Carry-On Banned Items

[disneyldwjr]

It's my horse and I will beat it if I want. I am amaized that there is an airport making the airline employees abide by the rules, BUT are you sure they didn't just apply the rules to gate agents. FAs and Pilots have been exempted by the TSA.

And then there is the whole issue of beverages in the gate area. That overpriced bottle of water they sell in the gift shop is ONLY safe if consumed in the gate area. If you take it on board the plane it aquires DANGEROUS skills...

This "ban" is not protecting you from anything. Between the fact that the TSA is allowing "exempted" folks to violate the ban and thier apparent failure to verify that the items in the GATE area are safe.... All they are doing is causing you to be inconvienced so they can CLAIM they are responding to a NEW threat that is actually over a decade old.

I write the TSA on a regular basis asking for an explanation of WHY if those items in the gate area are NOT safe they are allowed to be there. Think about it LOGICALLY, if those items are safe then you should be allowed to bring them on, if they are NOT safe then you are in danger. (A terrorist might be just as happy to blow up the gate area don't you think?) To me that's the biggest joke... (not to mention that a terrorist could just afix liquid bomb pouches to his body, how would the TSA know?)

The problem is that we treat the SYMPTOMS not the disease. Your liquid is NOT the problem EXPLOSIVES are and NOTHING about this ban prevents an explosive from being smuggled on board.

I am very much afraid that what is is going to take to get the TSA and airlines to do what has to be done is another horrible accident.... There is better technology out there, the TSA has delayed deployement yet again awaiting PERFECTION which rarely exists.... The airlines should be REQUIRED to give the TSA the passenger manifest in advance NOT after the airplane takes off... Yes, that last one would probably inconvince me as I often change planes at the last minute and that would probably not be allowed, but I don't really think that the fact that I would be inconvienced should be an issue IF it really made a difference. Now we just have harrassment without a real difference.

Maybe they are exempted because they are not passengers. Maybe they are exempted because they have security clearance.
When you do finally get an answer, I do hope you will share it with us. It would truly be interesting. And, no, I am not being sarcastic or silly here, I am dead on serious.

 

[disneyldwjr]

It's my horse and I will beat it if I want. I am amaized that there is an airport making the airline employees abide by the rules, BUT are you sure they didn't just apply the rules to gate agents. FAs and Pilots have been exempted by the TSA.

And then there is the whole issue of beverages in the gate area. That overpriced bottle of water they sell in the gift shop is ONLY safe if consumed in the gate area. If you take it on board the plane it aquires DANGEROUS skills...

This "ban" is not protecting you from anything. Between the fact that the TSA is allowing "exempted" folks to violate the ban and thier apparent failure to verify that the items in the GATE area are safe.... All they are doing is causing you to be inconvienced so they can CLAIM they are responding to a NEW threat that is actually over a decade old.

I write the TSA on a regular basis asking for an explanation of WHY if those items in the gate area are NOT safe they are allowed to be there. Think about it LOGICALLY, if those items are safe then you should be allowed to bring them on, if they are NOT safe then you are in danger. (A terrorist might be just as happy to blow up the gate area don't you think?) To me that's the biggest joke... (not to mention that a terrorist could just afix liquid bomb pouches to his body, how would the TSA know?)

The problem is that we treat the SYMPTOMS not the disease. Your liquid is NOT the problem EXPLOSIVES are and NOTHING about this ban prevents an explosive from being smuggled on board.

I am very much afraid that what is is going to take to get the TSA and airlines to do what has to be done is another horrible accident.... There is better technology out there, the TSA has delayed deployement yet again awaiting PERFECTION which rarely exists.... The airlines should be REQUIRED to give the TSA the passenger manifest in advance NOT after the airplane takes off... Yes, that last one would probably inconvince me as I often change planes at the last minute and that would probably not be allowed, but I don't really think that the fact that I would be inconvienced should be an issue IF it really made a difference. Now we just have harrassment without a real difference.

