This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this.

The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me.

These explosives can be detected via infrared spectroscopy but that isn’t going to be happening to liquids in your bag. This reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives. Those swipes can only detect a narrow set of explosive chemistries and everyone knows it. Some explosives notoriously popular with terror organizations can’t be detected. Everyone, including the bad guys, knows all of this.

It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater.

TSA Chief Out After Agents Fail 95 Percent of Airport Breach Tests

"In one case, an alarm sounded, but even during a pat-down, the screening officer failed to detect a fake plastic explosive taped to an undercover agent's back. In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-...

I find it interesting to contrast this with my experience flying out of China. I was taken to a private room and shown the digital colored X-ray of my bag on which a box had been drawn around an empty lighter, I was asked to remove it myself and hand it over, and I went on my way. All in under 5 minutes, no pat down, no fuss, and no one physically rifled through my belongings. (Granted I was a tourist so that might well not be typical.)

I'm not sure what their success rate is when tested by professionals but the experience definitely left me wondering WTF the deal with the TSA is.

This sounds like my experiences in Toronto. It’s less adversarial than the experiences I've had in the U.S.

My experiences were basically a form of, “Hey we saw something that caught our attention and might be an issue. Let's work through addressing this."

One case it was a handful of 3.5" galvanized nails. "Whoops. Okay, so, this bag used to be my makeshift toolbag. My other one ripped and I had to get one last minute--" "No problem. Can you remove them? You can either surrender them to us or we can get them mailed back to you, but I'm guessing it's not worth it..." I was so defensive because to me it looked bad but they weren't actually after me in the way I thought they'd be.

The second time was that I had an "Arduino Starter Kit" full of bundled up wires and random chips and such. Once they saw the box they didn't even ask me to un-shrinkwrap it, and unlike the nails, didn't re-x-ray the bag.

Both times they rotated their screen and pointed to the box framing the item in question on the colourized x-ray.

Meanwhile, the TSA looks at me like I'm, at best an annoyance, and at worst a criminal, when I ask them to inspect my camera kit manually (film, not digital). And that inspection consists of swabbing 35mm film canisters - like, the shell of a 35mm roll is going to tell them anything useful?!?! It's a complete sham.

I guess they're probably operating on the assumption that at worst a few short nails stuffed in a small film canister are no worse than the metal handle from a rolling suitcase.

The swab is for common explosives. The canisters are a bit on the small side but I guess could still pose a threat if packed with high explosive and a bit of shrapnel.

The apparent annoyance (or worse) is the part that gets me. The entire process just feels needlessly adversarial. At least they didn't insist on patting you down or emptying out your bag!

I think for film specifically it might be for drugs? Seems like a very convenient way to smuggle contraband. You can’t open it to inspect it, you can’t xray it either otherwise it will ruin the film.

Worst and most aggressive pat down I have ever experienced was in Toronto for no reason that I can think of, so I have learned to be stoic about all interactions with gate keepers, regardless of country. You never know when someone had a bad cup of tea just before the met you.

New York is the worst security I've ever come through for just being needlessly horrible. Like screaming at people because they didn't literally put their feet on the "footprints" on the floor.

Toronto was fine. Just a slightly incredulous conversation about how we could take 3 weeks off to travel Canada.

Only time I have ever been shouted at by personnel in an airport was at JFK.

That's just a New Yorker's way of saying "I love you and want you to get home safely".

Especially if you've been in New York for a few days, being yelled at shouldn't be taken so personally. Especially when you consider how many people badly need instructions yelled at them because they're so very confused, I can see why they do it!

Was it US customs or the Canadian TSA equivalent?

US customs were less friendly in my limited experience.

While there's U.S. Customs agents in Pearson, the entirety of security is done by CATSA. I cannot imagine U.S. Customs doing any sort of pat down. I'm not sure they'd even be allowed to do anything like that in Toronto. I think they're pretty much only allowed to screen and admit or reject.

That's been exactly my experience recently in the US. Most recently it was some Hot Hands hand warmers. They just had me go to the end of the line where you get your bags ouf of the scanner and the agent brought my bag down there on the other side of the rollers. They set it on the table in front of me, and there was a monitor above the table where they pointed to the hand warmers on the screen. They said something along the lines of, "Looks like you might have some hand warmers in the main pocket, would you mind taking them out?" I pulled them out, showed them to them, they thanked me and I put it back in the bag and went on my way. This was in Juneau, AK.

They thought I had a gun in Toronto airport and were surprisingly calm about it. (I didn't actually have a gun.)

Flying back from Beijing, I had bought a lot of books. I filled my bags with it, so they were very heavy. When the agent came to try to check my backpack, he casually grabbed it, and fell on the conveyor belt trying to lift it. He looked at me with shock. "I'm done", I thought. He opened the bag, and saw a box of zongzi the university gave me, on top of the books. He instantly became radiant, gave me a pat on the back, and just indicated the way.

If I were him, I'd have let you bribe me with a zongzi. Those look delicious!

I know it's a joke, and they probably get only a tiny minority of cases... but the Chinese government makes a huge show of executing people that do stuff like this.

> the Chinese government makes a huge theater of execution people that do stuff like this.

This sentence has a critical grammatical error, but I can't figure out what it was supposed to say.

Execution should be executing

Also not sure about the usage of theater there. I'd probably swap it out for "show". Never heard theater used like that although it is pretty close to a standard idiom, "to make a show of something".

Thanks, changed both.

Once at a security checkpoint to a museum in Shanghai, they saw my water bottle, and then told me to take it out and drink from it.

In the 90's USA was sensible. I was flying with a thermos of hot coffee in my carry on. As soon as they took out the thermos and felt the heat radiating from the lid the agent said, "I don't think they would heat it", smiled and passed me thru.

Now when I fly I have to be careful. When they ask purpose of visit I say sightseeing. I used to say tourist, but with my accent that once caused alarm when the agent thought I said terrorist.

