FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)
-   -   XKCD takes on TSA (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/1007340-xkcd-takes-tsa.html)

Paolo01 Oct 19, 2009 12:16 pm


Originally Posted by LessO2 (Post 12670520)
A couple of reasons.

1. Airlines know that if they want to stay in business, that they better not get its frequent fliers mad (remember the ratio of about 30% of an average plane's load makes up about 70% of the airlines' revenue).

2. The TSA knows they can appease airport management by banning the water, thus forcing sales of the $4.00 bottle of water at Hudson News (where each airport ends up, in the long run, getting a cut of).


It's just proof positive that in the long run, capitalism has long superseded airport "security."

What? Who buys $4 water? If you do, you have no right to complain about the TSA. Empty your water container and refill it at the nearest water fountain after passing through the TSA. Free and it is the EXACT same water in most cases. This issue is SUCH a non issue.

Sebastian_R Oct 19, 2009 12:58 pm

Firstly, you guys rock! Just wanted to post this pic from XKCD. It really says it all about the TSA...


Originally Posted by LessO2 (Post 12670520)
2. The TSA knows they can appease airport management by banning the water, thus forcing sales of the $4.00 bottle of water at Hudson News (where each airport ends up, in the long run, getting a cut of).

I disagree on this one: I have often times bought perfumes and other liquids on airports (mostly since I'm too disorganized to other stuff done) ever since the liquid ban I'm not buying anything any longer. Too many times I experienced that the "super sealed" bag was not admitted in Europe / the US (depending on where you fly from) and had to be disposed of. And ever since the TSA suspected my cheese to be a weapon(!) and considered a glass of jam dangerous enough to qualify for immediate destruction I gave up hope and just stopped buying stuff.

LessO2 Oct 19, 2009 1:15 pm


Originally Posted by Paolo01 (Post 12671554)
What? Who buys $4 water? If you do, you have no right to complain about the TSA. Empty your water container and refill it at the nearest water fountain after passing through the TSA. Free and it is the EXACT same water in most cases. This issue is SUCH a non issue.

Ever since the war on liquids started, the only thing I purchase at airports are airline tickets. I do not buy food there, I do not park at the airport (I take public transportation), and I certainly do not buy a $4.00 bottle of water.

If the airlines and the airports support this nonsense in the way they do, they can do without the thousands of dollars they have lost over the past three years from my wallet alone.

LessO2 Oct 19, 2009 1:17 pm


Originally Posted by Sebastian_R (Post 12671845)
I disagree on this one: I have often times bought perfumes and other liquids on airports (mostly since I'm too disorganized to other stuff done) ever since the liquid ban I'm not buying anything any longer. Too many times I experienced that the "super sealed" bag was not admitted in Europe / the US (depending on where you fly from) and had to be disposed of. And ever since the TSA suspected my cheese to be a weapon(!) and considered a glass of jam dangerous enough to qualify for immediate destruction I gave up hope and just stopped buying stuff.

Same here. I just do not buy anything at the airport anymore. If and when the EU suspends the liquid nonsense, I'll buy something there again.

Until then, I'm going to climb aboard the Spiff bandwagon and tell them to go pound sand.

whitearrow Oct 19, 2009 3:10 pm

I just want to be able to fly out of Puerto Vallarta without having my water mugged from me at the gate. You can't buy water, you can't fill up empty bottles -- you are simply not allowed to bring water on the plane, and until that changes, I'm not flying to Mexico again. I can't go 2-3 hours with only a tiny cupfull of water, refilled only if the FA has time and the inclination to do so.

gglave Oct 20, 2009 10:02 am


Originally Posted by OverThereTooMuch (Post 12668886)
Why are you saying this wasn't a credible threat?

Because if liquids were really a threat, all you have to do is send 5 guys through security instead of 1, and then combine their liquids on the other side.

Also for the reasons outlined here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...rport-security

Schneier makes some very good points in his article. If you try to bring a gun or hand grenade on a plane, and you're detected, the contraband will be confiscated and you'll be arrested. This is because these items are considered a potential threat.

However, if you try to bring a jar of spaghetti sauce on board, and you're detected, the contraband will be confiscated. This is because spaghetti sauce is considered a potential threat. However you won't be arrested - The sauce will be thrown away and you'll be sent on your way.

