>>Pilot or not... what options do the passengers have? Specially those who have paid their tickets before the "policy change". They entered into a contract with the airline under one set of conditions, then are subject to another.
>
>For that situation, they should be given a full refund and alternate transportation if they elect to forgo the full body scanner or pat-down security...

There's a difference between "should be given" and "are given" - and this doesn't even consider other damages, like wasted time, business etc.

>>I think the purpose of the whole exercise (over the last years) is for flight to become a privilege once again. It became unduly democratic and available. The rabble should know their place, and it's on the ground.
>
>It's funny you see it that way today. I remember in the 80s flying in and out of airports around the world where the security was everywhere (not to mention outside every restroom and on the roof) and every one of them was carrying an uzi....

I wasn't flying abroad in the eighties, so I wouldn't know. On domestic flights in the SFRY, and the one flight to FRG by the end of the decade, I don't remember seeing any weapons except the cops' pistols, and those were only around passport control. They were probably invisible.

>It's interesting that the same security measures are not even considered for mass rail transit. Set off a device in the right location underground and it could be equally damaging...

Sssh, they may hear you. Then we'd be down to Frank Herbert's wisdom of "control the courts and the mint, everything else is easy; don't let them travel at will or you won't be able to control them".