I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

On the other hand, if somebody said "I'm here for terrorism" and the immigration officer laughed that off, imagine the shitstorm if that person turns out to be a terrorist.

For the individual employee the cost of wasting someone's time by escalating the case and detaining them is zero, the potential cost of letting someone slip by is realistically tiny but potentially huge

The point is that the situation must be really crazy if we reach a point where someone (mostly foreigner) saying "tourist" is being confused as to saying "terrorist". Airport are full of tourists, and exactly 0 person on the planet would reply with "terrorist".

>and exactly 0 person on the planet would reply with "terrorist".

Unfortunately you give your fellow humans way too much credit.

Much like the people that rob a bank by writing a note saying to hand over all the money... on the back of their own deposit slip.

So when an immigration officer makes an error parsing the tourist's words, you think the security protocol ought to be to let the tourist pass through the gate?

> I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

Its like those stupid questions on US immigration forms, e.g.

"Do you intend to engage in the United States in Espionage ?" or "Did you ever order, incite or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person ?"

It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ?

Might as well just turn up at the immigration desk, slap your wrists down on the counter and invite them to handcuff you .... why bother with the form !

> It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ?

No, they do not think anyone will check 'Yes' to that box.

The purpose of the box is that it's a crime to lie when someone checks 'No', and that tends to be an easy charge to bring.

So, the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.

> the purpose of the form is to generate convictions for lying on the form.

Yeah but if the immigration officer has reason to question you about those sections of the form then surely they have more than enough evidence of the underlying crime anyway ?

No they’re playing the long game. It’s for if they need to deport (and/or jail) you later.

Lying on a customs form is a valid reason to revoke a visa, and it’s an open and shut case.

Is traveling to the US for the purpose of engaging in espionage not also a valid reason to revoke a visa?

Yes. And murder is illegal. And yet, Al Capone was in Alcatraz on tax evasion charges.

It’s often an easier case to prove that you lied on the form when you said you came to the US with no intent to commit espionage than it is to prove that someone committed espionage.

It basically unlocks a second set of potential facts that they can use to bring a criminal case (or revoke a visa, etc).

Intent to commit espionage is not a crime (but committing or attempting to commit it is) Lying on the form is. It is probably easier to demonstrate intent to commit espionage than to catch them in the act.

Wouldn't it be easier to make those things illegal and then prosecute them instead of the lie? For prosecuting a lie you need to prove 2 things, the thing lied about and the lie itself, so it seems like a more difficult prosecution for no reason. Also how does every other country in the world manage to not have these questions?

> Also how does every other country in the world manage to not have these questions?

You sure about that? Many other countries have what would be considered odd questions on their forms.

Also, saying "every other country" is a mighty wide brush. There are a whole lot of countries where the rule of law doesn't come first and they can simply do what they want if they suspect you of anything regardless if they have a law or not.

That crime alone wouldn’t give you a basis for denaturalizing and deporting people who commit certain kinds of crimes.

This is what happens when a legal system and a political system is taken over by specialists with little to no other skills.

Instead of politics being about setting policy to work toward desire outcomes, politics becomes about ensuring the viability of future political processes. Instead of the legal system being about defining crime, establishing punishment and carrying out said punishments it becomes about ensnaring others in legal "gotcha" moments like lying on a form. Society is not safer because of the outlawed nature of lying on a form. Society is not better off because someone is convicted of lying on a form. The individuals who participate in the prosecution are better off because it gives them an opportunity to advance their career.

Making false statements to federal officials is itself a crime. The intent of having those sections is to be able to have legal recourse against people that lie on them, which hopefully deters people that would lie on them from attempting to immigrate in the first place.

Believe it or not it’s a question on the pre-clearance form for travel to the US: ”are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation” - I always wondered what the rationale for that was

It's easier to deport people for lying on their immigration form than for having been a member of a terrorist organization

But to prove lying you would have to prove being a terrorist anyway...

No, being a member of a “terrorist organization” and the government allows itself latitude in defining that. It’s much easier to associate someone with an organization than to show personal acts of terrorism.

But the method of due process may be different, and the standard of proof to meet may be different. Revoking a visa is easier for the executive branch to accomplish.

You're making assumptions the thing they lied about and the thing they are being deported for are the same, and quite often the thing you're actually being deported for is not a reason to deport anyone at all.

You come to the US and make a social media post saying Trump is a big fat dummy head.

You get deported for lying about being in a terrorist organization.

Is that actually a realistic example? I’m having trouble following what’s happening in the US

100%.

This pattern of government behavior is everywhere. One common one is the yellow sheet (form 4473) for buying a firearm in the US.

Here is an example of a question

> “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

No matter the state law, federal law says it's illegal.

So, what happens. At some point you buy a gun in Colorado. Then lets say you get on the news and talk about legalization, or you talk about anything that catches social media popularity and someone in the government doesn't approve of. Well, you better not have any record of a marijuana purchase anywhere, or pictures of you doing it because you've just committed a federal crime and the ATF/FBI can kick down your door as they please.

Having formerly been a member of a terrorist group is different from currently being in one - it may not be illegal, but lying about it is a deportable offence.

Member of a terrorist organization. Did you protest for Palestine action? Then you're a member of a terrorist organization, and they don't have to prove you did any terrorism or planned any terrorism. It's a form of thoughtcrime.

I liked the “have you been in contact with someone with Ebola” questions the kiosk used to ask people entering Canada.

I’m like, uhhhh, I dunno, maybe? A little late to inform me that I was supposed to be asking/testing everyone.

If I knew the answer to that was yes I'd already be at the hospital ...

It could probably be part of the premise for a gag in a hypothetical Liar Liar 2 after Jim Carrey haphazardly finds himself mixed up in one 30 minutes earlier in the movie, so there's that.

You say "No", then it turns out you're a HAMAS supporter --> deported.

> I always wondered what the rationale for that was

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. An easy way to keep communists out of the country.

And we've seen how easy it is to expand that list with "antifa" groups just recently, with antifa groups in Germany having to deal with their banks closing their accounts because the banks were afraid of getting hit with retaliation in their US business.

