![]() |
Thank you all
We are making a difference and forcing change at TSA. If it were not for contributors to this forum and other like us around the country, columnists, individuals negatively commenting on TSA policy in their local newspapers and on the blog and a myriad of others, TSA would never have made the changes that have apparently been made, i.e., currency, "ice" and perhaps even the removal of WBI machines at certain airports.
|
Let's work on stopping the removal of shoes next.
|
perhaps we should start a list of changes we'd most like to see at TSA.
Ending the shoe carnival, no strip search machines, and refocusing TSA's procedures to focus on real threats would be my top 3. |
Originally Posted by Pluma
(Post 12764925)
Let's work on stopping the removal of shoes next.
I do agree that the FlyerTalk community has made a difference.;) |
...and, rumor has it that cash is no longer contriband...
|
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 12764963)
perhaps we should start a list of changes we'd most like to see at TSA.
Ending the shoe carnival, no strip search machines, and refocusing TSA's procedures to focus on real threats would be my top 3. |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 12764963)
perhaps we should start a list of changes we'd most like to see at TSA.
Ending the shoe carnival, no strip search machines, and refocusing TSA's procedures to focus on real threats would be my top 3. WBI/Strip Search Machines: Meh, I am in favor of moving exclusively to these at some point in the future. I would like a completely transparent security point where you walked through a hallway without ever pausing and were screened through a combination of millimeter wave technology walls and advanced ion scanning explosives detectors. Something like "Total Recall". Bring it on. ^ Refocusing TSA's efforts on real threats: That is just political mumbo jumbo that can mean anything. :td: :p |
As much as I agree that the kind of activity that goes on here helps, I do not think we were behind the new ice policy. That was totally Britney´s doing.
I say we use the momentum and refute the liquids thing as a whole. I mean, if we can now take frozen shampoo, spare us the trouble and wasted energy and let us take it at room temperature. |
Originally Posted by BubbaLoop
(Post 12765420)
As much as I agree that the kind of activity that goes on here helps, I do not think we were behind the new ice policy. That was totally Britney´s doing.
I say we use the momentum and refute the liquids thing as a whole. I mean, if we can now take frozen shampoo, spare us the trouble and wasted energy and let us take it at room temperature. |
Originally Posted by IslandBased
(Post 12765112)
Strict adherence to the Disabilities Act might be another.
|
Originally Posted by JSmith1969
(Post 12765720)
The handling/disposal of liquids issue could be a useful opening to making the policy less noxious: TSA's own treatment of liquids proves that they don't actually pose the threat they claim. And they may well be in violation of federal and local environmental laws if they just pour stuff they claim is dangerous down the drain as if it were as harmless as milk a day past its sell-by date.
What the TSA doesn't understand is that their lives would be much, MUCH easier if those issues were addressed by buying the proper equipment and not requiring people to account for their shortcomings. Think about it, if the TSA purchased the equipment to properly scan those items, 90% of the arguments against them would go away. Not to mention. most importantly, actually improving security. Yet the TSA finds it more important to purchase police-imitation uniforms and thoses silly "Engage" programs that is wholly putting lipstick on a pig. I'm hoping Erroll Southers will understand that. |
Originally Posted by JSmith1969
(Post 12765720)
The handling/disposal of liquids issue could be a useful opening to making the policy less noxious: TSA's own treatment of liquids proves that they don't actually pose the threat they claim. And they may well be in violation of federal and local environmental laws if they just pour stuff they claim is dangerous down the drain as if it were as harmless as milk a day past its sell-by date.
|
Originally Posted by Paolo01
(Post 12766264)
This is actually convenient now. I have taken to turning my hazmat into TSA. I just hand over my mercury filled thermostats and such as I renovate my house to the agent and they throw it into their bucket. Saves me the $10 dump fee with hazmat abatement. Not sure what the TSA does with it.
|
Originally Posted by Paolo01
(Post 12765302)
Refocusing TSA's efforts on real threats: That is just political mumbo jumbo that can mean anything. :td: :p
|
Originally Posted by Paolo01
(Post 12766264)
This is actually convenient now. I have taken to turning my hazmat into TSA. I just hand over my mercury filled thermostats and such as I renovate my house to the agent and they throw it into their bucket. Saves me the $10 dump fee with hazmat abatement. Not sure what the TSA does with it.
TSA requires surrender of liquids because they believe they could be hazardous in nature. In my mind these containers must under law be treated as hazardous unless proven otherwise by chemical testing. And again going on some old memory, these items must be treated as a worst case materials until proven to be something else. No choice! If TSA disposes these containers into common trash then I believe they are in direct violation of EPA regulations and that the FSD at that facility is personally (his wallet) responsible for any fines EPA may impose. Any EPA types reading this blog? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:22 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.