Atlanta Councilmember Byron Amos Backs Private Screening Partnership at Hartsfield-Jackson

(ATLANTA, GEORGIA) — Councilmember Byron Amos said he will introduce legislation to study whether Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport should join the TSA Screening Partnership Program, opening a new debate over replacing federal airport screeners with private contractors at the world’s busiest passenger airport.

The proposal would authorize a formal study of privatization rather than an immediate switch, but it revives a question Atlanta has considered more than once when long security lines and staffing pressures strained airport operations.

Amos moved to advance the idea during a Wednesday Transportation Committee meeting, as a partial federal government shutdown left Transportation Security Administration workers unpaid for over a month and pushed security wait times as high as four to five hours.

That contrast drove much of the discussion. Airports that use private security contracts remained largely unaffected by the shutdown, while airports relying on federal TSA staff faced mounting delays as unpaid workers continued reporting for duty.

The TSA Screening Partnership Program, or SPP, launched in 2004 and now includes about 20 airports. Under the program, private screeners carry out checkpoint duties under TSA rules and procedures, but they are not federal employees.

That distinction mattered during the shutdown. Because private screeners are not on the federal payroll, they continued receiving paychecks even as federal workers went without pay.

San Francisco International, the largest airport in the program, avoided the checkpoint delays that hit other major hubs during the shutdown. For supporters of the model, that experience offers a practical comparison with airports that stayed under direct federal screening.

At Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the prospect of privatization has surfaced before when long waits triggered concerns about staffing and passenger flow. The current proposal arrives in that same pattern, with operational pressure again prompting city officials to examine whether the airport should change how it staffs security checkpoints.

Atlanta first raised the issue in 2004. That year, Hartsfield-Jackson’s then-manager Ben DeCosta pressed TSA over understaffing and extended waits, including one busy day when a half-mile-long line of passengers spilled out of the airport and wait times reached as long as 90 minutes.

After TSA committed to boost staffing, the airport backed away from the privatization threat. Atlanta kept federal screening in place, and the immediate push to seek private contractors faded.

The question returned in 2016. Airport manager Miguel Southwell again considered privatization because of long lines, but Mayor Kasim Reed later fired Southwell that year for the long lines, among other factors, and the airport ultimately maintained TSA screening.

That history gives Amos’s proposal a familiar shape. Rather than presenting privatization as a settled decision, the measure would begin with a study aimed at examining whether the airport should apply to join the TSA Screening Partnership Program and what such a move could mean for screening operations.

Hartsfield-Jackson has also made clear that it is not changing course now. The airport said it is not pursuing privatization and continues to work closely with TSA to support safe, secure, and efficient screening operations.

That stance leaves Atlanta in a two-track position. City lawmakers are preparing to consider whether the airport should formally study private screening, while airport leadership says current operations remain aligned with TSA.

For a facility as large and complex as Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the debate reaches beyond who wears the uniform at the checkpoint. Any move toward privatization would carry implications for staffing, costs and daily airport operations.

Those issues sit at the center of the study Amos plans to propose. The screening model would not remove TSA oversight from checkpoint operations, because private screeners in the program still follow TSA protocols and security procedures.

Even so, the employment structure changes under SPP. Screeners work for private contractors rather than as federal employees, a shift that supporters point to when comparing airport performance during federal funding lapses.

The shutdown offered a sharp example of that difference. Federal TSA workers went without pay for over a month, while private screening employees at SPP airports continued to receive paychecks and airports using that model remained largely insulated from the disruption.

For travelers, the clearest measure was time. At some airports using federal screeners, security waits rose to four to five hours during the shutdown, while San Francisco International avoided the checkpoint delays affecting other large airports.

Atlanta’s renewed review comes from those side-by-side outcomes. One system remained vulnerable to a federal funding standoff; the other kept workers paid and lines more stable under the same national conditions.

Still, the city is not voting on an immediate transfer of checkpoint operations. The legislation Amos plans to introduce would study the option, not carry out a direct transition from TSA employees to private contractors.

That distinction may shape how the proposal is received at City Hall and at the airport. A study allows officials to examine possible effects on staffing levels, operating costs and passenger processing before making a decision on whether to pursue privatization.

It also allows Atlanta to revisit questions that remained unresolved in earlier episodes. In both 2004 and 2016, pressure from long lines drove interest in private screening, but the airport stopped short of making the change and continued with TSA-run checkpoints.

This time, the argument reaches beyond crowding alone. The shutdown introduced a labor and funding issue that private-contract airports did not face in the same way, giving supporters of SPP a new example to cite as they push for review.

Amos’s proposal therefore arrives at the intersection of two recurring pressures for major airports: the challenge of moving large numbers of passengers through checkpoints quickly, and the risk that federal budget disputes can disrupt front-line screening work.

Because Hartsfield-Jackson handles immense passenger volume, even shortfalls in staffing or morale can quickly become visible in terminal lines. Past debates in Atlanta reflected that pressure, from the half-mile-long line described in 2004 to the long waits that resurfaced in 2016.

Backers of a study can point to the record of airports already in the program. About 20 airports operate under SPP, and San Francisco International stands as the largest example of a major airport using private screening under TSA oversight.

Opponents, or officials wary of change, can point to the airport’s present position. Hartsfield-Jackson says it is not pursuing privatization and continues working closely with TSA, signaling that any departure from the current approach remains uncertain.

That leaves the next step with the proposed legislation. If Amos introduces the measure as planned, Atlanta officials would begin a formal review of whether private screening could offer the airport a more stable operating model during federal shutdowns while still keeping TSA rules in place.

For now, the airport remains under federal screening, and the idea remains under study rather than in motion. But the plan put forward by Councilmember Byron Amos has reopened a long-running question at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport: whether the nation’s busiest airport should keep relying on federal screeners or prepare for a private workforce that would still answer to TSA protocols when the next disruption hits.