Nope, no conspiracy. I claim the airlines are acting purely out of their own self-interest, with no coordination amongst themselves or with the government.

My evidence is their track record of handouts/waivers/favors they've gotten from the government over the past 5 years: direct cash handouts after 9/11, loan guarantees, regulatory pension relief, favorable treatment by the bankruptcy courts and PBGC, etc. And like I said, they haven't done anything substantive to change their business model so that they won't need more government handouts in the future. Therefore, I am arguing that they are keeping their mouths shut so as to maximize future potential of getting cotinued favorable treatment by the government.

The CEO's job is to maximize shareholder value, and that's exactly what they're doing. Yes, the carry-on restrictions are hurting the airlines financially, but compared to the benefits the government can give the airlines going forward, it's a drop in the bucket.

Part of the airlines position is the "as a regulated industry we are bound by the rules and speaking out against the rules will result in retaliation".

Another part is liability. IF something happens, and it is determined that the cause is a result of something the airlines lobbied for (eg, they lobby for looser restrictions and someone uses the looser restrictions to bring down a plane), then tort lawyers will have a field day. As will the government, which as we all know is seriously into the shift-the-blame-game (see Christie Todd Whitman's comments yesterday about WTC rescue worker protection).

The government takes responsibility and the airlines are glad to offload responsibility. It reduces risks and the chance of a big payout. Think of it as being akin to welfare, where the airlines become increasingly dependent on the government.

So why aren't the profitable airlines such as Southwest and JetBlue screaming?

If you were asking me, it is 1) because the airlines are regulated and there are some in the FAA/TSA that would make life very difficult if they pushed back, and 2) because it really does lift potential liability. With respect to point 2), to get that relief from liability they have to give something up. Add the fact that they don't want to be publically portrayed as "lax on security", and you get a "no pushback" environment.

FWIW, there are a number of other good columns on security paranoia in the archives of that column.