Student 1 ( Brandon Bryan) Week 2 Discussion Questions 1. Measure the impact of the federalization of airport screening.

Select a viewpoint pro or con to the aforementioned federalization and utilize security management fundamentals and additional resources to reinforce the key elements of your discussion.

According to an article by Erik S. Nelson, the impact of federalization of airport security overall is negative. (Nelson, 2003) It is easy to assume that the creation of the Transportation Safety Administration has been very successful since we have not experienced a major terrorist attack associated with our transportation industry since its inception. TSA has very broad powers and they operate in a post 9/11 environment where the American public is more tolerant of them. This tolerance is because they consider the added hassle of travelling, especially with the airline industry, a necessary evil. 9/11 has given not only Americans but the world this mindset. While absolutely necessary, the evil part is up for debate. In other words, we absolutely need increased security measures implemented post 9/11; however, the way in which these measures were applied can be a contentious subject. According to Nelson, security assessments being carried out by TSA people are finding the failure rates for airports higher than they were before screeners were federalizedthat an unacceptably high percentage of screeners have been found to be unqualified (Nelson, p. 41). What i s even more alarming is that some of these screeners were unqualified because of some pretty serious crimes. The alternative to federalization of airline security is privatization. This author is absolutely not advocating for that either. Nelson breaks down problems with this approach as we ll. He likens privatization to big business and then goes on to list a couple examples of how big business is at times at odds with the steps needed to create a more secure environment. He mentions the Gore Commission Report which provided instructions to the Federal Government on how to make air travel much safer; however, these suggestions were quickly ousted once the air carriers big business complained about the costs and inefficiencies associated with a security overhaul . After some internal delibe ration and debate, Im going to side with con in regards to mandatory federalization of airport security. However, there must be standardized guidelines which must be met by all entities interested in providing airport security. This part should definitely come from a Federal organization. Not only would it have the means to enforce standards, it would also promote standardization in all airports across the U.S. Without standardization, air travel would be exponentially more chaotic than its current state. If federally guided, privatization could be a better answer for our nations airport security needs. Federal oversight should help focus operations towards a safety first policy as opposed to a bottom-line. The author of the commentary The Case against Federalizing Airport Security makes a great point in regards to the motivation discrepancy between (his example) employees of Disney World and (my example) DMV employees . While the DMV is probably a bad example, its pretty obvious the point being made is that the environment of most civil service jobs are not consistent with the needs of this country in regards to airport security. Private companies have better opportunities to form their workforce and ultimately more flexibility in regards to dismissing employees that do not fit the mold. The mold being intuitive personnel that can get the job done safely and efficiently by coming up with solutions to problems or better yet coming up with solutions to areas that are not yet identified as problems but represent an inefficiency that could be improved. These personnel will be rewarded and the organization will be led by these types of employees. While both federal and private entities could get the job done, I definitely believe that private organizations would deliver a better end result. Not that federalization could not keep us safe, just that private organizations give us the best chance of safety AND efficiency. This will not happen; however, without federal guidelines. This part is key because not only are these guidelines the fundamental principles that will keep Americans safe, they are also the standard that all the private firms must meet. The government decides what must be done, private industry will decide how it gets done. The government will still be the ones that develop the overall all security strategy by developing operating guidelines for private organizations. Another key role they will play is acting as the quality assurance in most cases. It will be a collaborative effort, with each side representing different roles. Each side has its strengths. I believe this structure would maximize both.

Nelson, E. S. (2003). WTC + 2 Update. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 16(1), 39. Rahn, Richard W. The Case against Federalizing Airport Security. The CATO INSTITUTE. Washington, DC.

2.

As a follow-on to DQ 1, validate a plan as to how you would organize the screening force be it federal, privatized, or a combination of the two.

As discussed in discussion questions 1, I would organize a security screening force using a combination of federal and privatized personnel. The personnel percentages should be roughly 20% federal and 80% privatized. The reason for such a disparity in percentages is because of the different functions each will be responsible for. Because private organizations will be completing most of the tasks, their numbers will be much larger accordingly. Not only will they be completing most of the tasks, they will also be responsible for staffing and human relations activities for their organization as well. They will be guided by the standards the federal entity comes up with, but otherwise, it will be their responsibility to make everything happen. Although I believe this will be the most effective way to secure air travelers, there will still be some difficulties with this arrangement. One example of difficulty is the determination of roles. Because federal policy will be governing private operations, they may see it in their best interest to closely monitor the daily operations of the private organizations. Not only could this cause discontent between the two entities but it would also be a prime example of inefficiency in the process. This is key because, other than safety, efficiency is the main goal of this reorganization. Efficiency is and will always be second to

