This is kinda cool. The system has a turret on the bottom of the plane that detects and disrupts heat seeking missiles. The kind fired from shoulder mounted launchers.

I would think only international jets really need to be covered, but the cost is small enough to warrant it for all of them.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

"The study assumed, however, that it would cost $11 billion - not the $6 billion Northrop now cites - to equip all U.S. aircraft with anti-missile technology."

Or they could just use the cheap flares that the USAF uses.

Isnt the problem them getting high jacked? Not shot down?
All they gotta do is separate the cokpit from the cabin and give the pilots separate entry and exit points. I guess thats to simple and cost effective.

Yes I know I spelt the word wrong but C-pit is all of the sudden a bad word. So I had to go in and change it.

dude??? ####### ????????? its not a bad word??? what the hell

__________________
DERP
with your opinion which is of no consequence at all...

then forget it. It's not like planes are out there dodging shoulder fired missiles. But if it can be done cost effective, then it adds another layer of safety, which is not a bad thing. The problem is, you cannot spend unlimited amounts of money protecting everyone and everything from every possible form of attack. It's a waste and it's stupid. Plus, despite Bush's thoughts on the matter, money is not in endless supply. You need to prioritize. If intelligence (such as it is) feels that planes being shot down is a real threat and they can find a cost effective way to solve the problem, then great. But if solving the problem is unduly expensive then you aren't really solving anything. Why? Because you cannot protect against everything and the terrorists will just go to Plan B. So in the end you would have spent a whopping amount of money and people will still die.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

See the quote in my original post in regards to cost. Would you trade an entertainment system for a missile defense system?

This would be a selling point for a LOT of people I would imagine. Especially on international flights.

If the ticket price difference was $5 or even $10, would that sway you to the airline that had a missile defense system on board? I imagine for a lot of people it might, even locally.

Expecially since the price will come back down after the system is paid for. Maybe $5 domestic and $10-$15 international would be fine.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

Good idea... and I think anyone who believes that this is not a warranted and smart idea is dead wrong. Just because some terrorist hasn't shot down a civilian flight YET does not mean they will NOT.


And flares are not always effective.... but who says we can't have both?

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

And how do intend the Airline companies to introduce this?

They'll argue there is no danger at the moment due to their superb security staff and abilities
Any smart businessman will resist extra costs if the economic trade off.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata

No.
I rather like those movies, and the chance of getting killed by a heat seeking missile are astronomically small. Don't waste money doing useless crap like missile defense systems for airliners, for crying out lout.