LAS TSO confiscates Cupcake by claiming its frosting is a "gel"
Jan 4, 2012, 12:22 pm
#76
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
Jan 4, 2012, 1:43 pm
#77
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Alexandria, Va. USA
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, DL Silver, UA Gold, *A Gold, OW Emerald
Posts: 1,492
dangerously fattening
I have flown out of LAS with a large box containing heavily frosted goodies from Ronald's Doughnuts. They are always vegan. Maybe that helped.
Last edited by Orion; Jan 5, 2012 at 7:29 pm Reason: corrected name of doughnut shop
Jan 4, 2012, 11:00 pm
#78
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP, Hilton GLD, Marriott Plat, NEXUS/GE
Posts: 2,872
Jan 5, 2012, 5:27 am
#79
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
(It's really hard to resist bad jokes early in the morning. As you were.)
Jan 5, 2012, 12:15 pm
#80
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Jan 9, 2012, 4:00 pm
#81
In Memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
Of course the blog is defending their action
1.09.2012
Cupcakegate
This will be short and “sweet.” Like many of you, when I think of a cupcake, I don’t think of it being in a jar. However, the photo below shows the “cupcake” that was prohibited from being taken into the cabin of a plane last month.
Cupcake Jar Photo Courtesy of Consumertraveler.com
I wanted to make it clear that this wasn’t your everyday, run-of-the-mill cupcake. If you’re not familiar with it, we have a policy directly related to the UK liquid bomb plot of 2006 called 3-1-1 that limits the amount of liquids, gels and aerosols you can bring in your carry-on luggage. Icing falls under the “gel” category. As you can see from the picture, unlike a thin layer of icing that resides on the top of most cupcakes, this cupcake had a thick layer of icing inside a jar.
In general, cakes and pies are allowed in carry-on luggage, however, the officer in this case used their discretion on whether or not to allow the newfangled modern take on a cupcake per 3-1-1 guidelines. They chose not to let it go.
Every officer wants to finish their shift and go home with the peace of mind that they kept potential threats off of airplanes. They’re not thinking about whether their decisions will go viral on the internet – they’re thinking about keeping bombs off of planes. This incident may seem like a silly move to many of our critics, but when we can’t be exactly sure of what something is, every officer has the discretion to not allow it on the plane. This is done purely for the safety of everyone traveling.
Here are two very real liquid related incidents from the past. This is why we have limitations on liquids, gels and aerosols.
1995 “Bojinka Plot” in Asia where Ramzi Yousef planned to use liquid explosives to bomb 12 passenger carrying aircraft bound for the United States. This was one month after his test on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 where a smaller “liquid” container killed one person.
The 2006 foiled liquid explosives plot in the U.K. This plot demonstrated a real threat and is the catalyst for TSA's liquids restrictions.
What the two plots above and intelligence gathered from all over the world tells us is that unless Wile E. Coyote is involved, the days of the three sticks of dynamite with a giant alarm clock strapped to them are long gone. Terrorists have moved to novel explosives disguised as common, everyday items. Our officers are regularly briefed and trained by TSA explosives specialists on how just about any common appliance, toy or doohickey can be turned into a dangerous explosive. When you think about it, do you think an explosive would be concealed in an ominous item that would draw attention, or something as simple as a cute cupcake jar?
The bottom line is that you can bring cakes, pies and cupcakes through the security checkpoint, but you should expect that they might get some additional screening, and if something doesn’t seem right, there is always the potential you won’t be able to take it through.
1.09.2012
Cupcakegate
This will be short and “sweet.” Like many of you, when I think of a cupcake, I don’t think of it being in a jar. However, the photo below shows the “cupcake” that was prohibited from being taken into the cabin of a plane last month.
Cupcake Jar Photo Courtesy of Consumertraveler.com
I wanted to make it clear that this wasn’t your everyday, run-of-the-mill cupcake. If you’re not familiar with it, we have a policy directly related to the UK liquid bomb plot of 2006 called 3-1-1 that limits the amount of liquids, gels and aerosols you can bring in your carry-on luggage. Icing falls under the “gel” category. As you can see from the picture, unlike a thin layer of icing that resides on the top of most cupcakes, this cupcake had a thick layer of icing inside a jar.
