Transportation Security Administration Case Study

I. Summary After the September 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Towers, the United States government reacted quickly in order to increase the aviation safeties at the local airports (Robert W. Poole, 2012). Congress designed the Transport Security Administration (TSA) in November 2001 (Chris Edwards, 2013) with the main purpose of protecting the nation’s transportation system acting as an efficient and effective counterterrorist organization through screening of passengers at the airports (TSA, 2001). However, due to some problems and monopoly on behalf of the TSA, some airports such as San Francisco International Airport (SFO) were demanding and were granted a private airport security screening contract from
2013). In June 2015, it has been reported by a Homeland Security Inspector General, TSA agents failed 67 out of 70 tests during manual inspections (E.Bradner & R.Marsh, 2015).

Development of Alternative Actions Alternative Action 1: Provide proper training to the TSO to identify particular vulnerabilities analyzed by the advanced imaging technology machine (AIT) and implement an increase in manual inspections at checkpoints by reintroducing hand-held metal detectors (Peter V. Neffenger, 2015) Pros: AIT can detect any metallic or non-metallic substance/device such as weapons, explosives or liquids. For example, at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger was caught with a knife concealed inside the bottom lining of his shoe (David Millward, 2014) Cons: Manual inspections can carry offensive pat downs towards passengers. In 2013, it has been found that TSA employees were misbehaving during the recent where it is mentioned in the problem statement that they overreacted beyond their role as TSOs (GAO, 2013). For example, a report led by Joel Moreno in October
The reason is because private screeners perform better than federal screeners (TSA, 2007). Pros: An advantage of private screening is determined by a survey carried by GAO in 2012 where 34 airports operating under the SPP program resulted as a better customer satisfaction where passengers were not being ill-treated by officers. Furthermore, what determine better security checks was that private screening allows a great staffing flexibility so fatigue is prevented and inspections are carried out more efficiently (GAO, 2012). For example, SFO which is part of the private security program, SPP, conducts emergency exercises each year even though it is required by federal regulations to carry out such a drill every three years. SFO Airport Director declares that this concept is adopted by SFO to maintain high level of training and preparedness against any threat (John L. Martin, 2014). Cons: Private screeners have no choice but to follow rules imposed by TSA where it has the only right to choose the screening contractors, pays them and implement its specific protocols. (Chris Wards, 2013). This results as a decrease in possible cost price savings and performance on behalf the private sectors (Robert W. Poole,