Quote Originally Posted by Sharpienads View Post
IMO, the first step would be to get rid of the TSA and put security back into the hands of private companies.
...
Pay for TSA agents shouldn't have anything to do with it. If you have a job to do, you do it to the best of your ability. Of course that's hardly ever the case with government employees. Armed crews sounds like a great idea to me. You're already putting your life in their hands, does it really matter if they're armed? Air marshall types sound like a good idea too. I'll volunteer pro bono.
So how would that look or work? Are there still checkpoints? Does each airline conduct screening at the gate? Under the pre-TSA system, the airlines paid the airport, who contracted a private security company that operated under rules and oversight provided by the FAA and Dept of Transportation. To use DIA as an example, United, as the largest carrier at DIA would pay the largest share of the contract cost. Southwest and Frontier would pay the next largest percentage of the contract cost. All passengers under this system would still be screened the same regardless of which airline they were flying. I guess I'm not sure I understand what type of security you are proposing.

As far as government employees hardly ever doing their job to the best of their ability, that would be a perception I would dispute. While it is true that some government employees are lazy and shiftless, I also know some of the most dedicated and hard working employees you will ever find who are employed in public service. As an example, every member of the US military is a government employee. Some are mediocre, some are substandard, but most are extremely hard working and do the best they can for pretty meager compensation.

No workforce, public or private is without it's slackers.

No one has mentioned the use of dogs in airports. I am a big proponent of dogs for the detection of explosive material. Mind you, I don't believe Shepherds and Malinois are the best breed for this particular job, but I personally would love to see teams of beagles or terriers working the concourses and terminals of every airport.

I would also advocate more extensive screening of checked luggage and cargo in combination with a much stricter limitation on carry-on luggage. If everyone was limited to one bag, the size of a woman's small purse as a carry-on, then the amount of time screening passengers would be significantly reduced. Another incentive I would support is a line at checkpoints for passengers who have no carry-on items at all. That would be the fastest lane going since the screeners would not have anything other than the passenger to be concerned about.

As for the naked scanners, those images have been dumbed down to such an extent that the screens are now right there, out in the open at the machine. If you get a chance, you can actually look at it when you get to the other side. The image is a generic silhouette of a person without any detail at all. The only thing the scanner provides is an indication on the silhouette of the location of any anomaly detected during the scan. Anyone who continues to persist in the notion that the scanners display naked images are either ignorant or demagoguing the issue for their own agenda. Look for yourself the next time you go through one of the machines. There are no naked images.

As for the radiation exposure. Third party, university laboratories have certified multiple times that all of the machines now in use at checkpoints around the country expose passengers to less radiation than they will receive while flying for one hour at 35,000 feet. That isn't TSA making that claim, those are the manufacturers and university laboratories. Besides, if someone is that concerned about walking through a backscatter x-ray once a day, five days a week, they seriously should consider putting that cell phone down. The cell phone next to your brain will do more damage than the backscatter or millimeter wave machines.

Again, I don't care whether it is the government providing security, private industry providing security, or private citizens providing their own security. I do know that airplanes are targets for terrorists. I do know that our economy and lifestyle are very dependent on aviation and transportation. We would be foolish if we didn't take some precautions to protect ourselves. No matter what is done to secure the transportation industry, there will be people who will not be happy or satisfied. I also agree with some previous posts that life has risks and to live as free men means that we are willing to accept some of those risks.

Let me get on an airplane the same way I get on a city bus and I will take responsibility for my personal safety on the airplane the same way as I do on the city bus. Today as I write this, our society and our government doesn't agree with me. Some of the previous posts here do not agree with the idea of letting private citizens take personal responsibility for their own safety on airplanes, and by that I mean concealed carry of whatever weapon(s) would be appropriate.

We all have opinions and I'm glad we have a forum like this to discuss those opinions.