Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo Print Reprints Post comment Text size: Tests are under way at several airports to see whether screening workers when they enter restricted areas improves aviation security. A no-brainer, right? Not to some folks.
Several workers say it's too inconvenient. At Jacksonville International Airport, one of the airports slated for testing by Congress, one employee reportedly complained that the checks aren't "worth a darn," adding, "it's aggravating for us."
Well, it's inconvenient and a little aggravating for passengers and pilots who, at all commercial airports, always get screened. But no one's seriously suggesting that to make things more convenient and less aggravating for them, they just get checked, say, randomly.
That's what the federal Transportation Security Administration maddeningly is advocating for airport workers, however. It opposes Congress' daily screening initiative, complaining about its $6.5 billion-a-year cost.
That's certainly a lot of money. But it's billions less than what the U.S. government spends a month in Iraq. A government that says security is its paramount consideration when it comes to commercial aviation ought not shortchange what's needed to, in fact, fly safely.
And it shouldn't give in to airport and security administrators who grumble about how hard screening all workers daily would be. They're managing it in Miami. They're doing it in Orlando.
It's incredible that they're even testing to see whether daily screening would make airports safer than random screening. How couldn't it be?