Well, I sure feel safer, don't you?

Last week, reports from several government departments confirmed what most business travelers and other frequent fliers already knew: after spending more than $5 billion in federal funds on the [TSA], airport security is hardly any better now than it was before 9/11.

Created to impose tight federal control over commercial airport security after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the agency continues to get failing or barely passing grades. Covert screening tests by the Government Accountability Office and the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security showed virtually no improvement in overall screener performance since similarly poor performance reviews last year, said Representative John L. Mica, the Florida Republican who is chairman of the House aviation subcommittee.

"Over the last three and a half years, we have spent billions of dollars creating a Soviet-style centralized bureaucracy that has resulted in great inefficiencies and inflexibility, with little improvement in screener effectiveness," Mr. Mica, a long-time critic of the agency, said in a statement last week.

In its reply, the agency said that it needed more money to improve performance with better technology, like new machines for detection of explosives.

*sigh*

Now, based on my experiences in Denver, I would say that DIA TSA personnel are generally more competent and civil than the lowest-bidder quack security folks we had pre-TSA. (Not sure I'd say the same about the LAX security folks, though.) Far worse than the personnel, though, are the screwball restrictions (and vague, local, "Whatever I say, goes" overriding restriction) on baggage contents. I think that, more than the personnel themselves, is what's torqued most folks off, and opened TSA to the most ridicule.

Feh.

Filed under :: Homeland Security
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

Quoth Boulder Dude ...

Just a little thing that I've noticed.

Both in Omaha, and Montrose, (small airports) the fact that there are almost no passengers leaveing those places, they have lots of time to do security type things.

I had my laugage searched both going to and coming back from Omaha (love the little notes that the leave), and because the gate people were bored, they patted down *Everybody* going on to the concourse.

But for the most part, other then some odd little changes (no lighters, but four books of matches are ok), nope, no real change, unless you are named Dave Hill that is.

I don't recall any more the excuse given for doing the centralized bureaucracy thing rather than leaving it up to airports under federal guidelines.

Quoth ***Dave ...

Given the extremely sorry state of staffing of security pre-9/11, I was more or less in favor of going to making them government employees. And, to be sure, I think the quality of the security screeners has in fact gone up (notable exceptions, of course, but security checkers were obnoxious and, sometimes, thieves, even before the TSA).

My biggest beef is, in fact, the "federal guidelines," which are not only stupid in so many places, but leave way too much discretion in the hands of the local agents (government or not) -- "Well, yes, this item isn't mentioned on the TSA pages as forbidden, or it's noted as being allowed, but I'm the Man, and I say I want one -- er, I mean, I say it doesn't go, so put it in this box here, or else tromp back to the termainal and mail it and miss your flight, bwah-ha-ha!"

Clear, well-thought-out guidelines that the majority of folks can agree with, and are fairly applied -- that can be done by private or public employees, but I'd frankly rather have them be government folks so that we know who to blame, rather than the TSA being able to say, "It's the airport's job" and the airport say, "It's the security company's job," and the security company say, "The government doesn't pay enough for us to retain good, trained employees."