Random Play: Step away from the lipstick, ma’am
39 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
The Register demonstrated some time ago on how the use of "liquid explosives" was impractical http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/print.html
So the whole premise for banning liquids is somewhat unfounded. Apart from the need to maintain a constantly increasing level of fear in the absence of much, if any, actual terrorism.
-
And yet, as far as I am aware, cigarette lighters are still 'free to board' so to speak
-
The logicial endpoint of this would be to issue all travellers with special travel clothes at the airport (supplied after passing security), you know, the paper clothes that 1950-70s scifi/futurists writers were so fond of.
All baggage would be placed on another random flight so no one could ever be certain if their weapon was with them.
All passengers would need to take a course of medication on arrival at the airport that would flush their bowels of matter digested prior to their arrival. This will mean extending the flight checkin time to about 12 hours.
-
And cooks in the catering facilities would still have knives, aircraft and plant mechanics would have tools, police and "air marshals" would have guns. Plus the pilots could still ram their own aircraft into a building if the feeling took them..
-
Someone - it was probably on, uh, the highly verifiable Fark - told a story about crossing security, where they take away you mail clippers, then on the other side the first thing he saw was a place that sold nail clippers. And getting taken to a room for a whiles for pointing this out.
Yeah, does anyone have a good reason why we're taking the liquids thing seriously? Was it just that particular plot that was unworkable? Has the register been rebutted?
-
The airline industry is a target of convenience I guess. International air travel (and it only seems to be these that are seriously targetted by the new security) only happens from a few points, so it is very easy to set up security measures. Plus the measures touch a lot of people, as international travel is rather popular, especially amoung media savvy types likely to talk loud and often. So it is very easy to say "we are doing something about terrorism and security" then point to the airport.
Plus after the 70s/80s hijackings, Sept 11, and the shoe bomber the public is well and truely comfortable with the idea of dangerous travel situations. Why are say the shipping industry safe? Well, I'd put that down to the failure of Speed 2: Cruise Control at the box-office. Perhaps if they'd used competant script writers, director, and actors we'd all be enjoying the spectacle of cruise ship patrons forced to carry ziplock bags.
-
the need to maintain a constantly increasing level of fear in the absence of much, if any, actual terrorism
yep, that's all it is. keep them scared and they will long for all manner of civil liberties incursions.
i love how at the domestic airport they're all really serious about photo ID to be able to collect your boarding pass, then when you go through to the 'secure area' area you only need a boarding pass and nobody cares who you are.
-
old a story about crossing security, where they take away you nail clippers, then on the other side the first thing he saw was a place that sold nail clippers
The LCCT in Kuala Lumpur does exactly this, or at least it did last month.
-
There were only three check-in counters open and, I am not kidding, maybe 350 passengers waiting: it looked like about four aircraft were leaving within the next hour and so the queue -- woven around what I call the Disneyland snake -- stretched right back into the concourse and out to the doors.
time for a bloody moan..why is Auckland Airport the most unfriendly f&%king airport in the world..apart from Brisbane...from traffic people out the front to the check in, and then, only in Auckland, the cabin baggage checkers, before immigration.
Is making ones exit as unpleasant as possible a philosophy to keep people in the country or something?
It's a comment I encounter over and over again when I tell people where I'm from. Americans always seem to want to apologise for their foreign policy, I just have to do it for our airport.
-
I don't know about that Simon, the most unpleasant experiences I've had have been in the US. Not so much unfriendly per se as just very officially hostile.
I remember one guy asking why I didn't have the appropriate visa stapled into my passport, and when I went to point at my passport to say "no, it's on this page here" he just about shot me. Apparently my finger had crossed the invisble line between the counter and 'his' part of the booth.
"Stop! Step Back!" he said in his harshest, most scary official sounding voice.
Of course when he then gave me the wrong passport back (there were two of us travelling together), a fact we only noticed when we got to the next point in the immigration process and were separated because our passports didn't match, and had to argue very strongly that the female's passport in fact belonged to the girl in the next room and vice versa...
Oh the fun we had that day.
-
The Register demonstrated some time ago on how the use of "liquid explosives" was impractical ... So the whole premise for banning liquids is somewhat unfounded.
Good god man, did you not watch MacGuyver?