Totally positive that they were the flight crew. I do know pilot and FA uniforms. They vary greatly from gate agents on most airlines.

 

[bicker]

These measures will be constantly evaluated and updated as circumstances warrant.

That's true of everything, at all times.

I am very much afraid that what is is going to take to get the TSA and airlines to do what has to be done is another horrible accident....

I doubt the TSA nor the airlines are the stumbling block. Everything you talk about can be imposed by executive fiat. No, I'm not blaming Bush. I'm blaming you, and me and every other taxpayer. We simply don't want to pay for the airtight security you're suggesting. We prompt these half-way actions because we're cheap with our own safety.

 

[disneyldwjr]

That's true of everything, at all times.

I doubt the TSA nor the airlines are the stumbling block. Everything you talk about can be imposed by executive fiat. No, I'm not blaming Bush. I'm blaming you, and me and every other taxpayer. We simply don't want to pay for the airtight security you're suggesting. We prompt these half-way actions because we're cheap with our own safety.

BINGO!!!!! ITA.

 

[leebee]

ITA with disneyldwjr and bicker. It's more than just that, though. PART of 'our' problem defeating this terrorist business is that we aren't willing to think like terrorists. 'We' still think with our judeo/christian-western ideals and mind-sets. Baby food, for example, and formula/breastmilk. What makes the powers that be think that a terrorist won't willingly bring along an infant as part of their cover? Water for FA's? Easy-peasy, we'll just get a terrorist in as an attendant. Stuff is safe in the terminal /gate area? So you time it right and blow up every gate area on the east coast simultaneously! Terrorists, jihadists, insurgents, whatever you call them, do not think like we do. They have a different culture and heritage. It is irrelevant to them that "innocent" women and children may be present. In their eyes, none of us are innocent. Until our government is willing to think and respond in kind, rather than reacting how you or I would react, we are not safe. We will simply be going through the motions to continue to project an illusion of safety.

Secondly, not only are we too cheap to pay the costs of security, we are too self-centered and lazy. Face it, Americans love their conveniences and do NOT like to give them up. I believe it took 2 weeks to get curbside check in re-established. Curbside checkin is faster and easier than lugging the bags inside and waiting in line. Kiosk check in/electronic boarding passes if all you have is a carry-on or pilot case, or just drop your suitcases by the big scanner- you know, the one with 2 guys and about 100 bags waiting to be screened. I love thinking that all checked baggage is screened, but really...it's not time and cost effective to wait long enough for all bags to be screened. Airlines are charged by the minute if they do not push back from the blocks by the scheduled time. Passengers become irate if takeoff is even seconds late. Full, adequate baggage screening takes time...and that's inconvenient for the travelling public. And can somebody explain why it is safe for me to carry 4 cigarette lighters, but not 5?

I don't mean to say that we have overreacted as a country but it doesn't seem that we have done logical things to promote security, just obvious things. Or perhaps we lived the good life for too long. Like ostriches we had our heads in the sand; who would have thought, much less acknowledged that large scale international terrorism could happen to the US? I have a dear friend in Belfast, Ireland, who summed it up pretty neatly: Now we understand how the rest of the world lives.

Do I have answers? Nope, but we could take some pointers from El Al. Show up at the airport several hours early, fill out forms stating where you are going and the reasons, provide identification to positively identify and record each passenger, and wait with your bags, in line, for each to be individually opened and searched. The Israelis, like the Irish and so many others, have lived with active terrorism for decades. Perhaps we could learn from them.

OK, flame if you must, I can take it. Sorry to get so preachy, it's just so frustrating to spend money for so many essentially irrelevant, useless measures that promote the illusion of safety.

 

[melomouse]

Eloquently put, leebee - and ITA!!!

