Federalizing airport security

[Undertoad]

I can't figure out how to feel about this. On one hand, we've pretty much given the air to the feds to start with, and you could make a case that once you've committed to travelling to another state, you're kinda-sorta into a fed zone to start.

On the other hand, an airline can constitutionally tell you to take a hike for wahtever reason they want. But if you're identified as a possible criminal by a government, that government is practicing "prior restraint" which is entirely unconstitutional. A government can't anticipate and prevent a crime that hasn't happened.

[elSicomoro]

I say go for it. The airlines currently pay for it, and we see where it has gotten us. The workers are underpaid and probably not well-trained.

The only problems I really see with the Feds doing airport security are these:

--This would be another thing for the government to centrally control, which is a no-no in the Republican Book of Values. It's adds to the fed's locus of control.

--You either have to hire new people or bring the current people aboard as FEDERAL employees. Good for them b/c it would give them better pay and benefits. Bad b/c a) the government may not want to spend that money and b) the people currently working those jobs could lose them b/c the government does not see it fit to retrain them.

Notice how much money has been laid out in the past month and a half by the US government? Obviously, these were "unforeseeable" expenses, but I see deficits again in our future. Didn't the new government budget just start October 1?

[jaguar]

I'd say go federal personally. What gets me is that in reality, they are unlikely to try the same thing twice, its too obvious and preperations are being made. The key to a successful teror campaign like this is to make it totally unpredictable.

Ah well. I stil say class war.

[lisa]

While I value the addiional safety and the "standards" that the federal control would create, I share Tony's concerns about the constitutionality. And I am honestly concerned that there seems to be little attention being paid these days, by most people, to freedoms and constitutionality. This is the opportunity that many people in the government have been waiting for -- a chance to pass wiretapping, high-tech, and restrictive laws with as little resistance as possible because people are afraid and want the "mama" government to protect us all...

I'm not saying that there's nothing to fear, or that the people can protect us from terrorists as well as a well-informed, in-control, government can. I am just concerned with the rights that are currently being removed, most llikely (if history is any example) permanently, willing by the people, in the cause of fear.

[jaguar]

'nuff said

[tw]

Assume airport security is federalized. Who does it? The FAA. But the problem never was that airlines did airport security. The problem was always demonstrated to be the FAA.

Airlines installed security systems that meet FAA guidelines. Yes, that meant that security companies could give test answers to their employees during the test because of the FAA's 'kill the messenger' policy. Whistle blowers were routinely prosecuted as even the FAA's own Inspector General noted.

So what happens when the press tests airport security and finds it grossly insufficient? The FAA threatens to prosecute news reporters. Again 'kill the messenger'. When that does not work, the FAA gets Congress to pass laws making it illegal for the new industry to test airport security. Do you remember all that? It was only a few years ago.

This is the same FAA that could not get, repeatedly, new computer systems installed - and continued to operate 1960 based computers well into the 1990s. Does anyone remember the Unisys contract for the FAA?

Then there is FAA cost controlling. What did the FAA do? Discontinue computer maintenance even after their own maintenance people clearly noted systems would crash. Since it is the FAA (their top management has that kind of mentality), the technical people were ignored. When those systems did crash, the FAA instead tried to proven sabatoge by some employees. Do you remember the multiple all day shutdowns of the Pittsburgh area air traffic control? Suddenly the entire system would crash and controllers deperately tried to reroute and land all planes only from memory - no radar screens, no transponders data, and nothing but voice contact. This is YOUR FAA.

This is the same government assigned to do airport security? The same people who could not supervise security will not implement it? Right.

Even the NTSB constantly complains of the FAA's graveyard mentality. They don't do anything unless someone dies. Remember the problem with wire in commmerical airliners - that is rumored to have created a cockpit fire in a Swissair flight? Even all military planes and Air Force one had all that wire removed because of the danger. But the FAA simply kept 'studying the problem'.

This is a shameful organization when it comes to responsible air saftey. They can deal with status quo problems. But manangement's primary job is to solve future problems. Thank goodness the FAA also does not run the NTSB. But now we would assign airport security to the FAA?

I let this thread fester a little just to see if anyone remembers any of this history. We have long known that the FAA did nothing to address airport security. It was the FAA's job to hold airlines accountable for airport security. Instead the FAA only said "Its their problem" and ignored it. Now we would talk of putting those foxes inside the hen house instead of just patrolling around the hen house? Where is the logic in that? The problem in airport security was the FAA's attitude. How is Federalizing airport security going to correct the source of airport security problems - how will it fix the FAA?