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/)
-   -   War on Liquids and Stores behind security (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/649882-war-liquids-stores-behind-security.html)

Jebby_ca Jan 19, 2007 8:10 pm

War on Liquids and Stores behind security
 
I witnessed this at the checkpoint in EWR Concourse A last night. Behind me in security was a guy, presumably from one of the stores behind the checkpoint that sells bottled drinks. He was allowed to place a tray full of bottles greater than 3.4oz thru the scanner, and bring it into the terminal.

What is the point of banning passengers from taking liquids through the checkpoint if store owners are allowed to bring them through by just putting them through the x-ray?

We Will Never Forget Jan 19, 2007 8:18 pm


Originally Posted by Jebby_ca (Post 7054032)
I witnessed this at the checkpoint in EWR Concourse A last night. Behind me in security was a guy, presumably from one of the stores behind the checkpoint that sells bottled drinks. He was allowed to place a tray full of bottles greater than 3.4oz thru the scanner, and bring it into the terminal.

What is the point of banning passengers from taking liquids through the checkpoint if store owners are allowed to bring them through by just putting them through the x-ray?

The liquids sold past the checkpoint are considered to be from a "trusted source"

Take it for what it's worth. :rolleyes:

jennifer2456 Jan 19, 2007 8:21 pm

TSA has consistently been inconsistent about it's policies. Why should this be a surprise?

Jebby_ca Jan 19, 2007 8:29 pm


Originally Posted by jennifer2456 (Post 7054090)
TSA has consistently been inconsistent about it's policies. Why should this be a surprise?

I figured they'd at least bring these goods in via the service tunnels, instead of doing this in front of passengers. You'd think passengers would wise up to this non-sense much quicker if they see that those bottles of liquid are no danger, even if they've only been x-rayed.

LessO2 Jan 19, 2007 9:30 pm


Originally Posted by Jebby_ca (Post 7054123)
I figured they'd at least bring these goods in via the service tunnels, instead of doing this in front of passengers. You'd think passengers would wise up to this non-sense much quicker if they see that those bottles of liquid are no danger, even if they've only been x-rayed.


Capitalism trumps security. Always has, always will.

seat17D Jan 19, 2007 10:44 pm


Originally Posted by Jebby_ca (Post 7054032)
What is the point of banning passengers from taking liquids through the checkpoint if store owners are allowed to bring them through by just putting them through the x-ray?

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The more you learn about airport terminal operations, the more you realize the TSA is a farce.

Retail vendor operations are just one of the farcical elements.

If you really want a thrill, go chat up one of the managers and find out just how short the average terminal retail employee's tenure. Hint: It's so short the managers don't even bother with learning an employee's name and just read it off the nametag.

If you figure some of these employees are making minimum wage, and they work maybe 3-6 weeks before they -- without announcement -- stop showing up for work, they earn maybe $1500 gross before they disappear.

Assuming there is truly an effective background check made pre-employment, pick any number you want for the price of an effective background check and do the math.

And, here's the real kicker, many of these employees never actually resign. The first anyone knows they have quit is when they haven't shown up for work for several days in a row. Even though the TSA will tell you they do background checks on the employees, the employers don't seem to have good phone numbers for them when the employer tries to call and find out what's up.

And what kind of investigation is done into where these employees disappear to? None. Absolutely none.

The TSA is a political solution, not a security solution.

secretsea18 Jan 20, 2007 7:42 am


Originally Posted by seat17D (Post 7054698)
This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The more you learn about airport terminal operations, the more you realize the TSA is a farce.

Assuming there is truly an effective background check made pre-employment, pick any number you want for the price of an effective background check and do the math.

And, here's the real kicker, many of these employees never actually resign. The first anyone knows they have quit is when they haven't shown up for work for several days in a row. Even though the TSA will tell you they do background checks on the employees, the employers don't seem to have good phone numbers for them when the employer tries to call and find out what's up.

