FlyerTalk Forums

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)

justageek Aug 26, 2006 1:09 pm

For those wishing to contact Ms. Caldwell, her web page on the AFA site is
http://www.afanet.org/default.asp?id=141

You might want to ask her, for example, to explain how exactly "we have seen the deadly effect that normal household objects can create in the hands of the wrong people" considering that no evidence has been presented indicating that the London plot could have succeeded.

Also, does anyone know why the journalist failed to point out that FAs are exempt from the new rules? If you have some free time, you might want to contact Elizabeth Mehren at the LA Times and ask her.

What a piece of garbage that article is. It is atrociously irresponsible to print the quote above from Caldwell when it is blantaly unfounded.

PatrickHenry1775 Aug 26, 2006 2:06 pm


Originally Posted by justageek
For those wishing to contact Ms. Caldwell, her web page on the AFA site is
http://www.afanet.org/default.asp?id=141

You might want to ask her, for example, to explain how exactly "we have seen the deadly effect that normal household objects can create in the hands of the wrong people" considering that no evidence has been presented indicating that the London plot could have succeeded.

Also, does anyone know why the journalist failed to point out that FAs are exempt from the new rules? If you have some free time, you might want to contact Elizabeth Mehren at the LA Times and ask her.

What a piece of garbage that article is. It is atrociously irresponsible to print the quote above from Caldwell when it is blantaly unfounded.

But, but, think of the children. :rolleyes:

cpx Aug 26, 2006 3:29 pm


Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
But, but, think of the children. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry.. but I dont think they should be banned from the flights :D

PatrickHenry1775 Aug 26, 2006 3:37 pm


Originally Posted by cpx
I'm sorry.. but I dont think they should be banned from the flights :D


No carry-on, but instead in checked luggage? :D

LLM Aug 26, 2006 10:38 pm


Originally Posted by justageek
Also, does anyone know why the journalist failed to point out that FAs are exempt from the new rules?

Good point and anyone else get the impression this woman just plain despises her customers, the passengers, and is rather smug about their needless discomfort?

ajnz Aug 26, 2006 11:03 pm

Not water related, but similar insanity... on my LHR-JFK flight on United, I was subject to three searches at Heathrow, with the tertiary search taking place at the gate.

It appeared that all people tertiary searched were people not travelling using a US passport.

However... TSA did feel the need to re-xray all luggage as it arrived in JFK, before it came to the luggage carousel. I.... don't understand.

Incidentally, they missed my toothbrush/toothpaste/lip balm in my laptop case. 3 times. Tel Aviv security found it, didn't care.

I don't understand.

essxjay Aug 27, 2006 4:12 am


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.
Stupid, STUPID *****!! :mad: :mad:

sowalsky Aug 27, 2006 5:14 am


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:

I think I need to stop making "suggestions" on the forums. My dear lord.
See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...8&postcount=52

doober Aug 27, 2006 7:34 am

A FA, retired, disagrees
 
Yesterday, I had lunch with three friends who had driven 650 miles for their annual "homecoming" visit. In the past they would have flown.

However, one of them, a retired FA, refused to fly, saying that she felt by doing so she would be supporting the TSA's new measures which she described, as most of us here do, as totally worthless. She also said that she has friends who are still working and they, too, feel the prohibitions are a waste of time, energy and money. She also indicated that a couple of her friends were very frustrated that the flights they have worked recently have NOT had sufficient water on board for the pax and the particular airline does not seem to care.

PatrickHenry1775 Aug 27, 2006 7:43 am


Originally Posted by doober
Yesterday, I had lunch with three friends who had driven 650 miles for their annual "homecoming" visit. In the past they would have flown.

However, one of them, a retired FA, refused to fly, saying that she felt by doing so she would be supporting the TSA's new measures which she described, as most of us here do, as totally worthless. She also said that she has friends who are still working and they, too, feel the prohibitions are a waste of time, energy and money. She also indicated that a couple of her friends were very frustrated that the flights they have worked recently have NOT had sufficient water on board for the pax and the particular airline does not seem to care.

Which airline? Inquiring minds want to know!

doober Aug 27, 2006 7:45 am


Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
Which airline? Inquiring minds want to know!

I'm not certain which is why I didn't name them and I was lax (no pun intended) for not asking. I do know that the retired FA worked for AA.

PatrickHenry1775 Aug 27, 2006 7:48 am


Originally Posted by doober
I'm not certain which is why I didn't name them and I was lax (no pun intended) for not asking. I do know that the retired FA worked for AA.

I flew on AA last week and received multiple servings of water, but it was a short flight. Just curious - BTW, "lax" was excellent diction on this forum. ^

Loren Pechtel Aug 27, 2006 8:52 am


Originally Posted by BearX220
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.

But how are the security people in the terminal supposed to know the origin of the otherwise-prohibited item?

Ducatibiker Aug 27, 2006 10:04 am

I often buy presents (bottle of Champagne) Duty Free on board. Connecting to a US domestic flight was no problem in the past...but today...I will bring the latest airline and safety procedures as a present which we should all review before boarding of course....Maybe this could be part of a certification to be obtained by the passenger prior to boarding each airline....just kidding but very tired of all this Cirque du Security. Flying seems now to be very stressful. I can't imagine what will happen when the A380 will start flying...

justageek Aug 27, 2006 11:57 am


Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel
But how are the security people in the terminal supposed to know the origin of the otherwise-prohibited item?

Prohibited items are seized at the TSA checkpoint as you enter the sterile area.

Therefore, any prohibited item seen in the "sterile" area of the airport was obtained inside the sterile area and is therefore sterile.

The TSA wants to have it both ways -- they are telling us the sterile area is not sterile (hence the ban on bringing items purchased in the sterile area onto the plane), but they continue to operate the TSA checkpoints as you enter the terminal!

So, to recap:

If the sterile area is actually sterile, then items purchased there should be allowed to be brought onboard.

If the sterile area is not sterile, then the TSA should close down the checkpoints as you enter the terminal and just admit they are security theatre.

But both cannot be simultaneously true--yet that is what the TSA is telling us.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:07 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.