Pros of maintaining government security
The work of Rabkin and United States (2004) reveal that retaining government system of offering security offers several merits that outweighs the need for privatization. Thomas (2008) argues that the state stands in a better position to provide aviation safety owing to the expansive reach of resources such as finances, equipment, and human resource factor. Any country can set adequate security standards to beef up safety and eliminate any threats that may compromise passengers as well as airport security. Turning to Thomas (2008) one finds that the state security system can handle massive workforce and is in a position to support the administrative personnel earnings.
Cons of government security
Thomas (2008) associates government security systems to being bureaucratic thereby offering ineffective passenger screening hassle. The bureaucracy inhibits identification, risk evaluation, the institution of appropriate regulations as well as undertaking transparent auditing exercise for performance adjustments. Furthermore, Thomas (2008) argues that running a government security system results in the creation of excessive as well as staff duplication leading high-cost expenditures. The state operated aviation safety would not perform best as most of the governments focus more on human resource business instead of concentrating on the mission to offer world class security and better coordination intelligence. In a study of Rabkin and United States (2004), Thomas (2008) found that embracing state-owned and run aviation safety systems can potentially give rise to bias towards spending government money on new and unvetted security technologies. Employment of the state-run security system can lead to expensive failures such as insufficient allocation of resources based on cost-benefits analysis as well as detailed risk evaluation. The inefficiency can result in devastating consequences in the event of an insecurity incidence. Thomas (2008) associates government security mechanisms to gaps such as the inability to implement security programs and performance evaluation for lack of detailed risk analysis.
Pros of using private security
Rabkin and United States (2004) argue that private system of aviation safety performs best. The contracted firms can exercise covert testing, screening for anecdotal information and undertake independent evaluation without any form of external influence. Thomas (2008) states that utilizing private screening professionals serves as the best aviation security option. A study in U.S showed that privately contracted firms gave better results than government security systems. Using a privately operated security organization would save the taxpayers significant amount of dollars that the government can channel to constructive development projects. Rabkin and United States (2004) moreover reveal that private sector screeners have better, and collective bargaining options compared to government operated security mechanisms. The firms’ independence makes it possible to deploy assets effectively to deter insecurity plots such as theft and potential terrorist attacks. Privatising aviation safety enables program flexibility and adapting to local, regional as well as international passenger needs. The independence associated with the private firms’ allow efficient intelligence gathering, data sharing and deployment of new screening technologies.
The cons of privately owned systems
Rabkin and United States (2004) however links some drawbacks to adopting privately owned and operated security organizations. The policy as Thomas (2008) argues subverts the intent of the law. Employing private security organization costs more than maintaining a government system. The airports that have contracted the private organizations have to pump enormous amounts of cash for the firm’s operation activities. Using privately owned and operated security companies would jeopardize the safety of the airports because the organizations focus more on raising profit by reducing staff and undertaking skimp on training at the expense of the passenger’s safety (Rabkin and United States, 2004).
Rabkin, N. J., & United States. (2004). Aviation security: Improvement still needed in federal aviation security efforts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office. N.p.
Thomas, A. R. (2008). Aviation security management. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International. N.p.