And yet, as far as I am aware, cigarette lighters are still 'free to board' so to speak
I hope these air marshalls are on the lookout for flatulent muslims. Three or four of them lined up at an exit door with a lit match could presumably take down an entire plane ....
Plus the pilots could still ram their own aircraft into a building if the feeling took them..
Which is exactly (well, almost) what happened on an Air Malayasia flight pre-9/11. The Pilot nose-dived into the ground. Authorities covered up the cause of the accident, I think blaming mechanical problems, to explain the vertical nose dive which 60 Minutes (I think) proved is impossible to do unless the pilot wants to.
-
"I hope these air marshalls are on the lookout for flatulent muslims"
Heh - you're way ahead of me, I was thinking about cigarette lighters, hankies, and bottles of spirits from the drinks trolly ........
-
i love how at the domestic airport they're all really serious about photo ID to be able to collect your boarding pass, then when you go through to the 'secure area' area you only need a boarding pass and nobody cares who you are.
You can order a boarding pass to be sent as a PDF to you. With any name you want on it as far as I can tell (or maybe it's only travelcards that allow to book tickets when your credit card name doesnt match the traveller). I've never been asked for ID except when I've had to pick a ticket up from the counter 'cos the machines aren't working.
(Even when you check in on the machine, all it reads - all it *can* read - is the cleartext name on the magnetic strip)
-
Which is exactly (well, almost) what happened on an Air Malayasia flight pre-9/11. The Pilot nose-dived into the ground. Authorities covered up the cause of the accident, I think blaming mechanical problems, to explain the vertical nose dive which 60 Minutes (I think) proved is impossible to do unless the pilot wants to.
Got a link for that? Or perhaps you're just confused with the 1999 Silkair crash in North Sumatra?
-
I don't know about that Simon, the most unpleasant experiences I've had have been in the US. Not so much unfriendly per se as just very officially hostile.
Yep, I had a particularly pointless and confusing episode of official hostility entering the US last year - got accused of lying to a federal officer, etc, and eventually had to tell the guy I just didn't know what to say next.
He eventually stamped me through, with ill grace (I did, after all, have the correct visa for evil foreign journalists). He was pretty much the only American I met on the trip who wasn't upbeat and friendly.
American airports are a serious bore these days. I naturally maintain a cheerful demeanour at all times, but there's something wearying about having your stuff searched three times on one journey.
-
Yeah, I'm looking forward to bypassing the good old USA via Vancouver, unless they lighten up soon.
They still have common sense in Canada, don't they?
-
So the whole premise for banning liquids is somewhat unfounded. Apart from the need to maintain a constantly increasing level of fear in the absence of much, if any, actual terrorism.
When I flew to the US last year liquids had already been banned - the supposed liquid-explosive plot having been in the news.
It was dumb and arbitrary and no one knew what was going on. Nat T almost got relieved of a bottle of contact lens solution he'd bought after going through passport control, and I couldn't buy any duty-free whisky. It wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't based on such a bunch of bullshit.
-
Got a link for that? Or perhaps you're just confused with the 1999 Silkair crash in North Sumatra?
Me? Confused? Of course not! But I have spent ages googling and been unable to find what I'm talking about. And yes, the Silk Air thing is awfully similar, but that shouldn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. No sir. Besides, the Silk Air story was on TV1's Sunday not 60 Minutes so I'd really be admitting I was wrong then wouldn't I? But there is a nice link to that story and the subsequent broadcasting complaint here
American airports are a serious bore these days. I naturally maintain a cheerful demeanour at all times, but there's something wearying about having your stuff searched three times on one journey.
Yes, I travel a bit and now I actively avoid the Amercican route if I can. The airport staff seem so damn keen to prove they're not racially profiling they pull up everyone for the most inane things. My favourite bore is when they have ONE Xray machine for 10 departing flights. And its not like we haven't already been Xrayed already. This new ban on liquids is total BS. Airport vending machine operators will paying their kids thru College on this one.
I had a particularly pointless and confusing episode of official hostility
RB if they're giving you grief on arrival its because you're tagged as a Leftie Stirrer. It'll say so on their computer and it won't come off in your lifetime.
-
And yes, the Silk Air thing is awfully similar, but that shouldn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. No sir.
Indeed no Sir, not my intention.
Just that I have an ongoing interest in the bizarre SilkAir crash. Wasn't aware that of the complaint to TVNZ shoe, or the ensuing complaint.
