Does anyone agree with me on this...

[bavaria]

Whatever the situation regarding shortcomings and politics which may be driving the current situation aside, I am more and more disappointed with some posters here.

Frankly, going without chapstick for a few hours is a minor discomfort for most. I myself wear lip balm, but I don't need it every hour. For those who continue to moan about it, if that is the greatest hardship they currently face, they are blessed to lead a very charmed life. If it's not their greatest hardship, then they need to buck up and put things into perspective.

All the energy spent moaning here and elsewhere could be put to good use - how many besides Carol are taking the time to write their concerns to elected officials, etc?

I've been biting my tongue for three days now, and have a rather large dent in it.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Interestingly, that list doesn't include sunscreen/block... otoh, Carmex is the same consistency as Chapstick (ugh, I still can't get the "Suzie Chapstick" ads out of my head and it's been what, 20 or 30 years?), so yeah, I can see where that'd be banned too.
My understanding is any product that can be squooshed between one's fingers is banned from the passenger compartment.

 

[CarolA]

Whatever the situation regarding shortcomings and politics which may be driving the current situation aside, I am more and more disappointed with some posters here.

Frankly, going without chapstick for a few hours is a minor discomfort for most. I myself wear lip balm, but I don't need it every hour. For those who continue to moan about it, if that is the greatest hardship they currently face, they are blessed to lead a very charmed life. If it's not their greatest hardship, then they need to buck up and put things into perspective.

All the energy spent moaning here and elsewhere could be put to good use - how many besides Carol are taking the time to write their concerns to elected officials, etc?

I've been biting my tongue for three days now, and have a rather large dent in it.

And when you write your elected representatives ask them WHY the LIQUIDS just became a security concern. The first liquid bomb was set off over a decade ago on an airplane in the Pacfic.

So apparently the TSA either (A) didn't know or (B) thought the terrorist forgot. Neither option gives me a warm fuzzy feeling......

So the risk existed for 10 years but THURSDAY they decided to do something and since they had apparently not considered this until Wednesday failure to plan on thier part became a crisis on ours......


(And on a lesser known subject, YEARS ago I read an article in one of those "Fashion" magazines about ADDITIONS to lip gloss or chapstick type products. I have reached a conclusion that A LOT of DIS posters are addicted. And as I recall if you become addicted it's kind of self fufilling, your lips actually do produce less mositure. The trick I recall was to start SLOWLY moving your time between treatments back. So if your MD has not disgnosed you with an illness and will therefore be unwilling to write a prescription you might want to start weaning yourself. If you currently apply hourly make yourself wait an extra 15 minutes..

And as proof that you can find ANYTHING on the web

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_balm )

 

[connorlevismom]

you know, its the people here that complain about security that make me mad.

If we didnt have security in London and here, we might have had more tragedies like 9/11 this week. Even though thats true, do you all still care that 1 extra hour and no make up or visine in your carryon is your "punishment"?

For the person that wrote if its her time to go so be it...well, do you HONESTLY feel that way? If so, fine, but do can you honestly look at your child and ask her if she is ok with dying today so we can all be a bit more "normal" at the airport? Now i'm not saying that you would think this, because i'm absolutely sure you would not. I'm just pointing out that your statement seemed jaded.

I think high security is going to be "normal" from now on, and we all need to get over it. I actually wish they would ban anything more than a small purse like carry on. No more 24" carry ons! This would save time.

So am i upset by hieghtened security? NO! Am i upset about spending extra time in line and having to be patted down or my perfume i accidently packed get thrown away. NOPE! I would rather my children be safe as can be then risk thier lives for extra minutes shaved off an airport line.

I agree 100%!!!!!

 

[BillSears]

I don't believe I have heard of a single instance where airport security has stopped an attack. I believe all of the attacks that have been stopped have been stopped before they reached the airports. I have however heard of TSA tests and reporters testing airport security and how the airport security failed miserably.

All of you saying how they feel safer because of airport security really should reconsider your beliefs. Airport security checkpoints won't stop a determined(and aren't all of them determined?) terrorist.

 

[ukdisneydreamer]

as someone from the UK - i dont care what i have to go through as long as 9 hours later I am breathing in that sweet Florida smell. I usually get to the airport about 4 hrs early anyway, because I am so excited, I might as well use that time going through security. I travel light when going to WDW (means I can bring more back) so I dont mind going to the nearest Publix to get toiletries, I usually do anyway. The bit that gets me is the expense - will airlines lower the prices of refreshments, or hike them up because they know people will have to buy them on the plane.

I am also worried about how hard it is going to get for a UK citizen to get into the US, I dont think I could cope if I didnt have my yearly fix of WDW. I am already crawling up the walls because I havent managed to get there this year yet.

