It's probably in airlines best interests to have security anyway - after all of the high profile (but extraordinarily rare) terror attacks, people are probably more apt to fly with some type of security.

It’s true that TSA security has been foiled by various “red team” exercises, sometimes in comical/embarrassing fashion. And, there is probably bloat in the agency, as well as problems with the contracting process for companies selling equipment. No one likes having to take off their shoes, myself included. Maybe policies around liquids and gels should be revisited.

At the same time, I think it’s unknowable how a return to pre-9/11 airport security would fare in today’s world; namely a world where private companies were “responsible” for screening, with the FAA providing oversight. See for example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/911.commis.knife/.

> “At the time of the attacks, commission staffers testified, the FAA prohibited passengers from boarding aircraft with knifes having blades longer than 4 inches, tear gas, mace and similar chemicals.

> Except for guns, large knives, explosives and incendiaries, carriers and screening contractors were allowed to use "common sense" in determining what was prohibited on planes, the staffers said.”

In today’s world, I’m not sure leaving airport security to the “free market” is necessarily a good idea. If there are new types of explosives, will private companies be able/willing to buy new equipment to deal with “improbable” threats?

TSA also deploys agents around the world to screen flights coming inbound to the US that originate in countries that can’t necessarily perform their own screenings. Do we expect private companies to pay Americans to live abroad? Or will they rely on poorly paid locals to do the job, maybe without background checks (if it’s even possible).

From a game theoretic perspective, I think it’s reasonable to assume that TSA provides some deterrent effect. Stringent security procedures do reduce the action/choice set of would-be terrorists. Post-9/11 flights within the US, and to the US, have not been affected by terrorist attacks, incompetent shoe and underwear bombers aside.

Ancillary to the job that TSA does, do you object to heavily armed police or military at airports? Because incidents like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_bombings, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_atta..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Frankfurt_Airport_shootin..., do happen.

—-

FWIW, in Israel, the security process is far more stringent. You have pre-airport physical checks, interviews, passing of luggage through pressurized chambers etc. If you fly El-Al anywhere in the world, there is an extra headache associated with additional screening. But, the record of an El-Al (0 successful hijackings) leads many who travel to Israel to choose El-Al.

TL;DR, everyone wishes there was a way to have secure flights, without having to undergo invasive screenings.

The "protocol" changes constantly, sometimes even in the course of a single trip through security. My last flight, which was during the shutdown, had a TSA officer take over his coworker. The coworker had been telling us to keep food in bags; this guy told us to take it all out. I've also had an officer tell me to "remove anything electronic" from my body, but "to keep my watch on". My watch was a smart watch, of course; there is literally no way to comply with that direction. (I've taken to just removing these prior to getting there, after this absurd incident.)