I fully agree that better technology is needed (along with some technology for detecting dangerous liquids). Such improvements would be very welcome, because they would improve security without causing inconvenience to travelers. Also, cargo, mail and anything else being brought airside should be scanned, and all airside workers should get exactly the same scrutiny as passengers and aircrews.

My problem with the "security" theater is that your bosses (and unfortunately, their counterparts in the EU too) too often push for improving security at any cost, often subjecting air travelers to great inconvenience for a miniscule gain in security. Security, while important, is not everything. In daily life, we frequently trade some amount of security for more liberty, comfort or financial advantage, for example, by making tourist trips to less safe countries or building cheaper houses that cannot survive hurricanes. I suppose you don't wear a bulletproof jacket and helmet while driving, although shootings of motorists are much more frequent than terrorist attacks on airlines. Even in the plane business, the government does not force the airlines/manufacturers to implement every improvement that could improve the safety of air travel, but first makes a careful cost/benefit analysis.

Unfortunately, the TSA leadership seems to miss the big picture and concentrate on the security improvements only. Also, there is no recognizable effort from the TSA to implement security procedures in a way that causes the minimum inconvenience to the travelers. It is (IMHO rightfully) percepted as a complete disregard for the traveler's needs.

Look at the liquid ban. It caused great inconvenience to travelers, but how big is the security benefit? You can still bring any amount of any liquid by simply going back and forth through security and filling a large bottle left airside. It's too much hassle to bring shampoo through security this way, but a determined terrorist would probably have the patience for it. So at the end, while the government did something, it didn't bring a lot of advantages.

Instead of the liquid ban, the TSA could just have just brought dogs to sniff the luggage for suspicious liquids. This would calm nervous travelers (the govt is indeed doing something for safety!) and might deter some would-be terrorists much better than the present liquid ban. The exact capabilities of sniffing dogs would be a state secret. Later, when enough dogs are properly trained, it might even help discover explosives and catch terrorists (something that the current ban cannot). But no, they had to do it in a way that caused the most inconvenience.

Another thing to consider is that excessive security procedures might actually attract terrorists to air travel. Just look at the London bombings. There was a successful terrorist attack on the subway, and a failed terrorist attack on planes using liquids. While the loss of life is terrible, for the vast majority of people, the failed attack caused much more inconvenience than the successful one - precisely because of the security "improvements" that followed it.

Riding the subway hasn't changed after the attack. There is no liquid (or solid) ban, no screening and no no-ride list. Exactly the same attack is possible today. If it gets repeated (I hope not), it will cause great grievance to the victims and their relatives, but no one else.

An attack on an airliner however, even a failed one, is likely to cause new security madness and inconvenience millions of people worldwide. So the message terrorists get is, to cause the greatest harm, they should continue targeting air travel.