Passengers found themselves waiting over five hours to clear security at Atlanta’s airport on Sunday, March 22. In contrast, just a few hours to the south in Orlando, Florida, the average wait for security was about 30 minutes, if that.
This raises the question: how can two major airports have such different experiences? The answer is quite straightforward. Orlando Airport has privatized its security screening, while Atlanta relies on government employees from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). With airports nationwide facing significant delays in TSA lines during the ongoing government shutdown, perhaps it’s time for the Trump administration to consider a nationwide push for privatization.
The issues in Atlanta aren’t isolated; long TSA lines are leading to numerous flight cancellations across various airports. TSA inspectors aren’t reporting for duty since they won’t receive pay until Congress allocates funds to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This has led to a standstill, as Democrats are unwilling to budge without major changes to immigration enforcement, making the situation frustrating for travelers.
Yet, in Orlando, the experience highlights that passengers don’t have to endure lengthy waits. The airport is among 20 participating in the TSA’s Screening Partnership Program, which allows it to contract private companies to handle security functions. These companies, while under federal oversight and required to meet TSA standards, can operate more efficiently and keep lines moving, resulting in happier travelers.
The disparity between private enterprises and bureaucratic operations has never been clearer. While private firms face pressure to perform well and may be replaced if they fail, TSA operates without such accountability. Funded by taxpayers, but shielded from public scrutiny, its lack of competition means that there’s often no incentive to improve, leading to persistent inefficiencies.
So, why don’t more airports opt for the evident advantages of privatization? Currently, airport officials can decide whether to participate in these partnership programs. This is where the Trump administration could step in, possibly issuing new guidelines to make privatization the standard. It seems sensible that airports shouldn’t avoid transitioning to these more efficient systems.
Will transitioning to nationwide privatization resolve the current crisis? Maybe not immediately. Implementing private security services at all major airports might take months or longer. However, initiating this process now could lead to significant improvements by the end of the year.
It’s likely that this won’t be the last instance of politicians attempting to leverage concessions by inconveniencing travelers. If all airports transitioned to privatized security, it could reduce the tendency of lawmakers to inflict hardships on families trying to travel. This is beneficial, irrespective of party lines.
Moreover, acclimating Americans to the idea of privatization may have broader advantages. The federal government often struggles to handle many responsibilities efficiently. Instead of expanding an ineffective government, empowering competitive private businesses might yield better outcomes.
This concept extends beyond airport security. Privatization could vastly improve air traffic control, with technological advancements enhancing safety in air travel. Imagine if corporations played a larger role in welfare programs or workforce development initiatives, potentially providing necessary support to those in need rather than maintaining a system that often fails to lift individuals up.
Of course, proponents of government oversight are likely to be resistant to these ideas. Yet for anyone who has experienced missed flights in Atlanta, the issues are painfully clear. In contrast, travelers who passed through Orlando might be enjoying a well-deserved break by the pool.
