Comment by betterunix2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by betterunix2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ineffective at preventing hijackings of airplanes, but that is assuming that the purpose of the TSA's airport security measures is to prevent hijackings. More likely it was originally intended to reassure the public that flying is safe by presenting conspicuous screening processes, and considering that it remains politically impossible to wind it down, I think it was very successful. Consider this: a few years ago the TSA leadership suggested that it would probably be OK to allow small knives through the checkpoints, and not only was the idea killed by Congress, I even heard my otherwise intelligent aunt express how terrifying the idea sounded to her.

The basic purpose of the TSA is to prevent a collapse of the air travel market, and now it seems that a few related business interests are also part of that picture. What is or is not allowed through the checkpoints is as much determined by what the public is afraid of as by what will work well for airport businesses and airlines. The shoe rule is slowly but surely going away (it does not apply to anyone who participates in the various pre-screening programs that have been developed; I am guessing it will be gone in general a few years from now), but the equally pointless liquid rule remains in place for everyone. The only difference is that one of those rules boosts sales for airport businesses while the other only makes the lines to get through the checkpoints longer and discourages flying. The proposal to have all laptops go into checked bags was killed almost as soon as it was thought up, even though there was some legitimate concern about attacks strategies involving laptops (it seems to be more realistic than the liquids plot), simply because airlines said it would have too negative an impact on their ticket sales (especially for business class seats, which are the most profitable per square foot of cabin floor space).

What makes you think the TSA has a net positive effect on the air travel industry? TSA is dehumanizing and makes me hate traveling. It's insulting and humiliating to be forced to wait in line and perform useless rituals.

> one of those rules boosts sales for airport businesses

This is pub talk, essentially the broken window fallacy. Making travel unpleasant is unlikely to have helped the airline industry.

There is really no doubt that airport businesses saw their sales increase after the liquids rule went into effect. The rule had little impact on the public's willingness to fly and does not really increase the line lengths at the checkpoints, but it does create a captive market of thirsty travelers surrounded by shops selling water bottles.

It is also a fact that after the 9/11 attacks the airline industry nearly collapsed because people were afraid to fly; the TSA was created for the sole purpose of calming those fears, which restored confidence in flying (and therefore increase ticket sales). You may not be afraid but a lot of people do believe that the checkpoints are keeping them safe while they fly, and a large fraction would probably think twice about flying if the checkpoints were reduced in scope (or eliminated entirely).

> There is really no doubt that airport businesses saw their sales increase after the liquids rule went into effect.

Correlation is not causation. I could simply have been a time where the fear of flying grew staler than the need to fly/benefit of flying.

> It is also a fact that after the 9/11 attacks the airline industry nearly collapsed because people were afraid to fly;

This is meaningless without mentioning time ranges. The TSA was created one month after 9/11, so there was no opportunity for any alternative course to ever take place.

Why didn't the airline industry "collapse" in other countries lacking the TSA? And what does "collapse" mean, exactly?

> the TSA was created for the sole purpose of calming those fears, which restored confidence in flying

And the PATRIOT act is for patriots. It is not worth mentioning that GW Bush said we're going to do X because of Y.

Are you old enough to remember what it was like to fly pre-9/11?

If anything the TSA made things more difficult for airports who were hemorrhaging revenue despite whatever magic safety rays you feel the TSA was projecting into the populace. (What are the properties of these safety rays and why even years after they began eminating did we still see airlines in bankruptcy, flights canceled, and dependence on federal loans? If in fact they were meant to increase passenger counts they didn't seem to do a good job, and just look like an unexpected added cost to contend with along with declining income -- some lost income directly due to security measures like preventing non-travelers from giving business to any shops beyond the security checkpoint. Liquids weren't even banned for years, after a slew of attempted liquid explosion attempts, almost like the TSA is an entirely reactive force ever since its creation.) On the more tangible side of things the airports had to pay the costs of the new security measures, which weren't trivial -- e.g. just the explosives detection systems for checked baggage cost billions to be rolled out. How much for the body scanners some years later?

>"It is also a fact that after the 9/11 attacks the airline industry nearly collapsed because people were afraid to fly"

No that it is not a "fact." The airline industry in the US was already experiencing financial problems prior to 9/11. There was also a bad recession at that time which translates to lower demand for seats. Additionally all flights were grounded for 2 days after 9/11 resulting in huge financial losses for the airlines. The combination of these things resulted in large layoffs by the airlines, potentially sending the airlines into a death spiral. The industry was then stabilized by a 15 billion aid package from congress. A near collapse was not caused by people being afraid to fly.

I think people here are reading you as defending the TSA, when all you're really saying is that a lot of the public support it, notwithstanding the inconveniences it causes them.

If your premise that the purpose of the TSA is to prevent collapse of the air travel market then why can't this service be handled privately by the airlines?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com