 

[DVC Grammy]

ITA with disneyldwjr and bicker. It's more than just that, though. PART of 'our' problem defeating this terrorist business is that we aren't willing to think like terrorists. 'We' still think with our judeo/christian-western ideals and mind-sets. Baby food, for example, and formula/breastmilk. What makes the powers that be think that a terrorist won't willingly bring along an infant as part of their cover? Water for FA's? Easy-peasy, we'll just get a terrorist in as an attendant. Stuff is safe in the terminal /gate area? So you time it right and blow up every gate area on the east coast simultaneously! Terrorists, jihadists, insurgents, whatever you call them, do not think like we do. They have a different culture and heritage. It is irrelevant to them that "innocent" women and children may be present. In their eyes, none of us are innocent. Until our government is willing to think and respond in kind, rather than reacting how you or I would react, we are not safe. We will simply be going through the motions to continue to project an illusion of safety.

Secondly, not only are we too cheap to pay the costs of security, we are too self-centered and lazy. Face it, Americans love their conveniences and do NOT like to give them up. I believe it took 2 weeks to get curbside check in re-established. Curbside checkin is faster and easier than lugging the bags inside and waiting in line. Kiosk check in/electronic boarding passes if all you have is a carry-on or pilot case, or just drop your suitcases by the big scanner- you know, the one with 2 guys and about 100 bags waiting to be screened. I love thinking that all checked baggage is screened, but really...it's not time and cost effective to wait long enough for all bags to be screened. Airlines are charged by the minute if they do not push back from the blocks by the scheduled time. Passengers become irate if takeoff is even seconds late. Full, adequate baggage screening takes time...and that's inconvenient for the travelling public. And can somebody explain why it is safe for me to carry 4 cigarette lighters, but not 5?

I don't mean to say that we have overreacted as a country but it doesn't seem that we have done logical things to promote security, just obvious things. Or perhaps we lived the good life for too long. Like ostriches we had our heads in the sand; who would have thought, much less acknowledged that large scale international terrorism could happen to the US? I have a dear friend in Belfast, Ireland, who summed it up pretty neatly: Now we understand how the rest of the world lives.

Do I have answers? Nope, but we could take some pointers from El Al. Show up at the airport several hours early, fill out forms stating where you are going and the reasons, provide identification to positively identify and record each passenger, and wait with your bags, in line, for each to be individually opened and searched. The Israelis, like the Irish and so many others, have lived with active terrorism for decades. Perhaps we could learn from them.

OK, flame if you must, I can take it. Sorry to get so preachy, it's just so frustrating to spend money for so many essentially irrelevant, useless measures that promote the illusion of safety.

One other thing that El Al does is "profiling". They readily state that they use a "most-likely-suspect" outline to inspect, reinspect, interview and reinterview those that fit that profile, plus they constantly update that outline as new factors emerge. Of course, their airport security people are well-trained (I don't know if they're well-paid, also), as opposed to taking almost anyone who wants the job and giving them a cursory "training".
The U.S. also uses profiling, but we seem to use it only after crimes (FBI, CIA, etc), not before.

 

[salmoneous]

The ban is permanent.

Um, no. The ban on liquids is currently in effect. That's very different from being "permanent." The ban on liquids wastes TSA time, inconveniences passengers and does not make us safer. Like earlier bans that wasted time and inconvenienced passengers without making flights any safer - nail clippers, small scissors, etc. - this ban will eventually be removed.

Most other countries - including Israel - have not implemented the ban on liquids. TSA has said the ban is in response to the London bomb plot - a plot involving creating bombs out of liquids that would have been near impossible to perform in reality.

Since you seem to like this disclaimer - I'll point out that I'm just some guy on the internet and could very well be wrong - it's possible the TSA is lying to us about why the ban is in place and has some secret information or secret agenda they aren't telling us about.

But based on what the TSA is telling us - all the information available to the general public, as well as common sense, the current ban on liquids is worse than pointless. If you have any faith in the TSA eventually doing the right thing, you won't view the ban as permanent.

