[ceejayoz]

> Airlines could have locked cockpit doors and prohibited passengers from bringing box cutters on their airplanes 30 years ago, but they didn't, even though hijackings regularly happened.

Yes, because in most cases the hijackers would demand you land, negotiate, and either get some sort of asylum deal or get shot. Big inconvenience, but usually not much bloodshed.

9/11 changed the math for the people on the plane a lot, from "sit down, be quiet, and you'll probably be fine" to "you are about to be flown into a building". Reinforced cockpit doors are one of the little bits of legitimate security improvement made since then.

Look how many on the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings end with "no casualties".

[kube-system]

Yeah, exactly, the security posture was simply to accept the risk because it was presumed to be small. A hijacking is an archetypal security failure, but airlines chose not to add friction to their operations to prevent them.

It's the Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis scandal of the sky.

[ceejayoz]

The fairly reasonable concern was that it’d turn relatively peaceful events into massacres.

Too much security can be a problem just like too little can.