I don't find validity in this statement, but maybe I am misunderstanding you. What are you trying to say here?
".. since flying has become a crap shoot at best ..."
'I don't find validity in this statement, but maybe I am misunderstanding you. What are you trying to say here?'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, at face value, the statement is untrue. What I'm trying to say is that the publicized intent of jihadists to destroy commercial aircraft and their occupants makes commercial flying an act of entering a war zone with a target painted on your forehead. Given the volume of commercial flights and the limited opportunities for the jihadists to execute their intent, a more apt analogy might be Russian Roulette, with hundreds or thousands of chambers but only one or two (or 10) loaded chambers. Thus, it may still be more dangerous to get to the airport than to fly once you've gotten there, but this factor makes a big step towards making both legs of the trip equally dangerous.
Since I am risk averse, in the rare event that I have to fly, I prefer the El Al approach to the Keystone Cops approach I see at all the other airlines (so far).
It would also be nice if the "authorities" were to encourage all passengers to come equipped for a fight with potential hijackers using weapons that could not threaten the aircraft itself. Better informed minds than mine could suggest what such weapons might be. No doubt the possibilities are endless. Sky marshals are nice. A flying public with a relatively large percent of unofficial members ready and willing to bring down hijacking attempts would be better. We may have to die, in the end, like the occupants of United 93, but we don't have to go quietly to our fates.