In general, cakes and pies are allowed in carry-on luggage, however, the officer in this case used their discretion on whether or not to allow the newfangled modern take on a cupcake per 3-1-1 guidelines. They chose not to let it go.
Every officer wants to finish their shift and go home with the peace of mind that they kept potential threats off of airplanes. They’re not thinking about whether their decisions will go viral on the internet – they’re thinking about keeping bombs off of planes. This incident may seem like a silly move to many of our critics, but when we can’t be exactly sure of what something is, every officer has the discretion to not allow it on the plane. This is done purely for the safety of everyone traveling.
Here are two very real liquid related incidents from the past. This is why we have limitations on liquids, gels and aerosols.
1995 “Bojinka Plot” in Asia where Ramzi Yousef planned to use liquid explosives to bomb 12 passenger carrying aircraft bound for the United States. This was one month after his test on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 where a smaller “liquid” container killed one person.
The 2006 foiled liquid explosives plot in the U.K. This plot demonstrated a real threat and is the catalyst for TSA's liquids restrictions.
What the two plots above and intelligence gathered from all over the world tells us is that unless Wile E. Coyote is involved, the days of the three sticks of dynamite with a giant alarm clock strapped to them are long gone. Terrorists have moved to novel explosives disguised as common, everyday items. Our officers are regularly briefed and trained by TSA explosives specialists on how just about any common appliance, toy or doohickey can be turned into a dangerous explosive. When you think about it, do you think an explosive would be concealed in an ominous item that would draw attention, or something as simple as a cute cupcake jar?
The bottom line is that you can bring cakes, pies and cupcakes through the security checkpoint, but you should expect that they might get some additional screening, and if something doesn’t seem right, there is always the potential you won’t be able to take it through.
Jan 9, 2012, 4:05 pm
#82
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CVG/DAY
Programs: DL 2.945MM/Gold, Hilton Diamond,
Posts: 386
Of course the blog is defending their action
1.09.2012
Cupcakegate
This will be short and “sweet.” Like many of you, when I think of a cupcake, I don’t think of it being in a jar. However, the photo below shows the “cupcake” that was prohibited from being taken into the cabin of a plane last month.
Cupcake Jar Photo Courtesy of Consumertraveler.com
I wanted to make it clear that this wasn’t your everyday, run-of-the-mill cupcake. If you’re not familiar with it, we have a policy directly related to the UK liquid bomb plot of 2006 called 3-1-1 that limits the amount of liquids, gels and aerosols you can bring in your carry-on luggage. Icing falls under the “gel” category. As you can see from the picture, unlike a thin layer of icing that resides on the top of most cupcakes, this cupcake had a thick layer of icing inside a jar.
In general, cakes and pies are allowed in carry-on luggage, however, the officer in this case used their discretion on whether or not to allow the newfangled modern take on a cupcake per 3-1-1 guidelines. They chose not to let it go.
Every officer wants to finish their shift and go home with the peace of mind that they kept potential threats off of airplanes. They’re not thinking about whether their decisions will go viral on the internet – they’re thinking about keeping bombs off of planes. This incident may seem like a silly move to many of our critics, but when we can’t be exactly sure of what something is, every officer has the discretion to not allow it on the plane. This is done purely for the safety of everyone traveling.
Here are two very real liquid related incidents from the past. This is why we have limitations on liquids, gels and aerosols.
1995 “Bojinka Plot” in Asia where Ramzi Yousef planned to use liquid explosives to bomb 12 passenger carrying aircraft bound for the United States. This was one month after his test on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 where a smaller “liquid” container killed one person.
The 2006 foiled liquid explosives plot in the U.K. This plot demonstrated a real threat and is the catalyst for TSA's liquids restrictions.
