Another absurd overreaction to water bottles by crew
Sep 6, 2006, 12:11 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Another absurd overreaction to water bottles by crew
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...e-2c03dfa6d941
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observe...l/15423366.htm
OK, regardless of how smart/stupid the water ban is, does anyone think that calling out the FBI, fire department, and the friggen bomb squad is necessary if the passengers are willing to take a swig from the bottle? (as was almost certainly the case) What's the fire department going to do, spray water on the water? 
We are a nation of idiots. The people who decided the response to this "threat" should be terminated.
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observe...l/15423366.htm
he Associated Press reports the two passengers -- and their bottles, filled with clear liquid -- were deemed suspicious by the flight crew while the plane was on approach to land in Little Rock.
When the plane taxied to the gate, the TSA was there -- to greet those passengers and hold them for a few questions.
They also got a look at those suspicious liquids. "It turned out to be water," said airline spokesman Philip Launius.
But that wasn't discovered until later -- after the FBI, Little Rock Police, the bomb squad, and the fire department all responded to the call.
When the plane taxied to the gate, the TSA was there -- to greet those passengers and hold them for a few questions.
They also got a look at those suspicious liquids. "It turned out to be water," said airline spokesman Philip Launius.
But that wasn't discovered until later -- after the FBI, Little Rock Police, the bomb squad, and the fire department all responded to the call.
We are a nation of idiots. The people who decided the response to this "threat" should be terminated.
Sep 6, 2006, 12:22 pm
#3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,458
It could have been an explosive. The reason they didn't detonate it in flight was because they were going to use it on their connecting flight.
If the crew was so worried about it then why didn't they confiscate the bottles when they were noticed?
If the crew was so worried about it then why didn't they confiscate the bottles when they were noticed?
Sep 6, 2006, 12:47 pm
#4
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Orlando
Programs: DL 4MM/PM, UA 1MM/Gold, AA Paper
Posts: 1,386
This is more lunacy by the airlines. For years people have taken water on planes, and now because Comrade Chertoff says be very afraid of it, the airlines are now afraid of it. Oh well, I always did avoid USAir and now there is more reason to.
Sep 6, 2006, 1:03 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by OrlandoFlyer
This is more lunacy by the airlines. For years people have taken water on planes, and now because Comrade Chertoff says be very afraid of it, the airlines are now afraid of it. Oh well, I always did avoid USAir and now there is more reason to.
The reason I detest this childish ban on water (a necessity of life) is because it is not sensible security.
My nine year olds realized on Aug 10 (when their chapstick was confiscated and they had to go without their water bottles on a transcon) that our security policies were now crafted by residents of fantasyland and not by mature adults. Kids shouldn't have to be exposed to such irrational behaviour by those in charge. Bad enough their parents have to be abused; abusing kids in this manner is criminal, IMO.
Sep 6, 2006, 1:04 pm
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by skydiva44
Please people....remember the crewmembers are just following orders, it does not mean we agree with them, just doing our job.
Sep 6, 2006, 1:05 pm
#10
Join Date: May 2006
Location: midwest
Programs: aa-plat, nw-gold, ua, sw, marriot-plat, hh-silver, hz-presidents circle, amtrak-who knows
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by essxjay
While I'm certainly a member of the former, I don't accept that I'm a member of the latter.
I'm with you, Jay. I think that's it's probably most accurate to say that the inmates are now running the asylum.
_m
Sep 6, 2006, 1:12 pm
#12
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by FWAAA
That is exactly why I am so disgusted with Comrade Chertoff and Half-Wit Hawley. It's not because "I hate America" and it's not because I'm categorically opposed to sensible airport/aircraft security.
The reason I detest this childish ban on water (a necessity of life) is because it is not sensible security.
My nine year olds realized on Aug 10 (when their chapstick was confiscated and they had to go without their water bottles on a transcon) that our security policies were now crafted by residents of fantasyland and not by mature adults. Kids shouldn't have to be exposed to such irrational behaviour by those in charge. Bad enough their parents have to be abused; abusing kids in this manner is criminal, IMO.
The reason I detest this childish ban on water (a necessity of life) is because it is not sensible security.
My nine year olds realized on Aug 10 (when their chapstick was confiscated and they had to go without their water bottles on a transcon) that our security policies were now crafted by residents of fantasyland and not by mature adults. Kids shouldn't have to be exposed to such irrational behaviour by those in charge. Bad enough their parents have to be abused; abusing kids in this manner is criminal, IMO.
Sep 6, 2006, 1:13 pm
#14
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Bart
So employees aren't supposed to follow company policy?
I will agree that the airline captain should have some degree of latitude in these situations. After all, the captain IS the commander of the aircraft. However, we don't know the rules that air crew is supposed to follow and whether or not there is any room for discretion given to the skipper.
To piously criticize the air crew for following orders is a bit smug, even for you.
I will agree that the airline captain should have some degree of latitude in these situations. After all, the captain IS the commander of the aircraft. However, we don't know the rules that air crew is supposed to follow and whether or not there is any room for discretion given to the skipper.
To piously criticize the air crew for following orders is a bit smug, even for you.
Where did you see me "piously criticize the air crew for following orders" in this thread? I haven't. Yet. I'll begin by criticizing the top that has administered us to act like people stripped of wit.
Sep 6, 2006, 1:17 pm
#15
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by skydiva44
Please people....remember the crewmembers are just following orders, it does not mean we agree with them, just doing our job.
I understand that things aren't easy for the flight crews either and I respect the job they do. 99% of the time I have been treated very well by the crew and understand their main job is not to serve me water (Though I am glad they do
).