FlyerTalk Forums - New TSA Idiocy: "Beverages received on the plane may not be carried off the plane."

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)

- - New TSA Idiocy: "Beverages received on the plane may not be carried off the plane." (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/594688-new-tsa-idiocy-beverages-received-plane-may-not-carried-off-plane.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

If you take drinks off the plane you are taking them into the sterile area. That's probably the origin of this nonsense.

The point of keeping the sterile area sterile is to protect the integrity of the airplane environment. Therefore the airplane is "sterile" also. This is psychotic. :mad:

If I here one more Good American Citizen chirp that any demented, Kafakesque edit is "OK by me if it makes us safer!", I will cough up a lung. This country is a remnant of its former smart, brave self.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordeauxboy

...I am starting to wonder if Kip Hawley is a partner in several airside food shops at major hubs ;) .

Interesting thought, but I doubt that anyone would partner with such an obvious imbecile :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by exerda

So WHAT IS THE TSA WORRIED ABOUT?!!! A "dangerous" liquid being taken OFF a plane?! :confused: :mad: :mad:

This is a "Red Team" restriction. Apply Ocham's Razor to TSA Red Teaming and you will see the future!

Quote:

Originally Posted by davistev

I dont get it - does this mean I cannot buy a drink in the terminal anymore?

You may still purchase it, but you could be arrested for trafficking
banned substance (aka water) :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordeauxboy

Now all we need is for some reporters to interview passengers - making sure its the ones that only travel once every three or four years - about this new rule and get the standard "if it makes us safer, then its a good rule" response. :td:

They don't need to interview passengers, just a spokesperson for the flight attendants union that called the new rules "long overdue" and "a small price to make us safer".

The price is always small when you aren't the one paying it!!! :mad:

Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer

"long overdue" and "a small price to make us safer".

I think the correct spelling if "suffer" not "safer"

Quote:

Originally Posted by exerda

The only rational I can come up with is that the TSA feels someone could take one of these bottles airside, then claim when reboarding, "But I got it onboard my last flight." :rolleyes:

Water is not prohibited in the terminal. So that explanation doesn't make sense. You can still buy water at the airside vendors.

This is the most idiotic thing I've heard yet in the string of idiotic rules coming down from Herr Hawley. If the catering water onboard the plane isn't safe, then ... is TSA doing taking away our water at the TSA checkpoint (and then again at the gate)?!?

Why isn't the media covering any of this idiocy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpx

I think the correct spelling if "suffer" not "safer"

Here's the quote:

Quote:

Corey Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the Assn. of Flight Attendants-CWA, said Friday that the ramped-up precautions were "long overdue," and that there was nothing excessive about the new mood in the skies.

"The U.S. aviation system depends on layered security," she said. "The more that we can put in place to ensure the safety inside the aircraft cabin, the safer our aviation system will be."

Caldwell conceded that passenger disturbances were nothing new. She said rowdy or boisterous behavior that in the past might have been overlooked now is viewed in a new light.

"We are in a new day and age," she said. "And we have seen the deadly effect that normal household objects can create in the hands of the wrong people.

"The U.S. aviation system is not something that can be jeopardized."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Now, there are few good comments in the article... such as this:

Quote:

But security consultant Laird said aviation officials often overreact after real or perceived threats.

"This is common following an event. This reoccurs again and again," he said. "And every time it turns out to be a nonthreat, so to speak, I think that in a sense the terrorists can sit back and sort of chuckle, and say, 'We've really put them into a spin.' "

but with the FAs supporting the restrictions, sanity will be an uphill battle.

I was afraid FA's would act "gloat-ish" about this. :mad: :td:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer

Ms. Caldwell should be publicly humiliated and made to sit in an empty airplane on the tarmac at PHX for 12 hours tied down to her seat.

:mad:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer

Here's the quote:

i believe you..

i was just being sarcastic :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpx

i believe you..

i was just being sarcastic :D

I know you were. The local newspaper didn't have the full quote and I had to hunt it down online. For everyone's enjoyment :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel

If you take drinks off the plane you are taking them into the sterile area. That's probably the origin of this nonsense.

ummm, isn't the idea of a 'sterile area' to include the actual aircraft being protected by all this bullsh&t??? Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tazi

ummm, isn't the idea of a 'sterile area' to include the actual aircraft being protected by all this bullsh&t??? Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Which is why it has to be the correct explanation :D