What the two plots above and intelligence gathered from all over the world tells us is that unless Wile E. Coyote is involved, the days of the three sticks of dynamite with a giant alarm clock strapped to them are long gone. Terrorists have moved to novel explosives disguised as common, everyday items. Our officers are regularly briefed and trained by TSA explosives specialists on how just about any common appliance, toy or doohickey can be turned into a dangerous explosive. When you think about it, do you think an explosive would be concealed in an ominous item that would draw attention, or something as simple as a cute cupcake jar?
The bottom line is that you can bring cakes, pies and cupcakes through the security checkpoint, but you should expect that they might get some additional screening, and if something doesn’t seem right, there is always the potential you won’t be able to take it through.
1.09.2012
Cupcakegate
This will be short and “sweet.” Like many of you, when I think of a cupcake, I don’t think of it being in a jar. However, the photo below shows the “cupcake” that was prohibited from being taken into the cabin of a plane last month.
Cupcake Jar Photo Courtesy of Consumertraveler.com
I wanted to make it clear that this wasn’t your everyday, run-of-the-mill cupcake. If you’re not familiar with it, we have a policy directly related to the UK liquid bomb plot of 2006 called 3-1-1 that limits the amount of liquids, gels and aerosols you can bring in your carry-on luggage. Icing falls under the “gel” category. As you can see from the picture, unlike a thin layer of icing that resides on the top of most cupcakes, this cupcake had a thick layer of icing inside a jar.
In general, cakes and pies are allowed in carry-on luggage, however, the officer in this case used their discretion on whether or not to allow the newfangled modern take on a cupcake per 3-1-1 guidelines. They chose not to let it go.
Every officer wants to finish their shift and go home with the peace of mind that they kept potential threats off of airplanes. They’re not thinking about whether their decisions will go viral on the internet – they’re thinking about keeping bombs off of planes. This incident may seem like a silly move to many of our critics, but when we can’t be exactly sure of what something is, every officer has the discretion to not allow it on the plane. This is done purely for the safety of everyone traveling.
Here are two very real liquid related incidents from the past. This is why we have limitations on liquids, gels and aerosols.
1995 “Bojinka Plot” in Asia where Ramzi Yousef planned to use liquid explosives to bomb 12 passenger carrying aircraft bound for the United States. This was one month after his test on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 where a smaller “liquid” container killed one person.
The 2006 foiled liquid explosives plot in the U.K. This plot demonstrated a real threat and is the catalyst for TSA's liquids restrictions.
What the two plots above and intelligence gathered from all over the world tells us is that unless Wile E. Coyote is involved, the days of the three sticks of dynamite with a giant alarm clock strapped to them are long gone. Terrorists have moved to novel explosives disguised as common, everyday items. Our officers are regularly briefed and trained by TSA explosives specialists on how just about any common appliance, toy or doohickey can be turned into a dangerous explosive. When you think about it, do you think an explosive would be concealed in an ominous item that would draw attention, or something as simple as a cute cupcake jar?
The bottom line is that you can bring cakes, pies and cupcakes through the security checkpoint, but you should expect that they might get some additional screening, and if something doesn’t seem right, there is always the potential you won’t be able to take it through.
Jan 9, 2012, 5:49 pm
#83
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,784
Maybe this explains the C-4 getting through. Too on the nose.
Jan 9, 2012, 7:59 pm
#85
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: LGA - JFK
Programs: UA, AA, DL, B6, CX, KE, Latitude, VIFP, Crown & Anchor, etc.
Posts: 2,589
Right on with TSA discretion. 
LOL, TSA-friendly flying cupcake/fruitcake? labeled & sealed in temper-proof plastic jar, ready for safety/secondary inspection - @:-) coming soon to your local gourmet retailer and online at ... (and, sold airside in major airport terminal concourses for the traveler's convenience)
LOL, TSA-friendly flying cupcake/fruitcake? labeled & sealed in temper-proof plastic jar, ready for safety/secondary inspection - @:-) coming soon to your local gourmet retailer and online at ... (and, sold airside in major airport terminal concourses for the traveler's convenience)
Jan 9, 2012, 8:16 pm
#86
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kettle with Kryptonium Medallion Tags
Posts: 10,279
Originally Posted by Blogger Bob Burns
This incident may seem like a silly move to many of our critics, but when we can’t be exactly sure of what something is, every officer has the discretion to not allow it on the plane.
