Many airports want to return to private security screening.

To gauge how well federal screeners were doing, Congress ordered five commercial airports to use privately employed screeners who are hired, trained, paid and tested to TSA standards. Those airports are in San Francisco; Rochester, N.Y.; Tupelo, Miss.; Jackson, Wyo.; and Kansas City, Mo. A report comparing the performance of both kinds of screeners is due next month.

John Martin, airport director at San Francisco International Airport, said screeners are hired and trained more quickly there than at airports with government screeners.

"Bottom line: we don't have long lines at San Francisco," he said.

I'll look forward to seeing the report.

My home is in San Francisco and I have flown out of SFO at least twice a month for the past year and I can confidently assert that SFO has the least hassle of any airport I've traveled through post 9-11. Even over Thanksgiving Day weekend the lines were relatively small.

It might not be true in every case, but generally speaking, the private sector can do a job much better and more efficiently than the gub-mint can.

People tend to forget (and the media and unions want them to) that the airport security people did nothing wrong on 9/11. Yes, they let people on the planes with box cutters; that's because the FAA told them to. So much for the "infallible" we'll-protect-you-better government.

According to a lawyer who represents the airlines in this case (in addition to being one of the drafters of the Montreal convention on air liability), the boxcutter story is a myth that was picked up by the media and simply never corrected. Why you ask? First of all, because no one knows what really happened. You will note that there is not one solid piece of evidence pointing to boxcutters as the weapons employed by the hijackers. The boxcutter theory was merely the only solution they could find that would plausibly explain a large number of weapons supposedly going through the security checks. But more specifically, the boxcutter explaination was allowed to continue because the airlines beleive that this was an inside job. According to the airline's lawyer, the most likely scenario was that weapons were waiting for the hijackers when they got on board.

If this is true, then the security is just for show anyway. Spiffy uniforms are all well and good, but I prefer shorter lines. Some people may conflate inconvenience and security, but I am not one of them.

Nathan
"If this is true, then the security is just for show anyway."

And it will never, ever get better. It could indeed become quite worse. Airport security is now a federal function ... I can't think of a single Federal institution that, once created, has gone away. Anyone?

I can think of a way that all this "security" stuff could wind up making us safer.

It's long been known that young Americans are avoiding careers in science and technology. What's less discussed in public is why this is so. Some -- frequently people cozily ensconced in the current system -- blame outside factors. Americans are lazy. American elementary and high schools do a poor job of teaching science and math.

Some of us like to point out factors the establishment likes to ignore. Too much instruction in the fields of science and technology is just criminally bad. The education process is just too long. First you must get your B.S. If you're really serious, a Ph.D. is now a must. And, once you've got that Ph.D., post doctoral studies are becoming almost required. All this study helps give the people at the top a source of cheap labor. Unfortunately it forces the cheap labor to toil away in poorly paid obscurity until they're in their thirties. Lots of Americans take a look at the situation and say "Thank you very much. I think I'll major in history or English or something like that, then get a law degree or M.B.A. and go to work."

Then there's the management people in tech fields face once they do take a job. Sometimes it's good. All too often people must deal with managers who make Dilbert's boss look wonderful.

Factors like these conspire to keep Americans out of fields that at least some of us think vital to the nation's future.

The response the past few decades of the establishment has been to recruit people from outside the country to fill up those student slots.

Now I have no problem with the United States embracing immigrants. But welcoming immigrants to avoid making needed reforms in science and tech is a bad idea.

So where do the awful "security" measures come in? Why, these measures are alienating foreign students. The cheap foreign labor is starting to stay away. Perhaps more people will pay attention to the messes I've mentioned and promote needed reforms, thus bringing more Americans into then healthier fields.

Yes, I know it's a slim hope.

Interesting point Chuck. My gut response is that if overall economic impact is the yardstick used to measure the federal security guidelines, then they still are a bad idea. This is purely an "educated" guess, but I would think that the security guidelines keep out more tourists than students. The guidelines arguably have the effect of hurting our tourist economy and lessening the face to face cultural interaction that helps to spread a positive view on the US abroad, while only having a negligable effect on the overall ratio of domestic to foreign tech students. It seems hard to argue that the airline security rules are good for travelers, or particular businesses. However, there is an argument to be made that the policies create a (false) sense of confidence in skittish investors that is good for the stock market in the short term (but potentially catastrophic in the longer term if there are future attacks).

As for the other side of your point. I absolutely agree that the quality/style of teaching employed in science and math is a major reason for our current tech workforce issues. I would, however, suggest focusing on the root cause of the problem rather than using external stopgap measures that have spillover effects on other areas of the economy and diplomatic relations.

Nathan,

We're in virtually complete agreement. I'm not sure about the impact of the "security" measures on foreign student enrollments. It's something I picked up somewhere (can't cite a source off the top of my head). The discouraging "security" measures are also those likely to be employed by the infamous INS rather than the becoming infamous TSA.

You're right that this isn't the way to go about correcting the problems I cited. This is probably just a bit toward my slightly warped (OK, seriously warped) sense of humor. Although something does make me chuckle a bit at finding a situation where two wrongs can produce movement in a right direction.

Oh -- for those of you who haven't checked TSA's web site yet -- today's Terror Threat Level is Periwinkle with Ecru Stars and Thin Teal Stripes and a healthy shot of Glen Livet Whisky (scotch).

If someone's handing out shots, make mine a double (any more than that and they might kick me off the plane as a security risk).