3 ms·

It won't be that until I'm allowed to keep my shoes on and bring a liter bottle of seltzer water with me when I fly.

koolba 6y ago
I bet they’ll let you bring it if you tell them it’s hand sanitizer. Which is hilarious as the latter combined with a lighter could be a potent improvised weapon.
- evilduck 6y ago
  They already let us fly with numerous lithium fire hazards per person. All you need is something like a metal barreled ink pen to pierce the battery pack. Heck, what protection is there from me getting some volume of mercury on board? A pressurized aluminum airframe would not take kindly to spilling any amount of that.
  - na85 6y ago
    Destroying the aircraft in mid air isn't really the threat any more, though. The threat is using the airplane and its occupants as unwilling kamikaze weapons as in 9/11, and with the armored doors on the flight deck now it's unlikely the aircrew will allow the aircraft to be hijacked no matter what you bring on board. There's a reason the flight attendants stand in front of the door when the pilots have to use the washroom; it's so that you have to kill or incapacitate them first which buys the pilot(s) time to close and secure the armored door.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Shoes are obstensibly removed to prevent the destruction of planes, not their hijacking. The problem of planes being hijacked was solved around 10am on 2001/9/11, before the government got involved. And if passengers fighting back isn't enough, locked cabin doors should be. Incidentally, passengers kicked the shit out of the would-be shoe bomber too.
      - na85 6y ago
        >Shoes are obstensibly removed to prevent the destruction of planes, not their hijacking. Perhaps that's the stated reason, but I think you and I both know it's security theatre, just like the "no phones in flight" rule.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        Yes of course, hence 'obstensibly'. Maybe that's not quite the right word, but I mean the reason claimed by officials, not the true reason.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

I bet they’ll let you bring it if you tell them it’s hand sanitizer. Which is hilarious as the latter combined with a lighter could be a potent improvised weapon.

evilduck 6y ago
They already let us fly with numerous lithium fire hazards per person. All you need is something like a metal barreled ink pen to pierce the battery pack. Heck, what protection is there from me getting some volume of mercury on board? A pressurized aluminum airframe would not take kindly to spilling any amount of that.
- na85 6y ago
  Destroying the aircraft in mid air isn't really the threat any more, though. The threat is using the airplane and its occupants as unwilling kamikaze weapons as in 9/11, and with the armored doors on the flight deck now it's unlikely the aircrew will allow the aircraft to be hijacked no matter what you bring on board. There's a reason the flight attendants stand in front of the door when the pilots have to use the washroom; it's so that you have to kill or incapacitate them first which buys the pilot(s) time to close and secure the armored door.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Shoes are obstensibly removed to prevent the destruction of planes, not their hijacking. The problem of planes being hijacked was solved around 10am on 2001/9/11, before the government got involved. And if passengers fighting back isn't enough, locked cabin doors should be. Incidentally, passengers kicked the shit out of the would-be shoe bomber too.
    - na85 6y ago
      >Shoes are obstensibly removed to prevent the destruction of planes, not their hijacking. Perhaps that's the stated reason, but I think you and I both know it's security theatre, just like the "no phones in flight" rule.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        Yes of course, hence 'obstensibly'. Maybe that's not quite the right word, but I mean the reason claimed by officials, not the true reason.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]