safety but the objective is to determine what structure can offer both effectively and at a low cost. Cost is important because most likely they will eventually trickle down to air travelers. Worst case scenario would be a costly inefficient process that puts lives in danger. Even with the difficulties listed above, a collaborative effort between federal and private organizations is the way to go. One of the main reasons I believe a more privatized approach is the way to go is because of the work climate that I believe a privatized organization will be able to create. Not that this climate would be impossible from a government organization, just that it would be much less likely from them. The culture needed is a culture of thinking and acting outside the box. There have been many studies done into workplace and organizational culture. It has been suggested that hig h performance is only possible if employees do more than what is expected of them and if everyone in the org anization is aligned to providing service quality (Kokt, p. 788). This is where a federal workforce would fall short, in my opinion. Federal organizations traditionally have fostered a culture of just getting the job done. One reason this type of culture thrives in federal organizations is the absence of competition. The absence of competition will promote inertia within an organization. Job security is great in the civil service arena, and it will for the most part produce a constant workforce. However, complete job security combined with absolutely zero competition will promote a culture of mediocrity at best. This is why private organizations are much better suited to take on the task of securing our air travel. Not only will they face harsh competition from other organizations, they will be much more capable of motivating their personnel. The personnel they staff to fill security positions will have performance based compensation options which will help promote the type of high performance quoted above. While security will be their ultimate determinant of success, other factors to include but not limited to efficiency and customer service will also be important if they wish to maintain their role in airport security operations. Civilian organizations should perform the work but it should continue to be Federal oversight that guides the overall program. Federal legislation will establish minimum requirements that must be met at all levels of airport screening activities. Federal entities will also be responsible for monitoring screening operations to ensure all established programs and policies are being adhered to across the country. I believe this might be the toughest part to maintain over time. It seems as though lines are clearly drawn as far as roles and responsibilities between federal and civilian entities; however, these roles may become less clear as the program evolves. I could see federal authorities make attempts to micro-manage screening operations in some cases. It would be hard to blame them considering they are ultimately responsible for assuring their own plans and policies are being effectively carried out. It will definitely take buy-in and collaboration from both civilian and federal players to develop the safest program. Without complete buy-in all around, results will suffer. This is one area we cannot afford for results to suffer. The safety of our airline industry is of monumental importance and we must develop the best method to ensure it is able to not only meet our current needs but also to meet our needs well into the future.

Kokt, D. (2009). A model for establishing a quality culture in a major security company. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence , 20(8), 787-798.

Student 2 (Derrick Tillman)

Question 1

The most important consideration relating to airport passenger screening is which Transportation Security Administration model performs best. From covert testing, anecdotal information and independent evaluation, utilizing private screening professionals under federal regulation and oversight is a better security option. TSAs decision to halt this model is incomprehensible this action, whic h subverts the intent of the law. It was clearly Congress objective that the federal government be responsible for setting security standards under both models. In addition to the all-federal model, five airports were selected and continue to operate under the private-federal model, with TSA-certified contractors under federal supervision and regulation. Previous testing of both models determined that private operator screening performed statistically better than or equivalent to the all-federal model.

The law provided that, two years after creation of TSA, other airports could opt for the private-federal screening structure. TSA has evolved into a bureaucratic, ineffective passenger screening hassle. Instead of focusing on setting standards and auditing performance, TSA must manage a huge work force that has mushroomed from 16,500 to nearly 63,000. Its massive Washington headquarters supports 3,776 administrative personnel, earning on average $105,000 per year. Protecting its turf, the agency continues to thwart adoption of the better model, now denying airport applications to opt out. ( Mica, 2011)

Despite this obstructionism, 16 airports have performed well for years under the better screening model. Over the past year, a growing number of airports have applied to or are considering opting out. Misstatements of facts relating to TSA and private Screening model are scare tactics. No one advocates converting TSA into a private company or returning to pre-9/11 security. No one advocates McDonalds wages for screeners. TSA sets minimum wage levels under both models, and in many cases private screeners have better pay, benefits and working conditions. All TSA screeners can join a union, and private sector screeners have better collective bargaining options.

Some claim that the private-federal model costs more. In fact, this model is often less costly, and if we eliminated excessive, duplicative staffing required by TSA, we could save significant taxpayer dollars. This unwieldy bureaucracy can never succeed when it acts as security operator, and administrator, regulator and auditor. TSA must be reformed to help it refocus on identifying and evaluating risks, instituting regulations, and auditing and adjusting performance.

