"Because of security issues, the hassle factor, anything less than 300 miles became easier to drive," Walczak says. Suddenly, airlines accustomed to tussling with each other over passenger legroom, hot meals and frequent-flier points find themselves losing customers to the open highway. Airlines have cut the number of seats on flights under 200 miles by 15% since a year ago. That compares with an 8% cut in domestic seats overall. To US Airways, the threat from Chevys, Fords and Toyotas has become as palpable as its losses to Southwest, JetBlue and AirTran. The airline, which has the shortest average flight lengths of any major airline, filed for bankruptcy protection this week. [...] Many business travelers have raised their driving-time thresholds. "I have established my cutoff at five to six hours," says consultant Bill Teater of Mount Vernon, Ohio. "I can not only avoid the (airport) security charade protecting me, but I can get to my destination sooner."

A pilot for a Delta Air Lines subsidiary would not fly Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Melchior from Cincinnati to Toronto because the pilot thought Melchior posed a security risk, an Israeli radio station reported. Melchior, who was being escorted by State Department officials, told Israel Radio that he waited on the plane Friday for more than an hour before the pilot evacuated it, saying there was a security risk. When Melchior disembarked, he said he was told he was not allowed to get back on the plane.

The Sky Has New Limits ... The changes all come from the most dramatic restructuring in the airline industry in decades, prompted by a sluggish economy and the aftermath of the terrorist attacks 11 months ago. Earlier this week, US Airways filed for bankruptcy protection. Two days later, American announced an overhaul of its operations. And on Wednesday, United Airlines said it may also have to file for bankruptcy protection if it is unable to slash costs.

You know what? At this point in time, I could care less if all the airlines go completely out of business. Of course, that won't happen, but right now, I wouldn't mind if it did.

(I'm having a little nonsequiturish rant at the moment. Bear with me.)

Over the past few months, counting connecting legs, I've been on six different flights. I've been searched five times at the security point, and five times at the gate. And I've been watching how things happen, and I'm pretty sure that I've figured out how the searching works. The rules are:

1. On flights with fewer than 10 nonwhites, all nonwhites are to be searched. It doesn't matter what they look like, whether they're Chinese or Japanese or Black or whatever. All nonwhites are to be searched. If they happen to be last in line, and this might make them miss their flight if we decide not to hold it ... well, it's their fault for not being white, isn't it?
2. On larger capacity flights with more than 10 nonwhites being carried, 90% of all nonwhites should be searched, if possible. We will also search a generally trivial percentage of whites, because that may be enough to keep people from noticing the nature of our searches.

People say that we should suck it up, do our bit. Well, you know what? I'm tired of being singled out for "doing my bit" almost every time I take a plane. If the airlines really truly want to do something related to security, what they should do is this: (1) Go ahead and do whatever it is they do at the security gate. Do NOT do detailed searches at this point, unless there's some overwhelming reason other than the color of the passenger's skin. (2) Hire security people to man each and every gate and search EVERYONE. Now, someone like Mr Kristoff will say, "But what about Granny/Grampa in their wheel chair? They're clearly not terrorists! Why bother with them?" What they mean, of course, is, "Why check white people? We didn't blow up the buildings." You know what? I don't give a rat's ass whether Granny or Grampa is a terrorist. I don't care that white people didn't blow up the World Trade Center. SEARCH EVERYBODY. Tell people to get there three, four hours ahead of time, because the lines will be hellishly long.

At the same time, you also strip pilots and crew of their ability to make any sort of authority to make any judgement about who constitutes a security risk and who does not. Let's face it: the fact that a pilot continued to refuse access to a diplomat, who was vouched for by officials of our own State Department, is beyond ridiculous. If each and every person is thoroughly searched at the gate, then unless a person is actually making a nuisance of himself, there's no reason the pilots or crew should have that authority, is there?

The plain fact is, we don't know what a terrorist looks like. Most Arabs in this country are not terrorists. Most blacks and Hispanics are not terrorists. Most Asians are not terrorists. Yet all of us are far more subject to search than anyone else. Sure, a terrorist could look like Mohammed Atta. I will even concede that it's somewhat more likely. They could also look like Richard Reid, or John Walker Lindh. And, yes, they might even look like me. We Don't Know What They Look Like. (And, you know, if you do come across a terrorist that looks like John Walker Lindh, who happens to be flying a plane, isn't it fairly likely that he would conceal whatever it is he has in Granny's wheelchair or knitting or whatever, knowing that she's not likely to be searched?)

The airlines will say, with some justification, that if they instituted a policy like that, they would lose a lot of passengers in their short and medium range flights, that people would drive or take the train. You know what? I don't care. If everyone gets thoroughly searched, at least that's fair. If each and every person gets searched, that would constitute, as they say, equality of opportunity and results.

Tell you what.We know what most of them look like.
Let's see...mid-eastern,male,18-40years.Give those guys a glance and a wave through,ok?
Equal opportunity,equal results?What the heck is that?
Opportunity,yes.Results,I think that's up to the individual,is'nt it?