[hristov]

This has nothing to do with the TSA. It comes straight from the Department of Homeland Security. The TSA would have to enforce the ban of course, but it ain't their idea.

The whole campaign against the TSA is idiotic and it is entirely based on some people's nefarious plans to replace the TSA at various airports with private companies that will be able to extract monopoly fees from airlines and passengers. Let's not confuse the two issues.

[wahern]

The TSA has permitted use of private companies from the very beginning:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screening_Partnership_Program

I don't think either airlines or airports wish to get rid of the TSA entirely. The TSA provides a nice excuse for extracting security fees and subsidies from the public. They just want looser rules on screening so they can pocket more of the fees rather than fork them over as wages to screeners.

And in any event, the security theater will remain as cover and a scapegoat for politicians, airports, and airlines in the [inevitable] case of a security breech.

That said, the screening at San Francisco International is managed by a private company and they do a pretty good job, avoiding many of the really stupid problems exposed at airports elsewhere. It's still security theater, but done relatively competently.

[dragonwriter]

> I don't think either airlines or airports wish to get rid of the TSA entirely. The TSA provides a nice excuse for extracting security fees and subsidies from the public.

More importantly, it transfers liability for failures from airlines to the public, which is the major reason the function was nationalized.