Why not? Apparently the gun and the spaghetti sauce are both threats - Why is the accused perp treated differently with these two threatening items?

Because you're not arrested with spaghetti sauce, if you're a terrorist you can keep trying over and over again until you get through with your jar of sauce, because there's no consquences to your action, unlike with a gun.

LessO2 Oct 20, 2009 11:00 am


Originally Posted by gglave (Post 12677106)
because there's no consquences to your action, unlike with a gun.

Unless you're TSAer Alvin Crabtree, who can bring a gun to work and suffer no consequences.

mgilmer Oct 20, 2009 2:05 pm


Originally Posted by gglave (Post 12677106)

Schneier makes some very good points in his article. If you try to bring a gun or hand grenade on a plane, and you're detected, the contraband will be confiscated and you'll be arrested. This is because these items are considered a potential threat.

However, if you try to bring a jar of spaghetti sauce on board, and you're detected, the contraband will be confiscated. This is because spaghetti sauce is considered a potential threat. However you won't be arrested - The sauce will be thrown away and you'll be sent on your way.

Why not? Apparently the gun and the spaghetti sauce are both threats - Why is the accused perp treated differently with these two threatening items?

Because you're not arrested with spaghetti sauce, if you're a terrorist you can keep trying over and over again until you get through with your jar of sauce, because there's no consquences to your action, unlike with a gun.

Good questions.

Combat Medic Oct 20, 2009 9:39 pm


Originally Posted by gglave (Post 12677106)
Because if liquids were really a threat, all you have to do is send 5 guys through security instead of 1, and then combine their liquids on the other side.

Also for the reasons outlined here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...rport-security

Schneier makes some very good points in his article. If you try to bring a gun or hand grenade on a plane, and you're detected, the contraband will be confiscated and you'll be arrested. This is because these items are considered a potential threat.

However, if you try to bring a jar of spaghetti sauce on board, and you're detected, the contraband will be confiscated. This is because spaghetti sauce is considered a potential threat. However you won't be arrested - The sauce will be thrown away and you'll be sent on your way.

Why not? Apparently the gun and the spaghetti sauce are both threats - Why is the accused perp treated differently with these two threatening items?

Because you're not arrested with spaghetti sauce, if you're a terrorist you can keep trying over and over again until you get through with your jar of sauce, because there's no consquences to your action, unlike with a gun.

To me the big question is around the disposal of the dangerous bottle of water.
If the TSA is concerned that my bottle of Fuji water is a bomb or can be mixed to become a bomb, then why is my Fuji thrown into a normal trash can with all of the other bombs?

Fredd Oct 20, 2009 9:47 pm


Originally Posted by whitearrow (Post 12672648)
I just want to be able to fly out of Puerto Vallarta without having my water mugged from me at the gate. You can't buy water, you can't fill up empty bottles -- you are simply not allowed to bring water on the plane, and until that changes, I'm not flying to Mexico again. I can't go 2-3 hours with only a tiny cupfull of water, refilled only if the FA has time and the inclination to do so.

We had the same experience the last time we flew out of PVR. When we were there they were selling water near the gate but it was seized when we tried to take it on the plane. :td:

LessO2 Oct 20, 2009 10:11 pm


Originally Posted by Combat Medic (Post 12681172)
To me the big question is around the disposal of the dangerous bottle of water.
If the TSA is concerned that my bottle of Fuji water is a bomb or can be mixed to become a bomb, then why is my Fuji thrown into a normal trash can with all of the other bombs?

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3...theaterbt8.jpg

Trollkiller Oct 21, 2009 3:18 am


Originally Posted by LessO2 (Post 12677448)
Unless you're TSAer Alvin Crabtree, who can bring a gun to work and suffer no consequences.

I feel sorry for him, it was an honest mistake but he will forever be the poster child for TSA stupidity.

RadioGirl Oct 21, 2009 3:58 am


Originally Posted by Trollkiller (Post 12682170)
... he will forever be the poster child for TSA stupidity.

And you gotta admit, there've been a lot of contenders for that position, starting with KHIAI ...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:01 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.