Hacker News Reader

Comment by betterunix2 | Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

> 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.

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com