And what kind of investigation is done into where these employees disappear to? None. Absolutely none.

The TSA is a political solution, not a security solution.

Of Course there are their airport employee ID tags still circulating...

oldpenny16 Jan 20, 2007 7:48 am


Originally Posted by seat17D (Post 7054698)
This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The more you learn about airport terminal operations, the more you realize the TSA is a farce.

Retail vendor operations are just one of the farcical elements.

If you really want a thrill, go chat up one of the managers and find out just how short the average terminal retail employee's tenure. Hint: It's so short the managers don't even bother with learning an employee's name and just read it off the nametag.

If you figure some of these employees are making minimum wage, and they work maybe 3-6 weeks before they -- without announcement -- stop showing up for work, they earn maybe $1500 gross before they disappear.

Assuming there is truly an effective background check made pre-employment, pick any number you want for the price of an effective background check and do the math.

And, here's the real kicker, many of these employees never actually resign. The first anyone knows they have quit is when they haven't shown up for work for several days in a row. Even though the TSA will tell you they do background checks on the employees, the employers don't seem to have good phone numbers for them when the employer tries to call and find out what's up.

And what kind of investigation is done into where these employees disappear to? None. Absolutely none.

The TSA is a political solution, not a security solution.

I would like to work at either a hotel or a big airport after retiring from my real job. Interesting about the turn over. I should be able to do better than that. Weird goal, I know.

Points Scrounger Jan 20, 2007 11:09 am


Originally Posted by oldpenny16 (Post 7055794)
I would like to work at either a hotel or a big airport after retiring from my real job. Interesting about the turn over. I should be able to do better than that. Weird goal, I know.

Two books for you: "Hotel Babylon" (which I've read) and "Air Babylon" (which I intend to read in the near future).

seat17D Jan 20, 2007 11:52 am


Originally Posted by secretsea18 (Post 7055760)
Of Course there are their airport employee ID tags still circulating...

Exactly. Kind of hard to describe this further without presenting a paint-by-numbers primer for badness.

Combine this with the concept that you only need to penetrate a single terminal and you have access to the sterile area of every other domestic air terminal.

The concept of a "sterile area" is an expensive exercise in futility that diverts scarce resources. Adding layers of inane "security" at the passenger entry portals, even if perfectly designed and implemented, does not change the basic flaw.

whirledtraveler Jan 20, 2007 1:18 pm


Originally Posted by LessO2 (Post 7054432)
Capitalism trumps security. Always has, always will.

^ You hit hit that one right on the head.

wahooflyer Jan 21, 2007 6:03 am

The other reason why the liquid ban is such a joke is that the liquids sold past security aren't screened, either. The driver of the truck bringing them in has to have a SIDA badge and SIDA parking permit (and requisite background check, which IMHO proves little about security risk) and the truck may get a perfunctory inspection by an airport police officer at the entry gate, but the drinks aren't "screened" per se.

Allowing passengers to bring their own liquids through security is safer...at least they're x-rayed!

oldpenny16 Jan 21, 2007 7:30 am


Originally Posted by Points Scrounger (Post 7057110)
Two books for you: "Hotel Babylon" (which I've read) and "Air Babylon" (which I intend to read in the near future).

Thanks for the book leads.

I think I have a desire to be out with people after working in a closet-sized office for so long.

seat17D Jan 21, 2007 9:03 am


Originally Posted by wahooflyer (Post 7061332)
The other reason why the liquid ban is such a joke ...

There's even more to it, but let us just look at it this way ...

If you had a house with several entrances and only locked one of those entrances, would adding another lock to that one door increase your security? Would adding two locks to that door increase your secuirty? Would putting an armed guard at that one door increase your security? Would strip searching everyone who came in through that one door increase your security? No.

Assuming passengers represent a danger to air transport, the showy checkpoints are a futile attempt to make up for the inherently flawed "sterile area" concept.

The TSA is a political solution, not a security solution.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:13 am.


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.