Just Yes or No.

No

yep...

Oh, and a small explanation.

No!  I think they should definitely tighten up the system with some federal guidance and stricter requirements, but we don't need to expand the federal beaurocracy.  There are plenty of contracted security personnel doing a good job at federal facilities around the country.  Contracting ultimately saves money and reduces the size of government.  Besides, I work with government employees as a consultant on a regular basis.  There are some real incompetent boobs working in government.  Once you get a job with the government, you really have to F-up big to get fired.  And even then, they usually just transfer you somewhere else, because that is easier than trying to fire you.  Private companies have much more leeway to get rid of incompetent employees.

Ditto...and THAT is exactly what will happen.

The only way a Federal Employee can be terminated quickly if there is evidence of him/her involved with child porn.  Drug abuse/use is even no longer even a guaranteed reason for termination.    

Also, expect the current 35,000 security workers to grow to 50,000 or more if they are federalized.  This is because the government likes a pyramid type organization with multiple layers of management and private enterprise  usually has a much "flatter" organizational structure.

Been around or been a federal civilian for over 20 years and I can really tell you some horror stories....

Not as it is being proposed. I don't want them to federalize the $6/hour 80% foreign national rent-a-cop screeners. And certainly not leave it as it with just some BS supervision. I want them to put airport cops on the job. 100% american citizens. Just like the ones that provide security and screening at our courthouses, for the politicians who are voting on this issue at the capitol building, etc. Nothing is perfect bu that's about the best were gonna get.

No.
Federal = NO accountability!

SSD

just no.

No, but raise the standard$$$$

What he said.

No

No. Federal subsidies for higher quality security. But DEFINATELY NO to federalization of the job.

National Federal Rules, but private employees.

BTW, airport security here is still a great big joke compared to Europe.

no

Thats exactly the way I see it. Also that No-Education foreign national will be making twice that after they federalize them. They have NO CLUE as to what they should be doing.

I will only accept the idea of "federalised" airport security if the same individuals (or same calibre) are assigned to Capitol security for the same congresscritters that think Federalisation is a good idea...

Meanwhile, I would like the opportunity to be made responsible for MY OWN security while airborne...

FFZ

I thought we'd get more "yes" votes.

BTW, I vote NO, because of the simple formula:

Federal Gov't + Transportation = Bad.

BOTH




the current Bush proposal allows for federal TRAINING and OVERSIGHT of privately managed/employed security personnel.

i am for that because a 100% profit driven entity will eventually [b][size=4]ALWAYS[/size=4][/b] cut corners to stay in business...at the expense of the quality of their service and the consumer, in this case, the traveller.

Simple answer - [b]Not No, But Hell No![/b]

Most, if not all the airports with which I am familiar are all located on city/county property which is leased to the Airport Authority, or whatever!

Just make the local law enforcement groups responsible for what happens at their airports!
Period!

Did you ever go to the airport thinking that you couldn't get arrested if you pulled some boneheaded prank? Yeah, make a joke in the metal detector line about having a gun or bomb and see their response!

Eric The(LocalGovernment[i]UberAlles[/i])Hun[>]:)]

NO!!!

No.



Have the airport run security, not the airlines

Tell the government to Mind their own business.


NO

Ice

last i checked, protecting NATIONAL security WAS the govt.'s business.

No.

 But would the new reg be a Fed employee like the competent INS or the ATF folks? (sarcasm) Or would they be fairly competent like the NSA folks? Odds are they would be like the fine folks that brought us Waco & Ruby Ridge & the Atlanta Olympic bombing fiasco.

I think you're wrong.  They will have the courtesy of the state DMV,timelyness of the Postal System, the compassion of the IRS and the competentcy of every mall ninja rolled into one. How's that for sarcasm. Unfortunatly it could be that bad.  I think it would be better if the feds trained and regulated (to an extent) a private security detail.

Then again the best idea i've heard is to only check passengers and luggage for explosives.  Let everyone carry knives, guns, mace, etc onto the planes.
___________________________
[red]domari nolo; I will not be subjugated[/red]

Federalizing airport security would be a huge mistake.  Without the motivation to control costs that Fatty4M vilifies the price tag would be enormous.  Without the security force sharing the profit motive of the airlines themselves, forget efficiency.  You can expect waiting in line for hours to get through security to be the rule.  Moreover, who is to say that security will be any better under federal control?  Screening passengers will still be a boring job.  If you try to get bright people to do it, they will go insane and quit.  If you try to get not so bright people to do it they will be essentially the same folks who are doing it now.  In addition, the security procedures will be uniform, which means that they will be more easily discoverable and security holes can be exploited at multiple airports.

I think the solution is to let the market decide the appropriate level of security.  Make airlines completely responsible for their own security.  Make the federal government responsible for testing their security and assigning publicly available ratings.  Sort of like the automobile crash test ratings.  Then let the traveling public decide what kind of price and what level of incovenience is an acceptable trade off for improving security while traveling.  They make their decision by choosing to patronize the airlines that have the most favorable combination of price, convenience, and security.  Since you and I might weight these factors differently we might choose to fly different airlines.  Or even to drive, or take a train or bus.  After all if resources are to be consumed to generate a benefit, it is entirely appropriate for the resources to be paid for by the recipients of the benefit.  Moreover, it is appropriate for those that pay for the benefit to decide how much benefit they want.

There is no free lunch.

NO.

It would violate the 4th Amendment. Federal agents are not permitted to search people without a warrant (or the searchee's permission), especially outside of federal facilities. If I'm merely travelling from here to there via privately-owned vehicle (airplane), and boarding the vehicle at a city-owned facility (airport), and I'm exhibiting no suspicious behavior, it's none of the fed's d@mn business what I'm carrying.

Privately-hired guards are acceptable (barely) as the matter involves private companies & indivduals doing business (as in: I have the right to deny someone admission to my house or store if they refuse a security search). Federal agents are prohibited from trumping that search process with their own forced & arbitrary searches.

Bill Of Rights, Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Just say NO to more government, private screeners with background checks and decent pay with proper training.

NO WAY!

Good point.

No

No,

How many things that the government has taken complete control over work out that great?  It might work, but it would cost us a fortune.  It should private companies that can be held responsible for their actions.  We can't hold the government responsible for anything any more.