 

[disneyldwjr]

ITA with disneyldwjr and bicker. It's more than just that, though. PART of 'our' problem defeating this terrorist business is that we aren't willing to think like terrorists. 'We' still think with our judeo/christian-western ideals and mind-sets. Baby food, for example, and formula/breastmilk. What makes the powers that be think that a terrorist won't willingly bring along an infant as part of their cover? Water for FA's? Easy-peasy, we'll just get a terrorist in as an attendant. Stuff is safe in the terminal /gate area? So you time it right and blow up every gate area on the east coast simultaneously! Terrorists, jihadists, insurgents, whatever you call them, do not think like we do. They have a different culture and heritage. It is irrelevant to them that "innocent" women and children may be present. In their eyes, none of us are innocent. Until our government is willing to think and respond in kind, rather than reacting how you or I would react, we are not safe. We will simply be going through the motions to continue to project an illusion of safety.

Secondly, not only are we too cheap to pay the costs of security, we are too self-centered and lazy. Face it, Americans love their conveniences and do NOT like to give them up. I believe it took 2 weeks to get curbside check in re-established. Curbside checkin is faster and easier than lugging the bags inside and waiting in line. Kiosk check in/electronic boarding passes if all you have is a carry-on or pilot case, or just drop your suitcases by the big scanner- you know, the one with 2 guys and about 100 bags waiting to be screened. I love thinking that all checked baggage is screened, but really...it's not time and cost effective to wait long enough for all bags to be screened. Airlines are charged by the minute if they do not push back from the blocks by the scheduled time. Passengers become irate if takeoff is even seconds late. Full, adequate baggage screening takes time...and that's inconvenient for the travelling public. And can somebody explain why it is safe for me to carry 4 cigarette lighters, but not 5?

I don't mean to say that we have overreacted as a country but it doesn't seem that we have done logical things to promote security, just obvious things. Or perhaps we lived the good life for too long. Like ostriches we had our heads in the sand; who would have thought, much less acknowledged that large scale international terrorism could happen to the US? I have a dear friend in Belfast, Ireland, who summed it up pretty neatly: Now we understand how the rest of the world lives.

Do I have answers? Nope, but we could take some pointers from El Al. Show up at the airport several hours early, fill out forms stating where you are going and the reasons, provide identification to positively identify and record each passenger, and wait with your bags, in line, for each to be individually opened and searched. The Israelis, like the Irish and so many others, have lived with active terrorism for decades. Perhaps we could learn from them.

OK, flame if you must, I can take it. Sorry to get so preachy, it's just so frustrating to spend money for so many essentially irrelevant, useless measures that promote the illusion of safety.

WELL SAID!!!!!!! ITA

 

[kaytieeldr]

To me that's the biggest joke... (not to mention that a terrorist could just afix liquid bomb pouches to his body, how would the TSA know?)

Well, ideally that pouch would have some metal in its makeup and be detected at the screening checkpoints...
Oh, and thanks a lot for

It's my horse and I will beat it if I want.

Now I'm rewriting the lyrics for "It's My Party (and I'll Cry if I Want To)" in my head

I love thinking that all checked baggage is screened, but really...it's not time and cost effective to wait long enough for all bags to be screened.

At Logan Airport, it is. I'm not being idealistic - every piece of checked luggage is x-rayed/scanned/whatever behind the scenes, before being loaded onto any commercial aircraft. Logan's one of only a handful of airports that has obtained and installed this state-of-the-art equipment (and if I could remember where I learned this, I'd provide the link).

Like earlier bans that wasted time and inconvenienced passengers without making flights any safer - nail clippers, small scissors, etc. - this ban will eventually be removed.

Awk! Didn't it take four years before THAT ban was lifted? I'm getting thirsty... and my hair's frizzing...

 

[ducklite]

That's true of everything, at all times.

