If you’ve flown lately, you’ve probably felt it. Longer lines. Slower checkpoints. More stress.
But here’s the part most people don’t know: Not every airport is dealing with it.
Right now, while many TSA checkpoints are backed up due to the ongoing Department of Homeland Security funding fight, nearly two dozen airports across the country are moving along just fine.
Why? Because they don’t rely on TSA workers the same way. They use private security.
Before anyone panics, this isn’t some “wild west” version of airport screening. These airports operate under a federal program called the Screening Partnership Program, created after 9/11.
The rules are still set by the TSA. The equipment is still approved by the TSA. And federal agents are still on-site overseeing operations.
The only difference is who signs the paychecks.
Instead of federal employees, these screeners work for private companies contracted by the airport.
Think of it like hiring a private trash company instead of relying on a city department. The standards stay the same, but the service can be more flexible.
And right now, that flexibility is making a big difference.
When Washington Breaks, Travelers Pay the Price
At federally staffed airports, TSA workers are caught in the middle of Washington politics.
During a shutdown, they don’t get paid on time. Some call out. Some quit. Others simply can’t afford to keep showing up.
That’s not speculation. During past shutdowns, TSA call-out rates climbed into double digits. Hundreds of agents left their jobs.
Now it’s happening again.
Airports are warning travelers to arrive three to five hours early. Lines in some places are stretching past two hours.
That’s not a security system. That’s a bottleneck.
Meanwhile, airports using private screeners are largely avoiding the chaos.
Their workers are still getting paid under existing contracts. They show up. Lanes stay open. Travelers move.
Same rules. Different results.
A Quiet Success Story Few People Talk About
One of the biggest examples is San Francisco International Airport. It uses private screeners under this program and has for years.
And here’s the key point. There’s no evidence these airports are less safe.
Private screeners must meet the same TSA standards. They go through the same training. They’re tested the same way.
If anything, there’s more accountability. If a contractor fails, they can be replaced. Try doing that with a federal agency.
Several studies and reviews over the years have found that private screening can match or even improve efficiency and customer service.
That shouldn’t be surprising. Competition tends to do that.
So Why Not Expand It?
This is where the bigger conversation starts.
Right now, TSA is a government monopoly. Most airports have no choice but to use it. And when Washington fails to fund it, the whole system feels the impact.
That’s exactly what we’re seeing today.
Now add another factor.
TSA workers have unionized in recent years. That means higher costs, more rigid work rules, and less flexibility. In normal times, that can slow things down.
In a crisis, it can make things worse.
So the question becomes pretty simple: Why not expand a model that’s already working?
Private screening doesn’t eliminate federal oversight. It keeps it. TSA would still set the rules, handle intelligence, and test the system.
But it would stop being the only provider.
That means more resilience. More competition. And fewer chances for political gridlock to shut down airport security.
What It Means for Nevada Travelers
For folks here in Nevada, especially flying through Harry Reid International Airport, this matters.
Las Vegas depends on tourism. Long lines and delays don’t just frustrate travelers. They hurt the economy.
Imagine telling visitors to show up four hours early just to get through security. That’s not exactly a great first impression.
A more flexible system could help avoid that.
Critics argue that privatization could lead to cost-cutting or reduced safety. That’s a fair concern.
But under this program, the federal government still sets the standards and audits performance. The difference is execution.
And right now, execution is where the federal model is falling short.
The lesson here isn’t complicated. When one system struggles and another keeps working under the same rules, it’s worth asking why.
And whether it’s time to make a change.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
