorism businesses. Many airports are not sure that is enough.

Marnach said his board of directors does not think that will happen.

"I suppose some attorney would drag us in on some litigation, but we're not concerned," he said.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airlinesecurity; baggagescreeners; news; tsa

1 posted on 07/27/2005 6:51:18 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Private is the way to go.


2 posted on 07/27/2005 6:55:15 PM PDT by perfect stranger ("Hell Bent for Election" by Warburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

Before 9/11, all the screeners were private. Their ranks were made up of bored, poorly-trained, low-paid employees of private security companies. In the rush to "do something" after the attacks, the government converted these pathetic security slugs to federal employees. They were still bored and poorly trained, but now they were on the federal payroll with civil service benefits (not to mention the fact that they're about impossible to fire.) Now, they have an "attitude." Yet they're ineffective because, instead of profiling young guys named Ahmed and Mohammed and Ibrahim, they're too preoccupied with feeling up granny's underwire bra. The whole deal of creating the TSA was a farce to begin with.


3 posted on 07/27/2005 7:12:01 PM PDT by gregwest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Tom Daschle is deeply saddened.


4 posted on 07/27/2005 7:19:43 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Tom Daschle is deeply saddened.

WHO?? *wink*


5 posted on 07/27/2005 7:36:06 PM PDT by toomanygrasshoppers (Freud was wrong. It's all about "Roe v. Wade")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

Only if they are free from affirmative action...


6 posted on 07/27/2005 8:48:27 PM PDT by joesnuffy (The state always has solutions to the problems it creates...more freedom will never be a solution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson