<p>So, I’m probably as far right as a person can get, and, I’m economically motivated to LOVE anything related to increased national security and increased diligence against potential acts of terrorists. And I’d vote for GWB for a third term if he were permitted to run, Osama-been-missing beside the point. (Sorry if I just made anyone lose their breakfast - but - that’s where I am.)</p>
<p>But, lipstick flies, mascara doesn’t??? Whoever decided this, they’re so stupid it has to hurt. </p>
<p>Can anyone seriously believe that the brain that can figure out how to use a tube of mascara to explode a plane can NOT figure out how to leverage a tube of lipstick for the same purpose???</p>
<p>And how to screen for that anyway - I’m imagining bewildered TSA people trying to distinguish between the two, given the combination of weird modern product packaging, and the issue that many of the TSA persons I’ve encountered appear to be unacquainted with either product, so, it’s hard to imagine that they’d know what they’re looking at with any reasonable degree of accuracy.</p>
<p>What about Chapstick??? This is a little ridiculous, but after I read an article about a month ago, I think the whole banning process has gotten out of hand.
The point of the article was this - after the shoe bomber, Congress legislatively banned cigarette lighters on board, most all the other small banned items were banned by decree from TSA, not legislatively. Well, for the past year TSA has been trying to get Congress to unban cigarette lighters - they confiscate tens of thousands of them everyday, and it is a big waste of their efforts. But to make it the ultimate of ridiculous, cigarette lighters are banned, but matches are not!</p>
<p>Why haven’t we implimented the 9/11 Commission recommendations in general? Why have we resisted equipment which detects liquid explosives? I fly about 40,000 miles a year, and the whole process is heavy on the inconvenience, while light on the safety. I don’t mind the inconvenience at all, if only I truly felt safer.</p>
<p>How many women who wear cosmetics blow up planes anyway? Now if a MAN shows up packing lipstick or mascara, they might be suspect. Wouldn’t it be simpler and faster if no one carried on anything (unless it’s food for a child) or medicine.</p>
<p>Tookie, you’re probably right. But I have to travel a lot, and I just can’t face my next 8-hour flight plus 1 hour pre-flight wait (beyond the security) without something to read. I am not sure I can handle that without going stark raving mad.</p>
<p>My brother just flew across the country last night and said it was annoying having no water bottles, but that books, carry on luggage, and food were still allowed. </p>
<p>No contact lens solution though, even in the little container that holds the contacts. Now that is just plain dumb. The mascara thing is really dumb too. Actually the whole liquid thing is also over the top, but that’s another story altogether.</p>
<p>I too would lose my mind completely, utterly without a book. Not only for the escape/entertainment, but, it’s rescue from annoying strangers who assume that just because they are seated next to me I am somehow magically interested in talking to them. </p>
<p>katliamom & Allmusic: No, books and magazine aren’t banned on flights originating from the US. But they are banned on flights originating from within the UK. So I can have a book when flying to London from US city. But when I fly home, I can’t. I’ll go nuts.</p>
<p>Katliamom, books aren’t banned. Hayden was just responding to my suggestion that all carry-ons be banned. They certainly can’t ban our purses or articles of identification! </p>
<p>Are they looking through everyone’s carry-ons/purses, or just sending them through the x-ray machines? I’m just wondering if the machines can pick up on lipsticks, mascara, hand sanitizer, etc.</p>
<p>my D was told at TWO security checks her powder makeup, shadows, and eyeliner were fine, so she carried them…at the gate, they made her toss them</p>
<p>what she got to the gate, she had to toss it MAC stuff…grr as she said</p>
<p>she would have packed it, because she asked them and the counter people said it would be fine</p>
<p>what was she gonna do with purple shadow and red lipstick, tammy faye someone?</p>
<p>she was allowed a small carryon, but last week it was a clear plastic backto hold ID and money that was it</p>
<p>she was sooo sad she couldn’t do her summer reading on the plane</p>
<p>As a former chemistry teacher, I can think of purple pigments that could be powdered and put in an eye shadow case, then mixed with some red-pigmented gels (which is what lipstick is), to cause some pretty nasty damage. I wouldn’t want them on my skin, but they can’t ask every single person to apply their stuff before getting on the plane.</p>
<p>I am of the opinion that EVRYTHING should be checked, except essentials. I would define essentials as one book/4 hours, passport, medicines (prescription and non). </p>
<p>But I’m the person who doesn’t like it that they allow glass (not plastic) wine glasses in first class, because I can figure out ways to do some pretty serious damage with that, too.</p>
<p>here’s my question- I understand that you can’t reasonably prohibit bringing baby formula on a plane, but how is it any less likely that baby formula could be an explosive? I mean, many of the chemicals needed to form a bomb are a white liquid or clear and would be invisible in something like milk. </p>
<p>And yet, some people are having to explain all their liquid medications and being told to check medicines for children that wouldn’t be absolutely necessary, while someone who can’t live without her clinique lipstick gets to have that.</p>
