Bottled water bought after TSA screening is banned from planes

[Ned]

Michelle Higgins wrote a fascinating article in the NY Times this week entitled, What Can Be Carried On? (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/travel/15prac.html?_r=1&ref=travel&oref=slogin). While the article mostly talks about stategies about carry-on items for air travel there was a particular paragraph which caught my attention.

"Though no one is saying it outright, it seems clear that the ban on such things as bottled water or perfume — even if bought at an airport shop once you have gone through security — suggests a lack of faith in the effectiveness of the current screening process. After all, if you have been screened and cleared by the security guards after arriving at the airport, why are you not then permitted to buy a sealed bottle of water at one of the airport shops beyond the security station? (Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff tacitly acknowledged a lack of full confidence in the screening when he announced on Sunday that he intended to replace contractors who inspect passenger identification documents at airport checkpoints with Transportation Security staff members.)"

I believe Ms. Higgins observation is insightful and on the money.

Once you successfully pass through security, why shouldn't you be able to buy food and drink and bring it on board, or gifts, or duty free purchases? If airports are really secure and everything past TSA security screening is secure, what's the problem with those purchases?

What do you think?

[nobody122]

I have to disagree. To put it another way; the person who delivers the water to the stores, maybe he/she makes $15/hr--the shop employee, maybe $10/hr--all it takes is somebody to offer a big payday to deliver and accept a containmenated water shipment. While in the USA it is not a problem I think, however in developing nations, it certainly is--you offer the same delivery driver and shop employee a few hundred dollars in India to get a contaminated bottle of water into the airport--I am sure you will have plenty of volunteers.

Plus hell, banning things like that makes it much easier for the cleaning crew--you ever see how many empty bottles are just thrown about the economy class cabin after a long flight? Plus less drinks, less bathroom breaks (a big bonus if you are sitting on the aisle or near the bathroom). But personally I would love to see perfume and cologne completely banned--I stopped counting how many times that I have been so uncomfortable because somebody thinks the cologne and perfume are personal hygeine products that cover up the fact that the last shower was a few days ago.

[Ned]

Germane to this subject is a brief discussion/description of TSA concession regulations and procedures.

TSA has actually put a great deal of thought into concession stand and stores in the "secured" areas of airports.

"All airline and airport employees and contractors who require unescorted access to secure areas of the airport are subject to both fingerprint-based criminal history record checks and name-based background checks. Prior to employment, airlines and airports send fingerprints and other biographical information to the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Transportation Security Clearinghouse, which conducts quality control on the information, accepts paper and electronic fingerprint submissions, converts the paper fingerprint submissions into an electronic format, and formats all data received into a single format for TSA. TSA then transmits to the FBI the necessary biographical information and fingerprint data to conduct a criminal history records check."

"Simultaneous with the FBI’s criminal history records check, TSA conducts a name-based security threat assessment against approximately ten databases that include information related to suspected or actual terrorist activity, suspicious immigration and identify theft activity, and criminal wants and warrants. Beginning in September 2005, TSA began using a system of “perpetual” name-based vetting of all TSA, airline, airport, and airport vendor employees and contractors. Under this system, each time a name is added to any one of the databases, all individuals who currently have unescorted access to secure areas are immediately checked against the new information."

So, presumably, all airport and concession employees have security clearance, and should be as trustworthy as TSA employees themselves.

Beyond the employees, TSA is supposed to clear all deliveries to the "secured" areas of airports.

TSA duties at airports include the requirement "to screen personnel and deliveries, the security identification media issuance and/or escort of delivery personnel." TSA goes on to say, "and some deliveries may require armed escort (such as some deliveries of alcohol, bank/ATM papers, or U.S. Mail)."

TSA has recently submitted a report which details how airports are to reevaluate their physical layout to faciitate all this screening of anything which goes into a "secured" area at the airport.

So, with respect to everyone's opinion about whether or not we can trust airport employees and the merchandise sold in airport "secured" areas, TSA has setup their rules and regulation so that the employees and merchandise can be trusted. Therefore, I repeat my charge, that by banning taking aboard even a sealed bottled of water purchased in the "secured" area of an airport, it suggests a lack of faith in the effectiveness of the current screening process of passengers, employees, and items brought into the "secured" area.

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nobody122 @ Aug 16 2006, 04:12 AM) 34591</div>
I have to disagree. To put it another way; the person who delivers the water to the stores, maybe he/she makes $15/hr--the shop employee, maybe $10/hr--all it takes is somebody to offer a big payday to deliver and accept a containmenated water shipment. While in the USA it is not a problem I think, however in developing nations, it certainly is--you offer the same delivery driver and shop employee a few hundred dollars in India to get a contaminated bottle of water into the airport--I am sure you will have plenty of volunteers.

