Federalized airport security and increased measures to examine the flying public and their belongings have meant getting to the airport earlier and waiting longer. Despite the widely publicized federalization and noticeable differences between the pre- and post-September 11 airport security screening systems, an informal survey conducted by FKA shows that frequent flyers are unaware that the nation's 429 airports can opt to return to a privatized system.

In many locations throughout the country, federal screeners face job losses just two years after the federal program started. At the same time, private sector security companies are gearing up for stiff competition that could include ongoing federal screening at some airports, other private screening firms, and contractors that may already have a leg up on the competition.

Republicans have been pushing for a return to private screeners; citing increased ingenuity and performance as attributes of private sector work. However, the results of five pilot private screening programs have been mixed. Initiated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and designed to evaluate the possibility of returning to a privatized screening system, strategic pilot programs, termed “PP5,” were conducted at airports in Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Kansas City, Missouri; Rochester, New York; San Francisco, California; and Tupelo, Mississippi. 2

In April this year, the debate about federal versus private screening drew attention when Congress reviewed results from three studies that reviewed PP5 and other aspects of transportation security. The General Accounting Office (GAO), the Inspector General of the Homeland Security Department, and BearingPoint, a consulting firm hired by TSA, each published reports on various aspects of the “PP5” as well as the state of the expanded workforce of nearly 47,000 government employees. 3GAO's report, in particular, criticized TSA's performance and asserted that the TSA's heavy involvement in the PP5 pilot program skewed results. 4

Despite harsh criticism, TSA's Deputy Administrator, Stephen McHale, has observed that screener evaluations grew progressively more difficult as screening equipment and capabilities advanced. McHale noted that “despite continually raising the bar on these tests, TSA's screeners and security systems continue to improve over time.” 5

Since TSA began regulating the screening system, approximately eight million prohibited items have been confiscated with an average confiscation rate of roughly 500,000 items per month in 2003. Along with mountains of abandoned cuticle scissors, the massive cache of prohibited items includes:

•  3 million sharps (various)

•  2 million knives

•  480,000 incendiary devices

•  21,000 boxcutters

•  680 firearms

Whether through laziness, confusion or intent, airline passengers in the U.S. have continued to keep the federal screeners busy. Not only have millions of items been confiscated but also nearly 1,500 arrests took place in 2003 alone as a result of the discovery of artfully concealed objects. 6

Human error is the plague of either federal or private screening and used as a measuring tool for success or failure on both sides of the debate. The BearingPoint summary report on “PP5” described four separate security checks including covert tests in which inspectors tried to sneak banned items past checkpoints. Of the five airports participating in the “PP5” program, only Kansas City's contractor, FirstLine Security, performed better than federal screeners in the tests. Still, representatives of all five airports expressed satisfaction with private screeners' performance. 7

According to San Francisco International Airport spokesman Mike McCarron, “flexibility and creativity are the pluses.” San Francisco's Covenant Aviation Security set up a system of closed circuit television to monitor security lines and rotates screeners to cope with the lines. Other ‘PP5' airports have similar positive sentiments. Executive Director of the Tupelo Regional Airport, Terry Anderson, observed that due to the remarkable job conducted by private screeners, he does not intend to switch to government screeners. 8

Despite various positive reviews, opposition is still strong. Summing up the anti-privatization sentiment, Congressman John Dingell (D-Michigan) spoke on October 17, 2004, at the 10th Annual Meeting of the National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation observing that, "Providing security at our ports, borders, and airports is a necessary government function and should not be provided by the lowest bidder." 9Debate continues among transportation officials; however, the media and, subsequently, the general public have largely stayed mum.

___________________________________