OT: Airline Security???

[Mac]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:38:07 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Mac wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 11:16:25 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:


Sorry, I just have to share this.

Friend of the family just flew back home to California with
assorted gifts from local family members, including a full sized
deep-fryer. Not one of those little FryBaby dinguses, a big honkin'
full sized fucking DEEP-FRYER.

It wouldn't fit into the luggage, so it sat on her son's lap.

[snip]

On the airplane.

With detachable cord inside.

What is the significance of the detachable cord? I mean, why do you
mention it? I have traveled with detachable cords in my carry-on many
times. Usually they are for cameras or laptops, though, not for
deep-fryers. In fact I have never travelled with a deep-fryer or
deep-fryer accessory of any kind.

Know what a garrote is?

That's what I thought you might be getting at. That's why I mentioned that
lots of people, myself included, travel with lots of different types of
cords. I don't think it would be feasible to ban all cords. Some of the
cords are permanently attached to reasonably expensive charger equipment.

Now, you can't take NAIL CLIPPERS on board, but you can take a
DEEP-FRYER????

HOW MANY KINDS OF MAYHEM CAN BE COMMITTED WITH A FUCKING
DEEP-FRYER?????

Well, what kind of mayhem can you commit with a deep fryer that you can't
commit with a bowling ball? I don't think I am getting your point at all.
I hope you're not thinking that a "bad guy" could plug the deep fryer in,
heat up a big batch of oil, then hijack the plane by threatening to
lethally burn anyone who resists!

Sigh.

Don't just sigh. Enlighten me. What is the scenario?

Mark L. Fergerson

Mark, if your point is that the current rules for flying on commercial
flights are not rational, I agree 100%. If you think that letting a
passenger keep a heavy item on his/her lap during takeoff and landing
represents a greater danger to other passengers than a nail clipper, I
agree with you.

If you think a deep-fryer is more dangerous than any other item of similar
weight and bulk, then I don't think I understand your point.

And the garrote thing, well, there are so many things that could be
used to strangle or garrote other passengers (or flight attendants) that I
think it is pointless to try to take them away. (Which brings us back to
the non-rational nature of the rules for commercial flights.)

--Mac

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Mac wrote:

<snip to the crash; I hate chase scenes>

Mark, if your point is that the current rules for flying on commercial
flights are not rational, I agree 100%.

Bingo.

Mark L. Fergerson