Plus hell, banning things like that makes it much easier for the cleaning crew--you ever see how many empty bottles are just thrown about the economy class cabin after a long flight? Plus less drinks, less bathroom breaks (a big bonus if you are sitting on the aisle or near the bathroom). But personally I would love to see perfume and cologne completely banned--I stopped counting how many times that I have been so uncomfortable because somebody thinks the cologne and perfume are personal hygeine products that cover up the fact that the last shower was a few days ago.
[/b]
N., you bring up some excellent thoughts here. Even in the US I have no doubt that an airport employee is capable of being bribed. If you find the right employee, I'll even bet it won't take much to bribe them. All you have to do is look at all the recent cases of governmental employees being bribed for next to nothing in Philadelphia's city government, who were caught, convicted, and are now spending time in jail or the "farm" to know that it's possible. For that matter, a TSA passenger screener behind the x-ray machine could be bribed to look the other way when a particular carry-on goes through their machine.

In the case of the concession merchandise, not only are the employees supposed to be screened, but TSA is supposed to screen the merchandise brought in to the "secured" area for sale to the passengers. So, I think your statement is right to my point. The implication is that TSA doesn't trust their own screening system which includes the screening of all airport and 3rd party personnel and all merchandise in the "secured" area. If they did, you could take the bottle of water you bought at the stand next to the gate on board.

With regard to the empty bottles just thrown about in the plane on a long flight, my cousin just came back from San Francisco. He said the cabin was a mess from all the water bottles sold to the coach passengers. So you're right the cabins can become a real mess on a long flight. I ask, what's the difference if the mess is created by bottles purchased in the airport or on the plane? None? By the way, don't sit next to me. My combination of heart medication and migraine medication puts me in the bathroom often on a flight. It's why I always sit on the aisle.

I think your other points really are well beyond security, myself. They're about comfort on the plane. I think we all have to live and let live a bit on a plane. If I don't keep myself hydrated, by the way, I get horrendous migraines, bad enough that my eyes just won't focus at times. It's one of the reasons I fly FC. In FC you essentially have constant access to something to drink. (I don't drink alcohol because it interferes with some of my medication.)

As to the perfume issue, I'm with you completely. Let's ban the use of scented products on all passengers. :) I have no problem with the duty free purchase of perfume, just its use. I sat next to a woman a couple of years ago who was so scented it almost made me turn to that vomit bag provided (now with the advertising on it).

[Kairho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 16 2006, 06:39 AM) 34594</div>
TSA has actually put a great deal of thought into...
[/b]There's no evidence of this.

Having said that, however, and recognizing that TSA operates only in a reactive mode, we should give them a little break and a few days or weeks to react to the latest incidents. Yes, there's no reason people should not be able to buy water in the secure zone but there need to be procedures and bureaucracy in place to allow that and that takes at least a few days.

[Eileen Sellers]

"Though no one is saying it outright, it seems clear that the ban on such things as bottled water or perfume — even if bought at an airport shop once you have gone through security — suggests a lack of faith in the effectiveness of the current screening process[/b]

The water/liquid that is sold in the concourse doesn't go through screening. The boarding process is correct to disallow any liquid to be brought on board. And if Fact could disallow water and products to be banned from sale in the concourse area, except at restaurants.

[cole75]

If banning food and drinks from aircrafts is going to keep these birds in the sky so be it. Selling it on the street or in an airport concorse is no different as it is bottled in the same place. TSA is doing their job period.

Ultimately what it comes down to is if there is another attempted attack we better hope that security catches it prior to the disaster, who's to say that it's going to be another airplane attack? What's to stop them from say a cruise ship or a train?

[Ned]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Eileen Sellers @ Aug 16 2006, 08:57 AM) 34607</div>
The water/liquid that is sold in the concourse doesn't go through screening. The boarding process is correct to disallow any liquid to be brought on board. And if Fact could disallow water and products to be banned from sale in the concourse area, except at restaurants.
[/b]
I was at PHL and RIC this past weekend. If we assume that they are representative of other airports in general, items for sale beyond security in the airports are inspected, although concession employees told me they've never noticed a check which included opening any of the bottles, for example. They do check for weapons and have had dogs sniff for explosives in general.

Regardless of that. I would like to point out that in the UK they are now permitting you to bring anything you purchase after security on board your flight, including liquids and gels, except for flights going to the US, and that because the US bans those items. As per the BAA (British Airports Authority) web site, "Once through security: all shops and catering outlets are open to all passengers. Passengers can take all items purchased in the departures lounge into the aircraft cabin, unless you are travelling to the USA. All passengers boarding flights to the USA are not permitted to take any liquid or gel items into the aircraft cabin."

I ask, if the UK can allow liquids and gels purchased in the airport, in the secured area, to be taken into the plane's cabin, why not in the US. I repeat my charge that the ban on taking airport purchases made in the airport's secured area, in the US suggests a lack of faith in the effectiveness of the current screening process at US airports.