Political News

Airports consider congressman's call to ditch TSA

Posted November 18, 2010
Updated November 19, 2010

— In a climate of Internet campaigns to shun airport pat-downs and veteran pilots suing over their treatment by government screeners, some airports are considering another way to show dissatisfaction: Ditching TSA agents altogether.

Federal law allows airports to opt for screeners from the private sector instead. The push is being led by a powerful Florida congressman who's a longtime critic of the Transportation Security Administration and counts among his campaign contributors some of the companies who might take the TSA's place.

Furor over airline passenger checks has grown as more airports have installed scanners that produce digital images of the body's contours, and the anger intensified when TSA added a more intrusive style of pat-down recently for those who opt out of the full-body scans. Some travelers are using the Internet to organize protests aimed at the busy travel days next week surrounding Thanksgiving.

For Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida, the way to make travelers feel more comfortable would be to kick TSA employees out of their posts at the ends of the snaking security lines. This month, he wrote letters to nation's 100 busiest airports asking that they request private security guards instead.

"I think we could use half the personnel and streamline the system," Mica said Wednesday, calling the TSA a bloated bureaucracy.

Mica is the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Once the new Congress convenes in January, the lawmaker is expected to lead the committee.

John Brantley, general manager of the Raleigh-Durham International Airport, said Thursday that getting rid of TSA screening would be a bad idea. He said RDU has a good working relationship with the federal agency.

Companies that could gain business if airports heed Mica's call have helped fill his campaign coffers. In the past 13 years, Mica has received almost $81,000 in campaign donations from political action committees and executives connected to some of the private contractors already at 16 U.S. airports.

Private contractors are not a cure-all for passengers aggrieved about taking off their shoes for security checks, passing through full-body scanners or getting hand-frisked. For example, contractors must follow all TSA-mandated security procedures, including hand patdowns when necessary.

Still, the top executive at the Orlando-area's second-largest airport, Orlando Sanford International Airport, said he plans to begin the process of switching to private screeners in January as long as a few remaining concerns can be met. The airport is within Mica's district, and the congressman wrote his letter after hearing about its experiences.

CEO Larry Dale said members of the board that runs Sanford were impressed after watching private screeners at airports in Rochester, N.Y., and Jackson Hole, Wyo. He said TSA agents could do better at customer service.

"Some of them are a little testy," said Dale, whose airport handles 2 million passengers a year. "And we work hard to get passengers and airlines. And to have it undone by a personality problem?"

To the south, the city's main airport, Orlando International, said it's reviewing Mica's proposal, although it has some questions about how the system would work with the 34 million passengers it handles each year. In Georgia, Macon City Councilor Erick Erickson, whose committee oversees the city's small airport, wants private screeners there.

Erickson called it a protest move in an interview.

"I am a frequent air traveler and I have experienced ... TSA agents who have let the power go to their head," Erickson said. "You can complain about those people, but very rarely does the bureaucracy work quickly enough to remove those people from their positions."

TSA officials would select and pay the contractors who run airport security. But Dale thinks a private contractor would be more responsive since the contractor would need local support to continue its business with the airport.

"Competition drives accountability, it drives efficiency, it drives a particular approach to your airport," Dale said. "That company is just going to be looking at you. They're not going to be driven out of Washington, they will be driven out of here."

San Francisco International Airport has used private screeners since the formation of the TSA and remains the largest to do so.

The airport believed a private contractor would have more flexibility to supplement staff during busy periods with part-time employees, airport spokesman Mike McCarron said. Also, the city's high cost of living had made it difficult in the past to recruit federal employees to run immigration and customs stations — a problem the airport didn't want at security checkpoints.

"You get longer lines," McCarron said.

TSA spokesman Greg Soule would not respond directly Mica's letter, but reiterated the nation's roughly 460 commercial airports have the option of applying to use private contractors.

Companies that provide airport security are contributors to Mica's campaigns, although some donations came before those companies won government contracts. The Lockheed Martin Corp. Employees' Political Action Committee has given $36,500 to Mica since 1997. A Lockheed firm won the security contract in Sioux Falls, S.D. in 2005 and the contract for San Francisco the following year.

Raytheon Company's PAC has given Mica $33,500 since 1999. A Raytheon subsidiary began providing checkpoint screenings at Key West International Airport in 2007.

FirstLine Transportation Security Inc.'s PAC has donated $4,500 to the Florida congressman since 2004. FirstLine has been screening baggage and has been responsible for passenger checkpoints at the Kansas City International Airport since 2006, as well as the Gallup Municipal Airport and the Roswell Industrial Air Center in New Mexico, operating at both since 2007.