<p>I spoke recently to a friend of mine in london who is there with her small son (he’s almost two). She was supposed to be flying over here today for a friend’s baby shower. Her son has frequent ear infections and is on that pink amoxicillin suspension. Even while taking it his ears hurt, but imagine trying to fly a baby with an ear infection without his antibiotics and baby tylenol? Well the guards told her to give the baby a dose of each at the security desk and chuck the rest.</p>
<p>Needless to say, she’s back at home and rescheduled her tickets until she can get an extra bottle of the stuff to put in her luggage and a note from the baby’s pediatrician insisting that the medicines are necessary.</p>
<p>I understand why they’re doing it but what a huge pain for her and of course her baby, who would have had to fly 8 hours without his medication. </p>
<p>As a chemist-in-training I work with a highly volatile substance that’s very explosive when subjected to shock or changes of pressure, and it (to someone who doesn’t know what it is) looks exactly like cough syrup and that’s currently being allowed. There’s little hope to control this without banning liquids of any kind, which isn’t possible since there are persons out there dependent on insulin and other liquid medications.</p>
<p>As I understand it the problem isn’t with the contact lens solution, it’s with the bottle. Since contact lens solutions are sensitive to light, the bottles are opaque but hold quite a bit of liquid, which can’t be easily identified. Since security can’t check every bottle of this stuff, they’re not allowing any of it. Sixteen ounces of one of the needed chemicals for a bomb could be enough to blow the whole thing to ash.</p>
<p>UVMLauren, I’m usually right out in front saying that terrorists actions shouldn’t be the deciding factor in what we do or don’t do, can’t be controlled by fear, but, for the first time, I am seriously considering cancelling my meetings later this week so I don’t have to fly. </p>
<p>This is just simply stupid. I think CGM has something there - maybe they’re very worried that someone might put on too much mascara and scare the other passengers to death. Can’t accomplish quite the same “Halloween horror” with lipstick I’m guessing. </p>
<p>TSA and the stupid decisions they’re required to execute trouble me as much as the terrorists at the moment…I’m with whoever posted that they should just ban everything except ID, and a book. </p>
<p>As far as babies, if they can put those horrible peanuts, bad coffee, terrifying snacks you can buy, etc. on planes, then, the same companies can acquire the more common variations of formula, milk, etc. for sale or complimentary during beverage service. Medicine of course is a LOT harder - I cannot think of a fix for that.</p>
<p>Isn’t “Snakes on a Plane” opening in theatres soon? Even more terrifying is “Crying Babies on a Plane!” Selling baby formula is a great idea. And add one more thing to prepare for international flights: an extra prescription in the event it must be filled upon landing because the meds got confiscated.</p>
<p>Last year when going overseas the screener made my d take her violin out of her case and play a tune. I really wasn’t sure if the guy was suspicious or was just trying to be cute. You just do anything nowadays to be uber-cooperative. Sing The Lady in Red while doing 20 push-ups? Sure, if it means I’ll make my flight. D was mortified and wished she could be swallowed into a hole. As if the lines weren’t long enough!</p>
<p>I agree. Cosmetics on the whole (I can’t imagine why you’d need them in flight, everyone looks terrible after flying transatlantic) really need to all go or all stay, since it really doesn’t make a difference. </p>
<p>I can’t wait until they start doing what they used to do after Lockerbie- unloading everyone on the tarmac, making you claim your baggage in person, and then send it back onto the plane or to the baggage claim. That was a really efficient waste of time, considering as they went through so much on the other end to keep baggage from getting loaded without its attendant person.</p>
<p>on the plus side, the private aviation industry is experiencing a boon right now. No baggage checks (considering if it’s your plane for the next ten hours, you’re free to blow up yourself and your butler), no airports, only a passport check at the other end. </p>
<p>If we’re going to try to go about eliminating every single thing someone could blow up a plane or harm another person with, we’re going to have to ban people from the flight. The more we restrict, the more creative the motivated people get, and the harder things become to prevent. </p>
<p>I mean, you can pack a mascara tube with powder that would be, if mixed with some gels, would create a pretty handy bomb, but if you can’t have the gel either, there’s little point. The trick here is restricting the right combination of things to prevent an action- restricting batteries is a big part of that. Sorry laptop users and iPod addicts; your electronic devices may be permanently restricted from flights. But the battery is a key part of a detonator and the easiest way to get a high powered battery on a plane is to bring a laptop.</p>
<p>EDIT: the security official was probably listening to see if it sounded like the violin had anything stuffed in it, that wouldn’t be visible through the f holes. It’s easy to pop a good string instrument open and stash things in it out of plain sight, but it’s hard to do it and make it still sound like a violin. it’s sort of the same theory that goes behind making people boot up their laptops in security.</p>
<p>Airlines JUST move people. Some private company that works like FedEx, or whatever, picks up luggage at homes and delivers it to hotels or where ever you need it on the other end. </p>
<p>People would be able to arrive at an airport minutes before their flights leave. So what if you have to wait for your luggage? It isn’t exactly a wonderful system now!!!</p>
<p>No cargo or other luggage on the planes. </p>
<p>Ha! Who says the Dems don’t have solutions? That’s this Dem’s idea! ;)</p>