Airport Security Rant. Topic: Inconsistency
May 7, 2002 | 10:11 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: MCI. AA Plat, UA PrmEx., Mrrtt Gold, Hz Pres.Circle, HHonors Gold
Posts: 1,070
Airport Security Rant. Topic: Inconsistency
I know there have already been about 500 security threads here, but my title is clear enough, so you wouldn't be reading this if you were sick of security rants.
(1) My Shoes. I wear the same pair of shoes every time I fly. They have a thick sole and a little bit of metal on them, but not much. I don't know if they are suitable for bombmaking purposes or not. My question is this: Are My Shoes A Bomb Threat - YES OR NO?!? If yes - great. I can live with that. Make me take them off EVERY time I fly, run them through the x-ray machine, and I'll slip 'em back on on the other side. If no - that's fine too. Don't mess with my shoes ever again. My problem is that Kansas City almost always seems to think my shoes have a bomb in them, Chicago sometimes does and sometimes doesn't, Washington DC usually feels them by hand (but doesn't make me take 'em off), and Dallas usually doesn't take a second look at my footwear. I'll give props to the folks at MCI - a shoebomber would have a tough time at that airport.
(2) My Belt. Again, same belt almost every segment. KC and Chicago almost alway think I have Something Sneaky under the buckle part. They take a look - it takes about 2 seconds. Other airports never look at my belt. If these two airports think my belt is threatening, shouldn't they all?
(3) Liquid containers. At Tampa, I was not allowed to pass through security with a half-consumed plastic bottle of Diet Pepsi. I didn't ask for an explanation why - the guard didn't look like he was in the mood to chat about what kinds of explosives or pathogens could be unleashed from a coke bottle. Anyway, Tampa seems to be the only place in the world that has cracked down on terrorists that have nested weapons inside a plastic bottle. I pass through security elsewhere all the time with water, pepsi, coffee, whatever. Again - if open liquid containers are threatening, then let's see some consistency across the board. I'll happily give up my half-consumed-Pepsi-packing right in the name of greater security if it's truly needed.
(1) My Shoes. I wear the same pair of shoes every time I fly. They have a thick sole and a little bit of metal on them, but not much. I don't know if they are suitable for bombmaking purposes or not. My question is this: Are My Shoes A Bomb Threat - YES OR NO?!? If yes - great. I can live with that. Make me take them off EVERY time I fly, run them through the x-ray machine, and I'll slip 'em back on on the other side. If no - that's fine too. Don't mess with my shoes ever again. My problem is that Kansas City almost always seems to think my shoes have a bomb in them, Chicago sometimes does and sometimes doesn't, Washington DC usually feels them by hand (but doesn't make me take 'em off), and Dallas usually doesn't take a second look at my footwear. I'll give props to the folks at MCI - a shoebomber would have a tough time at that airport.
(2) My Belt. Again, same belt almost every segment. KC and Chicago almost alway think I have Something Sneaky under the buckle part. They take a look - it takes about 2 seconds. Other airports never look at my belt. If these two airports think my belt is threatening, shouldn't they all?
(3) Liquid containers. At Tampa, I was not allowed to pass through security with a half-consumed plastic bottle of Diet Pepsi. I didn't ask for an explanation why - the guard didn't look like he was in the mood to chat about what kinds of explosives or pathogens could be unleashed from a coke bottle. Anyway, Tampa seems to be the only place in the world that has cracked down on terrorists that have nested weapons inside a plastic bottle. I pass through security elsewhere all the time with water, pepsi, coffee, whatever. Again - if open liquid containers are threatening, then let's see some consistency across the board. I'll happily give up my half-consumed-Pepsi-packing right in the name of greater security if it's truly needed.