Unfortunately, TSA has rarely deployed assets to properly deter terrorist plots. The shoe bomber was foiled by a damp fuse and alert passengers. The liquid bomb plot was uncovered by British intelligence. The underwear bomber was stopped by a defective device, crew and passengers. The cargo package plot was discovered by Saudi intelligence. The Times Square bomber ordered his cash-purchased ticket on his way to JFK and was then apprehended by Customs and Border Protection. TSA must get out of the human resources business and refocus its mission on security and better coordination of intelligence.

Consider what would likely happen if the feds took over the airport security function. With civil service protections, it would be very difficult to fire any of them. Hence, the incentive to do a consistently outstanding job and always be courteous to harried passengers would be lacking. (Federal employees who are in more creative jobs often do very good work, but examining airline passengers personal belongings all day is not likely to fit the category of an interesting job.) The fact is their work will be easier when fewer people fly; hence they would have an incentive to discourage people from flying rather than making it a pleasant experience.

If the federal government took over this airport security function, it would have a monopoly on the activity. We all know that monopolies are bad, because they resist innovation, result in higher costs and poorer service, and tend to engage in cover-ups for their own mistakes and deficiencies. We only need to look at the many recent failures of the F.B.I., the most elite federal police force, to have doubts about a less elite operation. The airport security service is more likely to resemble the I.N.S., which has a long record of incompetence, including the failure (along with the F.B.I.) to remove the terrorists who were here illegally. (Mica, 2011)

Clearly a more effective solution for the airport security problem would be for the federal government to set standards for airport security and monitor the airports to make sure the standards are being met. For instance, standards for private security personnel might include criminal background checks, a requirement that they must all be US citizens, have completed specified security training, plus a course on how to be pleasant and helpful to the passengers. Security operations at some airports have been lax and the employees rude because the contracting authorities have either not set or not enforced more rigorous standards. Sixteen European countries are reported to have replaced government security personnel with private security firms at airports with very good results, because the governments require high standards of performance.

The principle is universal; we are likely to get much better airport security if the government sets the rules and enforces the standards on independent operators rather than undertakes the task itself. If the private security company knows that it will lose its contract and if its employees know that they will lose their jobs if they fail to meet the specified standards, there is a strong incentive for good performance that would be lacking if the government were the direct employer. Where is the security in the process of the screening process? In this process is there enough to get a handle on the terrorist that try to enter the country. There must be careful consideration and also look at the private security measures that play a role in helping to keep Americans safe. The safety is what weighs in on the minds of the American people. Rahn, 2011

Where is the security in the process of the screening process? In this process is there enough to get a handle on the terrorist that try to enter the country. There must be careful consideration and also look at the private security measures that play a role in helping to keep Americans safe. The safety is what weighs in on the minds of the American people. Measuring airport security continues to be a topic that those involved cant seem to master due to the continuous threat of terrorist. There is always the assumption that at any given time an unknown terrorist can board a flight to anywhere in the country. This will allow once again one to measure the screening process and where was the break down in the screening process. The risk involved is of grave danger to everyone from the passengers, the employees on the ground and in the air.

References

Mica, John L. (2011, February 21) Pro & Con: Should airport screening be conducted

by private security. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/opinion/pro-con

Rahn, Richard W. (2001, October 20) The Case against Federalization Airport Security

retrieved from www.cato.org

Question #2
Airport security procedures were shaken awake, slapped round the face and forced to undergo a rigorous transformation in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. And the authorities have been playing catch-up ever since, updating and tweaking security screening measures to address subsequent attempted attacks on aircraft using shoes, liquids, printer cartridges and even underwear.

Responsibility for airport security screening in the USA was swiftly put into federal hands after 9/11, with the formation of the US Transportation Security Administration. Targets were set for all US airports to screen 100% of checked baggage for explosives; passengers were subjected to much more vigorous screening procedures - which continue to evolve; and watch lists were drawn up to prevent people suspected of having terrorist links from flying.

The latter culminated in the Secure Flight programme, which the TSA says now "conducts terrorist watch list matching of passengers on 100% of domestic and international airlines for flights within, inbound and outbound from the United States". But despite the myriad changes that have taken place in the past decade, critics argue that airport security is still not all it could be. "For airport security pre-9/11, the technology was 1970s. Post-9/11, it is 1990s, but it is not yet in the 21st century," says Jeff Price, founder of consultancy Leading Edge Strategies and author of Practical Aviation Security. But he makes the point that "you can't protect against every single thing unless you want no freedom".

