CNN Travel Expert: Commerce Beats Security

[bicker]

CNN's travel expert was interviewed on the news last night and he made some rather spooky statements about this change in policy regarding liquids and gels -- that the change was made because commercial interests exerted substantial pressure on TSA, and TSA gave in despite their better judgement. So, basically, thanks to "Au Bon Pain" and "Bath and Body Works" (not that I blame the stores), we're less safe today than we were last week.

 

[salmoneous]

Did this "travel expert" explain *why* we are less safe. (And, hey, I thought you felt we should give the TSA the benefit of the doubt and not say anything bad about their rules).

 

[jctwizzer]

sounds like the usual journalistic claptrap....anything to get attention. did they explain "how" influence was exerted??? I find it hard to believe that these people have any means of exerting influence on TSA. Certainly not econmic, and the idea of any kind of political influence by these parties is
far fetched. Anyone who believes that allowing 3 ounce sample size containers is the result of any kind of "influence" would be a good candidate for buying a bridge....JMHO

 

[lost*in*cyberspace]

I have yet to see any concrete proof that banning liquids in carry-ons has made anyone safer.

I would tend to believe that this change in liquid policy was made more to benefit the airlines, due to the 20% increase in checked baggage since the ban. The airlines cannot handle the extra load.

 

[bicker]

Did this "travel expert" explain *why* we are less safe. (And, hey, I thought you felt we should give the TSA the benefit of the doubt and not say anything bad about their rules).

You keep missing the point of what I write. In this case, I'm relaying something I heard on the news yesterday, not saying it myself.

 

[bicker]

I have yet to see any concrete proof that banning liquids in carry-ons has made anyone safer.

I have yet to see any concrete proof that it hasn't. That's really the case where I feel that we have to rely on the experts at the TSA (rather than, perhaps, the experts at CNN ).

I would tend to believe that this change in liquid policy was made more to benefit the airlines, due to the 20% increase in checked baggage since the ban.

That seems plausible, but supports the CNN expert's point -- that being a commercial interest rather than one based on security.

 

[CarolA]

CNN's travel expert was interviewed on the news last night and he made some rather spooky statements about this change in policy regarding liquids and gels -- that the change was made because commercial interests exerted substantial pressure on TSA, and TSA gave in despite their better judgement. So, basically, thanks to "Au Bon Pain" and "Bath and Body Works" (not that I blame the stores), we're less safe today than we were last week.

Of course CNN's travel expert is also a CHEMIST?? Becasuse EVERYTHING I have read from REPUTABLE chemists and other explosive experts indicates that the whole "build a bomb on the plane" theory is basically IMPOSSIBLE!


From the USAToday

"Jim Kapin, head of health and safety for the American Chemical Society, said small quantities of liquids could not seriously damage an airplane. Even if several terrorists smuggled liquid explosives on board, it is "practically speaking, impossible" to make a bomb on an airplane because of the equipment and expertise required, Kapin said."

Personally I trust folks who know about things that go boom rather then CNN's self proclamied travel expert. (I have seen him on TV. I am just as good an "expert")

 

[bicker]

Different scientists disagree about the extent of the threat. Don't fall into the trap of believing only the scientists that say what you want to hear. As it is, as I mentioned, I'm inclined to believe the experts at the TSA, who have said that the threat is real, but kept within reasonable limits, by the relaxing of the rules. As with most things, both extremes ("no threat", "extreme threat") are probably wrong, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[salmoneous]

Different scientists disagree about the extent of the threat.

I'm curious - have you seen any scientists who have come out and said there is a threat? I've seen multiple demolition experts explain in great detail why it is near impossible to build a bomb on a plane.

The only think I've seen on the other side are vague comments that the London terrorists planned to build a bomb on a plane, so we now have a liquid/gel ban.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Isn't the CNN expert a former TSA honcho? Who does one believe?

 

[goofy4tink]

Perhaps, rather then try to figure out who is right, we should just go about the business of our lives. There is no way we are going to get THE definative word on who is right....all the 'experts' seem to have their own agendas, or their own ax to grind. I can't keep up with the whole 'he said, she said' mentality with air travel. I'm packing my bags, I'll put my travel size toothpaste, mouthwash and sun tan lotion in my little quart sized zip-loc baggie. My electronics go into a huge zip-loc baggie, with my coins!!! It all comes out at security. Why? It seems to make it easier for me to get throught that line, that's why. And the non-smiling agents seem to appreciate it and anything I can do to make them just a wee bit happier is good for me.
Time to stop trying to figure out what rules are keeping us safer, what ones aren't. I've said it before....no way are we going to agree, and it doesn't really matter. The rules are the rules....plain and simple. I do NOT want to see the transportation board turned into a debate zone!!!

 

[CarolA]

Isn't the CNN expert a former TSA honcho? Who does one believe?

Not sure WHICH expert Bicker saw, but they have at least one hwo is NOT a former TSA person. He's a travel writer.....

 

[bicker]

have you seen any scientists who have come out and said there is a threat?

Yes, I believe I have.

 

[bicker]

Time to stop trying to figure out what rules are keeping us safer, what ones aren't. I've said it before....no way are we going to agree, and it doesn't really matter. The rules are the rules....plain and simple.

ITA. That's really what I meant before about the difference between "what" and "why".

 

[NotUrsula]

The thing is, how much threat do we have to have before it trumps the money that protecting against it costs? (And I use "protecting" pretty loosely here, BTW.)

Isn't causing economic crisis an effective form of terrorism? I've always felt that in the case of Al Qaeda, in particular, a huge part of their methodology seems to be focused on making money; they appear to be financing their operations partly through manipulating the futures markets by means of directed threats. It is a twofer: they create fear and profit at the same time.

I look at this as a risk management question. How many people have been killed or injured by terrorists, vs. in automobile accidents, or house fires, or accidental drownings? Even if you look at the numbers for countries with ongoing domestic terrorism problems, driving is still a greater risk. If I die in a plane bombing or get hit by a drunk driver, I'm still dead. (Perhaps I have this perspective because I spent a lot of time in Ulster during the Troubles, and yes, had some close calls.) I think it makes PERFECT sense to weigh the risk against the cost and reach a reasoned compromise.

 

[bicker]

I agree completely. I think sometimes the linkage between security, convenience and cost gets lost in the rhetoric, as if both security and convenience are sacred cows, neither can be weighed against each other, and neither against cost.

 

[dzorn]

I would say there is probably more pressure from shops in the secure zone. We all want our soda & bottled water to take on the flight.

Denise in MI

 

[dzorn]

Oh BTW I think I would like to skip having actual proof that making a bamb on a plane is possible.

Denise in MI

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

I would say there is probably more pressure from shops in the secure zone. We all want our soda & bottled water to take on the flight.

Denise in MI

The concessionaires inside the sterile areas have seen huge increases in sales since the measures of 8/10/06 were put in place. Most of this has come from the increased 'dwell' time of passengers who were required to arrive earlier than they might have prior to 8/10/06.

TSA rarely bows to pressure from airport vendors or airlines. Airlines operate under both FAA and TSA regulations, not the other way around. Last I checked there was no concession consortium lobbying the DHS, as Concessions operate under agreements and leases with the airports themselves. In fact, TSA can't regulate the food and beverages sold by concessionaires, they merely screen employees who work in the sterile area.