First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

Upgraded: The Five-Finger Discount
Chris Elliott essentially accuses the TSA’s baggage screeners of systematically stealing things from travelers’ luggage. Watch your designer eyewear. (How’s the hate mail from angry TSA employees, Chris?TSA employees aren’t exactly quiet when they’re criticized on the internet…)

Downgraded: Pilots’ comfort zone
Several Continental 757s traveling over the Atlantic have been making fuel stops in Canada on the westbound route. As Jared Blank points out, this isn’t a case of running-on-fumes, but as a passenger, who the hell cares? I don’t want to add a stop in Newfoundland just for kicks. Granted, I’ve never been wild about 757s on trans-oceanic routes, but the low-fuel issue isn’t limited to those routes. Pilots have been complaining that airlines have been pressuring them to fly with less extra fuel than before. After all, fuel is heavy, so carrying more means burning more. But let’s not be penny-wise, pound-foolish.

Upgraded: Advice that no one is heeding
Bob Crandall, former CEO of American Airlines, and now working for an air taxi startup, argues in the New York Times op-ed pages that we “do not need to return to the over-regulation of the past, but some government intervention is required.” This includes blocking mergers and changing bankruptcy laws to prevent airlines from operating under chapter 11. Good luck, Bob.

(image)

Nearly two years ago, I bemoaned the fact that Japan was installing liquid testing devices at its airports, but the U.S. and Europe weren’t. It’s 2008, and not much has changed.

What’s perhaps even more frustrating is that this isn’t new technology: Osaka Kansai Airport started testing passenger liquids with a microwave tester nearly four years ago. By December 2006, the machines were installed across Japan.

I haven’t seen these machines in action myself, but the perpetually mobile Tyler Brûlé has helpfully published a photo of a liquid tester on the Monocle website. See below for a peek of what the rest of the world might get its hands on someday.

The bigger question remains: Why is this device good enough for Japan, but not the United States or Europe? There’s money to burn for backscatter x-ray machines and puffer-machines that scan for explosives, but a customer-friendly device like a liquid tester is out of bounds. Priorities.

(image)

In the United States’ never-ending quest to piss off every single foreign visitor to our country, Congress has decided that international visitors must be fingerprinted like criminals when they arrive AND when they leave the country.

But Congress didn’t say who should be responsible for taking the prints. So the airlines are being fingered (sorry…) by Homeland Security to do the deed, and they’re resisting.

On the plus side: Airlines are finally standing up for their international customers and pushing back. But they’re not pushing back against the culture of fear; they’re making a legal argument about unfunded mandates and the role of the private sector in performing government functions.

But let’s face it, airlines only objected once they had to start actively participating in the fingerprinting scheme. They only objected when they had work to do.

So if Homeland Security takes responsibility for the mandated ‘printing, will any airlines maintain their objections to the scheme? Don’t bet on it.

(image)

A chilling article that’s must-reading for anyone who travels with a laptop, smartphone, or any other electronic device that stores personal data. Some snippets:

[At San Francisco International Airport] a tech engineer returning from a business trip to London objected when a federal agent asked him to type his password into his laptop computer. “This laptop doesn’t belong to me,” he remembers protesting. “It belongs to my company.” Eventually, he agreed to log on and stood by as the officer copied the Web sites he had visited, said the engineer, a U.S. citizen who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of calling attention to himself.
[…]
“I was assured that my laptop would be given back to me in 10 or 15 days,” said Udy, who continues to fly into and out of the United States. She said the federal agent copied her log-on and password, and asked her to show him a recent document and how she gains access to Microsoft Word. She was asked to pull up her e-mail but could not because of lack of Internet access. […] More than a year later, Udy has received neither her laptop nor an explanation.
[…]
The U.S. government has argued in a pending court case that its authority to protect the country’s border extends to looking at information stored in electronic devices such as a laptop without any suspicion of a crime. In border searches, it regards a laptop the same as a suitcase.

My view: Airport security officers should be there to check the materials you intend to bring into the airport for explosives or weapons. Not for content. Screen the computer to see if it’s loaded with plastic explosives, sure. But don’t read my e-mail. You shouldn’t be editing for content the books I bring onto the plane, you shouldn’t be viewing the phone numbers I dialed, or the web sites I accessed unless you have a warrant and I am a suspect in a crime. And even then, such a search should be conducted by appropriate law enforcement officers, such as the FBI.

But the current administration argues that things like warrants aren’t necessary at the border. Anything goes, regardless of the color of your passport. Here’s hoping the next president has the backbone to reassert some control over this runaway fearmongering security apparatus and reincorporate some basic all-American rights into the legal movement across our borders.

