Fixing (most of) the problem on the ground seems more reasonable to me. I, too, have the impression, that on-ground security still has many holes that can and should be covered.
Putting more weapons on the flights, whether in the hands of trained (and expensive) sky marshals or - I am tempted to say "god forbid" - in the hands of flight (why not cabin?) crew simply means that EVERY flight is going to be a flight with weapons on board then.
How do all the guys advocating armed flight crew envisage the defensive use of such weapons. How are we, sitting face-forward, to attack someone coming from behind. There is numerous evidence that "self-defence" weapons are quite often used against their bearers because they lack the determination to properly use them, a fault clearly absent for the villains.
Sky marshals might not be handicapped in that way but could still be overcome by a "sleeper" terrorist. Of course you can also have "sleeper" marshal, etc. but that game can be carried on until the whole airplane half loaded with nonrevenue security agents.....
I don't think the cost of marshals would create competitive disadvantag for a single airline, even if the marshals are not paid by governments - something quite inconceivable in the EU's climate of every branch of transport having to bear its own costs (except for trains, cars and metrot transport, of course :-)
If all airlines have the same "marshal standards" or pay a fixed fee to the government for marshal services than the industry as a whole would be disadvantaged but not any single airline.
As for locking up the flight deck, that doesn't really make sense unless you have all the facilities required forward of that (secure) door. What use is a steel door if you have to open it to go to the loo? (As for food, we'll get used to the lunch boxes and after some time won't miss the first class meals........)
As for the threat of killing the pax or hosties one after the other to gain access to the flight deck, I think that's rather real. Even if you agreed to fly the airplane anywhere a hijacker demands, how could he be certain you really do as he wants, don't communicate raiding plans, etc., unless he is on the flight deck?
While increasing screening, profiling, whatever might seem a good idea, any measure curtailing constitutional liberties should be veeeery tightly scrutinized. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that those willing to give up a little liberty to defend liberty would wake up to find that they have no liberty left to descend.
A very thoughtful editorial in the Financial Times of Sep 12 argued that no measures, however complicated and elaborate, could prevent a duplication of Tuesdays attack in even a totalitarian state, much less in a "free" society. It is therefore important to not only work on the symptoms but also on the cause of terrorism. We have to remove the conflicts that lead deranged minds to think that terrorism is a valid means of resolve to remove terrorism.
That will still leave us with the insane and ordinary criminals but "ordinary" security, threats, etc. work quite well against those, but not against fanatics prepared for suicide.
Remember, even if we manage at great cost to plug all the holes in civil aviation, there remain numerous other ways to terrorize and attack an "open" society. Even if we agree to live in a (secret) police controlled state - something not desirable to me , some clever deranged minds will find a workaround.
I am shocked as any of you about Tuesday's attacks but while implementing better security in our profession we should look beyond the obvious for a lasting solution.