Serving the Airport is better than serving no one, who is who the TSA currently serves.
Normally privatising anything is a guaranteed path to increased corruption and inefficiency because the privatisation creates a monopoly that is bound up with existing government corruption and multiplies together the worst aspects of both business and bureaucracy. But it would be physically impossible for any airport security service to be worse than TSA, so in this one case, the despoiling consequences would be worth it.
We can only hope.
If the past year have reminded us of anything, it is this: Things can always get worse.
That said, I would love to see airport security tied to customer service metrics (specifically, median and maximum queue times) in addition to the current cost/ security measures. Perhaps privatizing it would open up this possibility. But I suspect they would just double-down on minimizing their variable costs, chiefly labor.
The Orlando vote is for a few things. They paid close to $4 million in overtime this last year. It seems that there just aren’t enough agents so they get long shifts and stupid OT. OIA recently built an addition to the customs area, wait times are really bad. But they can’t afford to put agents in it. So it sits empty. The Exec thinks that if they go private they save money. And they reduce international wait times.
As flyers typically do not have the option to use another airport in most cities, and it’s physically impossible of course for more than one airport to be exactly in the same spot as another anyhow, there really isn’t any competition per se that benefits the customer. TSA or private, from the customer’s point of view, they have to go through security, so there’s zero incentive for the people doing security to pay much attention to the people in their lines. That’s also because the airport has zero incentive to do so.
Theoretically, the only logical thing is to have all airports run by the government, which again theoretically is the only organization expressly charged with serving the public for the good of the public. But, as noted elsewhere, this too has not worked out well.
That’s currently true, but it doesn’t have to be. If the contract ties revenue to customer service metrics, e.g., median and maximum wait times, you could change that in a hurry. Alternately, regulations could accomplish the same thing (in an imaginary world where the federal government isn’t being dismantled).
Oh, no doubt. The problem is that gap between “can” and “will.”
TSA can’t find qualified individuals to hire. What makes anyone think that the private contractor can do better?
I heard an NPR story a couple of weeks ago about how TSA agents received a nice morale boost from the movie “Get Out”, where they’re portrayed in a positive light. Apparently the movie is really popular among TSA rank and file.
This is a point that applies to a lot of situations where privatization is touted as being a solution to some problem of government service quality. I suppose the logic is that a private company will be more efficient, and hence able to pay better for better people and still make a profit. In most cases, this does not appear to be true. Instead, private companies protect their profit margins and cut services, or cut wages, or cut just about anything that doesn’t contribute directly to their bottom line, and do so without even the modicum of oversight or consequences that public organizations have.
In theory, it might well be possible for private companies to do some of these tasks better than the government, especially if they have perhaps some proprietary new technology or methodology or something. In practice, it does not seem to happen very often.
For me, I’d much rather see more emphasis on having a productive, efficient, and professional civil service than on beating the bushes to find more low-bidder contractors.
Private companies actually have to compete with each other for the jobs at the airport.
How many cities have more than one airport? Who are they competing against?
Do you mean the security company has to compete for the guy making sandwiches at Subway?
Do they really have any incentive to keep people safe though?
It’s sort of the reason we don’t have private police, imo. Though the TSA doesn’t keep anyone safe either, so at the end of the day I don’t really have strong feelings against privatizing. Is a private company violating our rights better than the government? Probably because at least, in theory, they wont have qualified immunity and people might be able to sue them when they go off the rails.
The security companies have to compete with each other.
And every city has multiple security companies.
But there’s a shortage of workers. Do they really need to compete, or will they just issue demands?
Cities/states may eventually be forced to offer something similar in order to remain competitive.
Seems like they compete just fine for all the other security tasks that our society deal with privately.
This is something worth looking at. I have zero data, so I won’t hazard anything like a serious opinion, but I think it’s worth investigating whether competition between security firms actually results in better service at better prices, or whether it simply results in a race to the bottom of low bidders and questionable personnel practices brought on by ruthless cost cutting.
The thing about competition is that unless you have some standards that are rigidly adhered to as minimums, it always becomes a race to the bottom based on cost. Ultimately, the one thing everyone agrees on as valuable is money, and in the absence of any limitations based on other parameters, the lowest cost will always win. That’s not usually the best solution for anyone, in practice.
It looks like the TSA will be overseeing whatever private company might be hired. I suppose that means a small group of higher level TSA agents.
I’m not aware of any security assignments on this scale handled privately and also handled well. Particularly one that interacts directly with the public.
Maybe a sports stadium? But that’s just once a week instead of every day, and they have a history of mostly being safe. (Except for English football fans.)
Is the hajj handled by private security firms?