I doubt the TSA nor the airlines are the stumbling block. Everything you talk about can be imposed by executive fiat. No, I'm not blaming Bush. I'm blaming you, and me and every other taxpayer. We simply don't want to pay for the airtight security you're suggesting. We prompt these half-way actions because we're cheap with our own safety.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have ZERO problems firing all the freaking incompetents that were hired by the TSA because they had to get off of welfare and the TSA would take warm bodies that could fog a mirror. Replace them with competent people who WANT to be there, and pay them a respectable wage for ensuring our safety. Pass that cost along to the consumer--what will it cost, an average $20 a ticket at most? Big whoop-de-doo!!

And while you're at it, require anyone who wants to fly to submit to a security screening like those of us who carry a CLEAR card have. That includes foreign nationals--who will submit to additional screening if adequate clearence can't be obtained. Yup, it will cost money, but it will also make us a LOT safer.

Yesterday morning I flew out of ALB. I got to the initial screening area where they check ID against boarding passes. I had a roll-on, camera bag, and a very small handbag. The handbag fit into the almost empty roll-on with room to spare, but I had it out as it had my wallet in it. The security nazi wouldn't allow me through until I held up the line putting it in my roll-on, only to have to take it back out when I got to the x-ray machine to remove my cell phone. Talk about a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to have an over-reacting waste of skin like him dealing with the public.

BTW--as I boarded the plane I had the roll-on and camera bag, the hand bag was stowed into the roll-on the same way it is every time I fly.

Anne

 

[camlace]

At Logan Airport, it is. I'm not being idealistic - every piece of checked luggage is x-rayed/scanned/whatever behind the scenes, before being loaded onto any commercial aircraft. Logan's one of only a handful of airports that has obtained and installed this state-of-the-art equipment (and if I could remember where I learned this, I'd provide the link).

Here is a recent article from the Boston Globe.

Boston Globe Article

I work at Logan, every checked bag must go through one of these screening machines. As the article says, it has virtually no impact to passengers. The checked luggage gets placed on the bag belt during check-in like normal, but instead of heading to the planes it goes straight to the screening machines first.

 

[bicker]

Um, no. The ban on liquids is currently in effect.

Please allow me to rephrase:

The ban on liquids is not temporary. There are no plans to discontinue it. It has no expiration date. Passengers should plan on it being in effect on their next flight.

Better?

 

[bicker]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have ZERO problems firing all the freaking incompetents that were hired by the TSA because they had to get off of welfare and the TSA would take warm bodies that could fog a mirror. Replace them with competent people who WANT to be there, and pay them a respectable wage for ensuring our safety. Pass that cost along to the consumer--what will it cost, an average $20 a ticket at most? Big whoop-de-doo!!

And let me reiterate what I've said in reply to you, previously: You're very unique, Anne!

While I also wouldn't mind spending more for stronger security (and I suspect a lot of folks who read this forum are "weird" like you and I), we're not representative of the American public.

 

[salmoneous]

Please allow me to rephrase:

The ban on liquids is not temporary. There are no plans to discontinue it. It has no expiration date. Passengers should plan on it being in effect on their next flight.

Better?

Perfect

 

[Lewisc]

Many members of DIS still look for R/T airfare under $150. I wouldn't mind paying a $20 surcharge, if that would significantly improve security, but most passengers would have a problem. I suspect airlines would also be opposed. I'll agree with Bicker, more passengers would be opposed to any few more than a dollar or two.

I wonder if the airlines or TSA might consider charging a small security fee for each checked bag, maybe even charge it for carryon bags.

Requiring CLEAR status to passengers that only fly routes like LAX-LAS might not be very good for airline business.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have ZERO problems firing all the freaking incompetents that were hired by the TSA because they had to get off of welfare and the TSA would take warm bodies that could fog a mirror. Replace them with competent people who WANT to be there, and pay them a respectable wage for ensuring our safety. Pass that cost along to the consumer--what will it cost, an average $20 a ticket at most? Big whoop-de-doo!!

