Given that I pay little attention to what often passes for "news" in the mainstream media, I find myself with little idea of how long the airline ban on liquids is going to continue.

There's an event a bit over a month from now on the other side of the country that I'd like to attend. But I'd also rather not give the airlines a dime while this stupidity continues. I refuse to bow to the fear of terrorism that the government and media seem compelled to foster. Life's too short for that.

I've spent a bit of time searching various news and government sites, but haven't come up with much concrete information on how long the stupidity is likely to continue. The propaganda on TSA.gov is especially unhelpful. (They are to be commended for having search that doesn't suck much.)

Any leads?

See Also:

Posted by jzawodn at August 31, 2006 09:14 PM

Reader Comments
# jr said:

When's the next set of elections?

At least until then.

Maybe longer depending on who gets re-elected.

on August 31, 2006 09:37 PM
# Owen Byrne said:

jr beat me to it. I was going to say soon after November 7 (say in the range November 8-22). I don't think it really matters who's reelected as the pressure from business is going to be unrelenting, but will be balanced by political hysteria until just after the mid-term elections.

on August 31, 2006 10:19 PM
# Damon said:

Yea, seems like an indefinite thing. Totally ridiculous and such a pain to travel since I usually do one-week stints for work and only take a carry-on. I used to be able to fly through security, but now I either need to buy new toothpaste each week or deal with checking bags. *sigh*

on August 31, 2006 10:21 PM
# grumpY! said:

i don't see a future government from either side of the "property party" (props to gore vidal) surrenduring the arbitrary mechanisms being put in place to secure the quiet compliance of the public. security hysteria is proving to be an excellent tool for neutralizing anti-establishment behavior, and rest assured, the democrats are also part of the establishment, and they have plenty to gain by perpetuating this. we are rapidly collecting all of the attributes of a police state - obsession with symbolism (christian rhetoric, flag burning amendments), scapegoats (muslims), worship of the military (gott mit uns!) and even slave labor (illegal immigrants). and what is the top story on the news? jonbenet. truly bread and circuses.

on August 31, 2006 10:46 PM
# V. said:

Given the fact that we still take our shoes off, it is gonna take few years at least.

on August 31, 2006 10:48 PM
# Joseph Hunkins said:

Agreed the ban is stupid and wasteful, but you should not blame the airlines and I'm not sure if this is even the Governments "fault" as many suggest here.

We the people have a totally unreasonable and irrational expectation of almost absolute safety and the Government is (wrongly and expensively) catering to this public concern.

We need to accept a LOT more risk, reduce the cost of security to a fraction of the current bloated overspend, and agree to more rationally allocate resources.

In the meantime, go to the wedding dude!

on August 31, 2006 11:11 PM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

Joe:

I have to believe that if the airlines cared enough, they could change this.

But, yeah, you're right. The expectation of absolute safety is unrealistic.

on August 31, 2006 11:33 PM
# Ryan N said:

At least ONE airline in the UK is trying to do something about it.

"RYANAIR CALLS ON UK DfT TO SHOW LEADERSHIP AND RESTORE AIRPORT SECURITY TO IATA NORMS

SUBMITS 3M. COMPENSATION CLAIM PROCEEDS TO GO TO CHARITY

RELEASES 1m. SEATS AT 99p. TO KEEP BRITAIN FLYING"

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=06&month=aug&story=gen-en-250806

on August 31, 2006 11:53 PM
# Derek J Balling said:

It might cost a little more, and it'll certainly take a little more time, but a relaxing train ride across country ranks -- for me anyway -- as something I've always wanted to do, it might be a cool way to see America and get you here at the same time. :-)

on September 1, 2006 03:35 AM
# Wren Hunt said:

Only one way to do it. Tell your Congressman and your Senators. And VOTE!!!

on September 1, 2006 06:22 AM
# incognito said:

I Am supposed to go to the Oracle World confrence in October in San Fran. I looked into a train ride from Chicago to San Fran, 52 hours on a train does not sound fun for a 2 day trip.

Maybe you could fly yourself?

-T

on September 1, 2006 06:59 AM
# David Freid said:

I really don't understand all the fuss. Why would anyone need to take fluid on board an airline anyway. I have flown over two million miles in the past 15 years. Not once was it life threatening to me to bring a liquid on board. Besides, United serves Starbucks.

DAVID

on September 1, 2006 07:39 AM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

David:

Give up on the attempts to spam my comments, please. Your janitorial web site is hardly on-topic.

