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!

Last week, returning to the United States, I connected via Munich. It’s a great airport in many respects, much nicer than its rival Frankfurt. Heck, it has its own brewery, AirBräu.

But Munich is a maddening place for one reason: Local airport authorities appear to be making up their own double-secret security policies regarding flights to the United States.

In particular: They’ve created a stricter liquids ban than European or American airport security rules demand.

As in many European airports, flights to the United States get especially zealous security, with extra bonus checkpoints, gates set apart from other flights, and a game of 20 questions before boarding. (New question for me this time was “Are you carrying any electronic items, and when did you last use them?”)

But Munich goes a step further, making things illegal that aren’t illegal elsewhere. Travelers on my flight grumbled that their stick deodorant had been taken away, despite being an opaque solid. But even worse, the perennial bugbear of liquids:

The ban on liquids purchased in the secure area of the airport has already been reversed, making it possible to buy duty free liquor or a bottle of water after security. But not in Munich, if you’re flying to the United States.

When the duty free shop denied my effort to buy a liter of hooch, they told me it’s because of American rules. But that’s not true. It’s not the European rule, either. No details at all on the Munich Airport website. Either the revised rules aren’t trickling down to Bavaria, or, much like in Britain, airport operators are making up the rules as they go along.

I suspect the latter. Consider yourself warned if traveling through Munich.

Related:
- Cavalcade of security news: Fingerprints, liquids, and suspicious looking devices
- Making sense of the new TSA liquids policy
- Liquid ban relaxed in the United States

(image)

The UK will be following in the steps of the US, allowing travel-sized liquid toiletries to be brought through security. Finally some cracks appearing the liquid security facade. But don’t bring big bottles of water or shampoo through security just yet:

Each container must be no bigger than 100ml and they must also be carried in a transparent bag and presented for screening.
Permitted items include toothpaste, contact lens solution, travel-sized medicines or anything else that might be needed for a short trip.

Also, the regulations won’t go into effect until early November. It’s not clear why there is such a delay. The U.S. put the change into effect overnight. Why does the UK need a month?

Baby steps. And still good news.

(image: Tomasz Nowak)

“I just want to say one word to you - just one word. Plastics.”

Zipper-top plastic bags, specifically. The TSA’s new rules for carrying on liquids were officially released yesterday, and while I’m happy to see any relaxation in the policy, there are still a number of questions that remain.

Echoing Chris Elliott’s commentary on Marketplace, I don’t see how the continued prohibition of liquids, except when they’re carried on board in absurdly small bottles that are subsequently re-wrapped in a 1 quart plastic Ziploc bag, is really making anyone safer.

If liquids were ever a threat, then the ban on liquids would have remained in place, regardless of size. The ban on firearms applies to a starter pistol as well as a Kalashnikov. Why should size matter for shampoo?

Assuming that a liquid threat were possible, terrorists who wanted to blow up a plane with liquids could band together, each one carrying small quantities of liquid aboard (in a 1-quart Ziploc bag, of course; 1-gallon bags are a threat to security.) So the slippery-slope argument is fair game. If some liquids are permitted, why not all of them?

And besides: How are the TSA inspectors going to know if something in your Ziploc bag is actually a dangerous substance or not? Have chromatographs been installed at airports overnight?

The fact that any liquids are being permitted through security just demonstrates the bankruptcy of the policy.

Lift the ban.

tags: travel | liquids | airport security

AP is reporting that the liquids embargo is undergoing a shift. At 11am eastern, the TSA will officially announce two major changes to the policy on liquids in airports:

1) Liquids purchased in the airport after the security checkpoint will be allowed on planes again.
2) Some liquids, like hand lotions, will be allowed through security, once they have undergone a secondary screening.

#1 essentially replicates the changes that Canada enacted a few days ago, and it’s a positive step forward. As I’ve said before, if the stuff behind the checkpoint is screened, why can they impose double-secret probationary rules on the goods?

But #2 is different, and we’ll need to hear more. Why are some liquids being permitted, and not others? Has the TSA begun installing new machines to scan liquids, or invented a new technique for detecting threats in semi-viscous moisturizing suspensions?

(image)
tags: travel | liquids | airport security

O Canada! Our neighbors to the north have wisely reconsidered some of the recently imposed airport security provisions.

In particular: Liquids purchased in Canadian airports AFTER passengers have passed security will no longer be prohibited on board airplanes. Buy that overpriced bottle of water, the venti latte, or a six-pack of Molson, and you won’t have to dump it before entering the jetway. Unless you’re traveling to the United States, in which case your liquids magically become threatening to everyone’s safety again, and you’re required to pour them out.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: It makes no sense to have a “sterile” area in the airport, where goods and individuals have been screened for contraband, and then ban items obtained from that area anyway. It’s completely arbitrary, and part of the kabuki security we’ve all gotten accustomed to in the past weeks. Hats off to Canada for injecting some modicum of sense into matters.

Flying internationally into Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport? Bringing in some duty free liquor? Taking a cab? Better hide the hooch, and hide it well.

A number of Somalian cabbies in the area, citing their religious beliefs, have been refusing to transport passengers who are carrying or are even suspected of carrying liquor. It’s become pervasive enough that the city is considering a system for marking cabs that are anti-booze.

Driving a taxi means transporting all kinds of people, most of whom probably have some habits that you find repulsive in some way or another. Where do you draw the line? Perhaps “cab driver” isn’t the best career choice for these particular Minnesotans.

When the TSA announced that it was allowing personal lubricants such as K-Y Jelly on board, I honestly asked myself why.

Besides gaining some inflight intimacy with a flying partner, or possibly performing some Ghostbusters-esque special effects onboard (to the inevitable delight of the flight crew, I’m sure), why would anyone need to have K-Y on board? It’s not like asthma mist, eye drops, or cough syrup.

