Anti-terrorist security measures have neither of these advantages. It's very difficult to find out how much they cost; especially if you include indirect costs to travelers. It's also very difficult to determine how effective they are since, to a first approximation, terrorists attacks don't happen even with lowered security.
This is also a problem with TSA. And we can calculate - roughly - the cost of TSA in delays, wages, missed flights.
A good argument just popped into my brain: we used to run security at airports with either local cops or private companies. This worked, pretty well, except for 9/11.
But everyone was taken by surprise, then.
(In reality customers are never that well informed to make such a decision.)
A prudent State recognizes such a thing works best with a light hand, of course.
Customers need not be un-informed on safety issues. There are many, many organizations that provide such information to consumers - think Consumer Reports, Ralph Nader and so on.
The "pure free market" ideal of caveat emptor makes businesses sound an awful like muggers loitering in dark alleys waiting for victims; something you need to protect yourself from. Sure, in a perfectly rational market and with perfectly informed participants these dangers are known and avoided, but perfection is never achieved in reality. Government regulation and licensing, when done properly, papers over the irrationality and information asymmetry by making the decision of what a business can do. After all, would any rational person eat at a restaurant that gave you food poisoning more often than not? If the government didn't force its closure lack of business would, and with more sick people too.
Nothing about what to replace it with. Long on emotion, short on details.
Some might object that private firms will have incentives to cut corners on safety. It is a legitimate concern, but competitive mechanisms tend to weed this out.
He's not talking about regulation here. He thinks solid airline security will just happen.
My local public-use airport (Outagamie County Regional Airport) is owned by the county.
DFW is owned by the cities of Dallas and Forth Worth.
JKF is owned by the City of New York.
What airports are owned by private interests?
The rest of the points you make I did not see in the article - but I merely skimmed, having read things like that before.
In the marketplace competitive pressure leads to better service, not worse.
LASIK has gone from a novelty for the rich to a treatment everyone can afford, for example. Possibly counter examples exist, but I can't think of any offhand. Perhaps after I've had my morning coffee.
The reason I would prefer a private company over government is that you have a choice with a private firm: don't like AA's service, think their security guys are fools? Fly with Southwest. Write a letter to AA. Become a shareholder and annoy the board with your opinions.
So do something like this: require private security firms to meet standards X, Y, Z. Enforcement by government inspection. Bust a standard, loose your business license.
This works in other areas - workplace safety, food inspection.
Am I missing something?