If we have come to the place where individuals can violate controlled airspace either in a flying suit or a drone and our reaction is to shut down transport, we've come to a very strange place. I say this because some responses here are exploring the catastrophic consequences. Catastrophic consequence in flights are a fact of life.
We've had these consequences for some time, in other ways which really aren't that different. You can buy materiel on the open market and devices like drones without gps lockouts, or I guess flying suits.
El-Al has been flying at a higher risk profile than others for some time. So has cargo in the "stans" and the middle east and Africa. I'm not saying "shoot him down" is the best choice but there surely exist a range of choices here up to and including defensive action?
Commercial ships can request rights to armed force on deck in the pirate zones. Lethal force. We lock the guns up otherwise but the reasons the Gatling guns are fitted (if that's what they are) are understood. Aircraft can have anti missile systems. We've had that for years.
I think the ways we will deal with this will be broadly similar - perimeter defences, on aircraft detection systems, IFF and boots on the ground.
We probably don't have a systemic risk profile change here beyond the breakdown in the social contract: its funny to play but things work better when grown-ups don't do some things. Maybe 2nd amendment rights to a flying suit as a weapon is a thing?
WINGMAN FUNNY NOT FUNNY