Re: A new system for passenger aircraft to thwart shoulder-fired missles:
�Yes, it will cost money, but it's the same cost as an aircraft entertainment system,� Kubricky says.Is it worth the cost?
A RAND Corp. study this year recommended postponing installation of anti-missile systems. The study assumed, however, that it would cost $11 billion � not the $6 billion Northrop now cites � to equip all U.S. aircraft with anti-missile technology.Does $5 billion less really change the buy decision?

...your Rand link does not give any detail -- and therefore does NOT answer your 1st question: "Is it worth it ?"
The 'protection' offered by these devices is probably VERY low under real-world conditions -- likely well less than 20 % success-rate in defeating missiles.
'Billions-of-Bucks' matters a lot -- and there are much cheaper alternatives.
I agree that the RAND study doesn't answer the question directly. However, I think the
negative uncertainties that RAND noted, have not changed much:
Also, let me clarify that the RAND study did not "assume" $11billion. It estimated, using a clear, open, checkable methodology, a ten year life-cycle cost of $40 billion.
I have no idea how the $6billion competing estimate was calculated.
And the RAND study does exlicitly ask "When should such an investment be worth it?". It states that there is a direct $1 billion cost for every downed airliner, and with that economic impacts totaling $15 billion over several months.
There are something like 700,000,000 passenger emplanements per year in the US. Charge them an extra $15 apiece and you've got your $11bn in one year (or charge $1.50 / emplanement for ten years, whatever). Sounds like a bargain to me!
The bad guys clearly think that hijacking or shooting down or blowing up US airlines has a lot of impact. We can't afford to block everything, but this is a barn door that needs closing.