Aviation industry raises concerns about future of screening program

The aviation industry is stepping up its efforts to provide input on whether airports nationwide should use private companies or government workers for passenger and baggage screening operations.

Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Congress mandated the use of federal screeners at the nation's commercial airports. Starting this November, however, airports will have the option of using private screeners again. The Transportation Security Administration, which manages the federal screening workforce, is responsible for developing an "opt-out program" that will give airports guidance on screening workforce options.

Industry officials are making sure their concerns are heard about how screening operations should be managed and funded after the change this fall. In late February, the American Association of Airport Executives and Airports Council International-North America launched an initiative to give airports a voice in the formulation of the opt-out program. More than 50 airports have asked to participate in the initiative to obtain information.

"We're agnostic about the actual choice that airports make," said Stephen Van Beek, senior vice president for policy and development at ACI, which represents local, regional and state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports in the United States and Canada. "What is important is that they have the best choice they can, and in order to do that you need to have the most robust opt-out program you can."

Van Beek identified four overarching issues the opt-out program should address. First, he said airports have expressed an interest in managing their own screening workforces, with TSA serving as a regulatory agency. He said small airports especially want this option to meet staffing demands.

TSA also should provide a clear and equitable funding formula based on the number of originating and destination passengers, bags that are checked and security checkpoints at different airports, Van Beek said. Third, the government should devise a plan to address liability issues and determine how airports would be insured if screening failures occur.

Finally, airports want TSA to provide standards for how long it should take to screen passengers and for training screeners.

"My real hope is that this does not become an ideological battle, and that it really becomes a very pragmatic choice that airport directors make based on a very sound opt-out program," Van Beek said.

Several American-owned security companies have formed a coalition to provide input into the opt-out program. The coalition includes GateSafe Inc., Barton Protective Services Inc., Command Security Corp. and WSA Group Inc., said Susan Kurland, who heads the coalition.

According to Kurland, the coalition believes the nation has a strong private security industry that is capable of doing screening jobs, and favors a public-private partnership that makes use of the best practices from TSA, airports and industry.

"The airports and industry recognize that in order to create a program that's really going to work, you really need to look at what are the best practices out there," Kurland said. The major issues Kurland's coalition has identified for the opt-out program include: what kind of liability private companies will face if security failures occur; how funding will be distributed; what the airport's role will be in screening operations; and how contracting structures will be created so private companies can demonstrate flexibility and efficiency.

When Congress created TSA, it set up pilot programs at five airports, which allowed them to continue using private screeners. Those airports are in Kansas City, Mo.; San Francisco; Rochester, N.Y.; Tupelo, Miss.; and Jackson Hole, Wyo. Some industry leaders, including Van Beek and Kurland, have criticized the pilot program for being too constrained by TSA and not demonstrating what the private sector is capable of doing.

Van Beek believes about 50 airports would leave the current federal program if the opt-out program were truly robust. But he said only about 20 airports would leave if the opt-out program were modeled after the pilot program.

TSA does not know exactly when it will issue guidance to airports. Previously, TSA and industry officials said guidance should be issued this spring so airports could make informed decisions by November.

On Monday, TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser said the government would not advocate a position, but would give airports the best information so they can make their own decisions. He said TSA is working with major stakeholders, including screener companies, congressional offices and the airport community to develop details for the opt-out program.

Regardless of what airports decide to do in November, TSA still plans to pay for a national screening workforce in fiscal 2005. TSA is requesting a total of $2.2 billion to pay for compensation and benefits for the screener workforce next year. At this level, funding will support screener salaries at all commercial airports, whether federalized or privatized, Kayser said. TSA has approximately 43,600 full-time equivalent screeners and plans to have 45,000 screeners in 2005.

To help develop guidance for the opt-out program, TSA contracted BearingPoint Inc. of McClean, Va., to evaluate the pilot program. A spokeswoman for Bearing Point said the evaluation would be completed in April.

The study will focus on how the five private security operations compare with federal security screening operations in three areas: security effectiveness, cost, and customer and stakeholder impact.

The study will compare screening operations, not individual screener performance, according to the BearingPoint spokeswoman, and will not provide an overall recommendation as to which model is better.

She said BearingPoint solicited input from air transportation industry organizations regarding appropriate measures and methodology to be used for the study, including AAAE and ACI.

The study, she added, would not address opt-out program policy issues such as liability, funding, airport roles in security or future program structures.