That asdie, you're missing the point. This is not about *need* at all. This is about pointless restrictions that serve to make air travel less appealing with every new year.

on September 1, 2006 07:44 AM
# Michelle Hedstrom said:

It's all about the "false sense of security", and making it look like something is going on to protect us more. Just wait until we have to all change into hospital gowns and go on the plane in bare feet just to fly somewhere. Or maybe they'll just figure out a way to put everyone into stasis during the flight.

on September 1, 2006 08:10 AM
# Rocky Agrawal said:

Unfortunately I don't see it going away.

I was traveling the weekend after this happened.

Had my contact lens solution confiscated because it was 12 oz (at the time the TSA site didn't have any restriction on size). When I got to security, they said the limit was 4 oz. Offering to dump out 2/3 of it was a no go.

Got a nice picture of The Body Shop at LAX: http://flickr.com/photos/asmythie/215576681/

Wonder how many companies will blame this for earnings misses.

on September 1, 2006 08:15 AM
# grumpY! said:

jeremy, as opposed to calling these restrictions "needless", i feel it is more appropriate to call them "arbitrary". there certainly is a "need" for these arbitrary activities - inducing a passive state, a requirement when governments start spying on personal communications, setting up secret courts, etc.

"the subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures" - junius.

on September 1, 2006 09:13 AM
# Joshwa said:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14569998/site/newsweek/

We're not passengers, we're inmates.

on September 1, 2006 09:35 AM
# Jeremy Zawodny said:

grumpY!:

Fair enough. They *are* arbitrary.

on September 1, 2006 09:58 AM
# Jim Ellwanger said:

Re Incognito: 52-hour train trips are fine if you can get a sleeping car room -- however, they're expensive, and often sell out well in advance (especially at peak travel times) due to limited supply.

But who knows how long it'll be before the TSA notices Amtrak exists, and puts bizarre restrictions in place for train passengers, too?

on September 1, 2006 11:56 AM
# Jeffery said:

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse... you get slapped on the TSA watch list:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meandmybadself/231148488/

on September 1, 2006 01:18 PM
# Michelle said:

Just to add to this, I saw this today, and it made me very sad.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/9780677/detail.html

on September 2, 2006 11:57 AM
# Eric Blade said:

This is the dumbest thing ever.

on September 3, 2006 03:05 PM
# Michael Hampton said:

The ban on liquids won't end "anytime soon," TSA officials have said. You'd already know this if you read my blog. :)

Personally I recommend renting a car and driving like Hunter S. Thompson to wherever you're going...

on September 3, 2006 07:34 PM
# Sheeri said:

Take the train. They could use more $$ (and if they were subsidized as heavily as the airlines, they wouldn't need it.....). Also, you'll get tons of work done.

Shame it will take days....but it's doable. :-\

on September 6, 2006 03:00 PM
# Mel said:

heh - Terry Heaton just had his own issue with Carmex at DFW. Of course he bought another jar at the gift shop beyond the checkpoint.

http://donatacom.com/archives/00001478.htm

on September 8, 2006 11:14 AM
# Andrew S said:

It'll take business travelers to demand changes. Why aren't laptops banned, even though they are probably the easiest way to hide weapons and explosives? Because no business traveler would accept this.

on September 13, 2006 11:00 PM
# Travel Gear Blog said:

Good news, (kind of) looks like the liquid ban is being relaxed a bit, effective today:
http://www.travelgearblog.com/archive/carry-on-liquid-ban-relaxed.html

Some airlines have banned laptops, but mostly because they have caught on fire due to faulty batteries. You can search the site at the above link for info on that if you're interested in info about that. Virgin banned anything with a Sony battery for a while, but they've recently reinstated that.

I understand the comment about being able to smuggle something more dangerous in a laptop vs. liquids, but they can much more easily determine whether something inside a laptop (x-ray) is dangerous. In the liquids it would require a chemical test and opening each container is very time consuming. There's been some debate on whether the amount of liquid from the original incident was even enough to cause any significant problems, or if it could even be prepared effectively. Here's a blog post with some good links on that subject: http://baheyeldin.com/writings/terrorism/can-liquid-explosives-be-prepared-on-an-airplane.html

on September 26, 2006 09:50 AM
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current, past, or previous employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist or reporter. Don't "pitch" me.

 

Privacy: I do not share or publish the email addresses or IP addresses of anyone posting a comment here without consent. However, I do reserve the right to remove comments that are spammy, off-topic, or otherwise unsuitable based on my comment policy. In a few cases, I may leave spammy comments but remove any URLs they contain.