Since 2006, Mica has received $2,000 from FirstLine President Keith Wolken and $1,700 from Gerald Berry, president of Covenant Aviation Security. Covenant works with Lockheed to provide security at airports in Sioux Falls and San Francisco.

Mica spokesman Justin Harclerode said the contributions never improperly influenced the congressman, who said he was unaware Raytheon or Lockheed were in the screening business.

"They certainly never contacted him about providing screening," Harclerode said.

Anger over the screenings hasn't just come from passengers. Two veteran commercial airline pilots asked a federal judge this week to stop the whole-body scans and the new pat-down procedures, saying it violates their civil rights.

The pilots, Michael S. Roberts of Memphis and Ann Poe of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., have refused to participate in either screening method and, as a result, will not fly out of airports that use these methods, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington.

Roberts is a pilot with ExpressJet Airlines and is on unpaid administrative leave because of his refusal to enter the whole-body scanners. Poe flies for Continental Airlines and will continue to take off work as long as the existing regulations are in place.

"In her eyes, the pat-down is a physical molestation and the WBI scanner is not only intrusive, degrading and potentially dangerous, but poses a real and substantial threat to medical privacy," the lawsuit states.


Schneider reported from Orlando. Associated Press Writer Adrian Sainz in Memphis and AP Business Writer Samantha Bomkamp in New York contributed to this report.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • brassy Nov 19, 2010

    Every year it gets worse. What's next - mandatory body cavity searches?

    Is anyone in Washington even bothering to look at how other countries tackle these problems? I didnt get patted or searched in the EU last year. Last I heard, they haven't had any planes blown up lately.

  • Lerxst Nov 19, 2010

    @artist "Hell... don't screen for anything"


    Nobody says don't screen for anything. The issue is why the ramp up now? The metal detectors and less invasive pat-downs have worked until now.

    The first airline to opt out of TSA screening and use a less invasive private screening company will probably see their ridership double, customer satisfaction increase, and at little to no change in safety.

  • Gidder Dun Nov 19, 2010

    Hans: Meanwhile people like Soros and Chertoff profit greatly from the scanners while they pay off their politician puppets to perpetuate the scam. Government spending needs to shrink if the middle class is to ever have a chance, but here we are spending billions more just so a few elites can profit. OPEN YOUR EYES, PEOPLE! Hans November 19, 2010 12:05 p.m.

    This is your implication remark from earlier today. If I read this wrong then I apologize, but you do imply that the monies to government is spending on these scanners is making the elite rich. If the private sector takes it then they will have to bid which means the funds will be directed there. So the same money that is going to the TSA will now go to the private sector.

  • artist Nov 19, 2010

    OK.... let those that refuse the screening be required to take non-secure flights. Hell... don't screen for anything. Put em' all on the same planes and let them take their chances.

    Secure flights should only be available to those willing to undergo screening.

  • Hans Nov 19, 2010

    "The reason I posted against your comment is your implication that the private sector will do a much better job is all." - Gidder Dun

    I was not implying anything about the private sector.

  • Gidder Dun Nov 19, 2010

    We need to remember the saying of former Pres. John F. Kennedy..."It is not what your country can do for you, but what YOU can do for your country." Our government has ignored the will of the people. It is time they heard us loud and clear.....

  • Gidder Dun Nov 19, 2010

    @ Lerxst... I agree with your comment so much. Thanks you so much for that.....

  • Gidder Dun Nov 19, 2010

    Hans: Would you like to explain how your response has any relevance to my post?

    The reason I posted against your comment is your implication that the private sector will do a much better job is all. They will also have to follow the same rule of law when it comes to airport screening of all passengers since 9/11/01. What will you say when the private sector imputs their security guards in and they also have to frisk you or scan you. Will you then say it is ok since the private sector is doing it. I personally agree with you about the government needs to get under fiscal control, but the funds will then be directed to the private sector from contract bidding. I am for whatever it takes to make us secure. I do not live in fear as many do because if it is going to happen it will no matter how much security you have in place. We as a nation have a sense of false security. Fear is the root is all I have to say.....

  • Lerxst Nov 19, 2010

    @methinks...do your "feelings" trump this woman's?


    or this person's?


    or her's


    How about Dave Berry's?


    Talk about selfish.

  • TheDude abides... Nov 19, 2010

    WRAL, let me try this again!!!

    For those of you who like to use the "if you dont want to be patted-down or body-scanned, then dont fly" arguments should really like this...

    "If you dont like freedom, then move to North Korea or China." You sheep should feel REALLY safe over there! THATS WHERE YOU ARE TAKING US WITH YOUR MINDLESS FEAR AND URGE TO CONFORM!!!