Airport security checks now a way of life

TSA — it’s an acronym that’s become synonymous with airport security, and not always in a good way.

It stands for Transportation Security Administration, a federal agency created not long after the 9/11 attacks to make American airports more secure. A federal work force was deployed nationwide to meet Congressional mandates for screening all commercial airline passengers and baggage.

For passengers, it’s meant longer lines at airports, more expensive air fares and restrictions on what can be brought aboard planes. Perhaps most controversial has been TSA’s recent requirement for full-body scans and pat-downs at airports across the United States.

TSA is still a work in progress, said Cindi Martin, director of Glacier Park International Airport.

“Generally the American public has figured it out, but they still rail against pat-downs and feel it challenges their rights as citizens. It’s a new world we live in.”

Monte Eliason, who was director of Glacier Park International when the terrorist attacks occurred, said he’s got mixed feelings about TSA.

“The TSA approach was in some ways flawed from the beginning because it painted everyone with the same brush,” Eliason said. “There was almost the same level of scrutiny at both small and larger airports.”

While airports in New York City and Washington, D.C., always will be terrorist targets, the same level of threat doesn’t exist  in places such as the Flathead Valley, he said.

“I don’t think the threat level has changed a great deal in the hinterlands,” he said.

That said, Eliason, who still does some part-time airport consulting work, acknowledged that the top federal officials dealing with bolstering airport security after 9/11 probably needed a one-size-fits-all approach and a system that wouldn’t let America’s guard down at any airport.

“How would you react? You’d want the same standards everywhere, so while [the TSA approach] is somewhat flawed, it was probably a necessary step,” he said.

“Without a doubt [the federal government] could and should have done some things differently,” Eliason continued. “The approach to the problem erred on the side of treating customers in an abstract mode, though over time they’ve tried to balance it better.”

The federal government has been slow to embrace technology, he said, and that has resulted in frustration for air travelers. And TSA may not be done with adding requirements to security checks. Eliason said he’s heard talk of the agency imposing lie-detector tests in the boarding areas of airports.

While such requirements may seem over the top and more intrusive, using technology as it advances could make the process less burdensome for travelers, he said.

“It’s the system staying one step ahead of the terrorist,” Eliason said.

He also noted that the increased bureaucracy of TSA been hugely expensive, costing billions of dollars.

While Martin sees the need for thorough security checks at airports, she and the Airport Board have not always seen eye to eye with TSA.

Four years ago the board began looking into privatization when the airport was having staffing issues and customer service problems, particularly during the busy summer tourism season.

After exhaustive research, the board decided a private contractor could provide more flexibility in staffing and better customer service.

Earlier this year, however, the opt-out program Glacier Park International sought to privatize its security force instead of using federal workers was put on hold by the administrator of TSA.

TSA said that to preserve it as an effective federal counterterrorism security network, it wouldn’t expand its Screening Partnership Program beyond the 16 airports that already had privatized.

The 2001 Aviation and Transportation Security Act mandated that TSA establish pilot programs at up to five airports where screening would be performed by private contractors under federal oversight.

TSA decides how many federal security employees an airport gets, and Glacier Park International has had several staffing reductions over the past few years. Martin said that was a key reason for the Airport Board moving forward with plans to privatize.

A private contractor can train and hire workers more quickly and brings much more flexibility to the table, Martin maintains.

Eliason agreed that privatizing the airport security force would translate to a more efficient process.

“It’s a fact of life that with a big bureaucracy you get less efficiency,” he said.

When he was director of Glacier Park International, security was handled through a private service that “did as good a job as anyone else could.”

He sees both sides of the coin, though.

“I can see where it’s easier for the government with all of their employees under one thumb,” he said.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.