Hurrah to the Government for privatising airline but not for buck ::
It is now up to Aer Lingus to negotiate with trade unions demanding guarantees of job security, €200m for their penion fund and extra shares in the airline
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hurrah-to-the-government-for-privatising-airline-but-not-for-buckpassing-101480.htmlHOME |
Earlier this week, a passenger who forgot he had a gun in his carry on was able to slip through security at Concourse B at MSY and boarded a Southwest flight. Once airborne, the passenger realized what he had done and turned the gun over to a F/A. He was questioned and released by police after arriving in PHX.
Although my questions are about airport secirity in general, I'm using MSY for my example.
Question about MSY security - the article that I read about this incident mentions that "the company that provides security at the New Orleans airport, International Total Services, is in bankruptcy."
Does anyone know if this company supplies security for all the airlines who use MSY or just for the airlines that use the same concourse as Southwest?
If it's for all the airlines, who makes the decision about what security firm to use, the dominant airline at MSY, or do all the airlines get a certain percentage of the vote based on their market share and majority vote rules? I'm assuming that since security is the responsibility of the airlines, that the airport would have no say-so in the matter and have to go with which ever firm(s) the airline(s) chose.
Let's assume for a moment that this had happened on an America West flight instead of Southwest. Let's also assume that America West wanted to use a superior security firm, but had to go with what Continental and Southwest (the 2 other carriers on Concourse B) wanted to use.
If the security firm that Southwest and Continental chose allowed an America West passenger to slip through the checkpoint, obviously the security firm would be at fault, but what about the airline?
Would America West alone be responsible, or would Southwest and Continental have to share part of the blame, keeping in mind that all three share the concourse and share the cost of providing the security in that concourse.
In the theoretical case above, could America West use a different firm even though they share the same concourse with Southwest and Continental? If so, how would this be accomplished? Separate, additional screening checkpoints at the America West gate for their passengers only?
When an airline has a whole concourse to itself can they use a different security firm from the other concourses?
For instance, Delta has all the gates at Concourse D and Concourse D is "closed" (meaning that a passenger could not enter security through D and then gain access to A, B,or C.) If all the other airlines in the other concourses wanted to use the Fly-by-Night-Bankrupt Security firm and Delta wanted to use Brinks or another company with a better reputation, could they do so? I'm assuming the answer would be yes.
Is it more cost effective for all the airlines at a certain airport to use the same firm?
Also, are there any US Airlines which actually handle their own security, or do they all contracts with outside companies? I read a recent article in the Denver Post that mentioned that Frontier was "studying" the possibility of having their own employees man the checkpoints at Concourse A at DEN.
Thanks for any insight anyone might be able to provide, and if I have posted this topic in the wrong forum, would someone please let me know.
Thanks
Mike
Thanks, GGpillow, that does answer some of my questions. I read an AP article which followed up on the MSY incident that said the FAA, FBI and ITS were all investigating the incident, and it also stated "Southwest Airlines did its own investigation and apparently did not like what it found. It fired ITS Thursday, airline spokesman Ed Stewart said. Huntleigh USA Inc., a St. Louis-based security firm, was slated to take over security for Southwest flights out of New Orleans on Friday."
FuturePundit: Airlines Expected To Shrink As Peak Oil Bites::
Given all the security hassles and other factors like cramped seats, Regarding your airship question, peak helium and fear of hydrogen fires may
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005236.htmlHOME |
Valuing a Homeland Security Policy: Countermeasures for the ::
Form of the Stated Choice Airline Security Survey. A. Structure of Questions. There are four important aspects of the design of a conjoint question for
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/nber_w14325.pdf?abstractid=1267556&mirid=1HOME |
I'm pretty sure Southwest is the dominant carrier at MSY and I know they are the dominant airline in Concourse B, so that makes sense considering your explanation.
The article I read regarding the intial incident made it sound like this ITS Company ran security for the whole airport, while the follow up article made it sound like Huntleigh will now be doing the security just for Concourse B (WN, CO & HP).
The custodian also has total control over the checkpoint. At my airport DL is the custodian, while I work for UA.
