> Surely that would just defer the problem? Plus, the airlines now have to buy all their own equipment, train their own staff. At the moment, they are 'outsourcing' their airport security to the TSA.
An obvious solution: outsource to not-the-TSA. Say, local security contractors at the airports they operate at, possibly pooling resources with other airlines if there's economies of scale to be had there. Or perhaps a security company employing former security personnel from Israel's airports? I hear they've done pretty well by focusing on the human element.
> I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose?
I'm sure private security companies have plenty of suggestions for things they can upsell you on. There's all kinds of profit motives that simply aren't there in the public sector. This allows some diversification as well: Those interested in flying 'safely' can be swayed by airline X's advertisements about their thorough security procedures, and those not interested in security theater can be swayed by airline Y's advertisements about their no-hassle boarding.
> Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA?
Goodness no. At a 5% effectiveness rate, I suspect you'd have better odds winging it.
> It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA.
I'm sure they don't want the responsibility. Responsibility sucks. This article can be read as the TSA avoiding any of that nasty stuff! But the more relevant question is if foisting responsibility for security upon airlines would be effective.
As for doing better than the TSA: That's a low bar, so why not try such a scheme? Best case scenario, it works, clearing the whole issue right up. Worst case scenario: Nothing of value was lost, and we can try something else.
> Goodness no. At a 5% effectiveness rate, I suspect you'd have better odds winging it.
This is bad statistics. The TSA 'failed to detect 95% of airport breach tests' does not mean it fails to prevent 95% of would-be attacks. Just by being there, it prevents some attacks - those people who consider it too difficult to get round the TSA, or those who end up coming up on the NSA's radar as they research ways to do so.
Saying we could just "throw it all away because what's the worst that can happen" is much like a developer saying "let's do a complete rebuild" and we all know how that usually turns out.
An obvious solution: outsource to not-the-TSA. Say, local security contractors at the airports they operate at, possibly pooling resources with other airlines if there's economies of scale to be had there. Or perhaps a security company employing former security personnel from Israel's airports? I hear they've done pretty well by focusing on the human element.
> I suppose they could each choose which security checks they are going to carry out, but how would they choose?
I'm sure private security companies have plenty of suggestions for things they can upsell you on. There's all kinds of profit motives that simply aren't there in the public sector. This allows some diversification as well: Those interested in flying 'safely' can be swayed by airline X's advertisements about their thorough security procedures, and those not interested in security theater can be swayed by airline Y's advertisements about their no-hassle boarding.
> Based on recommendations from something that looks like the TSA?
Goodness no. At a 5% effectiveness rate, I suspect you'd have better odds winging it.
> It's not clear to me that the airlines would want this responsibility, or would do a better job at it than the TSA.
I'm sure they don't want the responsibility. Responsibility sucks. This article can be read as the TSA avoiding any of that nasty stuff! But the more relevant question is if foisting responsibility for security upon airlines would be effective.
As for doing better than the TSA: That's a low bar, so why not try such a scheme? Best case scenario, it works, clearing the whole issue right up. Worst case scenario: Nothing of value was lost, and we can try something else.