In the meantime, individuals and businesses need to be aware that anything electronic can be confiscated, copied, or destroyed if you’re arriving at an American airport from abroad. That means backing up and/or deleting anything of possible personal or business value. Simply renaming files, as suggested here over a year ago, may not cut it anymore.

Related:
- Rename filenames, avoid laptop confiscation
- Batteries not included: New rules ban loose lithium batteries from checked luggage
- A handy guide for luggage inspectors
- Your shoes remain a threat to security

(image)

Downgraded: Boeing’s onboard computers
The Boeing 787, which has yet to actually fly, has been declared susceptible to hacking by passengers, because the planned inflight internet computers are “also connected to the plane’s control, navigation and communication systems.” Great. Boeing promises to fix the security gaps before the plane actually alights.

Upgraded, mostly: British carry-on luggage rules
After the alleged liquid bombing plot, British authorities limited carry-on luggage severely. Now, things are starting to get back to normal. Most — but not all — British airports allow two carry-on bags again. If flying to London, Heathrow and Stansted all two bags. Gatwick and Luton allow one. The BBC has the list.

Upgraded: The Evil Eye
Better not look too shifty and suspicious at airport security. The increased use of behaviorial profiling, known as SPOT (Screening Passengers by Observation Technique), hopes to capture more genuine baddies and let the innocents pass through security unharmed. The problem, of course, is that you might just set off someone’s hackles unintentionally. Is it working? “Since January 2006, behavior-detection officers have referred about 70,000 people for secondary screening, Maccario said. Of those, about 600 to 700 were arrested on a variety of charges, including possession of drugs, weapons violations and outstanding warrants.” That’s 1% accuracy, folks. Nothing to be too proud of, yet. But it beats frisking nuns.

Downgraded: The Concorde
Upgraded: Tort law
Allstate Insurance has to pay out nearly a million dollars to a homeowner whose home was damaged five years ago by a low-flying Air France Concorde.

Downgraded: Airline blankets
Mmm… airline blankets… Reader J opines on his new blog about the fact that United doesn’t clean their blankets between flights. Yuck, indeed. Not to be an overly jaded buzzkiller, but that’s nothing new. Ditto for the pillows. Look for the plastic-wrapped blankets for maximum freshness. The pillows? Good luck.

(image)

Effective January 1, 2008, travelers to, from, or within the United States will have yet another rule to track: A new, more stringent policy governing the transportation of rechargeable batteries, which have occasionally caught on fire.

If you’re putting rechargeable batteries into your carry-on, you’ve got little to worry about. But if you put any of those rechargeables into checked baggage, you’ll need to master the arts and science of lithium weights and measures. Huh?

For example, a “Lithium Metal Battery, Spare or Installed (over 2 grams lithium)” is now prohibited across the board. But under 2 grams lithium? No problem in your carry-on.

Huh? Lithium Metal vs. Lithium Ion? 2 grams vs. 8 grams of lithium in the battery? How many travelers know the difference? Perhaps more importantly, how many airport security personnel do?

But this isn’t a beef with the TSA… yet. No, the TSA isn’t to blame for this new rule. Rather, reserve your ire for the Department of Transportation and its Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

The DOT’s battery website shows just how confusing this can be. The TSA’s site, on the other hand, offers a far simpler set of guidelines:

Under the new DOT rule, lithium batteries are allowed in checked baggage under one of the following conditions:

* The batteries must be in their original containers.
* The battery terminals must not exposed (for example placing tape over the ends of the batteries).
* The batteries are installed in a device.
* The batteries are enclosed by themselves in a plastic bag.

Of course, the biggest risk, going forward, is uneven enforcement. In a few days, I’m sure we’ll start hearing stories about some legal batteries being removed, or prohibited batteries being permitted aboard. THEN, you can go back to griping about the TSA.

(image)

Downgraded: Monkey life-chances
I really can’t add more than this fine opening sentence: “A small monkey stashed in a man’s hat during a flight to New York has died, but federal health authorities don’t know why.”

Upgraded: Vengeful idiots
A passenger who missed his Southwest Airlines flight from Las Vegas to Hartford decided to tell the airline that a bomb was on board. How nice. After an emergency landing in Omaha, no bomb was found on board flight 1018. If ever anyone deserved to be put on the no-fly list, it’s this guy. Class act.

Downgraded: Skybus
Many airlines cancel flights due to mechanical issues, but when you don’t have a lot of planes to begin with, the effects are multiplied. No-frills upstart Skybus canceled 18 flights over two days, when two of its planes were grounded. 1000 people were affected.

