Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aviation Security  
User currently offlineSWA TPA From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1559 posts, RR: 34
Posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 945 times:

Ok, so they are going to federalize the security people. What change is this really going to make? Is'nt it just going to be the same non english speaking ( no offense meant to ANYBODY please  Smile
people manning those checkpoints now? I just dont really understand how this is going to help anything. Any ideas?
We were tyring to train the Globe Security people on how to hand search our "selectee" pax bags and evertime I said something to the girl she answered me with either yes or uh huh. I finally asked her a question that required more than yes for an answer and ofcourse her reply was "yes". She never understood a word I said!!!! This really upsets me. Please tell me what good is this new bill going to do if its still the same people doing the job!?


I believe I can fly.....
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSforamper From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 936 times:

I totally agree w/u , to me this is like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound, the only difference is they ll have new uniforms and a new badge that says " federal worker"
Why reward these people by making em feds? I dont get it.


User currently offlineCoyoteguy From Mexico, joined Oct 2001, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 935 times:

And won't having them as Federal Employees make it even harder to fire the useless ones? Isn't that why the Post Office is such a popular place to work? From what I hear it is impossible to get fired from there no matter how useless you are... Don't believe me? Take a trip to any big city post office...



User currently offlineRussianplnelvr From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 924 times:

I support these decisions. It's all for safety. The new federal employees will probably have more motivation to do their job well because they will be getting paid a decent wage. Right now(or recently) the job went to the security company that charges the least amount of money. These private workers were getting paid near minimum wage and many of them had multiple jobs to make ends meet. I heard reports thats some workers fell asleep on the job because they were so tired. The new workers will get paid roughly $35,000/year compared to the $14,000/year the current people get. This will enable the employees to concentrate better because they probably won't have to have a 2nd or 3rd job and the higher pay is also a motivation factor.

User currently offlineBoeingfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 919 times:

No difference.

Maybe just another tax justification, tax the passenger another $5, people feel better if they see they are paying for something. There are alot of taxes already on our airline tickets, $20 fuel surcharge, on top of the local facillities charge, on top of the regular domestic ticket transportation tax.

Ticket prices are going higher. I hope they will now keep their eye on the x ray machine screen?

"Lipstick on a pig."

By the way, there is no statistical correlation between amount of pay and the quality of work, after time the incentive becomes homogonized. It will still be the same people. Maybe more smiles?

What about a voluntary Travelers ID card using Biometric security, and background check for those who frequently use air transportation?

What about domestic baggage passenger matching?

Why do we feel the Federal Gov't does it better? Why don't we just Federalize the airlines? Let's just have them all merge into one in efficient Federalized organization? I hope someone is also going to put these "Federal Security Personel" out at the hangers too?

Wasn't it a Federal Organization and Personel with in, that let the 'terrorist' into/out of/and into our country again, in the first place? What about INS?

Hey, but think about the new uniforms, and now a "metal" badge! I really hope the training is rigorous and requires a timed "running" test. All security personel should be required to wear 'Nike's track shoes.' (To prevent the security breach like at ATL today.)

Then again, marketing is a powerful thing, and if this will really satisfy the traveling public, and bring passengers back to the airplane seats, I am all for it.

2cents Bf.


User currently onlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3829 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 910 times:

Well, I've vented in other threads, so I guess I can vent in this one, too. Below is an article interspersed with my views in bold text.

Witnesses blast Massport, FAA at Carter Commission hearing
By Leslie Miller

BOSTON (AP) A former training instructor and security checkpoint supervisor at Logan Airport told a commission studying the Massachusetts Port Authority that private airport security companies can't do their jobs because the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration won't let them.

Michael Moran said he'd complained about routine violations of security regulations to the FAA, only to meet with indifference.

''Every time I talked to the FAA, whether in Boston or Washington, and I've done both, these people basically say, 'OK, yeah, we'll take care of it,' and then they call my company and they say, 'Why is your screener coming to us?'' Moran said.

Well, that's typical. Instead of addressing the problem, they try to sweep it under the rug. If something bad does happen do they take any responsiblilty at all for the fact that problems were brought to their attention and they did nothing about them? No, they do what's easy for them. They blame the airlines.

Marshall Carter, who heads the six-member commission, chaired a public hearing Thursday on the state agency that oversees Logan. The Carter Commission was appointed by acting Gov. Jane Swift to conduct a top-to-bottom review of Massport after terrorists hijacked two planes from Logan and crashed them into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. It is to make recommendations by Dec. 3.

Carter said the FAA's dual mission of regulating airlines and promoting air travel creates an inherent conflict. He advocates making checkpoint screeners federal employees.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. If the federal government can't even oversee security screening effectively, why should I have confidence in their ability to actually do the screening?

House and Senate negotiators tentatively agreed Thursday to put all airport baggage screeners on the federal payroll under the supervision of the Department of Transportation.

''What I want to do is get out of FAA,'' Carter said. ''The FAA has a long record of performance failure to make sure the standards were there.''

