...therefore appropriate steps, no matter how inconvenient to the public or costly to companies, government, etc. must be implemented to circumvent further catastrophes.

If it's enough of a hassle to fly, a lot of people will choose not to. If enough people choose not to, a lot of the airlines will go under. The "commuter" airlines will probably go under anyway, since the longer waits to board due to security checks will destroy the advantage of a short-hop flight over car travel.

Some places will benefit. Vermont ski areas, for instance. The west has better snow and higher mountains, but you can get to northern New England, or the Adirondaks, from the megalopolis, without flying. But who wants to benefit from something like this? It's a lose/lose scenario, and you have to find a middle route.

You have to give up some freedom to gain some security. Like it or not.

Who can argue with that? But how much freedom do you give up to gain how much security? That's the tricky question.

Peter.