Airport security needs to be tightened and not dictated by the government
While we were at home celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah or some fictitious holiday created by a college professor with a felony record, a Muslim by the name of Umar Abdulmutallab tried blowing up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.
This, of course, resulted in a slew of controversy about the effectiveness of airline security. Some say the actual screening was insufficient.
Others criticize the intelligence-gathering and reporting.
Delta Airlines, parent of Northwest Airlines, CEO Richard Anderson basically said the government needs to step up because the airline has done everything the government has asked.
I say this exemplifies why airline security should be handled by the airlines.
When the government is calling the shots in regards to security, it’s easy for the airline to pass the buck. However, if left to the airlines, I guarantee security measures — ones much more effective than those established by Uncle Sam — would be put into effect.
Those of you that fall into the category of being blissfully ignorant about how government regulation, in most cases, is actually harmful might be wondering how this is.
The answer is quite simple: market forces.
If an airline were to handle its own security, either by itself or more likely through a contractor, it would have a huge market incentive to get it right.
If an airline were known or perceived to have inadequate security, it’s obvious business would go elsewhere.
On top of that, people handling the security can actually be held accountable for any errors.
With the TSA running the show, when things get botched up, instead of having someone held accountable, you get the pleasure of not being able to bring drinks through the checkpoint.
Indeed, there are certain airports where private companies are used for screening, such as San Fransisco.
However, security policies are still set by the TSA, not the airlines. Even with that, the private contractors come out on top.
A USA Today article mentioned that in tests where undercover TSA agents tried sneaking fake explosives and other prohibited items through, there was a 75 percent failure rate at LAX and 60 percent failure rate at ORD.
The failure rate for SFO where there are private contractors? Twenty percent.
Who would you rather securing your aircraft?
I think that shows that market forces do work in ensuring airline security.
By the way, passengers aren’t the only ones subject to ridiculous TSA policies and regulations, airline employees are as well.
For example, despite the fact I was entrusted with the ability to have unrestricted access to the aircraft, I still have to go through security if I’m actually going to fly.
Riddle me that, Batman.
