[dingaling]

> It's about making people feel safe.

I don't think that's a common perception of airport security. Few people take reassurance from it, most consider it a burden and hindrance that could stop them getting their flight if they don't perform the correct steps as instructed.

The lifting of this restriction is an example, the overwhelming response is "oh thank goodness, now I don't have to pay for overpriced water" and not "is this safe?"

[gampleman]

I thought so too. But having talked to a few people who are generally afraid of flying, they absolutely do take re-assurance from the security theatre. They are very much not interested in having the ease of subverting this security explained to them.

[palata]

I disagree. It is a burden and hindrance, but I'm pretty sure that if you just removed all the checks and let people board like in a bus, there would be complaints.

[rdiddly]

They're not complaining on the bus...

[sneak]

This is what JSX does and people love it.

[zamadatix]

Regular passengers tend to be the ones care about the price of water in the terminal while rare/first time passengers tend to be the ones nervous as hell about everything from getting the bags checked in to the engines falling off the plane during takeoff/landing.

[y0eswddl]

People stopped flying after 9/11 and airlines lost money until the TSA was created and made people feel safe to fly again

[aylmao]

There's room for both. You can have security checkpoints where they check your bag for liquids, and you should be allowed to fly with them once they confirm its innocuous.

I'm no chemist, but I can't imagine it's hard to test if something is an explosive or just body cream. To pack a punch, I have to imagine explosives need very specific compounds in them.

[varjag]

Did that really happen in the United States? Certainly not anywhere else.