So I'm assuming that at your airport, DL and UA share gates on the same concourse. If a passenger with a weapon had gotten through the checkpoint at your airport and boarded a UA flight, would Delta, as the custodian, be partly responsible? I think it's important to know, because if this actually did happen, you know the media would be all over UA and saying UA's security was inadequate, which wouldn't really be fair IMO.
Transportation Economics: Theory and Practice : a Case Study Approach - Google Books Result::
href=http://books.google.com/books?id=_mKlQxyvqmgC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=Questions+regarding+the+airlines'+choice+of+security+firms&source=web&ots=3rHBE907_M&sig=Q7LD8A7X7AVVCgxViYe1Ge_PlCM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=44&ct=result class=l onmousedown=return clk(this.href,,,res,51,)>Transportation Economics: Theory and Practice : a Case Study Approach - Google Books Resultby Patrick S. McCarthy - 2001 - Business & Economics - 620 pagesFrom a regulated environment of relative security. airline deregulation we can identify three general hypotheses regarding a firm's reaction to the
http://books.google.com/books?id=_mKlQxyvqmgC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=Questions+regarding+the+airlines'+choice+of+security+firms&source=web&ots=3rHBE907_M&sig=Q7LD8A7X7AVVCgxViYe1Ge_PlCM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=44&ct=resultHOME |
In general, most airlines work together on security issues, and since we all follow the same FAA playbook, problems seldom, if ever, arise concerning standards at checkpoints.
You might find something interesting, my airline, has, in the past (pre 9/11) TRIED the route of paying more for "increased" security in specific airports, due to higher percentages of failure rates at these airports.
I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that UA paid more to the existing security provider in the hopes of getting better service, or did UA pay more to hire a security provider that they thought would do a better job?
Guess what the extra money bought us? Nothing. UA or any airline can pay whatever they wish for security, they can not force that company to hire better, train better, or pay their employees more.
No, but they can fire them like Southwest did with ITN, unless they (the airline) aren't the custodian.
We've all seen the reports from the media about how the airlines always go with the lowest bidder (which may not necessarily be true in every case). Post 9/11, though I wonder if the airlines will take a good hard look at what they are getting for their money. Some of them might. And some of them might be willing to spend more to go with a more reputable firm. One that DOES hire better, one that DOES train better, one that DOES pay their employees more.
Although I don't have a better solution, it just seems like having the "custodian" call the shots with regards to which firm will be used may not be fair to the other airlines who might want to spend more money to go with a better firm.
BTW, getting back to shared concourses, how much of the cost of providing security does each airline pay? Do they split it evenly, or do they pay a percentage depending on how many flights each one has out of said concourse?
These security companies need to be regulated just as strictly as air carriers are, or we are just wasting our time.
<preacher voice> "And EEEEEverbody said.... [b]AMEN! </preacher voice>
Thanks again for the questions you answered so far.
Mike
Let me see if I can respond to some of the points you made, and perhaps provide a few more answers for you. Please forgive me if I get long winded here.
Yes at my airport UA DL do share the concourse, along with a few other carriers. The question you asked pertaining to responsibility for a breach, is one we have actually been discussing quite frequently as of late, as 2 of the hijackers from 9/11 flew out of my airport on the way to BOS. Honestly, I do not know how the cookie would crumble in a court if it were pressed. Although one could point to the custodian airline, and say "Hey they were responsible for hiring xyz firm!" in the end, each airline, as mandated by the FAA is responsible to ensure the security of its own operations. If say, my airline, had a history of logged complaints against said security firm, and the custodian airline, then perhaps a case could be made. I am sure this would be quite the legal mess.
