Twaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 985 times:
From CNN today...
The USDOT has effectively made it impossible for Securicor PLC's US arm, Argenbright, to handle airport security at any American airport following the February switchover to Federal Airport screeners.
Which companies will take over Argenbright's business?
Are there any airport security companies that are really winning accolades or awards for top-flight service and security? Is there a Midwest Express of the airport security business I guess is what I'm asking?
Anyone work/worked with Argenbright?
I worked aside Argenbright agents at JFK last summer and they really were "the Enron of the security business". A complete mess. Young kids getting $6/hour, untrained stressed employees, and a real lack of professionalism or pride in work.
A real contrast with the BAA screeners I remember at Heathrow who wore smarter uniforms, looked happier, more professional, and overal gave the image of being more competent? Were they Securicor too?
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 27 Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 946 times:
Federal screeners are going to be held at a higher standard than those people working security right now. Also starting pay will be around $35,000 (a shade better than what I'm making now) and there will be more requirements than just a high school diploma and a pulse. I'm sure most of those Argenbright pukes won't cut it as Fed screeners.
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 923 times:
That's beside the point Neil. What I'm saying is that most of the people that currently work for Argenbright wouldn't ever get HIRED by the Feds, so as such they can't get fired for their incompetence and thus there will be no lawsuits. Also I'm sure if the Feds are going to invest the amount of money into security that they are, those that do qualify and do get higher will be trained a lot better, will probably have to go through recurrent training, and will be more motivated than someone making $6 an hour and just working there until something better comes along.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5034 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 904 times:
Who do those screeners at Heathrow work for? The British government or a private company?
whenever you put ANYTHING in the private sector control it's quality will eventually decline. Here, the private sector exists for one purpose only. To make money. And lots of it. competition doesn't lead to improved quality. Just aggressive marketing.
But as for the u.s. government, well they are just so full of bureaucracy and red tape that I wonder if it will be any better.
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Snoopy From Switzerland, joined Oct 2001, 370 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 874 times:
I was a manager at Argenbright in Europe (I left over 5 years ago, so you can put the rotten eggs and tomatoes away). We started off with a really good product and well trained staff. We were paying them well too. But, we were employed by the airlines and they were constantly telling us that we were too expensive, cutting positions here, cutting them there. At the end of the day, it is the airlines who determine how much the security personnel get paid, because they say how much they are willing to pay the market for the security services. I could never figure out why airlines thought that security personnel should be paid so much less than ticketing staff....In the end it got so pathetic that I left the industry completely and I am glad that I did.
The comparison with the BAA is unfair is as much as the BAA has a monopoly and can charge the airlines pretty much what it wants in landing fees and other various fees. They are in a position to offer much better conditions than companies like Argenbright and it shows.
There is no doubt that Argenbright did a a lousy job, but I think that the airlines have done a really good job at passing the buck here also....
Snoopy From Switzerland, joined Oct 2001, 370 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 853 times:
Looks like they are having some difficulty staying out of the news.....
By Michael Holden
LONDON (Reuters) - Security staff at Manchester Airport failed to spot two guns, imitation explosives and fake bomb-making equipment hidden in a bag which was allowed on board a British Airways passenger jet, officials said on Saturday.
The failure took place during a recent security test with the full knowledge of the airline, a spokeswoman for the airport in northern England said. There was no risk to passengers during the exercise, she said.
Global Air Training, which carried out the test on behalf of the airport -- the busiest UK airport outside London -- hid a cache of arms in a bag which was screened by security staff employed by Securicor ADI, the airport said.
An operator manning a scanning machine failed to spot the weapons and the bag was allowed into the hold of the Boeing 737 jet bound for London's Gatwick Airport.
The 23 "smuggled" suspect items included two guns -- a .38 caliber Rossi revolver and a Baby Browning pistol -- blocks of fake Semtex explosive and detonators.
"These items...were not detected by an external security company, Securicor ADI, employed at Manchester Airport to operate hold baggage screening," the airport said in a statement.
"This is a matter of great concern to us and we will be holding urgent talks with Securicor ADI," an airport spokeswoman told Reuters.
The breach comes despite tightened security at British airports following the suicide hijack attacks on the United States on September 11.
A Securicor ADI spokesman said in a statement: ""We act upon any reported failings in individuals or systems and have taken immediate action in this instance."
The Securicor ADI spokesman said the individual who failed to spot the package had been suspended pending a full investigation.
"We understand that the airport and ADI immediately investigated and have taken some serious steps to tighten up procedures," a British Airways spokesman told Reuters.
In January, Manchester Airport workers voted to stage rotating strikes over plans to cut 140 security staff jobs. The Transport and General Workers Union described the cuts as an "unnecessary risk."
Securicor's Atlanta-based Argenbright Security unit has had several recent high-profile screening lapses at airports in the United States. The new U.S. Transportation Security Administration will in November take over security contracts for screening operations at 429 U.S. airports
Hoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 842 times:
I initially supported the federalization of airport screeners but I'm now beginning to see it for the joke it really is. All they will do is hire the same incompetent people fired from Notsobright but pay them more and give them more authority.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 838 times:
I have always thought federalizing security is a mistake. The government should develop performance standards and allow airport operators to hire contractors to do the work. If they fail to meet standards, out they go. Eventually, someone will start a company that will work.
This way the workers are not government employees and they can be hired and fired as needed.
Indeed, the fed screeners will be like the post office. Then, when the next terrorist act happens, we will get an earful of excuses, with no accountability.