Downgraded: United
United canceled hundreds of flights, mostly out of O’Hare, this past week, blaming the weather. The only problem is that the weather wasn’t the problem. According to the pilots’ union and media reports, it’s short-staffing. Other airlines weren’t hit the same way, on similar routes, so it’s fair to question the company’s weather-related excuses. For those travelers who were affected, though, this is one of those instances where your rights vary, depending on the reason for the delay. If it was staffing, then United should have rebooked passengers on other airlines (Rule 240). But if the airline can blame the weather, then passengers are out of luck. So guess which one the company is blaming?

Bonus: 180 passengers got evacuated after a United 757 got stuck in the mud when it made a wrong turn in Kansas City.

Upgraded: Malls, pretending to be airports
This past week, I visited the Natick Mall in Massachusetts, where I stopped in at the American Express Cardmembers’ Lounge. I had heard of these mall lounges before, but it was my first time seeing it live and in color. Sure enough, it’s like a medium-sized airport lounge, with free cofee drinks, snacks, magazines, internet access, and a phone charging station. But unlike airports, this lounge has free gift wrapping services. A nice complimentary perk for Amex cardholders, even those who aren’t paying annual fees. Unfortunately, the lounges close on December 31. I truly wonder what it ended costing Amex to run this thing.

Upgraded: The IRS
People apparently would rather pay their taxes than submit to airport security. The TSA ranked lower than the IRS in a satisfaction survey. (FEMA ranked even lower, after the Hurricane Katrina fiasco.)

Upgraded: The Dangers of Pie
Add another reason why the TSA isn’t winning the popularity contests. Once again, this holiday season, people transporting pies were given a hard time at airport security checkpoints. This happened before, and TSA Director Kip Hawley declared that pie was not a liquid. But apparently, it could still be a plastic explosive. I give up. (Thanks, Jess!)

(image)

Last week, TSA Director Kip Hawley briefed a group of travel journalists, and friend-of-the-blog Benet Wilson of AviationWeek asked the Kipster about that pet peeve of mine, restrictions on transporting duty free liquor.

My long-standing take: If it’s deemed safe for purchase behind security lines in one airport, it should be considered safe for transportation to — and through — other airports.

But that’s not the way it works in reality. You might buy booze (or perfume, or anything liquid) in one airport, fly from one city to the next, and have the liquids confiscated when trying to board your next flight. Idiotic. (Though not nearly as idiotic as the limits within the same airport, a la Munich…)

If you think that there’s a solution at hand, you’re wrong.

Hawley said that everyone is looking for a private sector solution where there is an assured supply chain, one way or the other. “If they can find an appropriate supply chain bringing the duty-free goods to the airport and protecting it along the way, we’re open to it,” he said. “But as of today, there’s not a bag that is commonly agreed to that meets all of our standards.”

This is essentially a private sector opportunity to adjust their business model to meet security requirements, said Hawley. “But we won’t spend taxpayer dollars on finding ways to make it easier to buy duty-free liquids,” he warned.

Protecting the duty free goods along the way? Like a Secret Service motorcade? Or an armored car?

Something tells me that the food and drink served up at airport restaurants isn’t subjected to the same demands for protection. But the (hopefully non-explosive) sandwich you buy after security is safe to carry between airports. Double standard.

Sigh. So buyer beware. If you’re changing planes on an international itinerary, you might have trouble bringing duty free liquids into the United States.

Once again, we’re dealing with security theater, not real security. Makes me want to pour a stiff (duty-free) drink.

Related:
- Duty free liquids allowed on board, except when they’re not
- Update: Munich Airport responds to questions about its duty free policy
- Traveling with booze: Policy clarifications and changes
- Duty free liquids soon to be liberated?

Upgraded: JetBlue joining Star Alliance?
German carrier Lufthansa bought a 19% stake in JetBlue, a $300 million investment in the original luxe discount carrier. There’s no talk of merger, or even alliance. Yet. But the companies Lufthansa invests in have the tendency to join Star Alliance.

Upgraded: Star Alliance, again
So JetBlue’s membership is pure speculation. But Star Alliance *did* invite Air India into the alliance for eventual membership. And just yesterday, Air China and Shanghai Airlines officially joined the alliance.

Upgraded: Silverjet, at Maxjet’s expense
Maxjet’s woes, Silverjet’s joy? “Silverjet, which operates all-business-class flights from London to New York and Dubai, said that through Tuesday, the carrier had seen a 20 percent surge in bookings since MAXjet’s announcement.”

Upgraded: Planepooling
With a major treaty to be signed in Lisbon, some EU member states’ prime ministers are flying there together, carpool style, in an effort to reduce their carbon footprint. (Thanks, Dr. Vino!)

Upgraded: Editors’ hateful laziness
Who came up with this headline? “French rude and their hotels smell.” Top shelf editorial work, team!

