Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More from AOL Travel:
Airline tickets,
Hotel reservations,
Rental cars,
Vacation packages,
Discount cruises,
Travel deals
Travel Guides:
New York City,
San Francisco,
Las Vegas,
Boston,
Chicago,
Washington, DC,
London,
Venice,
Beijing,
Dubai,
Rio de Janeiro,
Bangkok,
Costa Rica
Travel Ideas:
Adventure,
Asia Travel,
Beaches,
Cruises,
Europe Travel,
Foodie Travel,
Healthy Travel,
Holiday Travel,
International Destinations,
National Parks,
Skiing,
Travel Blogs,
Travel Tips,
Travel Photography,
US Destinations,
Weekend Getaways
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | Advertise With Us | About Our Ads
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-01-2011 @ 11:00PM
Mike said...
I certainly don't agree that 'abolishing the TSA' is the answer, they are there to deter an act of terrorism as well as to provide a reasonable assurance that a non-terrorist doesn't accidently bring a something that could be harmful in flight. However, they do tend to be somewhat reactionary (senior management that is) in there changing of rules... and the liquids thing is just one example (taking off shoes is another). An event happens and they will react - like a concern about a liquid explosive - which is valid, however (hope this doesn't shock too many folks) explosives also can be solid, so limiting liquids is only part of the answer. Real explosive detection is done by 'sniffers' (explosive vapor detectors or swabs, used pretty infrequently at airports - used 100% of the time in nuclear power plants for all personnel who enter, everytime they enter, since the late 70's, by the way), by xray machines (to some degree) with a trained operator, and, of course, by dogs.