3 ms·
"if he has to do it often enough, maybe he'll quit." How is making someone with some decency quit a valuable objective, when he will only be replaced with some
by wissler 14y ago
"if he has to do it often enough, maybe he'll quit."
How is making someone with some decency quit a valuable objective, when he will only be replaced with someone with no decency?
- dalke 14y agoOr replaced by someone else with decency, and then another, and then another, and then ... The training costs add up, for one, potentially leading to change. Let's supposed eventually that position is filled by "someone with no decency." Then passengers getting screened become more and more annoyed and outraged, complaints rise, and potentially leading to change. Now, that change might be to no longer have opt-out. But in either case, the possible course of events is likely not as simple as what you outlined.
- marssaxman 14y agoEvery time they have to hire a new screener, they have to spend money on training. If the job of screener is well-known to be unpleasant, they'll have to start paying the screeners a higher salary to compensate them. If passengers routinely opt for the time-consuming manual patdown instead of submitting to the pornoscanner, they'll have to hire more screeners to cope with the demand. Each of these things make the screening process more expensive. If we make it expensive enough perhaps they'll stop doing it. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get rid of it.
- betelnut 14y agoJust to play devil's advocate, TSA could also put pressure on airlines to build the cost of the screenings into the price of air travel. Travelers could wind up paying for it (beyond taxes).
- jlgreco 14y agoHow would they apply that pressure? I don't see any airline being keen on being the first to raise their prices for pretty much no reason.
- CamperBob2 14y agoEver look at the itemized list of costs on your air ticket? There is a "9/11 Security Fee," and I'm guessing the airlines don't have much input into its amount.
- betelnut 14y agoAirlines have also historically been the beneficiary of government subsidies and patronage, which could be withdrawn. While I agree that they'll be reluctant to raise prices, the damage of being represented as the airline that refused to "contribute to public safety" would be worse.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoIt's already in the cost of our ticket, one of many surcharges.