 

[PortieOwner]

Ditto.
Go ahead. Take away everything we can carry on. (That book will certainly be an IED product. ) Then the terrorists will find ways to embed stuff in clothing they are wearing.

Funny thing is that during WWII quite a few books (and playing cards) sent by the British to British POWs in German POW camps contained nitrocellulose, a type of explosive! They also sent spare buttons made of plastic explosive. This is all now very old technology.

Portie

 

[schlepsnort]

Our government needs to become more proactive instead of reactive.
The TSA banned list is getting a bit silly in my opinion (seriously what can a terrorist do with JELLO? I don't get that one, we never have a reason to bring jello...but why ban it?).
As another poster said the checkpoints are not going to stop a determined terrorist. This has become more of an 'appearances sake' type of thing to me. The government putting on a dog and pony show pretending to make the airport more secure. However they are checking the WRONG people. I know we all need to be PC, but honestly the people they are pulling aside don't make any sense to be checking.

And what is next? What happens when the terrorists figure out what the drug runners already have learned? Using their own bodies as baggage to carry drugs...inserting them in *places* or swallowing them into their stomachs wrapped up in duct tape, etc.? When the terrorists start doing that then are we all going to be subject to cavity searches?
What then?
I can tell you that at that point, I will drive, thank you very much!
That would be a fine howdy do for those flying!

As far as those 'complaining or whining' about the inconveniences. Some of it is just people letting off steam i think. This is fresh news, it temporarily throws you off your carefully scheduled course, and once they figure out it's not such a biggie, they get over it and move on. And some posts are just people brain storming to find alternatives. Like me, we will be flying with our 3 sons. 2 of the 3 still require baby butt rash cream. Something that I believe is still banned. I'm trying to figure out what would be a viable alternative that would stay within TSA's ever expanding and changing guidelines.
Just being prepared.
We also will be at the airport 4 hours early. Unless the whole body cavity search starts...Then we will be in the car.

 

[deekaypee]

Actually, I agree with this Salon article written by Patrick Smith:

Getting beyond our airport security obsession
Confiscating corkscrews and tweezers didn't make us safer after Sept. 11. And banning liquids isn't going to make us safer now.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/10/bomb/

An excerpt:

"Ultimately, protecting commercial aircraft from terrorism is not the job of airport security, it's a job for police departments, federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The apparent plot at Heathrow Airport was not unraveled by the keen eye of a concourse screener; it was unraveled through careful investigation behind the scenes. By the time any attacker makes it to the metal detector, chances are it's already too late. There are too many ways to outwit that final line of defense."


And here's a related article by Bruce Schneier, who writes a blog on security offers this post:

Last Week's Terrorism Arrests
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/terrorism_secur.html

Another, rather lengthy, excerpt:

"Instead, the arrests are a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and investigation. Details are still secret, but police in at least two countries were watching the terrorists for a long time. They followed leads, figured out who was talking to whom, and slowly pieced together both the network and the plot.

"The new airplane security measures focus on that plot, because authorities believe they have not captured everyone involved. It's reasonable to assume that a few lone plotters, knowing their compatriots are in jail and fearing their own arrest, would try to finish the job on their own. The authorities are not being public with the details -- much of the "explosive liquid" story doesn't hang together -- but the excessive security measures seem prudent.

"But only temporarily. Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-ons won't make us safer, either. It's not just that there are ways around the rules, it's that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition.

"It's easy to defend against what the terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people before airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.

"Security measures that require us to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer."

 

[ducklite]

Until the airlines begin to offer reasonable compensation and security for baggage, I'm not happy about checking toiletries.

The brands I use can not be purchased in Wal-mart. The bare minimum cost over $300 to replace last week and took stops at four different shops. I do a lot of flying, mostly 24-48 hour trips. I do not have the time on these trips to spend two hours running around from place to place to purchase my items, nor are they even available in a lot of areas.

Additionally I don't want to spend an extra four hours of my trip waiting around to check and claim a bag which will fit under my seat.

BTW--For anyone wondering, the TSA missed a metal tube of hand cream in my bag on both flights this past weekend. They also asked me to put all electronic items and cords in a bin at MCO. I forgot that I had tucked my microcassette recorder into my bag and that went through the x-ray in the bag rather than a bin, and they didn't catch that either.

In fact last night in Philly a hand search of my carry on for a lighter they saw on the x-ray (I don't smoke or own a lighter) still had them missing the metal tube of hand cream.

So how safe do you all feel now?

Anne

 

[WillCAD]

1) Nobody is "whining" about going without Chapstick for an hour. But folks in the U.K. are certainly not happy about having to board a 10-hour trans-Atlantic flight with kids, but with no toys, diaper bags, portable DVD players, or snacks to keep them occupied.