There were no liquids rules in the 90s.

Correct, that is why I was able to fly with a thermos of coffee. However, they did screen carry on items.

I am a strong believer in the "low-tech" solutions for this kind of thing. I seriously doubt the terrorist suicide bomber knows if drinking the explosive is going to prevent them from taking the mission to the end (ie. they will die in 5 min, in 30 min or in 24h), so they will start panicking when asked to drink from the bottle.

The US embassy in London do this. You can take liquids in, as long as you drink from them at security.

Was it just you? Or do they apply the same policy for every visitor with a bottle of liquid?

Just a guess but at a museum I assume they're looking out for vandals. If it's a water bottle the counterpart would be something like concentrated sodium hydroxide in which case a single sip is sufficient.

Not sure how they would handle dye in a paper coffee cup though.

I doubt that's against vandals I think it's against terrorists with liquid explosives/poison.

This is/was fairly common, I've experienced it on the Chinese subway a few times and I've seen a few clips of it happening online. No idea if it's official policy or not, though.

I saw them do this to a few others in line.

So if a suicide bomber can drink explosives, they will be fine. As long as it's not poisonous within a few hours, should be no issue.

As long as they can drink it without making a face.

That is the way!

Flying out of HK after visiting SZ, I was quietly and quickly surrounded by men with guns after my bag was xrayed. I like nice clothes, especially neatly laundered and pressed shirts. I had an Altoids tin with a few brass collar stays for those shirts. Brass. With a pointy end.

When I was kid long before TSA was even a thing my family flew up to visit the grandparents. My mom had us pack our own bags with some of our favorite toys. My brother decided to bring his Megatron, but sadly left it out of Robot mode. It was quite a scene at the X-Ray when every single agent in the area came running with guns drawn at once.

Interestingly, I had the exact same experience leaving Shanghai - I had picked up some nifty lighters at the wholesale markets. They took me to the room, had me take them out, and I was lucky enough to be able to hand them off to a friend who was staying. No fuss, waiting, or intimidation. They just took care of my honest mistake.

I flew into the UK once with a small nerf pistol. Going in, no problem. Going out I was asked to remove it, lol.

Heathrow is annoying in that you need to go through security every time you change terminal (or enter one for the first time when arriving internationally).

Had to go through security 4 times in a day due to a colossal fuck up by an airline.

Each time they flagged something different on a different person. Still no idea what they were looking for in a purse 3 of 4 times.

It’s wildly inconsistent and I kinda doubt it’s intentional fuzzy logic.

The different Heathrow terminals have different security requirements. I suspect it’s based on countries they fly to from each terminal, but it could be age if equipment.

It is frustrating for security to act like you’re a total idiot for following a process another terminal says is fine (like leaving very small electronics like Kindles in your bag).

Oh, well.

Indeed. Other airports in Europe even have separate terminals or areas for Schengen and non-Schengen destinations, with passport control and sometimes security scans again between them.

Bonus points to Zurich (Schengen but not EU, just to test the edge cases) - I think they have an airside metro where each car is segregated for a different security category of passenger.

That was one of my jokes going between terminals (always by bus): has this country thought about discovering trains?

Once leaving a terminal the staff said we’d take an internal bus and I asked if that meant we wouldn’t have to go through security again, but they just meant the same one as the rest.

All of our trips were non-UK-entry but possibly some terminals do have heightened security to meet one-stop-security requirements. Didn’t seem like it but can’t be sure.

I was flying out of Chicago and I had a big metal bolt that was hollowed out to store pills inside. They showed me the scanned image, and you could see everything clear as day - steel bolt, hollow core, Xanax.

I had exactly the same experience in 2008, the year of the Beijing olympics. It seemed futuristic then and I can only assume their technology is even better now.

There are countries that for whatever reason do not allow lighters on airplanes.

One time my bag was searched furiously because they saw a lighter on the machine, but had trouble locating it. Took two people about 15 minutes. Finally found it. It was very tiny.

Can depend on the lighter. A $1 plain lighter is fine in some countries while a $3 pressurized “jet” lighter is often prohibited.

I haven't had any particularly bad experiences with the TSA either but I have been physically searched a few times. The entire process is definitely slower and more involved. The contrast of that coupled with the published failure statistics just leaves me wondering. I'd rather we got rid of them but if we must keep them I think we could do at least a bit better.

Almost every time I've had a secondary search I've thought "Yeah, I can see how that looks suspicious on x-ray". A large block of cheese as one example.

My two favorite pull-asides were for a three inch toy cannon my son brought back from a civil war site and my 18 inch plastic roller I carried to the Boston Marathon. I was allowed to proceed with both but the roller required a supervisor's approval and the cannon actually had to go up two levels.

You don’t have to take your shoes off anymore!

> What does skin color have to do with this?

It affects their perception of how risky you are, obviously. Accurate or not.

In fact, security tech in China will openly classify you by race/ethnicity.

Of course according to the US government terrorists are now white US citizens, so you could say they have become more open-minded.

Yes, although the US is genuinely one of the least racist places in the world, that's more about how bad the rest of the world is.

In China the CCTV view just tags you up as Han/Uyghur/African/whatever. Nobody would even think twice about it.

There's not even a forum to discuss it, not because it upsets people to be confronted, it's just so casual and matter-of-fact it'd be strange to even talk about. Like of _course_ the Uyghurs are the dangerous ones.

The same Uyghurs in the US would be judged by theie religion und be tracked down by ICE

I routinely conceal large bottles of liquids on my person while going through airport security. I've probably gone through airport security in various places with a 1.5L bottle of water more than a hundred times now. Haven't been caught once, although of course the US-style scanners could presumably defeat this.

Same with hot sauces, perfume and the occasional bottles of wine. I really don't like to travel with a checked-in luggage, so this is a frequent problem.

Luckily I own lots of Rick Owens clothes with large hidden pockets.

