Originally Posted by
thegeneral
If liquids are a threat, why are ANY allowed in? What's to stop, Bill, Ted, and Mary Jane from combining their 3.4 ounces into something harmful?
It's a balance between security and allowing people to have some ability to carry-on items. Well now Bill, Ted, and Mary Jane all have to work together to carry out their plan. That makes it more difficult. You can nit pick at every rule, such as why 3.4 ounces, but there have to be parameters around things. The rules strike a balance between security concerns and the ability of a business/leisure traveller to pack enough in a carryon to get through a 4 day trip.
This "balance" is tipped way out of proportion. All these re'sources allocated to a miniscule threat. Yeah, very smart spending. :rolleyes
What are the health risks of walking bare-foot through security?
Have you heard of a massive increase in serious diseases when the shoe regulations came in to play? No? Me either.
So because you hear of nothing, therefore there are no health issues? Riiiiight.
How attentive could TSA be working all the OT they are working?
They could be more attentive if they didn't have to look for every ridiculous thing that can be imagined. Additionally, if they didn't have stupid rules that did nothing for security, lines would be shorter and they wouldn't have to work so much. Same if they invested in technology. But instead, they get things like new uniforms.
Gone to a hospital lately? Do you think the doctor visiting you works 5 8 hour shifts??
Most of them work 12 hour shifts 3 or 4 days a week unless their specialists that get called in. No different than a typical nurse. But this point is irrelevant to the argument anyway.
[quote]Why isn't 100% of the cargo being screened?
Probably cost is my guess. Keeping the cabin secure is more about stopping the plane from turning into a missile. Bad as it sounds, killing the 100 people on board is not nearly as consequential as killing thousands in a building.[quote]
Blow the plane while it's falling out of New York and it will still do massive damage as the wreck hurtles thru the air uncontrolled.
Cost isn't the issue. TSA already has enough money that it wastes on stupid stuff. The issue is that Ma and Pa won't see it. So if they can't see it, they can't feel safer.
How much money could be saved (TSA man hours) if shoes/laptops didn't have to be screened separately.
It really doesn't slow me down any, so I'm not sure. There are valid reasons why they search laptops. Don't forget to balance out those costs. That said, taking my shoes on and off and taking out my laptop is not a rate taking step for me. It takes me less than a minute to put a laptop back in and put my shoes back on. Taking them out and off happens while im in a lineup anyways.
So as usual, the bottom line for you is that since it doesn't affect you any, you can't see how it can affect anyone else. Got it.
Why do laptops need to be screened separately, but not other devices?
Other electronic devices such as DVD players, game machines, etc, do have to be screened as well.
Yet every other nation in the world can do it with them still in the bag. What does that say about our security personnel and technology?
Why do FAM's stick out like sore thumbs?
The short haired guy flying up front but not having a beer? A FAM? Naw. It's a good point. They fly a lot and want to be comfy too I guess. One would think they could be more discreet though.
Understandable, but we're not paying for them to comfortable.