It is this emphasis on freedom in the USA that has led to the latest round of highly-publicised controversy over airport screening procedures - the TSA's aim to replace all passenger screening units with advanced imaging technology (AIT) equipment. These machines use either backscatter X-ray or millimetre-wave technology to provide a graphic image of a passenger's body beneath clothing, which can detect both metallic and non-metallic threats, including weapons and explosives.

Several points are made which states have passed legislation to make these enhanced pat-downs illegal, but says that, as "state law can't trump federal law", this is more of a publicity stunt than serious legislation. To address privacy concerns, the TSA plan to install new software on the millimetre-wave AIT machines, which it says will "auto-detect items that could pose a potential threat using a generic outline of a person for all passengers"?

The software was tested in February 2011 at three US airports, and the TSA now plans to install it on all millimetre-wave units. It will begin testing similar software for AIT units that use backscatter technology this autumn. Some observers believe that making the machines more palatable to the American travelling public could hamper their ability to detect potential threats. "Whenever you alter an image, you lessen the ability of that technology to find what you're looking for," says Nevada-based aviation security consultant and former Northwest Airlines security director Douglas Laird. "There are enough false positives now with millimetre wave that to burden it with that software makes it even less reliable." (www.flightglobal.com)

However, L3 - the company that manufactures ProVision AIT scanners and has developed the ProVision ATD (Automatic Target Detection) unit that uses the new software - says the ATD is "more operationally efficient" than the original machine because it "reduces the need for analysis personnel". L3 adds: "Data is captured from a two-second scan and analysed in a computer resident within the system. Sophisticated software algorithms analyse the raw data to determine if any suspect items are present. The data remains in a numeric state and images are never generated. "If a potential target is detected, an outline highlighting the area(s) of concern is placed on a generic mannequin that is

displayed on the operator's screen. Based on local regulatory requirements, the security staff can then perform a directed search to assess the situation."

Saran-owned Morph Detection believes body imaging scanners offer a "partial solution to identify some concealed threats", but should be used in conjunction with explosives trace detection units to provide a "layered solution". Morph says it can offer new systems capable of detecting 'bombs in bodies', which could be available within a year "if a focused effort is applied to commercialisation and deployment through a government-industry partnership". The decision to increase the use of AIT scanners in the USA was prompted by an incident on Christmas Day 2009 on board a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, when Nigerian national Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to detonate an explosive device that was sewn into his underwear. (www.flightglobal.com)

The limitation on the amount of liquid passengers are allowed to carry onto flights has its origins in a 2006 plot uncovered in the UK to blow up transatlantic flights using liquid explosives concealed in soft drinks bottles. "We can only anticipate to the extent our imagination can carry us," says Price. "When good guys try to imagine bad things, we're not very good at it. You need to talk to [terrorists] and get the intelligence out of their heads - then maybe we'd be chasing our tails less. We're plugging holes in a dyke and there are lots of holes. Instead of plugging every hole, let's build a dam." Another problem with gradually introducing new layers of airport security is that it leads to inconsistencies from country to country, and even from airport to airport, which can cause confusion among travellers.

Passenger profiling is another area that has been at the centre of debate. The TSA is in the process of pilot testing a new behavioural profiling programme at Boston Logan airport, under which TSA officers are trained to "engage in conversations with passengers to verify or dispel suspicious behaviour and anomalies", says the security agency.

The concern is that training may not be as thorough as it needs to be. "The real training that the Israelis pioneered is higher level and it leads to a gut feeling," he says. "But we tend to take a really good idea and try to institutionalise it. A couple of weeks' training to a lowly-educated individual is not realistic." The TSA describes the behavioural profiling pilot as "part of its ongoing risk-based, multi-layered security strategy".

"The new approach is about moving to a system that further prioritises inspections based on risk and incentives the industry to collectively raise overall security performance. The objective for a plan that works is uniformity and devising a plan that will help meet the needs of everyday travellers. Travelers want safety measures in place that will provide for the overall well- being to those that travel. This will include transferring certain aviation security functions currently carried out by the DfT to the UK Civil Aviation Authority, which the DfT says is "consistent with the 'user pays' principle, which is already applied to aviation safety and other aspects of aviation security".

References

How Airport Security has changed since 9/11? Retrieved 11/14/13 from

www.flightglobal.com