2) Business travellers who spend 20 hours a week on a plane would be seriously inconvenienced IF the US banned all electronic devices from carry-ons. British travellers have been living with this ban for a few days now; care to ask them how much time and productivity has been lost because of it?

3) I for one am not willing to do "anything" to keep myself safe on a plane. Would you submit to a strip search? Or a BCS? How about your kids - would you submit your 8-year olds to such draconian measures?

Every step that we say okey to leads to another step. Then we say okay because it's just another step. There is no fine line between reasonable precautions and draconian measures; it's a long, gradual slope. But we're on it, and we have to draw that line somplace.

If electronics are banned from US flights, that's when I will stop flying. I don't care about a Chapstick, or even about not being able to take a bottle of water on the plane with me, but I refuse to put $3000 worth of camera and computer gear into a checked bag which cannot be locked (by law), and just trust the TSA screeners and the airline baggage handlers to get it all to my destination intact and with nothing missing. I'll drive instead.

 

[salmoneous]

I don't mind restrictions that make me safer. I do mind restrictions that don't make me safer, but are just there to make people feel like TSA is "doing something". I honestly believe many restrictions that get put in place are just there for show.

There was a time when TSA was taking nail clippers away from people. The rule was stupid, every single person knew it, but we had the rule anyway. Why?

Let's face it; the rules banning all small knives are stupid. Nobody could hijack a plane with a small knife these days. And if you wanted to try, you could simply bring a glass on the plane, break it and have something as effective as any small knife. But we still have a useless rule that inconveniences travelers. Why? Not because it makes people any safer that's for sure. Let's free security from enforcing rules with little value so they can focus on things that really are dangerous.

I'm sure many of the new rules fall into the same category. Now if DHS wants to put them in place for a few days, fine. But I want them to think long and hard and only keep those rules that really make us safer.

So, and this doesn't just apply to air travel, no, I'm not willing to do anything that the government claims is needed to stop terrorism. I don't think people need to just accept whatever they are told. Always think and question.

 

[TravelinGal]

Ditto.
Go ahead. Take away everything we can carry on. (That book will certainly be an IED product. ) Then the terrorists will find ways to embed stuff in clothing they are wearing.

Funny thing is that during WWII quite a few books (and playing cards) sent by the British to British POWs in German POW camps contained nitrocellulose, a type of explosive! They also sent spare buttons made of plastic explosive. This is all now very old technology.

Portie

I did not know that! Thanks for sharing.


I'm in no way saying security isn't important, but I am pleased to read the calm, level headed posts on this page. Many of you said what I did, just in more eloquent terms (as opposed to my sarcastic/funny response)

in case you missed it back on page 2 -

Go ahead. Take away everything we can carry on. (That book will certainly be an IED product. ) Then the terrorists will find ways to embed stuff in clothing they are wearing. Will we have to board planes completely naked one day just to be safe? Or strip down at security so they can scan all our clothing? Oh wait...something might be inside a person...So we'll have to have internal exams to board a plane. Forget it - just cancel all flights for eternity.

I understand the fear and caution instituted by TSA. I know it's not the end of the world to have to ship my shampoo/conditioner/face wash/sunblock etc to the resort ahead of time. (Still resisting checking my bag!) I know it wouldn't be the end of the world for me if I did have to check my bag, but it would add a lot of stress to my trip. (primarily worry about it getting lost/taken by someone) I will do what is required of me by law, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[disneyldwjr]

1) Nobody is "whining" about going without Chapstick for an hour. But folks in the U.K. are certainly not happy about having to board a 10-hour trans-Atlantic flight with kids, but with no toys, diaper bags, portable DVD players, or snacks to keep them occupied.

2) Business travellers who spend 20 hours a week on a plane would be seriously inconvenienced IF the US banned all electronic devices from carry-ons. British travellers have been living with this ban for a few days now; care to ask them how much time and productivity has been lost because of it?

3) I for one am not willing to do "anything" to keep myself safe on a plane. Would you submit to a strip search? Or a BCS? How about your kids - would you submit your 8-year olds to such draconian measures?

Every step that we say okey to leads to another step. Then we say okay because it's just another step. There is no fine line between reasonable precautions and draconian measures; it's a long, gradual slope. But we're on it, and we have to draw that line somplace.

If electronics are banned from US flights, that's when I will stop flying. I don't care about a Chapstick, or even about not being able to take a bottle of water on the plane with me, but I refuse to put $3000 worth of camera and computer gear into a checked bag which cannot be locked (by law), and just trust the TSA screeners and the airline baggage handlers to get it all to my destination intact and with nothing missing. I'll drive instead.

You can lock your bags. There is no law that says you cannot. BUT.....I do see your point because the TSA can open anything they want.

 

[disneyldwjr]

Until the airlines begin to offer reasonable compensation and security for baggage, I'm not happy about checking toiletries.

