Quite the bout of finger-pointing is underway in London in the wake of the foiled bomb plot, but the latest pound-passing doesn’t directly involve the terrorists themselves. Rather, airlines operating out of Heathrow airport are faulting the airport’s private owner, BAA, for the long lines and delays and cancellations that erupted in the immediate wake of disclosure of the scheme. Major carriers like British Airways and Virgin Atlantic that maintain London hubs are even talking about seeking compensation. While the Gordian knot of claims and counterclaims may take quite some time to sort out, it would be a mistake to look at the confusion as an argument against privatizing more airports, including those in New York that are currently the monopoly of the Port Authority.

BAA, which was recently bought by a Spanish operator, Grupo Ferrovial, runs Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted in London in addition to several other airports across Britain. Prime Minister Thatcher started privatizing British airports in 1987. BAA is responsible for providing security services at the airport, and the airlines charge that the company failed to beef up its staff to respond to long lines created by more rigorous security checks mandated after information about the plot became public. If the company fails to herd passengers through security at an agreed-upon rate, it can be liable to refund to airlines a portion of the per-passenger fee — currently about $11 — they pay for using the airport.

It might be tempting for some to look at the mess at Heathrow as a warning of the chaos that would descend on American airports if some of them were privatized, but something else is at work here. To the extent BAA did fail its airline customers by not hiring sufficient security staff, that’s arguably because the airports haven’t been privatized enough. The fees BAA charges are set only once every five years in cooperation with Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority and have arguably been too low for the company to hire sufficient back-up security personnel while still offering a reasonable return to investors. Allowing a real market to flourish would allow BAA and the airlines to settle on a real equilibrium price instead of a government-engineered, inflexible rate structure.

All of that is an argument about how to privatize an airport, however, not whether to do so. On the latter point, this kerfuffle is showing one boon to airport privatization — it is much easier for airlines who feel, perhaps even with justification, that they were wronged by BAA to do something about it. The economic incentives created by the danger of a breach-of-contract lawsuit work much more powerfully on a private company than on a quasi-governmental agency to ensure future good behavior. It’s hard to see through the haze of long lines, weary passengers, and lost bags at Heathrow over the past week, but despite what BAA’s detractors might say, there is a good idea here if only government will at long last step out of the way.