[WilDave]

I like your BS flag ....but ....
9-11 drove United into Chapter 11 and if Delta can hold on without their having to declare, well call be a colored orangutang. Which other carrier is also at risk is beyond my purview.
From where I sit, the ability to defend a slow moving aircraft from MANPADS is doable. Expensive yes, but the alternative would certainly drive many if not all air carriers out of business. That is a big chunk of our economy.
Pay me now or pay me later. My advice is to buy Northrop Grumman. This company is installing two different defense systems into "large aircraft". A lot of customers outside of the US of A. I work as a civil servant for the Air Force.
Not if, but when in my estimation.
WD

[ProudVet77]

Hate to be crass, but sometimes we have to be. How much of the expense of 9/11 was caused by enemy damage vs lawyer damage (i.e. lawsuits).
We need to take reasonable precautions from being killed. But so far nobody has been killed by a MANPAD other than a few Russian pilots and helicopter crews in Afghanistan. I'm unwilling to pay the $$$s to put a defense system on every aircraft and just suck up the cost. Let's let the flying public choose. Save $50/ticket and fly without a defense system. I bet the public would go to save the $50.

[Spktyr]

Um... against a current or current minus one generation man-pack missile like a Stinger, THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE DEFENSE THAT A LOW FLYING AIRCRAFT CAN MOUNT. Even the "Black Hole" IR suppression systems aren't of any use against current generation man-pack missiles. Once they get a skin paint on you, you're toast unless you have enough altitude *and* airspeed to evade, and you have neither in an airliner near an airport.

The only other solution would be to replace all aircraft with full stealth designs, complete with buried baffled engines, and that's not going to happen.