Evaluate the pros and cons of the following: Remaining with a government-operate

Question

Evaluate the pros and cons of the following: Remaining with a government-operated system of administering airport security, versus returning to privately owned and operated, contracted airport security organizations. In your evaluation, consider factors that resulted in the creation of the Transportation Security Administration. Include in your discussion San Francisco International Airport’s ability to remain secure while utilizing a private company under contract with the federal government.

Select which position you support:

Problem Statement #1: Government–operated security has failed to provide adequate airport security and should be replaced by private security organizations.

Problem Statement #2: Private security organizations have failed to provide adequate airport security and should be replaced by government administered security agencies.

Explanation / Answer

Government–operated security has failed to provide adequate airport security and should be replaced by private security organizations.

Mismanagement and Bureaucracy

TSA has had workforce management problems since its inception. The agency estimated that the hiring and training of its initial workforce in 2002 would cost $104 million, but those costs ended up soaring to $741 million. A huge amount of money, for example, was wasted on renting expensive hotel space during the hiring process.

Expensive Failures

Security experts have criticized DHS and TSA for not allocating their resources based on cost-benefit analyses and detailed risk assessments.Former RAND Corporation president, James Thomson, noted in 2007 that "DHS implements most of its programs with little or no evaluation of their performance."A National Academy of Sciences report in 2010 similarly criticized DHS for its lack of detailed risk analyses supporting its decisionmaking.

Costly Air Marshal Service

The use of air marshals on U.S. commercial flights had its origins in the Sky Marshal program begun in 1961. Support for this small program waxed and waned over the decades—until the attacks on 9/11. Since then, the federal government has invested billions of dollars in the Federal Air Marshal Service, which is now part of TSA.

FAMS places armed federal agents onboard commercial flights to deal with possible terrorist attacks. That might sound like a good idea, but FAMS has not yielded results in proportion to the program's high costs. It is very expensive to place highly trained air marshals on even a small fraction of all flights in the United States.

Airport Screening and Civil Liberties

Aviation screening is an important element of aviation security, but that does not mean that all TSA actions are appropriate.Some TSA practices push the legal boundaries of permissible searches and seizures. Another issue is whether the TSA is using its screening activities to discover evidence of crimes that are beyond the scope of its proper role in aviation security.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars unreasonable searches and seizures. With airport searches, individuals do have a reduced expectation of privacy, and federal courts have held that warrantless searches of all passengers prior to boarding are permissible.But some of TSA's current practices, such as full body pat-downs and the use of Advanced Imaging Technology machines, may be over the legal line.

Privatizing Airport Screening

TSA has demonstrated many of the failings typical of large, monopoly federal bureaucracies. It has a "government knows best" mentality, and it imposes one-size-fits-all solutions on the whole country. When TSA makes mistakes, it imposes them on the entire aviation system. The SPOT program is an example. TSA installed SPOT across the nation without first studying, in detail, whether or not it worked and was cost effective.

TSA dominates most aspects of aviation security, handling both airport screening operations and regulatory oversight of screening operations. Aviation reform expert Robert Poole notes that those responsibilities create a conflict of interest.

Every year San Francisco International Airport (SFO) conducts an annual emergency exercise to help ensure its readiness for a potential incident at the Airport. This exercise is a critical part of SFO’s emergency preparedness and the most high-profile element of its continuous training program.

Although federal regulations require U.S. airports to conduct such a drill every three years, SFO conducts this full-scale emergency drill annually to ensure the highest level of readiness.

Security Screening

Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage screening at SFO.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse E
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.