I think they're the biggest and cheapest which is why I mentioned them. Slate is also an option if you want to pay $2,000 instead of $500.

Yes.

So like 1950's non-security vs the present day?

Seems like there's a middle ground (e.g, the metal detectors of the 1980s/90s, with updates) and a question of whether TSA or an equivalent.

Yes, but you still need an ID to fly, in this thought experiment. Airlines can also inspect your luggage if they want to.

I've been flying commercially for 64 years, so I have had an opportunity to observe airport security practices for quite a while. Searching passengers and carry-ons became a thing in the 1960s when hijackers seemingly routinely forced flights to divert to places like Havana. I remember one incident where the hijacker commandeered the flight with a bottle of shaving lotion wrapped in a towel, fooling the flight crew into thinking he had a bomb. In those days, the local airport and/or the dominant airline at the local airport hired private security to man the checkpoints.

The airlines started selling non-refundable tickets in the 1980s in the aftermath of airline deregulation (which passed Congress in 1978 and resulted in the Civil Aeronautics Board going out of business; airlines prior to 1978 had to apply to the CAB for authority to fly between interstate city-pairs and had to file their tariffs with them). A black market in non-refundable tickets quickly emerged. The airlines were out to stop this, and a major (if not the major) purpose of airport security was to make sure that the person whose name was on the ticket was actually the person who was going to fly. However, anyone could enter the airsides so long as they went through the metal detectors. One manifestation of this was that Pittsburgh built a new midfield terminal with a shopping mall which encouraged local shoppers to visit, even though they had no intention to take a plane trip.

That all changed in the aftermath of 9/11/01. The airlines and airports wanted out of responsibility for airport security, and Congress, wanting to show the public that they were doing something, created the TSA. The TSA made a big deal of claiming that 100% ID checks were the panacea. This merely redirected passenger dissatisfaction with airport security away from the airlines and upon the federal government. Innovations like the PIT shopping mall were destroyed. Then you have the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber and the chemical mixing incident.

Yes, we have security theater, but I still contend that the major purpose of airport security is to prevent low-cost airline tickets from being "scalped".

That amazed me a few years ago when I did a discovery flight. I flew out of GRB dozens of times for work at that point through the terminal with all the security stuff. To get to the tarmac you'd have to go through an alarmed door and probably be detained before you got too far.

On the GA side of the same airport, I waited at the gate by the back driveway for the pilot doing the flight. He put a key in for the gate to open and escorted my wife and I in. Drive right up to the hangar, push the plane out, go flying. No verifying who either of us were, no security checkpoint, nothing. Taxi along the same taxiways to the same runways

It was amazing that two different paths to the same physical area had such different security and changed how I think about what TSA contributes to safety.

That's what sparked this debate. I flew private with my CEO for the first time in my life and it was eye-opening how non-existent security is on private flights.

I think the timeline is a little different than that. Long after deregulation, through the late 80's (and into the 90's I believe?) it was common for people to try and "share" tickets; lots of college bulletin boards would have things like "ticket for sale Houston-NYC April 5, female, $100". I did so myself. To crack down on that, airlines began doing ID checks, but they were done BY THE AIRLINE at checkin and/or the gate or boarding. It was not part of the airport-security/metal-detector/etc. process. I don't think ID checks as part of the physical security screening process started till 9/11.

I think one of the reasons for instituting "passengers-only" rules and ID checks post-9/11 was simply to cut down on the number of people going through security thus reducing resources needed for screening. Airlines were more than happy to go along with this, since it meant someone else was taking care of (and paying for) the "revenue protection" task for them.

Yes, ID checks as part of "security" is simply theater. TSA forcefully chanted (and the public swallowed without question) the whole "ID Matters!" mantra, although it couldn't, and still can't, answer the question "why?".

TSA was a way of certain politicians wanting to create a whole new addition to the federal workforce by selling the big lie of "privately-run airport security failed on 9/11" to a public wanting the government to "do something!" and sadly it is now a commonly-accepted but totally false notion that airport security was to blame for 9/11. It was pathetic that the Washington Post recently had an editorial advocating privatizing airport security, and the bulk of comments were against it and virtually every one of them invoked 9/11 as the reason not to privatize.

Yes, for sure. I know this wasn't the angle you were taking, but: context is important, too. Aviation security is about keeping aviation safe. But it is also (more?) about economic security than physical security.

Consider:
- according to this report General Aviation Provides Robust Contribution to US Economy | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association general aviation contributed $339,000,000,000 to the US economy via 1.3 million jobs.
- according to this "report" Impact | Airlines For America commercial aviation contributed $1,450,000,000,000 to the US economy via ~10 million jobs. Commercial aviation is about 5% of US GDP.

- Other sources say worldwide commercial aviation is estimated at $4 trillion of world GDP, employing approximately 86 million people.

Total US commercial enplanements for 2024 was about 875 million. Final '25 data is not yet available but is estimated to exceed 2024. Of course, there is no way to know the US enplanement numbers for GA, but I feel confident to go out on a limb and posit that it was magnitudes smaller than commercial enplanements.

Just for the US, TSA spending $11 thousand million on theater to help protect $145 thousand million doesn't sound like a bad investment (even as we all know it is spent poorly).

But hey, where else should we be spending our great-grandkids' taxes?

Interesting take and thanks for providing data. I'd be interested to compare the cost of TSA to the cost of security for cargo aircraft on a per flight basis. I'm assuming that what's done for cargo aircraft is the bare minimum to meet the requirements for insuring the flights, which provides economic security.

If I recall correctly, at one time IDs were checked agains the name on boarding passes. It was more about revenue protection than security.

Yes, that was the true (and only useful) purpose. "ID=Security" was something manufactured post-9/11 as a way of showing the frightened public that the govt was "doing something" about preventing another such occurrence.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but whose fault was it, or what was the proximate cause, of the 9/11 hijackers being able to smuggle their blade cutters and whatever else they used for their plot?

Obviously onboard aircraft security, such as unlocked cockpit doors, had at least "something" to do with the systemic vulnerabilities at that time.

Another aspect is the national guidance given. Pre-9/11, air crews were trained to cooperate with hijackers and passengers were encouraged to remain passive. The expectation of active resistance to hijackers on planes likely does more to deter them than screening passengers on the ground. My own opinion is that the next 9/11 style attack will occur using either private or cargo jets, so as to remove the wild card of having passengers on board.

Box cutters, pocket knives, and many other things were allowed on planes before 9/11, so no smuggling needed.