The terrorist attack of Sept. 11 has certainly united our country.

There's a whole bunch of flag waving going on and virtually everybody seems to be supporting the administration's handling of the terrorist threat.

Count me as one of those flag wavers. I, too, am supportive of the way W has been running the show since the attack.

The speech he gave was one of the finest presidential oratories in modern history.

I like the pace of the investigation. I like most of the policy changes I'm hearing about - even the ones regarding law enforcement that make the ACLU squirm.

I guess I'm not real concerned about the FBI regressing to the days of McCarthyism or J. Edgar Hoover. You know, the days when the FBI hassled people who they thought were communists or who protested against the Vietnam war and tried to run them out of the country.

So, generally, I guess I would have to say I am pretty pleased - all things considered - with the way our government is performing right now.

That said, however, and at the risk of being accused of not waving my flag vigorously enough, I must say the airline bailout thing is a bit troubling to me.

Now I know that the airlines in general and American and United in specific were targets of terror.

And I know that the terror attack was very costly to them.

I also know that the airlines play a very important - no, a critical - role in our nation's economy.

So I am not completely adverse to tax dollars being spent to help the airlines overcome this terror-generated crisis.

But the thing that troubles me is the airlines' continued resistance to changes in their security policies.

For years, agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Research Council and the General Accounting Office have been warning the airlines about problems with airport security.

Most notably, they talk about the screeners - people who check for weapons - who traditionally are low-paid, high-turnover people who are inadequately trained.

A recent Chicago Tribune article notes that as early as 1978, FAA testers found that screeners missed 13 percent of weapons sent through X-ray machines. That percentage was 20 in a 1987 test.

The FAA acknowledged in 2000 that its tests showed unsatisfactory performance by screeners.

The airlines opposed legislation that would have required a 10-year criminal background check for all employees. They even hired former FBI and CIA director William Webster to lobby against the bill in Congress.

The airlines won. The bill was weakened.

Airlines also derailed efforts to require bag matching on domestic flights. Bag matching means that airlines would have to be sure a passenger who checked a bag actually boarded the plane. But bag matching tends to slow things down.

The Tribune article quotes Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project. He says, "I can't think, with maybe a couple of exceptions, of any new security measure that the airline industry has been a proponent of. ... I can think of many the airlines have opposed, some of them tooth and nail."

Now see, I think that's sad.

The pilots' association resisted the notion of secure cockpit doors because, in the event of emergency, there was concern that it might hinder a pilot's escape.

Now I think the pilots' association will be OK with secure cockpit doors.ÊSecure cockpit doors would have been a really good thing to have on Sept. 11.

The airlines also haven't been too keen on putting armed air marshals on domestic flights, either.

I realize the airlines were innocent victims of a horrible, criminal act, but I think they have to shoulder some responsibility when it comes to issues of security.

Cost always seems to be the big stumbling block in these issues. The airlines say they simply can't afford most of the security measures that have been proposed over the years.

But I think I - and most every other American - would rather have an air marshal and one less flight attendant.

And I think airline customers would gladly pay $100 for that $49 ticket from Indy to Las Vegas if they believed the airlines were all the safer for it.

I think the key to the airlines' success now is not trying to undercut each other's price structure, but spending some money on meaningful security measures. Not trying to lure travelers with frequent flyer miles, but impressing travelers with their attention to safety.

Something to remember here is that even after the four crashes on Sept. 11, air travel is still much, much safer than driving a car. You are far more likely to be killed or injured in a car than you are in an airliner.

That's a simple, inarguable truth.

Sept. 11 was a wake-up call for the airlines - maybe more so than any other segment of American society.

My hope is that the airlines can turn tragedy into triumph. I hope they can enact pricing and security policies that will make U.S. airlines the world leader in safe air travel.

No doubt an airline ticket will cost more in the not-too-distant future.

But you get what you pay for.

And my guess is that in that same not-too-distant future, the airlines - already the safest way to travel - will be even safer. [[In-content Ad]]