An interesting thread, this. The overriding consensus here is falling around two general choices:

1) in instances where the objective of the hijacker is "traditional" in that they do ultimately expect to live, we would go along quietly. However
2) in the new hijacking paradigm as evidenced by 9/11 we would fight to the death.

The question was raised earlier as to how you divine the intent of the hijacker so you can make your choice? My argument is that if you're a "traditional" hijacker, would you find yourself essentially out of business? I mean, besides all the normal impediments to hijacking, the traditional hijacker will now have deal with armed guards, increased airport security, fortified cockpit doors, increased & modified crew training, immediate and probably deadly use of military force, and last but not least PAX that will be looking to quickly bum-rush said hijackers and likely open the entire can of whoop-a** on them. Given that, I'd say the chances of a "traditional" hijacking just fell to around nil, making nearly all future such events of the latter "new" variety.

Therefore, your "choice" will almost certainly have to be the latter.

-- jab

edited for typo

[This message has been edited by jabber (edited 09-17-2001).]