A plastic water bottle isn’t triggering a tsa pre check metal detector. I’m totally doing this next trip

They could theoretically revoke precheck for doing this, but my guess is they won't because it is a believable accident (just like people leave them in their bag all the time) and given that the sign warning about firearms mentions that even that is just a five year suspension, not permanent, my guess is they wouldn't even bother for an harmless item.

I've never done that yet I've never had any trouble finding water past security or even on a plane?!

Airport prices in the UK for recreational travel work like so:

Flight from London to Barcelona: £16

Bottle of water past security: £5

Train to airport: £26

Taxi enters drop-off area for 30 seconds: £7

A person who wants to get the advertised flight at the advertised price has to be very careful.

On the other hand, one can also question if the £16 cost for the flight makes any sense. A more correct price would be £500. It's about time that the airlines pay the same taxes for fuel as everyone else.

What is the correct cost for a flight leaving in 3 hours with an empty seat? What is the correct cost for a scheduled flight leaving in 2 months with no seats sold yet?

Tickets aren't the same price for everyone, and planes fill to variable levels. Plus there are addons like luggage fees and beverages that have a huge markup. What is the best way to solve for that?

Besides, it averages something like 53L of fuel/passenger to make that trip. Hardly necessitating £500.

You can do whatever calculations and speculations you want, but the fact is that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not.

Another thing with flying is that it is so easy to go long distances as it takes limited time. A trip London-Barcelona is a 1.5-2 day trip one-way by car. You think twice before doing that. An intercontinental trip London-Bangkok is impossible by car, but creates more CO2 than all energy one person uses in a year (heating, cooking, going by car to work etc). Dirt cheap and in the blink of an eye.

> that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not.

What a weird rule. In the US they do.

Although some of that might go back to attempts made early in aviation to handle the import taxes of airplanes landing with a half full gas tank.

> Taxi enters drop-off area for 30 seconds: £7

To be fair, I entirely understand the absolute necessity for this.

The reason for its introduction is before hand the PHVs (Uber etc.) of this world would, instead of using the car parks, go up to the drop-off area and wait there.

Because there was no charge and no penalty, what they would do is drop off a passenger and then sit there waiting for their next job to ping on their screen.

This became a particular problem at Heathrow T5 where the drop off area is relatively tiny.

The result would be that at busy hours, private individuals attempting to drop off their friends and family would be unable to find space and end-up double-parking and causing safety hazards.

For a while they tried to use airport Police to enforce it, but the volume of PHVs was just far too great. Hence the cameras, charges and penalties were introduced.

It should also be noted that at Heathrow, if you do not want to pay the £7, you can instead drop people off for free at the Long Term Car park and they can get the shuttle bus back to the terminal.

Rather than charge everyone £7 or more for a drop off, wouldn't it make more sense to charge the people abusing it an absurd amount? I'd much rather see a £25 fee after 90 seconds and an additional £125 fee after 5 minutes than £7 for 30 seconds.

It seems less about making things more efficient and more about just squeezing a little bit out of money out of everyone.

Recently parked in a Spanish airport carpark that worked similar to this.

First few minutes free, lower tariffs for 5-10 mins (or maybe fixed charge at those limits?), then like 1 euro per minute after that.

That'd be a lot of surveillance and bookkeeping.

In San Francisco we have toll tags called FasTrak. You can pay for parking at the airport with it. Of course, there, it's just the normal, pretty high airport parking rates, but there's no reason you couldn't use such a tag for enforcing quick free drop offs and pickups with exactly that much precision. Enter the drop/pickup area with your toll tag, if you're out in 3 minutes, no charge. 5 minutes, $4, and if longer than that, $20/hour or whatever. It's not like computers mind doing that math.

Tangential, but given the myriad externalities of air transport, such low fares for flying are deeply unethical and a perverse incentive that we are going to need to address one day.

Take an empty, open water bottle through security and then fill it up at the free water fountains!

There is often no free water.

I've been all over the USA, continental Europe, and Japan, and there have always been water fountains. Granted, I've never been to one of the "don't drink the tap water" countries.

I just had this experience at CDG, at the AA gate. I really don't know why people seem to think this is a made up problem. You may have found drinkable water at your gate, but airports are big, and your experience is not universal.

Correct, I pay for it for you, every April 15th.

Which airports?

Price of water from water fountain (to be found on basically any western airport and most non-western I've ever been to) - 0.

I get your approach, but say where we live (Switzerland) if you have something not tightly around your body like a fleece jacket, you have to take it off and put it through scanner, this is default. Sometimes they still ask me to go down to t-shirt even if its obvious I don't have anything in pockets.

Not worth the hassle for something that is mostly free and probably healthier compared to plastic bottles stored god knows where and how long. I'd imagine if they catch you, you are going for more detailed inspection since its obvious you didn't forget 1kg bottle in clothing you wear by accident.

Even in your own car dropping off your friends or family at a UK airport (at least the London ones) requires paying a £6 fee now. Just to get to the dropoff area, even for 30 seconds as you say.

But hey, at least the luggage carts are free…

In Edinburgh the (small, we often need 2) luggage carts are now £2.

There's limited space everywhere. It is rationed by people not wanting to be there. There's limited space at the baggage claim but nobody is charging you to be at the baggage claim.

You think people don't want to drop off at the airport? There's literally a multi storey full of short term parking at every Heathrow terminal. They wouldn't fit in the drop off area at all.

You are charged to be at the baggage claim. The airline pays it on your behalf, from your fare.

If you can find a way to utilize the baggage claim services without paying someone at some point I'd love to hear it.

Just because you're not handing someone your card as you walk up to it doesn't mean you're not paying for it.

nevertheless you are not charged to be at the baggage claim. You can stand there as long as you want to, and your bank balance doesn't decrease.

Baggage claim being run by a charity, obviously.

> nobody is charging you to be at the baggage claim

Not yet.

The alternative is not charging. JFK somehow manages. Yes there's traffic, but it keeps slowly moving.

