there goes my airline stocks 
A least delete my post on the notable activity list. It looks embarassing that its locked. I couldnāt delete it cuz someone wrote on it and it caused me not to rid the post. Sorry if people make mistakes
Sorry afarr,
I put the link in it so that there was only 1 post about this subject.
So stupid question, say that a terrorist is trying to smuggle some explosive āpepsiā on board. They catch him with the pepsi and throw it away in the big garbage cans they prominently show on the news. What happens if the device goes off in the airport garbage cans with all the people standing around? Other than preventing airplane wreckage from landing everywhere, wouldnāt it be just as harmful? Which then begs the question, how would they tell the difference that the personās throwing away pepsi or āpepsiā until itās too late?
I donāt smell a conspiracy theory here, but with having to throw away your drink and buy one on the plane, and the insurance companies firmly stating that they will not cover losses for computers and such which would normally be carry-on, it looks like someone is making money at the loss of the passengers.
Does anyone see the day coming where even G.A. pilots are gonna have to go through a metal detector, strip naked, spread their cheeksā¦ etc? Iām trying to get my ppl and eventually a used decent aircraft to avoid security hassles. Maybe I wanna drink my pepsi while Iām flying to see my family. Maybe I wanna bring my leaf blower and coleman lantern with me. Maybe I wanna bring my digital camera with me to take pictures of the ground as I fly inverted at night without my lights on and my radio switched off. (2 of these are a joke.)
Not a stupid question at all, but I may be able to help:
- The explosive āpepsiā has to have some sort of trigger attached to it, so I would imagine a TSA employee wouldnāt throw such a suspicious-looking device in the trash can; more likely a swift terminal evacuation would occur. Without the fuse, switch, spark, whatever, the vast majority of liquid āexplosivesā arenāt that volatile.
- Making everyone throw their liquids away isnāt perfect, but itās the only alternative right now given the available technology and threat level. Maybe the bottle will be explosive, but what else can they do? Damned if they do, ā¦ There are a lot of āwhat-ifsā that we could ask about every aspect of airport security. Sad fact of life.
- Could someone tell me what airline is charging for soft drinks? Iāve flown almost every legacy+AirTran, and Iāve never seen one that charges for them. Youāre not the first person Iāve heard say the airlines will āsellā more soda now, but I donāt know who sells soda pop!! As for the computers, I hardly think itās in the airlinesā best interests to destroy your equipment, even if they donāt have to pay for it. Would you ever fly Delta again if they trashed your $3000 laptop? Besides, I think the electronics restriction is just for flights out of the UKā¦or Alitalia.
planealcoholic wrote:
- Could someone tell me what airline is charging for soft drinks? Iāve flown almost every legacy+AirTran, and Iāve never seen one that charges for them. Youāre not the first person Iāve heard say the airlines will āsellā more soda now, but I donāt know who sells soda pop!!
Itās the pop companies who sell the pop to the airlines (or the catering companies) and you can be sure that if the airlines end up having to buy more pop the extra cost will be passed along in higher fares.
TANSTAAFL!
planealcoholic wrote:
- Could someone tell me what airline is charging for soft drinks?
JUst about every low cost carrier in the world outside of the USA.
You could be right about the fare hikes because of increased pop consumption onboard, but the pop companies arenāt making any more than they would be otherwise; I guarantee that the airlines pay much less for a can of pop than you or I pay for a 20 oz. bottle at the airport or supermarket.
DamiāYou are right, those REALLY no-frills airlines across the pond will sell you the air thatās being pressurized for your comfort; I was strictly talking about āover here.ā 
āplanaholic [Drinking in excess is strictly a side-note to my life, not a requirement.]
As was printed in the UKās York New Times (āAll the nudes too fat to printā), the original carry-on ban applied only to two substances: High-test petrol and cans of compressed hydro-cyanic gas. When security analysts concluded this left too many holes to be wholly effective, authorities expanded the list to include breast milk for babies and all containers in which breast milk might be stored. Six new mothers were tagged as checked baggage. Five made it to New York. The other was put on the wrong flight and turned up in Cairo.
Once they finally decided to ban all carry-on liquids, some odd things were found by Security. Two elderly gentlemen had to give up their foley catheters because it couldnāt be proven that the liquid in their urine bags was not explosive. One lady was made to consume two pints of Exlax when she refused to give them up at the gate. One person was allowed to carry on four packettes of dehydrated water crystals, but was stripped of the water in the bottles that was required to reconstitute the product. On two USAir flights, passengers were required to deposit all saliva into a big bucket by the boarding gate.
If the ban goes on much longer, analysts are predicting the marketing of āinstant beer cubesā that dissolve in the mouth.
More watered down news coming up in a later broadcast.
Two elderly gentlemen had to give up their foley catheters because it couldnāt be proven that the liquid in their urine bags was not explosive.
Funny thingā¦ I was at a meeting today and in an O/T discussion, one of the participants speculated that the easiest way to smuggle a liquid explosive on board would be in a bladder bag.