Apparently, the TSA’s enforcers are second-guessing the policy. One of the Consumerist’s readers put the liberation of K-Y to the test and got the Heisman when asked how he’d be using it on the plane.

Note to TSA: If it’s explicitly permitted onboard, it should be permitted onboard. Period. No justification should be necessary. Think that’s not good enough? Change the policy, don’t make up rules as you go along. Jeez…

So what is a randy traveler to do? Two options…

First, you could do as thousands of flyers are doing, and sneak the goods onboard anyway. Just carry it in a pocket as you go through the metal detector. But this is not recommended, to say the least, since your plane might be turned back mid-flight if someone sees you breaking out the liquids inflight. If you sneak it on, prepare for a butt-kicking from angry passengers when the plane diverts.

Option two: Hire Bob Smith to fly you around in his airborne ’70s-style love van. USA Today profiled Captain Bob, who will take amorous couples to an altitude of one mile for an hour, for $299. You keep the sheets. (Classy.) K-Y optional.

(images: thePhotoPhreak, USA Today)
tags: travel | K-Y Jelly | mile high club

Travelers within and from the UK rejoice: Beginning next weekend, larger carry-on bags and some liquids, including toothpaste, will be allowed on board once again.

The changes, especially permitting larger carry-ons, are certainly welcome. The earlier restriction was absurd, making it impossible to carry anything larger than a briefcase.

But America’s TSA and Congress aren’t allowing toothpaste on board anytime soon. The liquid ban remains as-is.

So if you’re flying from the UK to the US, not only have the terrorists won, so have the Cavity Creeps.

(image: Johnny Vulkan)
tags: travel | airport security | toothpaste

Disappointed at the lukewarm reception to the launch of mywetstuff.com? Still strategizing on how to avoid checking your luggage, and looking for a site where you can buy products prohibited by the TSA (and have them shipped to your destination)? Have no fear. There’s an alternative: Minimus.biz.

The site has a broad range of products, not limited to personal care products, but all in small/trial sizes. Shipping over $20 is free. If your order doesn’t reach an Andrew Jackson, shipping will cost $4.50.

(Thanks to reader Janet!)

Two weeks ago, I mentioned the launch of MyWetStuff.com, the site that promises to deliver trial sized personal care liquids to your destination, so you can leave the liquids at home and avoid checking-in your suitcase. Sounds great, right?

The site launched today. With travel of my own coming up on Thursday, I thought I’d give it a whirl.

Lower your expectations.

Though it’s launched, many pages (such as the FAQ) are not up and running. It’s very much a site under construction.

Early birds to the site are eligible to receive $15 in free goods. Which is great, except the shipping charge for my 9-item test shopping cart came to $13.20. That’s some expensive mini-toothpaste.

Orders require at least 4 days’ advance notice in order to be processed. For that kind of shipping charge, you’d expect a little bit faster processing.

Further, the first actual shipping date that the site will accept is September 29. Buy today, but wait over three weeks for your goods?

Finally, when you enter your shipping information, there’s not enough room on the form for useful details, like hotel or company name. One line for name, one for address. I imagine most users of the site would be staying in a hotel, so you’d better hope your name is short: your name and the hotel’s name need to fit into a 32-character field.

With established competitors like drugstore.com ready to ship the goods, and with brick-and-mortar stores located across the country, this site is looking like it’s a nonstarter in its current form. Great idea, but questionable execution.

(image: sanyam)

Too bad this didn’t happen on WizzAir
An Air Canada Jazz pilot locked himself out of the cockpit after visiting the lavatory. The co-pilot and flight attendant, both up front behind the locked door, were unable to open it. (Insert joke here.) After banging on the door, perhaps even shouting “Let me in!” to the horror of the passengers aboard the 50-seat Canadair Regional Jet, the pilot unscrewed the door hinges and got back in his seat. (The plane landed safely.) — And in case you’re wondering about the puerile joke in the title, there really is a WizzAir.

Security 2: Electric Booga-loo (emphasis on “loo”)
Losing your iPod certainly sucks. Losing it by dropping it into an airplane toilet, even worse. Having your plane make an emergency landing because of your dropped iPod being in the toilet, and being questioned as a terrorist suspect: almost trip horror perfection. (via Consumerist)

Moisture-based lawsuits begin
Add it to the growing list of lawsuits. An Irish woman is suing Delta Airlines for failing to provide beverages for her 18-month old boy, whom she carried on her lap. TSA agents at JFK had required her to empty her child’s juice at security. (via Consumerist, again)

Passports not worth what they once were
The U.S. government is preventing two American citizens from returning to the United States from Pakistan, unless they agree to be questioned — with lie detectors — by the FBI about their relatives, who were convicted in a case involving terrorism. Though they are not considered suspects, and are not charged with any crime, these two Americans are on the no-fly list for now. As usual, Ed Hasbrouck, recently turned consultant to the Identity Project/papersplease.org is on the scene, making a strong (if wordy) case that this is a violation of constitutional rights.

More kung fu fighting, still fast as lightning
China is sending some of its air marshals to the United States for further training. Apparently China’s flying cops are already “trained in martial arts and carry knives and clubs.” But can they sing and dance as well?

(image, taken onboard Southwest Airlines)
tags: travel | airlines | security

No void remains empty for very long. In light of the TSA’s war on moisture, startup MyWetStuff.com will let you buy trial sizes of various liquid or gooey personal care products, and have them delivered to your hotel at the destination.

The first 70,000 people to use the service get free stuff when the site launches September 5. Sign up here to get in line for the freebies.

I’m traveling right after their launch, so I’ll try to give the service a whirl.