JFK is pure hell compared to Heathrow, never mind to an actually well-run airport. I'll stick to paying for my externalities.

I have three major airports in reasonable driving distance. None of them charge money to pick up or drop off at the terminal. It works fine.

And what's your experience of other world airports? Have you been to Heathrow? What about somewhere like Changi? It's not just the dropoff that sucks at JFK.

Public realm is almost universally terrible in America because Americans rarely leave and don't experience anything better. It's bad, actually, to wait in traffic for a large portion of your life.

See also: the revolt over NYC congestion pricing. The congestion fee in Manhattan should be $50 or more.

I've only transited through Heathrow, I haven't tried the driving experience there. I have tried it in various other airports in Europe and China. None of them charged money to drive up to the terminal either and they were all fine too.

Sometimes the American experience isn't different from the rest of the world and it's your experience that's unusual, you know.

You understand that e.g. in Chinese cities they restrict car ownership and you have to enter a lottery/bidding system to get valid plates. Cars are a luxury. European cities have their own restrictions and discouragements. Rationing happens in many ways.

I have still never experienced an airport with pick-up/drop-off traffic as bad as JFK, and I've travelled to almost every country in Europe, plenty of countries in Asia, and Canada. Maybe South America can beat it though, TBD.

That's probably a "JFK is unusually bad" thing, not an "everything is terrible in America and those idiot Americans don't know any better because they never travel" thing. I haven't been driven to JFK since 2001 and I don't remember what it was like then, but driving anywhere around NYC requires great patience.

London is worse _overall_ for traffic than NYC, so I don't think it's that. I like America and Americans, but it's a fact that they don't travel much. JFK is not just bad for drop-off, it's chaos and run-down in general.

Many of us travel internationally quite a bit. And again, this thing you think is uniquely American very much is not.

At Edinburgh airport, you can park at the Park and Ride nearby but it costs a tenner to get from there to the airport - a distance you could walk in about 20 minutes.

Yeah it’s got out and out criminal at this point. Not sure why we should accept a £6.40 charge to drop someone or collect someone from an airport when that’s the actual function and necessity of using an airport. I got charged £100 at COUNCIL OWNED Manchester airport for picking up a friend who accidentally had put themselves in the drop off zone rather than the collect zone. Just completely vile and disgusting corporatism at every single level.

Are you saying they fined you for picking someone up in the drop off area? If so that's pretty wild. It's all just traffic at the end of the day.

Yes. They have paid sneaks standing around and the second you do something like that they radio to the people who control the barriers so you can’t get out without paying it. Just completely f*cked state of affairs.

https://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/dro...

“ 1.3 Breach of these terms and conditions may result in Parking Charges up to £100. An additional fee of up to £70 may be applied for the costs of debt recovery.

9.1 Drop-off only: The Drop Off Zone may only be used to drop-off passengers and not for pick-up. There are separate designated areas for the pick-up of passengers. Use of the Drop Off Zone for any other purpose will result in the issuance of a Parking Charge.

I do that all the time in certain airports when the drop off is essentially empty with 0 line but pickup is a half mile row of cars.

Kinda antisocial. If everyone acted like you the drop off would be clogged as well and some people would miss their flights.

The drop off is frequently clogged anyway so you have to plan for that. Where I'm at the airport will advise the use of the opposite one if things back up. Early in the morning the departures sign will suggest using arrivals if you see traffic backing up and vice versa in the evening.

Shhhhh

When people say "water" here I have to assume they mean "vodka". Otherwise you can just bring an empty bottle and fill it on the other side. It's the toiletries that pose a problem.

I've been in many airports where there is no water on the other side of the X-ray. At KLIA and DPS they have none to buy even, and then you have to fight for it on the plane. At CDG you have to buy it, no water fountain. It's extremely aggravating.

I’ve definitely found free water fountains at CDG.

Now, one of the Bucharest airports literally does not have potable tap water. Their well, being under an airport and all, is contaminated. By email, they did inform me that the water is microbiologically fine. Unsure of their pipe to the municipal system was been built out.

Probably a issue with PFAS contamination. Stuff was used in firefighting water, and has contaminated just about every airport and the surrounding area's groundwater, all over the world. So while microbiologically safe, it has PFAS issues.

Either that or hydrocarbons from leaks over several decades or deicing fluid easily infiltrating their wells, or all!

Or they don’t test it and therefore can’t certify it but I did take a swig and immediately spat it out.

Well none at the AA gates, just had to buy it at Relay at usurious prices.

Disappointingly, in my case it's usually just water. I'm walking towards security with my bottle, I can either slip it in my pocket or put it in a bin. Not throwing it away saves a bit of time and quickly becomes the default choice.

Depending on the airport and terminal (e.g. shitholes like Frankfurt, especially terminal 2), filling it on the other side might mean a washbasin in a stinky toilet because they'd rather you buy overpriced bottled water. And many airports that do have at least water fountains only have some that seem deliberately designed to prevent you from using them to fill any reasonably sized bottle.

Also, don't count on security not throwing away your empty water bottle anyway just because they can.

Wow, it's refreshing to read that we maybe we don't have it the worst in the US, right here amongst everyone's beefs with TSA. Every airport domestically I've ever flown to has not just water fountains, but the convenient bottle-fillers (usually connected to the normal fountains). I always just bring an empty plain disposable plastic bottle, for its light weight, and security never bats an eye at it.

Some airports charge money for water after security.

Others disallow even empty bottles at security screening

> Others disallow even empty bottles at security screening

I haven't encountered this. Could you name some?

Nobody disallows empty bottles through security, that's a lie.

I have had an empty water bottle thrown away once so it's not a lie even if it might not be universal.

I can also make up fake stories.

"Someone threw this away once" is not the same as "banned at security."

As for me, my our bags have been taken off the line to be inspected the last 3 times someone in my family forgot large toothpaste tubes in their carry on.

its very much about looks. Uk airports (used to?) seize aftershave in bottles that are the shape of grenades. Its very obvious what they are (made of glass, branded, spray out aftershave) but they are banned nonetheless.

