New security measures causing travel woes

[Alex T]

Mel- I have heard 3 times on CNN watching they are NOT requiring mothers to drink their forumlas so not sure how the reports are conflicting, the reporters are saying "no matter what you hear or read the TSA are NOT (big urgency voice here) focring the mothers and fathers to drink the forumals" so we will see. I never have trusted MSNBC when watching them.

MSNBC.com needs to re word the ban statement, you can still take them to British Airways just you have to check them, according to britishairways.com. they are not banning them from the flight just from carrying it on board.

[moose135]

These safety measures won't be in place for that long I'm sure.

It's been how many years now, and you still have to take your shoes off going through the metal detector? What procedures have they relaxed in the past 5 years?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the extra precautions, I just think the above points are a bit out of line.

It's the TSA, it doesn't have to make sense.

[T-Bird76]

We're allowed to bring them on board NOW. We just can't bring liquids on. Only in England can they not have any carry-on...from what I've been reading on the news.

I should have clarified a bit more. I meant the carryon’s in England and the liquids here. However my point still stands what will the TSA tell us in a few weeks when we go back to normal?

I never said I wasn't happy, but Phil look at what happened here. All of a sudden since this threat became real we ban carryon’s that just yesterday were allowed? What was the difference between yesterday and today? Absolutely nothing, this threat was as real yesterday as it was today. So Homeland security decides to take us to the brink of an attack and cause chaos at the airports. If this was surprise to them and they didn't know liquid bombs were a real threat then I'd be real scared.

Why the negativity from so many and not just on this board, because people are sick of being handed a load of **** from the gov't. For years now and millions of tax payer dollars later Homeland security has said our airports are safe and in a blink of an eye a relative simple plot is uncovered and all hell breaks lose. If this was a real threat then why were we allowed to bring liquids onboard up to today? That's the question at hand here and why did the TSA and Homeland security fail at identifying this threat.

You want to make it simple, ban carryon’s all together send all luggage through explosives detectors and be done with it. Install explosive metal detectors as well and make the task of carrying out an operation like this so difficult it would not be worth it. We're spending money ***** footing around, lying to the public, making knee jerk reactionary decisions all the while the ability to blow up a plane with a cup of explosives disguised as a can of coke still exists. Its time for some real leadership and accountability at Homeland Security. I’m sorry this was to close to call and my figure is pointed squarely at the TSA and Homeland security.

[PhilDernerJr]

The ban on things like nail clippers and other small metalic objects that was once banned is no longer that way.

As for the shoes thing, is that really a big deal? Sounds ok to me to have them x-rayed separately.

[Mellyrose]

Not that I think it should be this way, but I do agree with Tommy about how the threat was just as present yesterday as it is today. If there are concerns, these rules should stay in place for good. As soon as there is leniency or the ban is lifted, it's just as dangerous as it was before the ban. Terrorism is not going to go away no matter what rules they make....especially if it's half assed.


edit: P.S. I just read this...

Among those arrested were....and a Heathrow Airport employee with an all-area access pass, according to Britain's Channel 4.

In which case it doesn't even MATTER what security measures are taken...airport employees aren't put through security on the hour, or made to throw their drinks out, right?

[hiss srq]

When did Amtrak start trains to London? ;)

I agree that many security measures are silly these days, and are just there as a way to imply that things are secure. But come on...it's not a big deal to not be able to take water, lotion or perfume on a flight.

I ment on the stateside of things.

[FlyingColors]

This crap keeps up were all going to start taking pics of abandoned terminals!

Total bull, out of line and order.
But its OK, you just have to give up your basic human rights.

Like Derf said "they won"

[PhilDernerJr]

While laws and measures implemented since 9/11 all over might be over the line, I don't think anything at the airport has been that out of control in temrs of being over the top for safety.

Taking water on a plane isn't a basic human right, and I don't think anything of the new rules at the airport do so either.

[Midnight Mike]

This crap keeps up were all going to start taking pics of abandoned terminals!

Total bull, out of line and order.
But its OK, you just have to give up your basic human rights.