Downgraded: Traveler’s IQ, and traveler’s brain cells
If you packed a one-liter bottle of vodka in your carry-on, and airport security says you can’t take it onboard, what would you do? If you said, “Open the bottle and chug the entire contents before going through the metal detector,” then you might be the now-hospitalized 64-year old resident of Dresden, Germany who proved he couldn’t hold his liquor at the Nuremberg airport. He should have just checked the booze.

(image)

Downgraded: The mile-high club
Singapore Airlines has some of the swankest first class seats — ahem, “suites” — in the sky, but if you want to get frisky with your mate at 39,000 feet, no dice. Despite having a double bed in their suites, the airline enforces a no-sex policy in the sky. Note the key word: enforces. Early passengers on the A380 weren’t pleased:

“So they’ll sell you a double bed, and give you privacy and endless champagne — and then say you can’t do what comes naturally?” asked Tony Elwood, a vigorous 76. “Seems a bit strange.”

Sorry, Tony. Your ticket may say first class, but you and the missus will have to use the lavatory, just like everyone else. Or rent a private love jet for $299.

Downgraded: Airbus’ green claims
One big selling point for modern aircraft is always their lower fuel consumption. Leo Hickman at the Guardian ran the numbers on the A380, and found that Airbus’ calculations are bogus. They assume a full plane of 555 passengers, but zero luggage or cargo, when they calculate the kerosene burn. How realistic. (By the way, Airbus claims that the A380 will burn 2.9 liters of fuel per passenger for every 100km traveled, i.e., 75 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger per km.)

Upgraded: Olde tyme hotel rates
The Palmer House in Chicago is allowing repeat guests to stay there at the rate they paid years ago. A great deal… as long as the earlier stay was fifty years ago or more, and if the guests still have the original receipt. A 1947 receipt will get you a room under $10. Which wasn’t cheap! (Notice to my wife: THIS is why I keep receipts.)

Downgraded: The State Department
Turns out that the $97 passport fee is nicely padded in the government’s favor, far above the cost of processing. Gosh, really?

Downgraded: Surcharges
The seven most annoying travel surcharges, from Chris Elliott. Room service “Tray fee”?? Wow, that’s really brazen.

Downgraded: The TSA
TSA regularly sends staff to conduct internal testing of its security procedures. But it turns out they’re sometimes tipping off the front-line staff in advance. (I know someone who works for TSA, who has had the pleasure of carrying a “bomb” through the airport. Yes, they caught him. Who’da thunk.)

(image)

If you’ve checked bags, you may have seen those little notices left by the TSA or other nations’ airport security, indicating that they’ve rifled through your things. If you’re feeling frisky, and if you don’t mind taking a chance taking a trip to the hoosegow, instead of to your intended destination, then a “helpful” baggage insert might be just your ticket to comedic vengeance.

The “Do Not Be Alarmed By” section of the “Citizen’s Insertable Swiftness Manifest” is my personal favorite.

Click to view in maximum size. Use at your own risk.

(image, apparently taken from McSweeney’s)

For those who, for whatever bizarre reason, don’t make the time in their busy days to regularly peruse the Federal Register, looking for newly proposed regulations by various branches of the U.S. government, you’ll be pleased to know that the British tech journal The Register has been doing the perusing for you. And what they found, albeit several months after it was proposed, is bound to get your hackles up.

Our beloved TSA has proposed a rule (pdf) whereby “all airline passengers would need advance permission before flying into, through, or over the United States regardless of citizenship or the airline’s national origin.” The timeframe for receiving that permission: 72 hours.

The No-fly list and other lists restricting passengers from getting on planes are already in effect, and the TSA argues that it needs more time to compare the names on the expected passenger manifests to the lists of people deemed too dangerous to allow to fly.

The no-fly list concept has always bewildered me. If someone is a threat to security, arrest them, charge them, and try a case against them. Otherwise, screen them, scan their stuff thoroughly, frisk them aplenty if you want, and then let them travel. Anything else — like the ID check at the entrance to security — is theater.

As a sidebar: A recent PBS documentary with the title “Security Theater” tears American airport security to shreds. Enjoy.

In any case, the TSA’s proposal is highly unlikely to go anywhere. No airline wants to close its ticket sales window at the 72 hour mark, since that’s some high-priced revenue. The last-minute travel industry must be up in arms, too. And business travelers who have to travel at the drop of a hat will decry the government’s intervention into their livelihoods. Perhaps most importantly, members of Congress want to be able to travel when they want to, including at the last minute.

No, the point isn’t that we need to watch out for another stupid rule. Rather, this is yet another indicator of the misplaced priorities and bureaucratic, anti-consumer mindset of the TSA.

Travelers don’t need more reasons to mock the agency. We have plenty already. But somehow, we keep getting fresh ones.

(image)