Were all those fliers last week *really* such happy campers?

[Stinky The Clown]

Last week, after the suntan oil ban, the deoderant and toothpaste ban, the water and contact lens cleaner ban, we heard report after report after report that people, generally, were not upset by it.

"Better safe than sorry" seemd the theme of the day from those interviewed for teevee.

I find that hard to believe.

Am I the only one who absolutely HATES these policies? Am I the only one who despises the notion of someone in ill fitting pants and latex gloves touching my stuff ... and sometimes even my person? Am I the only one who can not get past the idea that there is NOTHING to be gained from a 'safety' perspective by all this, and **everything** to be gained from a political perspective?

In my view every fucking one of these stupid airport checks and rules and procedures is NOTHING more than a way to constantly remind us that we're in danger and only a bfrain addled still-and-former drunk and drug abuser can keep us safe.

I absolutely HATE the flying .... not for the flying but for the fucking maleability of the populace to allow themselves to be so manipulated and to JUST FUCKING TAKE IT.

Yeah yeah ..... they might find a bomb. BULLSHIT. By the time a bad guy or a team of bad guys get to the airport, we're fucked. That's pretty much a fact. Deal with it.

If you think this shit is needed, you're a fucking coward.

And get yer latex gloved hands outta my pants.

[beyurslf]

1. I some of it is a little draconian, but when they talk about a bomb

being made of simple liquids, I kind of like the idea that we can't take liquids onto a plane. How would you know if a bottle of water was water otherwise? I thought the toothpaste and stuff was maybe overboard, but I don't know what materials can make a bomb. Maybe some gel like liquid can form a bomb somehow.
I seriously doubt everyone was really happy but I imagine a lot of people did have the "What can I do about it--if this is what they say we have to do,then we have to do it" type of an attitude. And I know if it meant my plane not blowing up, I would be happy to hand over my liquids. I wonder about someone like my friend who takes insulin and what he is supposed to do. I freely admit that I don't have that answer today.
It pisses me off when I go through a metal detector and forget the quarter in my pocket and I have to be searched and take off my shoes and everything else. It seems a little overboard. But I know I am not a terrorist--they don't know that though. But then again, how hard is it for me to remember to take the damn quarter out of my pocket? I know it sets off a detector!

[globalvillage]

2. I'll let you know tomorrow night.

Right now, I've got to go figure out how to pack for a business trip.
Sigh. I don't expect it'll be much fun.

[karynnj]

4. My husband, 2 daughters and I flew from St Martin (Sint Maarten)

on Saturday. It really wasn't that bad - they did search the take on more thoroughly than usual. The only thing I heard people (including one daughter) really complain about was that you couldn't take a bottle of water on the plane - even if purchased in the secure area. (She was also not happy that she couldn't put Purell in her take on bag.) The passengers returning from London to JFK had a VERY tough time and those we met in the Customs line were(even on Saturday) as much as 3 hours late arriving and had missed US connecting flights.

I think the difference on non-UK flights may be greater in the week days because all toiletries will have to be in checked baggage - so those used to packing compactly to save time by not checking bags will spend more time in the airport.

[globalvillage]

5. Thanks (and we missed you).

I haven't checked bags for a business trip in a very long time. I have, or had, a routine, and if it didn't fit in the roller bag or my backpack, it wasn't going on the trip.
Guess that all changes.
Hope you had fun on vaca.
:hi:

[hlthe2b]

3. Hardly... the potential threat of these types of bombs have been

known for years. The security and CIA experts who have spoken out (e.g., Larry Johnson, former CIA and Boyd, Airport security expert--see video on Crooks & Liars) have indicated these measures are bunk.

Chemical sensors could and should have been implemented long ago. Given that BUsh* cut funding for this program, how can anyone believe that these measures are not simply an attempt to show they are doing something. Restricting and limiting the amount and type of liquids is fine--even making one drink out of the bottle beforehand. But to outlaw a contact lens in its case, until one removes the 2-3 drops of wetting solution? Absolutely ridiculous.

I've already cut back my flying 90% of what it was pre-911. I certainly will look for alternatives to the business travel I do have to do in the future. Not knowing at any given time whether your expensive laptop will be forced into baggage (where no insurance policy will cover) is not a risk I can take. Nor do I intend to get stranded on a steaming hot tarmac on a plane for hours with no AC (just so they can save fuel) and no water.

The airlines obviously do not have a lobby strong enough to counter some of the competing interests, it seems. They are going to face further passenger revolt, I predict.