TPMCafe | Talking Points Memo | "Kristen" : Spitzer :: FAA : Airlines::
How about independent licensure and accreditation by private certification firms ? Airlines can post publicly which certifications each airplane has received
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/13/kristen_spitzer_faa_airlines/HOME |
Now, as for paying for increased security. Let me be clear, and try and explain something first. Airlines are provided with security requirements by the FAA. The airline goes out on the market and says... who can do this for $xxx.xx? A security firm says they can, and a contract is signed. That firm is being payed by said airline to ensure that the FAA directives are followed. The airlines job now, is to simply test security to ensure compliance. Now picture this purely hypothetical situation. XX airline goes to xyz sec company and says, your test object failure rates are way above where they are supposed to be, what's the problem? xyz sec firm says they can not adequately do the job that they said they could, for the amount they agreed to..ie lack of manpower. XX airline says, fine, although you did agree to this rate, we see the difficulty you are having, and you happen to be the only security company for 500mi, so we will pay you 25% over your contract to ensure we are flying safe airplanes. Mysteriously, the failure rates do not decrease, they are still dismal, yet it seems the local xyz company manager is driving a new car, and xyz security company is posting record profits. Do you see where I am going with this?
As for one airline wanting a different security company then the one the Custodian has picked, all that would have to be done is show non-compliance with FAA regulations, and have it documented with the FAA. They wouldn't be there long, OR the FAA would fine them into compliance. I don't see this being a big problem. I have never once even pre 9/11 had a security issue that was taken lightly by any airline. This really is one area where we do try to look out for each other, and speak with one voice if at all possible.
Just for future information, for you and any others that may be reading, all airlines are required by law to have their own security personell on site for every departure. These are GSC's, ground security coordinators. They are there to answer questions, clear problems at the checkpoints, and ensure guidelines are being followed. When you see an airline rep hovering around the checkpoint, taking notes, that's a GSC at work. If ever, any of you, ever have a problem, question, or issue with checkpoint security, simply ask them to call the airline you are flying on's GSC. They have a much more in depth understanding of the FAA regs, and a lot of training on dealing with security issues in general.
Your last question, payment for shared concourses. In a shared concourse a security firm will charge a flat rate for the entire concourse. That is then divided among the various airlines based upon their lift. All airlines track how many passengers they board from each concourse, and must report this to the DOT anyway. So, if WN flies 42% of the total passenger traffic from concourse x, they pay 42% of the security costs.
Once again, sorry to be so long winded, but I hope this answers a few of your questions.
.
.
.
.
I do not speak for UA. The opinions expressed here are solely mine, and not UA's. Nothing said by me should be taken as an official statement from UA.
I may be able to answer a few of your questions. At shared concourse airports, one airline, (typically the one with the most flights out of said concourse) is appointed by the FAA as "Custodian" The custodian airline is responsible for hiring the company, validating training records, and testing checkpoints. The custodian also has total control over the checkpoint. At my airport DL is the custodian, while I work for UA. I could not legally, before 9/11, test security, without DL's blessing. (Which isin't a problem) In general, most airlines work together on security issues, and since we all follow the same FAA playbook, problems seldom, if ever, arise concerning standards at checkpoints.
You might find something interesting, my airline, has, in the past (pre 9/11)TRIED the route of paying more for "increased" security in specific airports, due to higher percentages of failure rates at these airports. Guess what the extra money bought us? Nothing. UA or any airline can pay whatever they wish for security, they can not force that company to hire better, train better, or pay their employees more. The x-tra money we spent, went into Argenbrights pocket. These security companies need to be regulated just as strictly as air carriers are, or we are just wasting our time.
Bottom line, we will not be safe unless the Feds take over airport security. Bush has decided not to do this, but to keep private firms doing the work with federal oversight. This is nonsense, and does not make me feel any safer then prior to Sept 11. Why not just privatise the State Police and put them under Federal supervision?
Thank you for taking the time to post that very indepth, informative explanation of how the process works and for answering my other questions and clarifying the points I wasn't quite clear on.
I found out from another source that NW, WN, UA and DL are the Custodians of their respective concourses at MSY. Delta had contracted with Huntleigh for Concourse D and ITS had been the provider for the other 3 concourses. How Huntleigh also handles Concourse B and ITS still has A & C.
In a couple of weeks when I fly home for Thanksgiving I wanted to stop by my airport's administrative office and ask a few questions, and because of your explanation, I'll better know what questions to ask.
Thanks again.
Mike
(edited for typo, like always)
[This message has been edited by LoneStarMike (edited 10-29-2001).]
 What dress should i wear for an interview ?
 Financial Representative =Insurance salesman?
|
Questions regarding the airlines' choice of security firms