The brands I use can not be purchased in Wal-mart. The bare minimum cost over $300 to replace last week and took stops at four different shops. I do a lot of flying, mostly 24-48 hour trips. I do not have the time on these trips to spend two hours running around from place to place to purchase my items, nor are they even available in a lot of areas.

Additionally I don't want to spend an extra four hours of my trip waiting around to check and claim a bag which will fit under my seat.

BTW--For anyone wondering, the TSA missed a metal tube of hand cream in my bag on both flights this past weekend. They also asked me to put all electronic items and cords in a bin at MCO. I forgot that I had tucked my microcassette recorder into my bag and that went through the x-ray in the bag rather than a bin, and they didn't catch that either.

In fact last night in Philly a hand search of my carry on for a lighter they saw on the x-ray (I don't smoke or own a lighter) still had them missing the metal tube of hand cream.

So how safe do you all feel now?

Anne

What prevents you from checking those expensive cosmetics? I have yet to lose anything from my checked luggage and I use the expensive stuff too.

 

[ducklite]

What prevents you from checking those expensive cosmetics? I have yet to lose anything from my checked luggage and I use the expensive stuff too.

And you've flown how many times? Although only once have I had a bag not come back forever, despite having my name and number on the inside and out, I've had a lot of bags go missing and not catch up to me for 24-48 hours. By that time on my average trip, I'd be back home, and would ahve had to spend a lot of money to purcahse new items, including a bag to check them for the return. And the airline is going to reimburse me for this how?

I'll answer for you. They aren't.

And as I said, a lot of the products I use are not readily available, even at department stores in many areas.

Anne

 

[bavaria]

1) Nobody is "whining" about going without Chapstick for an hour. But folks in the U.K. are certainly not happy about having to board a 10-hour trans-Atlantic flight with kids, but with no toys, diaper bags, portable DVD players, or snacks to keep them occupied.

1) I beg to differ. Were you here on this board since Thursday? CarolA and I as well as some other travellers tried to be helpful and offer alternative solutions; the majority of the helpful posts were not responded to, and some posts became downright nasty towards us because we did not understand the desperation (Addiction?) people had for chapstick

Frankly, I wouldn't turn to a Disney themed website for accurate infromation - I would go to TSA, CATSA, BAA, or even flyertalk.com before coming here for accurate information. The misinformation and needless panic spread here is based on outdated information.

 

[bavaria]

And you've flown how many times? Although only once have I had a bag not come back forever, despite having my name and number on the inside and out, I've had a lot of bags go missing and not catch up to me for 24-48 hours. By that time on my average trip, I'd be back home, and would ahve had to spend a lot of money to purcahse new items, including a bag to check them for the return. And the airline is going to reimburse me for this how?

I'll answer for you. They aren't.

And as I said, a lot of the products I use are not readily available, even at department stores in many areas.

Anne

There are essentially two types of flyers - leisure and business. A colleague of mine calls them 'amateur' and 'professional' flyers. That's not an insult; it's the reality - we get far more practice than the leisure traveller.

But then there are different types of professional travellers. Someone like Anne, who flies many segments with trips of 2-4 days. And then there is someone like me, who may not be home for a month at a time, or one day out of three months, and flies with an entire suitcase of work specific items.

We may fly a similar amount of miles each year, but reach that total in very different patterns.

Anne takes a small carryon; I take two suitcases and often ship items ahead.

Anne should not need to check luggage, nor can she realistically ship a package ahead and make it cost effective for those multiple short trips.

 

[Suzanne74]

I completely agree. People whinning about chapped lips and no bottled water blah, blah blah. Ugh, it makes me so mad that security can't just do their job without rolling of eyes or comments. I see that EVERYTIME we go to the airport too.

I for one will bring nothing on the plane if they told me too - without complaint. I rather be safe then "comfortable."

I also think this helps the people who bring WAY too much for carryons. It has gotten out of hand and I hope this helps!!

 

[deekaypee]

I for one will bring nothing on the plane if they told me too - without complaint. I rather be safe then "comfortable."

As my previous post suggests, I'm not convinced that the restrictions ensure safety. Nor am I convinced that safe and comfortable are false binaries, that by must forgoing comfort one gains safety. I believe the safety/comfort debate participates in a logical fallacy, one which is unfortunately perpetuated and promoted by various govermental, institutional, and media agencies.

I also think this helps the people who bring WAY too much for carryons. It has gotten out of hand and I hope this helps!!

Isn't this a separate issue? That people exceed carry-on restrictions, whether in reality (which does happen) or in your opinion, doesn't seem to be a valid reason for implementing the restriction of the liquid items currently under discussion. There are size restrictions for carry-on luggage that deal with this problem; if those restrictions aren't enforced, that's a (different) problem altogether.