The airlines fought many security measures because they knew that those measures would make flying less pleasant and less convenient. No one likes the intrusion of a causeless search. No one likes standing in line. To the extent that security made flying a worse experience, intrusive security measures would discourage air travel and lead to lower profits for the airlines. While commentators can whine about the profit motive, the airlines understood that their profit was connected to serving "the flying public" and not the idiot commentators and bureaucrats who called for more "security." .
In light of this truth, a few changes in security measures could make flying more convenient without compromising security. The ban on personal grooming items should be lifted so that people can bring all of their luggage as carry-on. If the passengers are vigilant, no one can hijack a plane with a disposable razor or pair of fingernail clippers. Banning these items does not enhance security, but it does make flying less competitive in the travel market. Security screeners should be trained to treat passengers with respect, and those who fail to do so should be fired. Passengers should again be allowed to lock their luggage so that they are less likely to be victimized by thieves. Most of the changes in airport security over the past two years have not made flying more secure. Instead, the changes have been feel-good measures to satisfy those who think the government must take care of everything. If the new rules made anyone more secure, I wouldn't propose dropping them. However, they only make flying a less attractive option in the travel market. .