And while you're at it, require anyone who wants to fly to submit to a security screening like those of us who carry a CLEAR card have. That includes foreign nationals--who will submit to additional screening if adequate clearence can't be obtained. Yup, it will cost money, but it will also make us a LOT safer.

Yesterday morning I flew out of ALB. I got to the initial screening area where they check ID against boarding passes. I had a roll-on, camera bag, and a very small handbag. The handbag fit into the almost empty roll-on with room to spare, but I had it out as it had my wallet in it. The security nazi wouldn't allow me through until I held up the line putting it in my roll-on, only to have to take it back out when I got to the x-ray machine to remove my cell phone. Talk about a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to have an over-reacting waste of skin like him dealing with the public.

BTW--as I boarded the plane I had the roll-on and camera bag, the hand bag was stowed into the roll-on the same way it is every time I fly.

Anne

 

[CarolA]

Yesterday morning I flew out of ALB. I got to the initial screening area where they check ID against boarding passes. I had a roll-on, camera bag, and a very small handbag. The handbag fit into the almost empty roll-on with room to spare, but I had it out as it had my wallet in it. The security nazi wouldn't allow me through until I held up the line putting it in my roll-on, only to have to take it back out when I got to the x-ray machine to remove my cell phone. Talk about a waste of time and taxpayer dollars to have an over-reacting waste of skin like him dealing with the public.

BTW--as I boarded the plane I had the roll-on and camera bag, the hand bag was stowed into the roll-on the same way it is every time I fly.

Anne

Well, I am glad you are PROUD that the TWO carryon rule does NOT apply to you. How was the TSA agent to know your plans? Can they read youir mind? Also unless ALB is VERY different those "nazis" are ALB employees NOT TSA employees, we hired them in Nashville too..

It's two carryons, not three..... I am a business traveler I PLAY by the rules, why can't you?

In this case had you abided by the rules you would NOT have wasted taxpayer dollars. LOL!

Everyone knows I don't like the TSA. However, your "above the rules" attitude probably doesn't help your interactions with them.

 

[CarolA]

Well, ideally that pouch would have some metal in its makeup and be detected at the screening checkpoints...
)

I am sure the terrorists will be glad to add metal to help out the TSA

 

[bicker]

However, ... "above the rules" attitude probably doesn't help ... interactions with them.

Indeed, many (but not all) folks who resent rules so passionately cannot help but project that sentiment whenever they encounter the rules, and many (but not all) reasonable folks charged with enforcing the rules cannot help but perceive such projected emotion as something suspicious. It's simply human nature at work.

 

[ducklite]

Well, I am glad you are PROUD that the TWO carryon rule does NOT apply to you. How was the TSA agent to know your plans? Can they read youir mind?

I told him that I would be putting my handbag into my roll-on, and he looked at me like I had three heds and wouldn't let me through until I had done so. What a collasal waste of time.

Also unless ALB is VERY different those "nazis" are ALB employees NOT TSA employees, we hired them in Nashville too..

He was wearing a TSA shirt. If he wasn't TSA then why would he have a TSA shirt on?

It's two carryons, not three..... I am a business traveler I PLAY by the rules, why can't you?

Like I said, my handbag would have been in the roll-on before I boarded, as it always is. I've never had this issue before--it just seemed ridiculous.

In this case had you abided by the rules you would NOT have wasted taxpayer dollars. LOL!

No one has EVER made me put the handbag into the roll-on before passing through security in the past. If you want to look at it from your perspective, then fanny packs should be considered carry-on's as well. My hand bag was smaller than the average fanny pack.

Everyone knows I don't like the TSA. However, your "above the rules" attitude probably doesn't help your interactions with them.

Like I said, I don't consider myself above the rules, because it would have been put into the other bag before bnoarding--no different than someone who is hand carrying their laptop apart from the laptop bag.

Anne