I must say I have to agree with posts in another thread that pointed out that none of the new security measures would have prevented the attacks of earlier in the week. The pressure for strong-looking, decisive action is understandable. And, short-term at least, getting the confidence of the public back depends on projecting the right appearances.

But I sure hope we can move quickly through that phase and concentrate on quality in security rather than in quantity (i.e. the "Throw checkpoints at 'em") approach. The knee-jerk response is to add inspections, but long-term I think it's far better to have better machines and better training to improve the quality of the screenings than to emphasize quantity.

Otherwise we'll get another situation like the Gulf War where the public's tolerance for new measures slowly erodes and the costs mount up for the airlines and the economy. (This "war" isn't likely to end abruptly, either.) We ended up with more (but not necessarily better) security measures, compromised somewhat by airlines' later introduction of eTickets, alternative check-ins and other measures where the real motivation was to cut labor costs.

The disaster scenario for consumers this time is calls for new taxes in the name of security, and more airline mergers.

Airline passengers already are scandalously overtaxed with both direct taxes and so-called "user fees" (I've had tickets where 25-50% of the cost was tax!). We should insist that that existing high taxes be spent on air-traffic control improvements, airport security or other things air-travel-related, rather than just piling up unspent in trust funds. Enough tax money is already being collected, it's just not being spent.

As for the merger talk, it'll escalate if the smaller airlines like Continental get hit proportionately harder by higher labor costs than the big 3. "Merge or die," we'll hear. But the effects on fares of having less competition will be disastrous. It'll also seriously erode FF benefits, since competition is really the only thing driving those.

And then there's Southwest Airlines, the one we REALLY can't afford to lose. They've always said their main competition was driving, since they fly a lot of short hops. Well, "driving" has suddenly gotten a big competitive leg up.

Which may be the worst news of all for safety, since driving has a much higher rate of death per passenger mile than flying. The deaths just happen one-by-one and never make headlines. That would be the cruelest irony.

So I hope we can reach a new equilibrium where we get better but not necessarily more numerous security procedures, and where the cost burden is distributed fairly. Otherwise air travel and FF programs will suffer a long-lasting blow.

[This message has been edited by RustyC (edited 09-13-2001).]