Like Derf said "they won"

Do nothing, & they win as well

I certainly would not say that Air Travel is a basic human right, so guys, let's not exagerate....

[markg]

Total bull, out of line and order.
But its OK, you just have to give up your basic human rights.

Like Derf said "they won"

From what I can understand reading various UK and US websites today, this was more than your average knee jerk reaction to a message picked up on Al Jazeera.net or whatever. This was a full blown attempt to kill a lot of people.

The people of the UK are not known to react to terror threats in such a way. We are used to living with the threat of the IRA. (I was once very close to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, when 2 boys aged 11 and 3 got killed while shopping for a Mother's Day gift) The 2nd time I was 3,000 miles away when my office building was severely damaged by a bomb.

Forget human rights. I'd rather forsake a bottle of water and my Ipod on a flight than become a victim of these Paki a**holes (apologies to anyone on here from the Indian Subcontinent, it is not a generalized statement aimed at everyone)

If you think it's a breach of your human rights, then please choose not to fly.

Apologies for the rant!

[Matt Molnar]

Please explain what a hoohah is.

It's somewhere between the bushy bowl and the Hershey Highway. :)

[T-Bird76]

Please explain what a hoohah is.

It's somewhere between the bushy bowl and the Hershey Highway. :)

MMMMM Hershey highway......... :P

[Mateo]

It's somewhere between the bushy bowl and the Hershey Highway.

That's Route 322, right? Oh, wait, what were we talking about?

If the terrorists hate our freedom so much, why is it that you can board a flight in Saudi Arabia carrying a bottle of water?

[Midnight Mike]

Effective Immediately - New Airport Security Directives

The national security threat level has been raised from yellow to orange and passengers may not take liquids, gels, or creams through the security checkpoint or on an aircraft. Below are the restrictions for air travelers in the U.S. There is some confusion as the restrictions in Great Britain are more stringent.

Restrictions for departures in the United States

Liquids, gels and creams may be packed in checked, but not carry-on luggage
Beverages purchased must be consumed before boarding an aircraft
Liquids include beverages, shampoo, lotions, creams, toothpaste, gels and other items of similar consistency.


There are two exceptions and these items must be presented for inspection at the checkpoint.

Passengers may bring baby formula or breast milk if an infant is traveling.
Prescription medicine will be allowed on the aircraft if the name on the prescription bottle matches the passenger's ticket. Insulin and essential other non-prescription medicines will be
allowed.
The new procedures may result in longer lines at security. Travelers should get to the airport two hours before departure and of course not take any restricted items through security.



Restrictions in Great Britain

Many people are confused about the requirements for carry-ons because the news is really focusing on what's going on in Great Britain; -- their requirements are very different from those in the U.S. In Great Britain, the airports on are Red Alert, the highest alert. That is not the case in the U.S. We are on Orange Alert. In Great Britain, passengers are not allowed to have carry-on luggage. That is not the case here. Carry-ons are allowed -- just no liquids /gels in the carry-ons. In Great Britain, passengers are not allowed to bring electronic devices -- PDAs, laptops, cell phones, etc. That is not the case here. They are allowed. In Great Britain, passengers have been encouraged not to fly unless absolutely necessary. That is not the case here -- our airlines are trying to acommodate travelers.

1 + 1 Is the Rule for Carry-On Luggage

Travelers with luggage in hand are allowed to take two items on board their flights - one bag plus one personal item such as a purse, laptop or briefcase.

There are a few exceptions to this rule. The items below can be carried in addition to one bag and one personal item:

Crutches, wheelchairs and other medical assistance items
One musical instrument
Duty-free items
One bag of photographic equipment.
More details and key travel tips are available on the Transportation Security Administration's Web site

[Iberia A340-600]

I hope things die down some before Wednesday. I was hoping to spend some time in Terminal C at EWR before my flight to SJU doing some spotting from inside the terminal but I'm sure secuirty will be tight and me with my camrea could be called upon.

So when they say ban all liquids does that mean I can't bring a bottle of Pepsi aboard?