I disagree with the premise that 9/11 ended the hijacking threat. It ended the threat with basic security in place, because 40 unarmed passengers versus four hijackers armed with box cutters means the hijackers lose. Let the hijackers bring semiautomatic guns and that equation changes radically.
Passengers under a hijacking still don't expect to survive by cooperating, so the cost of cooperation is still effectively infinite high.
Guns still run out of bullets, and are somewhat difficult to wield in a close-quarters situation - it's not a magic first-person shooter. The cost becomes higher than fighting someone with a box cutter, but still lower than evaporating into mist.
I think you could hijack a plane if you just demand the pilot takes you somewhere rather than trying to get cockpit access. Making a move for the cockpit will cause everyone to rush you. But if you just take prisoners and demand that the pilot flies to Venezuela, I'm fairly sure it would work.
Maybe. But I don't think anyone argued for eliminating security altogether; pre-9/11 security prevented guns from being on airplanes as well as the TSA for $7b less per year. Bringing security back to post-1970's/pre-9-11 levels doesn't seem like it would cost us anything except a really shitty Basic Income program.
My comment is in reply to a comment that says exactly that you don't need any security at all. It quotes "You need some security" and replies with "No, it was not clear then, and it is not clear now."
If you think we need some security but only at pre-9/11 levels, then you and I are on the same page there.
I think we are on the same page, then, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. Carry on! (But only one carry on, everything else must be checked.)