The real question here is whether you can buy the exact same bottle again in the duty-free after security.

I've flown with someone who simply said she has prescription medication with her.

I mean it was the truth. It was legitimately prescription medication. In this case. But I can imagine someone could lie.

I can't speak to UK airports but TSA policy is that any medication needs to be in the original container, including prescription medication. So if you have any unmarked pills they'll toss them if they find them, same with multiple different pills in a prescription pill bottle or similar.

Never encountered that over probably hundreds of flights. From what I read, it's recommended but not required. I'd probably be more conservative with any controlled substances. (And, based on some things I've read, it's probably not a bad idea to have a photo of the labels.)

This is incorrect. TSA does not care about your pills at all, they even explicitly state this on their website.

CBP might care.

Nice! I always bring razor blades (they're hard to buy on-location) and I've never had them taken.

Where do you put the water bottle?

Pockets. The joggers I usually fly in can easily hide a 2L bottle.

https://media-assets.grailed.com/prd/listing/temp/94e905ee96...

https://preview.redd.it/h6o0yrb4k5jf1.jpg?width=810&format=p...

> In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater.

This matches my experience. I recently flew out of a small airport that flies 2 fairchild metro 23 turboprop planes up to 9 passengers. There were four TSA agents to check the 5 of us that were flying.

You gotta love the TSA. They serve no real purpose, but its a monster too big to kill, staffed by people who desperately cling to the notion they're doing something important.

They don't stop hijackings (locking the cockpit door does that), they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber), they don't stop weapons (lots of airports outside the US have simple metal detectors for that.)

They do however cost the govt a lot of money, keep a lot of expensive-machine-makers, and in business, improve shampoo sales at destinations, waste a lot of passenger time and so on.

So... what's not to love?

The grunts working for TSA on the floor at airports aren't desperately clinging for the notion that they're doing something important, or working towards some lofty, noble, and/or altruistic goal.

It's just a job.

They're principally motivated to do this job by the promise of a steady paycheck and decent benefits -- the same motivation that most other people with steady paychecks and decent benefits also have.

In my experience many of them do feel like they're doing something important, and some seem principally motivated to do the job by the promise of being able to bully travellers.

>do feel like they're doing something important

First I agree TSA is mostly theater... however if you HAD to have it, you want the people to work like this. I might be old-school but I think everyone should have pride and responsibility in their work. Even if from the outside it is meaningless.

100% no reason to be a bully, that is not pride/responsibility. Every job has ass assholes.

> Every job has ass assholes.

Yeah, but jobs that are police-adjacent have them at a very high rate. Almost like they select for it or something...

>Yeah, but jobs that are police-adjacent have them at a very high rate. Almost like they select for it or something...

Proximity to violence is probably the measuring stick you're looking for.

Police spend the bulk of their day credibly threatening violence. Just about every word that comes out of their mouth, pen or keyboard while they're at work is implicitly back by an "or else". Everyone who isn't an asshole is gonna wash out of that job, start doing something behind a desk, start a PI firm, etc. etc. So you're left with rookie and assholes and the occasional exception.

The TSA, all your non-police state and municipal enforcement agencies, etc, etc, are gonna serve to concentrate "asshole lites" people because anybody who isn't will have issues spending their day dispensing what are basically "do as I say, or pay what I say, or else the police will do violence on you" threats on behalf of the state and so they'll jump ship as they become jaded same as cops do, but the pressures are less because they're not as proximate to the violence.

You can take this a third step out. There are all sorts of industries, jobs, etc, etc. that exist soley to keep the above two groups off your back. Nobody wants to hire these people, but are basically forced to under 3rd hand thread of violence. Same effect, but still watered down.

Even more removed are jobs where some fraction of the business is driven to you under similar circumstances. For example, ask any mechanic. People forced to be there by a state inspection program are consistently the worst customers. And there's the same wash out effect. People get tired of arguing about tread depth or whatever and they go turn wrenches on forklifts or whatever.

Proximity to petty power might be a better measuring stick. The same sorts of people gravitate to those jobs as the people who sit at the DMV window and tell you you need to get back in line, wait another two hours, and go to a different DMV window with the correct form.

Probably the reverse: obnoxious people who seek badge-given authority but fail police entry exams (e.g. the psych part), carry on to other forms of employment that offer badges and uniforms, but have lax standards.

You never saw that Reddit thread where the guy who barely got his GED insisted he was a "federal officer," did you?

I don't pay attention to the stuff that breeds on Reddit. So, no; I never saw that, and I don't care to.

But I am pretty sure that punching down on people with GEDs is rather disingenuously classist, and that's no way behave. You can do better than that.

Such an astoundingly oblivious post I'm wondering if this is a ragebait troll account.

At least one of us is being serious here; I'm not sure if you're included in that group or not. (Don't really care, either. It appears to me that you've demonstrated yourself to be uselessly snarky either way.)

> They don't stop hijackings (locking the cockpit door does that)

9/11 also stopped all future hijackings. Up to that point passengers were trained that if they stayed calm they would likely survive. Now? Short of the hijackers getting guns on the plane, passengers will absolutely fight back.

> they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber)

Suicide bombers are probably the main vector that TSA helps avoid even if they miss some items sometimes.

> Suicide bombers are probably the main vector that TSA helps avoid even if they miss some items sometimes.

Not really, but this is because there are pretty much no suicide bombers anywhere in airports. They are incredibly rare.

But if you're a suicide bomber, by the time you get to the TSA checkpoint you can do a ton of damage inside a terminal during a holiday season when all airports are packed. Until then no one is stopping you.

Why are they rare?

There used to be suicide bombings in the news all the time. Hijackings were the reason they instituted the metal detectors at airports.

Improved security seems unlikely as a reason, given how many tests they fail. Was it just a fad? Did they decide it wasn't getting them what they wanted at a high personal cost? Did they find something more effective?

Common things don't get into the news. How many people died in car related accidents in your country yesterday - it almost never even makes the morning news in your country, much less international news.

