Three Airports Are Replacing TSA Screeners. I Hope Every Airport Is Next.

Private security will still operate under federal standards, but it could bring something airport screening desperately needs: accountability.

Three major airports are preparing to replace federally employed TSA screeners with private security contractors, and I think it is a fantastic idea.

Tampa International Airport, Charleston International Airport, and Des Moines International Airport are set to become the first participants in a new program called TSA Gold+. Current projections call for the transition to begin at Des Moines in January 2027, Charleston in February 2027, and Tampa in May 2027.

Before anyone pictures airports abandoning security regulations or returning to the inconsistent system that existed before September 11, that is not what is happening.

TSA will continue setting the security standards. It will oversee the contractors, conduct inspections, perform covert testing, and retain federal security directors at participating airports. The private screeners must meet the same federal training and certification requirements as TSA officers. What changes is who employs the screeners, who manages the checkpoint, and, under the expanded Gold+ program, who can purchase and deploy some of the technology.

In other words, this is not an elimination of federal oversight.

It is an attempt to combine federal security standards with private-sector accountability.

And I hope it works.

Government Agencies Do Not Operate Like Businesses

This is not intended as a personal attack against TSA officers. Most TSA employees are ordinary people trying to perform a difficult, repetitive, and frequently thankless job.

The problem is the system surrounding them.

A government agency does not operate under the same incentives as a private business. If a TSA checkpoint develops two-hour lines, passengers miss flights, families become frustrated, and the entire terminal backs up, TSA does not lose the airport’s business the following morning.

There is no competing federal screening agency waiting to take its place.

The airport cannot simply fire TSA and select a better provider. Travelers cannot choose a different checkpoint operator. The agency continues operating and continues receiving government funding.

A private contractor works under a very different reality.

Its contract can include measurable requirements for staffing, wait times, training, threat detection, customer satisfaction, and checkpoint throughput. Its performance can be reviewed. Its contract can be penalized, rebid, or ultimately given to another company.

That does not guarantee perfection, but it creates accountability.

TSA’s existing Screening Partnership Program already requires private screeners to provide security equal to or greater than the level provided by federal screeners. TSA has also established performance standards covering hiring, training, and the ability to detect threat objects during testing.

The difference is simple: one organization is permanently assigned to the airport, while the other must continue earning the right to operate there.

Security Must Be About More Than Looking Secure

The most important argument for private airport security is not shorter lines.

It is safety.

TSA has experienced some deeply troubling results during undercover security tests.

In 2015, officials briefed on a Department of Homeland Security Inspector General investigation said TSA screeners failed 67 of 70 undercover tests. Investigators were reportedly able to move simulated weapons and explosives through checkpoints in 95 percent of the attempts.

Another round of covert testing in 2017 again found serious vulnerabilities. The official results were classified, but reporting at the time indicated that screeners or screening procedures failed more than half the tests, with one source describing an estimated 80 percent failure rate as being “in the ballpark.”

Those tests are not current performance measurements, and TSA has made changes since they were conducted. But they demonstrate an important point: simply making screeners federal employees does not automatically make a checkpoint secure.

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General identified problems involving personnel, equipment, and procedures. A later Government Accountability Office review found that TSA improved its covert-testing program, but had not fully established an effective process for resolving vulnerabilities discovered during those tests. As of September 2018, nine vulnerabilities identified since 2015 had not been formally resolved.

That is where private-sector accountability could matter.

If a contractor repeatedly misses weapons, fails inspections, understaffs checkpoints, or ignores corrective actions, there should be contractual consequences. Security failures should threaten the company’s ability to keep the business.

Private screening will never eliminate human error. No serious person should promise that it will. But a system in which performance directly affects whether a company retains its contract creates a much stronger incentive to identify weaknesses and correct them quickly.

Innovation Should Include the Entire Experience

Airport security innovation is usually discussed in terms of equipment.

New scanners. Better identification technology. Automated screening lanes. Artificial intelligence. Touchless identity verification.

Those developments matter, but technology is only part of the checkpoint.

Real innovation should also examine how passengers enter the line, how bins are distributed, how bags are returned, how families are assisted, how staffing changes during peak periods, how travelers receive instructions, and how quickly lanes can be opened when passenger volume suddenly increases.

A private operator has a reason to study every step.

Under TSA Gold+, participating contractors may be able to fund and deploy technology on a commercial schedule instead of waiting through the full federal procurement and appropriations process. Tampa International Airport says that could allow technology to arrive faster while improving throughput, security, and customer experience.

Tampa also reported that its passenger satisfaction score for TSA screening fell to its lowest level during the most recent government shutdown, ranking 45th among 56 participating airports in the Airports Council International customer survey.

That matters.

Travelers are not cargo being processed through a warehouse. Security must be thorough, but it can also be organized, professional, understandable, and respectful.

A safe checkpoint does not have to be a miserable checkpoint.

Private Screening Is Not Entirely New

TSA Gold+ may sound like a radical experiment, but private screening under federal oversight has existed for more than two decades.

Approximately 20 airports already use private screening contractors through TSA’s Screening Partnership Program. Participating airports include San Francisco International Airport, Kansas City International Airport, Atlantic City International Airport, and Orlando Sanford International Airport.

San Francisco is particularly significant because it demonstrates that private screening is not limited to tiny regional airports.

SFO is a major international airport and one of the busiest airports in the country. Its private contractor operates the checkpoints while TSA retains federal authority and oversight. Aviation security experts have pointed to San Francisco as evidence that the model can work at scale.

The model has another advantage: stability during government shutdowns.

Federal TSA officers are classified as essential employees and must continue working during shutdowns, even when their paychecks are temporarily stopped. As shutdowns continue, absenteeism can rise and checkpoints can become understaffed.

Private screening contractors are generally paid through previously funded federal contracts, allowing their operations and payroll to continue. San Francisco officials have said that arrangement helped the airport maintain screening operations during previous shutdowns.

Airport security should not depend on whether politicians in Washington can pass a budget.

Private Does Not Automatically Mean Better

There is an important warning that cannot be ignored.

A private company can also perform poorly. A contractor could cut staffing, reduce training, chase profits, or attempt to meet the minimum standard at the lowest possible cost.

The Government Accountability Office has previously found that comparisons between private and federal screeners contained enough methodological limitations that broad conclusions about which group performed better could not reliably be made.

That means privatization alone is not the solution.

The solution is privatization combined with strong federal standards, independent testing, transparent performance measurements, meaningful contract requirements, and the willingness to replace companies that fail.

TSA should remain the regulator.

It should establish the security requirements, conduct inspections, perform covert tests, certify workers, investigate failures, and enforce national standards.

But it does not necessarily need to employ every person operating every checkpoint.

The government can set the rules without running the entire operation.

I Hope More Airports Follow

I would be happy to see every airport in the country seriously consider moving to private security screening under TSA oversight.

Not because private companies are automatically perfect. They are not.

Not because every TSA officer is doing a poor job. That is clearly not true.

I support it because the current system separates performance from consequences.

A better model would make security companies compete on safety, efficiency, technology, staffing, and the passenger experience. It would allow airports to demand improvement. It would give operators a reason to innovate. Most importantly, it would create a mechanism for replacing an organization that consistently fails to perform.

Airport security is too important to become a permanent government routine where long lines, outdated systems, inconsistent instructions, and security failures are accepted as unavoidable.

Tampa, Charleston, and Des Moines are about to test another way.

I hope they succeed.

And I hope every other airport is watching.

Travel smart,
Tommy Pags