Sheila Widnall, former Secretary of the Air Force and a commission member, said the FAA wasn't entirely at fault for failing to enforce security regulations.

"The FAA has been so politicized by people doing end runs around them,'' she said.

That's called "passing the buck" Yes, they are responsible. All the "regulations" are totally worthless if they're not going to be ENFORCED. And I'm not talking about a few fines or being put on probation. I'm talking about these security firms having their operating licenses yanked so that the airlines are FORCED to change security companies if the ones they are using are not meeting federal standards.

Remember what happened after the Valujet crash in the Everglades? The government didn't just fine Valujet or put them "on probation", They shut them down.

Remember when AA 191 lost an engine at ORD? The government didn't make "recommendations" to the airlines who were operating the DC-10 to check out the engine pylons. They grounded the planes until the problems were fixed.

If homeland security is so important, (which it is, IMHO) why is the government not taking similar actions with regard to the security firms? If the federal government is the one making the regulations, then it should be the federal government who enforces those regulations, not the airlines.

When the airlines don't meet federal safety standards with regards to maintainence, the federal government doesn't turn around and blame the passengers for flying that airline. But when the security firms don't meet federal standards, the federal government will turn around and blame the airlines for hiring them.

The prospect of an aviation security law being passed by Congress will make the commission's job easier, Carter said. A large part of the commission's recommendation will deal with security, he said.

Carter said he was disappointed that airline representatives did not choose to attend the Boston hearing.

I, too, am disappointed that the airlines chose not to attend. Security affects their industry and they should have been there to provide their input and give their point of view.

Moran said he decided to testify because it bothered him to see what's been going on since Sept. 11.

At Logan on Tuesday, an Argenbright Security employee left an exit door unattended for four minutes at a Delta Airlines concourse on Tuesday.

Moran said he'd monitored a baggage screening machine for an hour and 45 minutes, though regulations limit security employees to 40 minutes.

Though law enforcement officers are supposed to respond to screeners' silent alarms within five minutes, Moran said state troopers at Massport often took 15 to 20 minutes to respond and sometimes as long as a half hour.

And yet, there are those on this board who continually scream "Fire the burger flippers and put some "real" law enforcemement in there to get the job done." If the state troopers are taking that long to respond to a possible emergency, they're no better than the burger flippers.

Moran, who now works for Longwood Security, said he was employed by Atlanta-based Argenbright Security Inc. for several years and for Globe Security for a week-and-a-half after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks until he resigned.

The commission also heard from a half-dozen opponents of a proposed new runway who criticized Massport for refusing to be accountable to communities affected by the noise and pollution from the airport.

''They have to go a long way to build community relations,'' Widnall said.

Yeah, typical of the NIMBY's always having to throw in their 2 cents worth even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but I'll save the rest of my thoughts about them for another thread.

Carter said the panel will hammer out a dozen final recommendations over the next few days and will give them to Swift before making them public. The commission's deadline is Dec. 3.

Would anyone like to bet that the December 3rd deadline will not be met? When has federal, state or local government ever accomplished anything on time?

Carter said that he estimates Massport will need about $20 million to enhance security along with $20 million it already has set aside.

I'm sure that the extra fees we wil probably have to pay for "enhanced" security will also be "set aside" until they can agree on a plan and God only knows how many years that will take

'We will promise changes,'' Carter said, adding he was very confident Swift would implement them.

Oh I'm sure they'll promise changes, but the real question is, will they deliver on those promises, and if they do will the proposed changes really be more effective? I won't hold my breath.

LoneStarMike

User currently offlineSWA TPA From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1559 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 905 times:

35,000 a year!? Lovely, I have worked my butt off at WN for 5 years and dont make that!!!!!!!


I believe I can fly.....
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Zealand Relaxes Aviation Security Rules posted Fri Sep 30 2005 12:43:19 by 777ER
Good News For SFO And Aviation Security. posted Tue Aug 30 2005 09:03:51 by DeltaA380
Australia's Aviation Security Is Being Let Down. posted Wed Aug 25 2004 04:36:28 by 777ER
Inherent Risks In Aviation Security posted Wed Jul 23 2003 21:21:46 by Jhooper
General Aviation Security posted Sat Mar 2 2002 07:11:00 by Jhooper
New Aviation Security Laws: Good Or Bad? posted Wed Nov 21 2001 07:42:22 by Jer32382
Aviation Security Bill-Pilot's Opinion posted Mon Nov 19 2001 22:22:40 by Blowout
Aviation Security Bill-Non Pax To Gates? posted Mon Nov 19 2001 19:47:10 by 727LOVER
Aviation Security posted Fri Nov 16 2001 23:55:29 by SWA TPA
CNN Site Devoted To Aviation Security posted Tue Nov 6 2001 06:31:34 by Bobbydgg
Aviation Security Bill-Pilot's Opinion posted Mon Nov 19 2001 22:22:40 by Blowout
Aviation Security Bill-Non Pax To Gates? posted Mon Nov 19 2001 19:47:10 by 727LOVER
Aviation Security posted Fri Nov 16 2001 23:55:29 by SWA TPA