I'm curious - why do you think it is possible to make airline travel 100% safe? Also, invoking the 'law' of supply and demand may work in limited instances, but of course there are all kinds of restrictions on this 'law', through government regulations, lack of the ability to simply create new airports without any consideration other than the need for more capacity, etc. IMHO, it is laughable to suggest that customers are getting 'exactly' the security they're willing to pay for, since you are assuming a perfect economic model based solely on INFORMED consumer demand and also that your statement is verifiably correct. And obviously the demand was NOT informed since the government did not assign the proper level of risk to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And as to airlines giving the customers what they want?? Are you serious? Then WHY did consumer dissatisfaction with airline delays and congested schedules reach the point this past year to where the airlines had to move fast to prevent congressional legislation? And finally, I would respectfully disagree - it's ALWAYS about money, and in this case the airline profits. Profits are crucial to a free market economy, but if you seriously sit there and think that saving money was not a concern of the airlines and why they went hand-in-hand with the FAA in putting unqualified people into security positions, then you're being naive.

There is a happy mid-point in this whole security discussion, where some people should admit that the airlines bear a lot of responsibility, the government bears a lot of responsibility and the people bear some responsibility for this mess we're in right now. But all I see is almost every major player scrambling like the dickens to avoid any responsibility for pre-9/11 and now post-9/11 security issues. The plain facts ate that the government failed long-term prior to 9/11 in responding sufficiently to prior American deaths in terrorist attacks, they failed miserably in their counter-intelligence efforts to prevent attacks, they failed to engage moderate Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia in discussions to clamp down on extremist elements, the airlines in conjunction with the FAA failed to implement their own security procedures even with these poorly trained and motivated workers and then paid pennies on the dollar for the joke fines they finally had to pay, and we failed as consumers to demand better of the airlines when incident after incident of security breaches and air rage continued unabated.

We need airlines. We need people to fly. But this war is not over when the last Al-Qaeda in Kandahar sings - it will continue for perhaps the rest of our lives. That means a fundamental paradigm shift in our thinking and certains ways of living is needed, whether people like it or not. Instead of the airlines tinkering with frequent flyer programs and people fretting over their next upgrade and whether Platinums are being unfairly hosed by HoKey, why not spend some of that energy considering the important issues here, which I definitely have seen in a number of threads and applaud?

Today I was watching Fox new's show with Forbes and a few other talking heads and the issue of border security arose - when an older guest raised the issue of the 5000 dead as a good reason to apply the quotas we ALREADY HAVE and to prevent illegal immigration, one of the younger guests exasperatedly exclaimed, in effect, to get over it and stop using that as an excuse. Think about the implications of this financial maven, whose sole concern became later apparent, that the economy move forward and not be burdened by any restrictions, surely to favor his stock holdings. Get over it? When hell freezes over.

One other thing - ask yourself why all these companies laying off people, if they really cared in any real way about their employees, simply didn't put to the employees a vote:
mandatory, across-the-board pay reductions of 15% (for example) or involuntary layoffs?
The answer, if you missed it earlier, is MONEY. I would have accepted reduced pay and/or hours to help out if my company had offered (no, I wasn't laid off), whether the harder times were due to the weakening pre-9/11 or post 9/11 economies. Companies exist these days for shareholder value, not employeee value, for the most part, and shareholder value is about PROFITS. There are exceptions, but in general, that's the way it is now.

Finally, I'm sick and tired of drunk passengers, and I would gladly vote to eliminate ALL alcohol on board. I have one drink when I fly, by the way, but it's totally unneccesary. For those who drink for sedation purposes, buy prescription drugs. They got rid of cigarettes over the objections of a higher percentage of smokers, they can sure get rid of the booze. Greyhound doesn't serve booze on board and to be quite honest (with notable exceptions), flying coach these days with my knees jammed into the seat in front of me with is less comfortable than a Greyhound, albeit safer and faster. As far as I'm concerned, coach IS Greyhound, with wings. Finally, having a couple of belts and driving home from the airport is REALLY smart, and I'd like to say to anyone in this forum who has driven home buzzed that you don't have a right to drink on a plane.

Mileage runs? No thanks - I appreciate why people do it and salute your ingenuity, but I'll reserve my travel for actual business needs and personal fun irrespective of the number of miles and bonuses that count towards elite status. Since I live in Kansas City, it's at most 4 hours to anywhere in the continental U.S., and I'll just grin and bear the discomfort and no longer worry about the upgrade game like I used to. It has become a 3 ring circus and I no longer wish to be a clown in it