There's lots of suicide attacks in poorer African countries.

But the west by and large won the war on terror, it broke up all the state sponsored terrorist camps, and built a vast surveillance network capable of spotting people trying to build these devices. Israel was the flashpoint and they built walls and put cameras and AI everywhere and just flat out ignore human rights. It's just really hard to radicalise someone to that extent and not have them show up. Isis was also behind a lot of the attacks and they don't exist anymore. Afghanistan and Pakistan also don't shelter terrorists anymore because they might have kicked the US out but they don't want them back again.

Most of this is terrible from a civil liberties / human rights / sovereignty point of view, but if you wanted to stop suicide bombings it worked.

There are many events where you can go that is full of crowded people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing

As far as the terror in terrorism goes, blowing up a plane or hijacking it and flying it into a building is a much bigger impact than blowing up a queue of people. It doesn't need to be rational.

I grew up in a time and place when terror bombings were "commonplace". And while actual bombs were rarish, bomb alerts were not.

The impact of a bomb at a post office or shopping mall or commuter train was way more impactful than planes. Only a small number of people flew, and that was easily avoided if you cared. It's a lot harder to process when a place you go regularly explodes.

Flying into buildings is not gonna happen again. That tactic didn't survive even a few hours as UA 93 demonstrated. Passengers won't allow it, and these days the cockpit door are locked.

That’s what happened in Brussels.

I was hoping these events could be used to impose fines/jailtime for airlines/airports/security that have queues longer than 5 people, but you know, counter-terrorism can’t mean making life better for the public.

> I was hoping these events could be used to impose fines/jailtime for airlines/airports/security that have queues longer than 5 people, but you know, counter-terrorism can’t mean making life better for the public.

Not even at private airports or business terminal can you can manage not having a queue smaller than 5 people. So this is a really no-go from many points of view.

BRU did something incredibly retarded after the incident: moved the queue outside. I mean yes, in open air a bomb is less lethal than in an enclosed space, but will still kill people.

And like others said, we developed capabilities to track hostiles before they can actually blow up a bunch of people. That's why you don't see FRA or MUC or CDG or LHR being blown up daily.

> Now? Short of the hijackers getting guns on the plane, passengers will absolutely fight back.

I'm not even sure guns would hold some wannabe heroes back.

Guns on planes aren't terribly effective. Firstly cause puncturing the hull will end badly.

But also because there's a lot of people in a very confined space. A shooter has no space to maneuver and threats on all sides.

It's not even heros-required. Most passengers know the math. Hijacking means certain death anyway, so you may as well roll the dice.

> Firstly cause puncturing the hull will end badly.

What makes you think so?

> they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber),

I think you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a...

The only reason you believe aircraft bombings aren't being stopped is because you live in a world where rigourous security has stopped all aircraft bombings.

Yeah. The "security theater" absolutely does play its part in stopping attacks. Without it, airplanes would be an extremely easy target for any nutjob to commit mass murder in. They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic. Over past few decades many airliners have crashed because out of control fire in the cabin / cargo hold. I really don't want it to be easy for any random person to cause such fire.

> Without it, airplanes would be an extremely easy target for any nutjob to commit mass murder in.

They still are, but I'm not comfortable spelling out details. The 95% TSA failure rate should lead you to this conclusion naturally.

> They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic.

People have plenty of such things with them as it currently stands. Plenty more can be trivially brought on board in a checked bag or even pocket. But again I'm not going to spell it out.

> I really don't want it to be easy for any random person to cause such fire.

Well that's unfortunate because it already is. I think the primary things protecting passengers are the cost of entry (the true nutjobs don't tend to be doing so well financially) and the passengers themselves. Regarding the latter, the shoe bomber was subdued by his fellow passengers.

Did you drop a sarcasm tag? Anyone can make a fire on a plane as they allow lighters on a plane, and batteries, and any number of flammable objects. None of that is facing any scrutiny nor stopping crazy people from being crazy.

Ironically, both India and China forbid lighters on planes. Famously you see a collection of them around the bins just outside the airport as all the smokers leave them for others.

"Take a lighter, leave a lighter" - Guess you can just pick up one on your way back out when you return home!

Yes it's possible to make a fire on a plane, but it would be even easier to cause a big fire if there was zero monitoring of bags. As flawed as airport security is, it should generally catch things like somebody trying to get a carry-on bag full of gasoline or extremely large lithium-ion batteries on board.

I take security that catches 50 or even 20% of threats any day over 0 security.

I've heard that cell phones often catch fire on planes, and the crews know how to deal with that. I guess they have to because the odds of one going up are pretty good across so many flights.

It's easier to deal if it's in carry on bag. This is why batteries are forbidden in checked luggage. Once it all burns the airplane has got to land asap and it's an emergency.

My checked luggage did not pass xray multiple times because they detected powerbanks. I had to come back and take it out. However it also did pass xray a couple times with powerbanks so it's not a reliable system.

Alternatively, I checked 3-4 20k mAh powerbanks in my luggage on my flight to Utah and it never got flagged or detected.

like yes I pointed out it doesn't always work. sometimes I don't even know if anybody is watching the screen

Flammable liquid and all high temperature lighters are forbidden, as are Li-ion batteries over 100kWh.

You can buy up to 5L up to 70% alcohol after security, no? Sounds pretty flammable

Can get that up to 99% with the right salts and some vigorous shaking.

s/100kWh/100Wh/

But you can still have multiple batteries (I think up to 10 or so) as long as each individual one is less than 100Wh.

Once you pass security, you can buy as many very flammable bottles of alcohol as you'd like

> They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic. Over past few decades many airliners have crashed because out of control fire in the cabin / cargo hold. I really don't want it to be easy for any random person to cause such fire.

It is that easy for a random person to cause such a fire.

It’s probably not that difficult to figure out how to overcharge lithium ion batteries so that they’re prone to catching fire or exploding when connected to a resistor that will overheat them.

