Screwed up government...
OK, so Darenzia has just commented on a NY Times 'article' on a new helicopter service between Manhattan and JFK.
And, for whatever reason, the Times decided to frame the issue in terms of it's cost to the federal government, with a strong undercurrent of pissy-ness that the service would only be of use to the affluent.
Which annoys the fuck out of me, because it's missing the major point, which is:
THE FEDERALIZATION OF AIRPORT SCREENERS (i.e. the TSA) WAS A STUPID IDEA.
A really dumb, feel-good, stupid idea.
Why?
Because what those front-line screeners do is mindless, repetitive, and related to aviation security in much the same as a baggage handler's job is related to flying an airliner (which is to say, not much). Now, the supervision of those screeners, and the determination of what they do, is another matter. But in a world where the private sector is providing huge amounts of support to the government, because they can do it faster/better/cheaper, making frickin' airport screeners government employees, entitled to government pensions and with the attitude we know and love from that sort of individual was a retarded idea that serves only to drive the cost-for-service model into the ground.
Consider an alternative model. We'll call it the "SFO" model. A commercial entity, let's call it "Acme Security", would apply to the federal government for a license to provide airport security. The Department of Homeland Security would ensure that the business is sound, is following appropriate management and ownership and staffing standards [just like, say, the government makes sure that defense contractors are OK). Once Acme gets it's license, it then bids to provide security at an airport (say, SFO). If the airport likes the bid, they contract Acme to do the actual, hands-on, screening. However, at every open checkpoint, the airport also has to ensure that there are a suitable number of actual (government employee) TSA inspectors (say, one per 6 screening positions). So Acme's staff are responsible for doing the screening, and the TSA are responsible for making sure they do it right.
Under this model, an airport (and an therefore an airline) can opt to provide superior service as a competitive advantage, or inferior service as a cost reduction policy. The terminals for low-cost model airlines (Airtran and the like) an go with a lower number of screeners than those for the "full-service" carriers... and (getting back to the helicopters) IF a satellite airport, like the Manhattan Heliport, wants to offer a service that improves the travel experience, they can simply pay for it, and their passengers will foot the bill.
Because I have to say, $139 one-way from Manhattan to JFK seems pretty damn cheap [Edit: and it is: the real price is $145!]. The article notes one (typical rich-but-trashy) New Yorker talking about $115 limos for (nearly) the same trip, and a simple yellow cab will set you back about $55 or so... but the real kicker is this: a flight that gets you to the west coast before about 11pm has to leave JFK around 7pm. If you want to be on a 7:00 flight, you'll need to be at the terminal in JFK no later than 6:00, which means leaving Manhattan around 4:30, so you can enjoy the traffic! OR you can be on the 6pm departure from the Manhattan heliport, with a lot less stress. Likewise coming into the city: either you set a meeting time with enough slack that you can be stuck in traffic, or you can do the JFK/helicopter thing and be more-or-less sure when you're going to get to your destination.
[ In a profound irony, it used to be that, when going from the London Stock Exchange to the New York Stock Exchange, you could spend longer travelling on the ground than in the air: the record stands at 2h52:59 for the flight from JFK to LHR. But no more... ]
But the economics of the service aside, this situation demonstrates the stupidity of having the TSA. If an airline wants to offer brand new service from Podunk Airfield and Bowling Alley, it shouldn't have to go through huge machinations to get the government to provide security screening, and at the expense of some other airport because of a centralized federal government staffing ceiling.
Oh, by the way, the reason why I called the alternate model the "SFO model" is that SFO does more-or-less exactly as I describe: Argenbright Aviation Security does the screening, the TSA oversees them.
And, for whatever reason, the Times decided to frame the issue in terms of it's cost to the federal government, with a strong undercurrent of pissy-ness that the service would only be of use to the affluent.
Which annoys the fuck out of me, because it's missing the major point, which is:
THE FEDERALIZATION OF AIRPORT SCREENERS (i.e. the TSA) WAS A STUPID IDEA.
A really dumb, feel-good, stupid idea.
Why?
Because what those front-line screeners do is mindless, repetitive, and related to aviation security in much the same as a baggage handler's job is related to flying an airliner (which is to say, not much). Now, the supervision of those screeners, and the determination of what they do, is another matter. But in a world where the private sector is providing huge amounts of support to the government, because they can do it faster/better/cheaper, making frickin' airport screeners government employees, entitled to government pensions and with the attitude we know and love from that sort of individual was a retarded idea that serves only to drive the cost-for-service model into the ground.
Consider an alternative model. We'll call it the "SFO" model. A commercial entity, let's call it "Acme Security", would apply to the federal government for a license to provide airport security. The Department of Homeland Security would ensure that the business is sound, is following appropriate management and ownership and staffing standards [just like, say, the government makes sure that defense contractors are OK). Once Acme gets it's license, it then bids to provide security at an airport (say, SFO). If the airport likes the bid, they contract Acme to do the actual, hands-on, screening. However, at every open checkpoint, the airport also has to ensure that there are a suitable number of actual (government employee) TSA inspectors (say, one per 6 screening positions). So Acme's staff are responsible for doing the screening, and the TSA are responsible for making sure they do it right.
Under this model, an airport (and an therefore an airline) can opt to provide superior service as a competitive advantage, or inferior service as a cost reduction policy. The terminals for low-cost model airlines (Airtran and the like) an go with a lower number of screeners than those for the "full-service" carriers... and (getting back to the helicopters) IF a satellite airport, like the Manhattan Heliport, wants to offer a service that improves the travel experience, they can simply pay for it, and their passengers will foot the bill.
Because I have to say, $139 one-way from Manhattan to JFK seems pretty damn cheap [Edit: and it is: the real price is $145!]. The article notes one (typical rich-but-trashy) New Yorker talking about $115 limos for (nearly) the same trip, and a simple yellow cab will set you back about $55 or so... but the real kicker is this: a flight that gets you to the west coast before about 11pm has to leave JFK around 7pm. If you want to be on a 7:00 flight, you'll need to be at the terminal in JFK no later than 6:00, which means leaving Manhattan around 4:30, so you can enjoy the traffic! OR you can be on the 6pm departure from the Manhattan heliport, with a lot less stress. Likewise coming into the city: either you set a meeting time with enough slack that you can be stuck in traffic, or you can do the JFK/helicopter thing and be more-or-less sure when you're going to get to your destination.
[ In a profound irony, it used to be that, when going from the London Stock Exchange to the New York Stock Exchange, you could spend longer travelling on the ground than in the air: the record stands at 2h52:59 for the flight from JFK to LHR. But no more... ]
But the economics of the service aside, this situation demonstrates the stupidity of having the TSA. If an airline wants to offer brand new service from Podunk Airfield and Bowling Alley, it shouldn't have to go through huge machinations to get the government to provide security screening, and at the expense of some other airport because of a centralized federal government staffing ceiling.
Oh, by the way, the reason why I called the alternate model the "SFO model" is that SFO does more-or-less exactly as I describe: Argenbright Aviation Security does the screening, the TSA oversees them.