Deleted

Deleted

I like it!!!

Time to put my Star Alliance Gold status to use!!! 3 bags at 50lbs each for me on every flight!

It'll be a PITA but funny if all the *Gold people started doing this. lol.

Why do we have to compromise with this stupidity? Chertoff already said that there was no threat to the US. Why do we have to "compromise" to get some privileges back. Compromising implies that we have to give something up. Should we have to give something up over nothing?

And that UAL email was to me. I'd gladly forward it on offline if people don't believe that's what I actually got. I still have it.

Grow up.

More people checking instead of carrying all their cr*p on board is a huge positive. If you have to carry on, buy the forbidden gels/liquids at your destination.

Amen!

We should "give up" Comrades Chertoff and Hawley to North Korea and we should "give up" DHS and TSA permanently.

No way!

That's an expensive and useless solution to a non-problem.

Sorry, Spiff, I like you personally but I can't agree with this. Argenbright aka Aren't-so-bright wasn't doing the job AT ALL. TSA is FAR from perfect, but is a heckuva lot better than the totally worthless private effort that proceded it. The security forces at UK and HKG airports, for just two examples, are under government control, and I don't see people saying those forces are ineffective or idiotic. Central control and the ability to quickly adapt pax screening measures to new potential threats nationwide ARE a good thing, IMO. Sure, consistency and effectiveness can be improved, but overall, I don't see going back to the old way as any kind of improvement.

The liquid exposives plot was not a joke. TATP could be fabricated in an airside restaurant kitchen, packaged in soda bottles, and carried aboard. Apparently a bunch of guys were bent on doing just that. Among many other potential methods of carrying out al-Quaeda's stated intent to take down airliners.

This forum seems to be mostly just a one-sided outlet for TSA-haters, not an honest debate over what ought to be done to make US commercial aviation a much less attractive terrorism target. Which is too bad.

And who are you to call mine and other people's stuff crap? And what about women who spend booko bucks on cosmetics and hair products? Are you expecting them to blow a couple hundred bucks at each destination?

Just look at all the "crap" people carried on to the FT do we went to. Oh yeah, things like clothes and laptops. I'd be hard pressed to bet than anyone who stayed there less than a couple days or wasn't an NYC resident checked luggage. I didn't, and I know I saw a lot of carry on sized bags at the do.

You may be fine with the inconvenience in the name of security. But this isn't security. It's just inconvenience.

Super

And you haven't read what chemical experts have said that this would be dang near impossible to pull off? I posted an article on here about it already. Do a search.

No, it's not a joke. But it's also pretty far fetched that people would have the know how or the ability to do it at an airport without getting noticed. It takes a few hours under very controlled conditions to make enough explosive to bring down a plane. Do you think people wouldn't notice that a lav was occupied for that long? Or that people wouldn't recognize a strange smell coming from the lav? Or that the terrorist would probably blow himself up and mess up the lav way before there was sufficient explosive made?

Sorry, you may think we're sensationalizing, but this threat was way over sensatitionalized.

Honest debate involves listening to both sides, you're right. Only problem is that DHS and TSA won't listen to the facts and science involved nor make real risk assessments to determine if something truly is a threat.

Super

I disagree. HKG security is effective, sensible and non-harassing. UK security, on the other hand, has just gone off the deep end. I'll address their stupid liquids/gels ban in my next paragraph. However, even before August 10th, these "professionals" were randomly harassing/feeling up people who walked through the WTMD without alarming. A huge no-no in my opinion. I despise LHR's Flight Connections Center. It is slow, underequipped and understaffed. If BAA is going to insist that all arriving connecting passengers must be rescreened (and I don't think they should), then they should make sure that the rescreening happens in 10 min or less. They are nowhere close to this time.

Maybe the would-be bombers were serious, but their ability to carry out this plot was indeed a joke. How are they going to get access to an airside kitchen? And for the 3-4 hours required to properly synthesize TATP? If it's an inside employee job, we might as well just give it all up. Employees could easily pass a background check and arrange to have the desired components delivered as unscreened vended items or just get cleaning solutions out of the closet. Harassing the passengers without bothering to address this possibility just goes to underscore how stupid and useless this liquids/gels ban really is and how extremely stupid Comrades Chertoff and Hawley really are if they think people will buy into this smokescreen of lies.

Feel free to start a new thread. However, if it's political in nature rather than Safety/Security in nature, I suggest Omni as the place for such a new thread.

Fair enough. I apologize for using the word. All I meant is, if Ma and Pa Kettle don't carry their bags aboard for their two week once a year trip to Paducah, it cuts down on the excess time spent at checkpoints and boarding/deboarding process.

VFFs can and will continue to carry things aboard as needed. We're a pretty adaptable group. And agreed, if laptops can't be carried on, that's a big deal - but nobody's talking about that as a permanent rule and it's not even being discussed for US travel.

Disagree. Prohibiting most liquids and gels counters a real threat, i.e., carried-on TATP in soda bottles from sterile areas - a damn good way to blow up planes. There's no way to check every bottle, especially since the plot involved sourcing the stuff from airside. And the cutback on carry-on baggage that's resulted from the rules is an improvement as far as I'm concerned. And it hasn't stopped me from carrying my bags on board when I've chosen to do so.

Do we know for certain that TSA/DHS/CIA/FBI aren't doing anything about the security of airside vendors, just not announcing it publicly?

And thanks for engaging in a good debate! ^