Appreciate the link. -
OOps Sorry, will rephrase:
Wasn't aware of the TVNZ show, or of the ensuing complaint.
cheers. -
self check-in does have its problems, especially when Al Kyder and Terry Wrist don't board their flights on time!
http://www.chaser.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3242&Itemid=26
-
I don't know about that Simon, the most unpleasant experiences I've had have been in the US. Not so much unfriendly per se as just very officially hostile.
and I'll rephrase too....airports "apart from the US". My experience at the moment is mostly Asia I admit, but Auckland could certainly learn quite a thing or two from any in the region. They smile in Changi and you can get good coffee.
-
WLG has probably one of the best terminals in all of Australasia. Easy to navigate, and the airport staff are generally helpful. Shame about the actual runway though.
-
Just to keep this one going: i agree with simon, auckland airport can be the worst in the world. that was certainly my experience for many years -- although these days fat women in uniform barking 'stay in line, stay in line' at American airports have now overtaken them.
my objection to auckland these days is not coming in so much (more of that in a minute) but getting out: this under-staffing/two hours beforehand etc seems to me to be all for the convenience of airlines rather than the paying customer.
the other day it was a nightmare, people were loudly swearing and asking why there was one check-in for the few business class folks and only three for the hundreds (and there were literally hunmdreds) waiting to get into cattle class. it was air new zealand.anyway re coming home: here is an extract from the final chapter in my travel book Postcards From Elsewhere, you'll get the drift.
Curiously this piece was first published (in a truncated form) in the Herald when i just got sick of it all. I was never stopped again!
.......
I have been lucky enough to travel for my work but most of my journeys -- to the surprise of my journalism colleagues who often assumed I was a highly favoured and well-funded travel writer -- have been at my on expense and purely for pleasure. However for a while it was in the nature of my job to travel regularly between New Zealand and Australia, often just for a day or two of interviews.
I mention this because an odd thing happened recently. I arrived back in New Zealand and walked straight through Customs.This had happened only twice before that I could recall, both times when I had young children with me.
Every other time I have endured the customary questions, “Did you pack the bag yourself sir? Are you carrying anything for anyone else?”
This is fair and these people are doing their job, and so I politely anticipate all this and answer courteously. I have tried declaring and not, and patiently endured such questions as why I might have wanted to go to Vietnam (“Because it’s there?”) or whether I took drugs in Amsterdam (“Yes, because it is not illegal. But if you are actually asking if I am carrying any in my bag …”)
Often I have ended up waiting off to the side of other passengers, just me and a few unhappy looking women from Thailand, and have usually waited an hour while my tiny bag is scoured again and my passport taken away for further fruitless scrutiny.
In my experience drug dealers and parrot smugglers don’t look like me -- and I’m weary of having to apologise for a passport which has been well used. I thought that was what it was for.
I assumed my passport must have some invisible stamp on it. Or was it the hair? Or the t-shirt?
So I asked once and was told I had been taken aside for “acting suspiciously by the baggage carousel“. I pointed out quietly that I had just flown direct from London and was in no position to act any other way than very tired and I really just wanted to go home. It made no difference, the process still took an hour. And yes, I did pack the bag myself. And no …
etc etc -
I flew in to London less than a week after the bomb plot scare that started all the "no liquids" fuss. It was surprisingly fine -- we just sort of wandered through the airport and out, expecting any minute to have someone shout "hang on" and drag us back for hours of security searches. Never happened.
Coming into Auckland on the way home though, we had a couple of customs guys wander up to us at the baggage claim and start making pointed conversation about what we'd been up to in London. (We assumed we were singled out because the friend I was with had tattoos up each arm. Moral: wear long-sleeved shirts.) At one point my friend was asked "did you take any drugs in London?" He replied (not entirely truthfully) "hell, at the price you pay for a pint of beer over there, I wasn't even going to ask about drugs..." to which the customs guy mentioned that drugs were often cheaper than beer over there. What do you say to that? "Thanks for the tip?"
At any rate, they made a few cryptic notes on our arrival slips, which saw us shunted through to the customs area, where a polite and apologetic lady went through our bags, verified the absence of drugs and bombs, and sent us on our way. Time wasted: at least half an hour. Could have been worse, I guess.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.