The "greedy airlines" argument does not "fly". And I agree that federalizing will make security if not worse, no better, and certainly much more expensive. And it will cut out innovation that could improve air travel by leaps and bounds.

There is a clear economic argument that can be made rationally, having to do with supply and demand.

Security was/is exactly what the customers, the travellers, want to pay for.

Before 9/11 it was lax because that was what the customers wanted to pay for. Now it is a lot better and people are willing to pay more. Unfortunately it took a terrible event to change things.

All activities have risk. You could make a car that could protect people close to 100% in the event of a 50 mph crash, but noone would be willing to pay for it.

Another example is air crashes. Air crashes carry horrendous costs for airlines. Customers will not tolerate them. You see airplanes that are for all intents and purposes almost crash free today.

Yes, the government "regulates" jets, but it is Boeing and Airbus and Bombardier and General Electric that engineer and build safer and safer planes, in response to the customers' demand.

People in the USA travelling domestically are unwilling to pay for 100% risk free air security.

The federalizing of the security force will raise costs to travellers and give little or nothing in return. The airlines are the ones who respond to what their customers want. Now we have a new tax flowing directly to some federal agency that is not accountable in any way to customers.

The airlines are now in a passive role. Customers have no say in their security. If anything it will be worse and it will certainly be much more expensive.