Travelers Defying TSA
Oct 29, 2018, 6:45 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Travelers Defying TSA
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christo.../#77765dc97ec6
If you're worried about airport security, there's a new survey that puts the issue into troubling perspective. The research, conducted by Stratos Jet Charters, found that a shocking 88% of passengers smuggled prohibited items onto domestic flights. Among the most popular items: marijuana, alcohol and unauthorized weapons like the .40 caliber rifle Mom packed.
Oct 29, 2018, 7:16 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Oct 29, 2018, 7:20 am
#3
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,404
What's illegal about taking alcohol on a flight (as opposed to consuming alcohol on board that itn't served by a FA), assuming that it's either in a checked bag (and not the extremely alcoholic rum that is prohibited due to the risk of fire) or fits into the 3-1-1 rule?
Oct 29, 2018, 8:08 am
#4
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ONT/FRA
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 878
What's illegal about taking alcohol on a flight (as opposed to consuming alcohol on board that itn't served by a FA), assuming that it's either in a checked bag (and not the extremely alcoholic rum that is prohibited due to the risk of fire) or fits into the 3-1-1 rule?
Oct 29, 2018, 9:24 am
#5
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
From the article:
Interesting. I wonder where so many people get the idea that TSA will confiscate their prescription drugs?
You know, the prescription drugs that TSA is not looking for like my medical nitro pills.
I guess they either learned the hard way, like I did, or they referred to the TSA website that clearly says any prescription medication is subject to confiscation at any time without a reason.
Unauthorized prescription drugs rank high on the list, too, with 25% of men and 19% of women admitting to smuggling medical contraband on the plane.
You know, the prescription drugs that TSA is not looking for like my medical nitro pills.
I guess they either learned the hard way, like I did, or they referred to the TSA website that clearly says any prescription medication is subject to confiscation at any time without a reason.
Oct 29, 2018, 9:38 am
#6
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Why would anyone give any credibility to a "study" conducted and paid for by an air charter operator which advertises on its website, the fact that security requirements for charters of aircraft seating <61 passengers is close to nil. Certainly no standard TSA checkpoint unless the flight operates out of a sterile area for other reasons?
It is in the financial interest of the sponsor to do its utmost for people to believe that the checkpoint experience is beyond horrible in every way and thus, one of the reasons to charter is to avoid all of this.
Consider the source.
It is in the financial interest of the sponsor to do its utmost for people to believe that the checkpoint experience is beyond horrible in every way and thus, one of the reasons to charter is to avoid all of this.
Consider the source.
Oct 29, 2018, 9:40 am
#7
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
Why would anyone give any credibility to a "study" conducted and paid for by an air charter operator which advertises on its website, the fact that security requirements for charters of aircraft seating <61 passengers is close to nil. Certainly no standard TSA checkpoint unless the flight operates out of a sterile area for other reasons?
It is in the financial interest of the sponsor to do its utmost for people to believe that the checkpoint experience is beyond horrible in every way and thus, one of the reasons to charter is to avoid all of this.
Consider the source.
It is in the financial interest of the sponsor to do its utmost for people to believe that the checkpoint experience is beyond horrible in every way and thus, one of the reasons to charter is to avoid all of this.
Consider the source.
Seems an odd thing for travelers to fixate on.
Well, except the website makes it clear that pax do have to worry about their prescription meds. Yup, just consider the source.
Perhaps a new TSA spokesperson will be along shortly to make a non-binding blog post explaining that even though the website rulles clearly state that medicines can be confiscated by a screener for any reason or no reason, that's no reason to try to smuggle your drugs through.
Flying is a privilege, not a right, and if you can't risk flying without your meds, then perhaps you shouldn't be flying at all.
Oct 29, 2018, 9:55 am
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Why would any traveler get the idea that TSA will confiscate prescription medicines?
Seems an odd thing for travelers to fixate on.
Well, except the website makes it clear that pax do have to worry about their prescription meds. Yup, just consider the source.
Perhaps a new TSA spokesperson will be along shortly to make a non-binding blog post explaining that even though the website rulles clearly state that medicines can be confiscated by a screener for any reason or no reason, that's no reason to try to smuggle your drugs through.
Flying is a privilege, not a right, and if you can't risk flying without your meds, then perhaps you shouldn't be flying at all.
Seems an odd thing for travelers to fixate on.
Well, except the website makes it clear that pax do have to worry about their prescription meds. Yup, just consider the source.
Perhaps a new TSA spokesperson will be along shortly to make a non-binding blog post explaining that even though the website rulles clearly state that medicines can be confiscated by a screener for any reason or no reason, that's no reason to try to smuggle your drugs through.
Flying is a privilege, not a right, and if you can't risk flying without your meds, then perhaps you shouldn't be flying at all.
Oct 29, 2018, 10:10 am
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Why would anyone give any credibility to a "study" conducted and paid for by an air charter operator which advertises on its website, the fact that security requirements for charters of aircraft seating <61 passengers is close to nil. Certainly no standard TSA checkpoint unless the flight operates out of a sterile area for other reasons?
It is in the financial interest of the sponsor to do its utmost for people to believe that the checkpoint experience is beyond horrible in every way and thus, one of the reasons to charter is to avoid all of this.
Consider the source.
It is in the financial interest of the sponsor to do its utmost for people to believe that the checkpoint experience is beyond horrible in every way and thus, one of the reasons to charter is to avoid all of this.
Consider the source.
Oct 29, 2018, 10:14 am
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
You are free to interpret the TSA website as you see fit.
This thread is about the decision to post here as though there were a "study" what amounts to a paid advertisement for commercial air charter company.
Oct 29, 2018, 10:17 am
#12
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
What's BS about it?
A .40 caliber rifle doesn't seem any more preposterous to me than an active duty soldier claiming he forgot two bricks of C-4 in their original clearly-labelled government wrappings. He flew out of FAY. TSA pulled the bag on his outbound flight, searched it and confiscated a military smoke grenade he'd also 'forgotten'. It wasn't until his return trip that TSA caught the C-4.
A .40 caliber rifle doesn't seem any more preposterous to me than an active duty soldier claiming he forgot two bricks of C-4 in their original clearly-labelled government wrappings. He flew out of FAY. TSA pulled the bag on his outbound flight, searched it and confiscated a military smoke grenade he'd also 'forgotten'. It wasn't until his return trip that TSA caught the C-4.
Last edited by chollie; Oct 29, 2018 at 11:11 am
Oct 29, 2018, 12:14 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
You want us to to use one standard for private business propaganda and another one for TSA propaganda. I'm confused over the inconsistency.
Oct 29, 2018, 12:18 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
What's BS about it?
A .40 caliber rifle doesn't seem any more preposterous to me than an active duty soldier claiming he forgot two bricks of C-4 in their original clearly-labelled government wrappings. He flew out of FAY. TSA pulled the bag on his outbound flight, searched it and confiscated a military smoke grenade he'd also 'forgotten'. It wasn't until his return trip that TSA caught the C-4.
A .40 caliber rifle doesn't seem any more preposterous to me than an active duty soldier claiming he forgot two bricks of C-4 in their original clearly-labelled government wrappings. He flew out of FAY. TSA pulled the bag on his outbound flight, searched it and confiscated a military smoke grenade he'd also 'forgotten'. It wasn't until his return trip that TSA caught the C-4.
.40 S&W is a fairly common pistol round and there are carbines chambered for this round. Calling it a caliber would be incorrect.
Oct 29, 2018, 12:40 pm
#15
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
Thanks for the correction. I was just quoting, and as little as I know about firearms, I do know that the media regularly gets things wrong.