Blogger Bob Burn's contention -- 'if we (federal employees) are unable to identify what something is, then we will prohibit that something from traveling' -- strikes me as an indefensible position for a federal employee to take, given the Constitution's commerce clause.
(But I'm not an attorney.)
Jan 9, 2012, 9:11 pm
#87
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,331
So, his answer is, "The TSOs couldn't be sure it wasn't a bomb, so they didn't let it on the plane."
But... it's a FREAKIN' CUPCAKE! It's not like it's sealed up - it's right there. You can smell it, you can see it, heck, you can even taste it - it's a CUPCAKE.
If the TSOs thought there was even the slightest possibility that it was a bomb, they should have treated it as a bomb. The fact that it was not treated as a bomb confirms that the TSOs knew it wasn't a bomb, meaning that there was no legitimate reason to prohibit it from going onto a plane other than completely mindless, unthinking, robotic adherence to rules that they obviously don't fully understand. So much for "judgment calls", huh?
But... it's a FREAKIN' CUPCAKE! It's not like it's sealed up - it's right there. You can smell it, you can see it, heck, you can even taste it - it's a CUPCAKE.
If the TSOs thought there was even the slightest possibility that it was a bomb, they should have treated it as a bomb. The fact that it was not treated as a bomb confirms that the TSOs knew it wasn't a bomb, meaning that there was no legitimate reason to prohibit it from going onto a plane other than completely mindless, unthinking, robotic adherence to rules that they obviously don't fully understand. So much for "judgment calls", huh?
Jan 9, 2012, 9:19 pm
#88
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 821
So, his answer is, "The TSOs couldn't be sure it wasn't a bomb, so they didn't let it on the plane."
But... it's a FREAKIN' CUPCAKE! It's not like it's sealed up - it's right there. You can smell it, you can see it, heck, you can even taste it - it's a CUPCAKE.
If the TSOs thought there was even the slightest possibility that it was a bomb, they should have treated it as a bomb. The fact that it was not treated as a bomb confirms that the TSOs knew it wasn't a bomb, meaning that there was no legitimate reason to prohibit it from going onto a plane other than completely mindless, unthinking, robotic adherence to rules that they obviously don't fully understand. So much for "judgment calls", huh?
But... it's a FREAKIN' CUPCAKE! It's not like it's sealed up - it's right there. You can smell it, you can see it, heck, you can even taste it - it's a CUPCAKE.
If the TSOs thought there was even the slightest possibility that it was a bomb, they should have treated it as a bomb. The fact that it was not treated as a bomb confirms that the TSOs knew it wasn't a bomb, meaning that there was no legitimate reason to prohibit it from going onto a plane other than completely mindless, unthinking, robotic adherence to rules that they obviously don't fully understand. So much for "judgment calls", huh?
Bob's answer makes his employer look more like a fool than the original incident.
Jan 9, 2012, 9:41 pm
#89
In Memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
Well to be fair, many of us have had stuff tested in case it was a bomb. Phones, lights, bags of spice, etc. So it would not be unusual that they could not tell if a cupcake was or not.
I'm sure after they confiscated a few spoons or forks from the next people they all tested it.
Of course, the first flight they were on, with two of them, had no trouble determining if they were bombs or cupcakes.
Seriously, our entire security system is based on people and equipment that can't tell cake frosting from explosives. I feel much safer now.
I'm sure after they confiscated a few spoons or forks from the next people they all tested it.
Of course, the first flight they were on, with two of them, had no trouble determining if they were bombs or cupcakes.
Seriously, our entire security system is based on people and equipment that can't tell cake frosting from explosives. I feel much safer now.
Jan 10, 2012, 12:26 am
#90
Join Date: Dec 2011
Programs: UA, WN, HA, VX, HHonors
Posts: 49
If a TSO cannot detect the difference between cupcake frosting and an explosive, I wonder how well BDOs are doing in detecting behavior.......or TDCs in detecting forged travel documents. Or the entire TSA's competency to detect their heads from their @$$es. 