I don't think it has to be that way. It can be done like at the test airports (such as SFO) where a security firm is contracted to do the security under TSA guidelines. If anything, I think TSA or the FAA should have an oversight role, set the rules and conduct inspections to ensure that reasonable standards (i.e. not TSA's current farce) are met. I think it would force accountability amongst the rank and file and I think security would improve overall. IIRC, SFO has some of the highest testing rates in the nation and they're private.

I agree that dumping the CURRENT cost of security could bankrup the airlines. However, considering security cost less than $1B per year prior to the gov't mucking with security, it doesn't have to be a death knell. Though I do agree that saddling them with the burden would definitely hurt with the state of the industry now.

I think the gov't should take a serious look at TSA, treat it as an experiment and one that failed. At least for the next few years, move it over to a model like SFO and put the burden on the airlines. Give them the liability waiver provided that proper security measures were met and it is shown that they weren't negligent should something happen.