Oh, please. First, where do you see any ‘knee-jerk’ free market support here? Or were you responding to an argument that has not yet been made?
As for your ‘fallacy of the excluded middle’, sorry but I don’t buy it. A huge amount of business travel involves short hops between major centers. For example, here in Edmonton we have a number of 737 shuttle flights between here and Calgary. The drive to Calgary takes 3 hours. Currently, a flight to Calgary will shave perhaps an hour off this time after you factor in the time it takes to get to the airport, check in, wait at the gate, etc.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the margin of convenience is very small in favor of airline flight. Add half an hour on each end for added security, and you’ll effectively kill that entire route.
Go look at all the short-hop business routes between places like Washington and New York, or various cities in California, or Toronto and Montreal, and you start to get a sense of just how much damage even a reasonably modest increase in security will start to cause.
Another example: The airlines are now using the security angle to try to limit carry-on baggage to one piece. That means it will be hard to carry everything you need for even a short business trip on board the aircraft with you. On these short-hop flights, that’s the difference between walking off the plane and getting into the company car, and walking off the plane and having to walk across the terminal and wait 20 minutes for your baggage to show up. Again, that will eliminate a fair amount of business travel by air, and divert it back onto the roads and perhaps rail.
As for increasing the confidence of travellers… I wonder how much the air travel drop-off is caused by actual worries about hijacking, and how much is caused by worries of having to dump your purse out and have your nail clippers confiscated? Or more seriously, having your laptop confiscated, or having to submit to a humiliating body search, or just being stuck in a security line for two hours?
I’ll bet that the latter worries at this point are greater for the average person than the actual fear of a hijacking.
You are also making a large leap from your claim that the airlines won’t spend their own money on security to postulating the need for a large new federal bureaucracy. There are plenty of ways around this problem that doesn’t require an army of new federal employees. For example, you can take the burden of security away from airlines and put it on the airport, and allow them to charge a gate fee to cover it. Then put in some federal inspections and guidelines for how the security must be carried out. There are plenty of solutions available with varying degrees of government involvement, and only one of them requires a new federalized baggage service.
The most effective things you can do to prevent terrorists from using planes like missiles are to put air marshals back on flights, to make passengers aware of the threat so that they won’t be passive about it, and to increase military readiness so that jets can be intercepted.
And you don’t have to make the aircraft perfectly safe in order to prevent a terrorist attack - you just have to make the chance of a sucessful attack low enough that they will choose another method. You don’t need to confiscate toenail clippers to do that.