[logifail]

"If they wanted to" shouldn't really be part of any sane security policy.

If 'X' is genuinely dangerous, then always deal with X as if it were actually dangerous[1]; if X is however not dangerous, stop pretending.

[1] for instance the policy of confiscating >100ml bottles of liquid at airport security "because reasons" then have agents simply stuff these dangerous liquids into one large bin and leave them there at the screening point for hours.

[munin]

That's not really what I meant. What I meant was, you seem to act as if enforcement of this policy would require a lot of logistical work on the part of the airline to ensure that the passenger wasn't separated from their bags, or that they were compensated for whatever they had to ditch due to security. However, that is not actually the policy or law they have to follow, and they are free to do arbitrary things. This makes enforcement much easier.

Whether or not that is "sane" or "right" or "wrong" isn't material to my counter-point.

[logifail]

I'm not convinced that airlines want to get into the business of arbitrary confiscation of non-compliant items from hold baggage especially if it's to be carried out when the passenger isn't present.