Wireless relays are commodity items you can order online from hundreds of vendors.

Most would-be attackers are not suicidal, I suppose. You would have to be in order to start a fire on a plane that you are on.

Most airplane attackers are, or at least since airplanes no longer take off with checked luggage from someone who hasn't boarded.

Non-suicidal hijackings have pretty much been eliminated by cockpit doors as well as 911 changing people's reactions.

> Most would-be attackers are not suicidal

That's definitely not an assumption in the threat model.

I could have said that better. I meant to say, the fact that you have to be suicidal to do the attack definitely reduces the pool of attackers.

Trains are a much easier target in most countries. Generally only the high-speed / cross border ones have any security at all. Until maybe 10 years ago you didn't even really need a ticket to get access to one (now ticket barriers are common).

There's a pretty strong trend in that timeline of two types of "bombings":

(1) Bombings in which the bomb is supplied by someone who isn't flying on the plane;

(2) Failed hijackings in which there was no intent to bomb the plane, but a bomb accidentally went off.

also, people always immediately think of terrorism, but TIL that life insurance policies are responsible for way more plane bombings than I thought

Those tend to have extremely limited usefulness. Good enough to assassinate a single person at point blank range before they catastrophically fail but (unless something has changed) not much else. Plastic just isn't cut out for the job.

You still need metal parts, notably a gun barrel capable of holding extreme pressures until the bullet gets up to speed. That isn’t plastic. The grip and frame might be plastic, but not the barrel.

This is either incorrect or only technically correct. In the context of smuggling a weapon through a metal detector at a checkpoint there are nonferrous and even entirely plastic variants. Possessing them is generally illegal because essentially the only purpose is for assassinations.

Those are exotic parts that would have to be manufactured specially. You don’t buy them off the shelf. They are costly to procure and difficult to work with. One doesn’t just load up the 3d printer and push Go. To be clear, I’m sure a homemade gun can be passed through a metal detector checkpoint, but that requires some real thought and skill. More than likely, the real weak link at the checkpoint is not the detector “seeing” the gun but the half-asleep agent missing it, given the red-teaming results which show even very traditional firearms have a good chance of slipping through.

the handle on roll type luggage. not the actual handle but that is where you would hide a long piece of thick wall tube. not that a long piece of would be nessacery. a short one would do, the point being the metal detectors do not stop you from bringing metal into the airport.

Of course. Lots of metal goes through the detectors. The point is that the detectors “see” it and that’s then your chance to catch it. Whether you actually do or not is another question. But 3d printing a gun doesn’t give you a “plastic gun.” Btw, this is the same reason why the “Glocks are plastic guns that go through metal detectors unseen” stuff in the 1980s was always a myth. Glocks have a polymer frame but they always have a metal barrel.

Don't you still need metal bullets for the 3d printed gun?

Those don't generally have any ferrous components.

yes but the spring in the magazine does.

also the rails on the lower, the barrel, etc.

Not in the context of someone smuggling a weapon through a security checkpoint. At least not unless they're certain that it's small enough not to trigger the detector.

That said I will note that it is generally illegal to possess such nonferrous weapons regardless of circumstance.

And it is, again, completely irrelevant.

How does a plastic pistol open the cockpit door? It is proof to small calibers. You might shoot someone in the plane and then you will be subdued and ghaddafied with a SkyMall magazine. Not the most effective form of terrorism.

Countries that didn't create the TSA also had a reduction in terrorism.

I agree. Such a pistol won't even get you many shots before catastrophically failing.

But upthread it was suggested that metal detectors are sufficient to stop weapons and a discussion of 3D printed guns followed. Nonmetallic weapons (and other tools) of all sorts are possible, 3D printed or otherwise.

If you want a gun you can use more than a couple times need metals. However if the goal is one shot plastic is good enough. Even plastic bullets will work - not well, but one well placed/timed shot is all we are talking about.

No idea. I only replied to the guy saying that "metal detectors stop weapons". Which is false.

The evidence is in US law. Because they would be undetectable, 3d printed guns are required to have some metal inserted into it to be legal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D-printed_firearm#United_Stat...). I think a guy who can 3d print a gun and wants to bring it onto a plane could probably skip that step;)

"I only replied to the guy saying that "metal detectors stop weapons". Which is false."

Taken in a strict boolean sense, yes, but real-world policy is rarely boolean, and mostly about tradeoffs and how many nines of reliability you want to spend on.

Metal detectors will catch the vast, vast majority of guns ever produced, which is their whole point of existence.

You are better off using a lathe to make a gun.

When flying international in to the US, we literally all stand in long lines watching the TSA agents. TSA serves as the introduction to America... I can't think of another country where the personnel aren't groomed and 'height / weight proportionate'.

None the less, this is still effectively an entrance checkpoint to a 'secure area' aka the large airport you're flying to, as you've now already gone through security.

> Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled.

This is oft repeated, but as a federal job, the bar is at least slightly higher than those typical AlliedUniversal/Andy Frain/Etc mall cop guards you see all over the place. I have no doubt that many are incompetent, but I think it is a big unfair that it gets singled out as a "jobs program" given that the bar is on the floor industrywide for security.

An interesting comparison would be FPS, which is the agency that does security checks for federal buildings, also under DHS same as TSA. They are armed despite many of them having an indoor only role (a few do patrol larger campuses outdoors). Thus, I suspect the requirements are somewhat higher. They are generally more thorough in my experience, except for one time where they did not notice one of my shoes got stuck and didn't go through the X ray, which is funny because they insist on all dress shoes being scanned as they have a tiny metal bar inside. The same shoes go through TSA just fine.

> This is oft repeated, but as a federal job, the bar is at least slightly higher than those typical AlliedUniversal/Andy Frain/Etc mall cop guards you see all over the place.

Cool. So the TSA sucks up all the people slightly overqualified to be mall cops, which prevents them from outcompeting all the barely qualified people for those roles. And thus the barely qualified can have a job as a mall cop.

So, sounds exactly like a jobs program.