Things I learned when I worked at LAX | Hacker News Reader

Things I learned when I worked at LAX

bloomberg.com

“We can’t take for granted that there’s actually water in each plastic bottle, so we have to dispose of each as though it could be lethal.”

100% nonsense. They just pour it down the drain - or more commonly in the trash.

They ask people to empty their liquids into a bin so they don't need to be screened at all. They want to only screen liquids deemed so valuable to a passenger that they would attempt to sneak it through security. That's a higher signal of interesting liquids now.

poster means that if someone brings a dangerous liquid pouring them all out into the same bin would be dangerous

If someone is coming through security with an explosive liquid, they are not going to dump it out before entering the security area. It’s going to be found during X-ray, at which point it will be flagged for extra screening on your bag (explosives detection).

Yeah maybe if it looks like a bomb, but if it looks like a bottle of water they are pouring or throwing it out.

At the security theater they are afraid of explosives, not poisons or bio-hazards.

It doesn't seem safe to me to pour out potential 'explosive' liquids into a shared bin.

Especially a bin with tons of people standing really close to.

If you want to cause actual excitement just bring an actual bomb and throw it in the rubbish before going through security. You'd kill a lot of people, cause the US (or whichever country) to chase its tail furiously for a while, and you surely wouldn't be caught.

The fact that nobody has done this to me demonstrates how vapid these threats are. The cost in human lifespans wasted in this nonsense far exceeds the number killed in the US by terrorists, foreign or domestic. At least you can read a magazine while queuing and while walking through the machine. What a farce.

In its defense, the TSA does provide paychecks for folks who are truly otherwise unemployable, though it would be cheaper to send them all home and mail the checks to them. Oh, and it provides ripe pickings for those with access to checked luggage, as has been well attested.

It's naive to assume that someone working at the airport would actually know whats going on. These are the lowest level employees. They know what they need to know, i.e. "Take the bottle and throw it away". Maybe they give you some smoke screen story like "Ug there could be explosives in there. Or lord knows what."...

I am not sure, but to me it seems common sense that pouring potential explosives and poison into a bin, feels kinda shady...? No?

The real reason why they want you to dump all your stuff is simple. All these 45 million people need to rely on what the airport & planes provides. Lots of money to be made here...

A much bigger hazard: My MacBook with water damage. I am pretty sure the chances are higher that it just bursts into flames during a flight, than someone carrying explosives in a fucking water bottle.

> The real reason why they want you to dump all your stuff is simple. All these 45 million people need to rely on what the airport & planes provides. Lots of money to be made here...

Kind of tired of seeing this obviously wrong and cynical reasoning. You are allowed to bring food through, and also empty bottles that you can refill at dedicated water bottle filling stations.

I like to think of it as cynical naivete. You don't actually know, nor are you curious enough to find out, but you want to appear wise and full of hard-earned real world experience. So you just assume the worst intent on everyone's part.

I always figured it was like the shoe removal or rumors about disallowing laptops on carry-on... the authorities had intelligence that these things would be used as part of an attack.

If they could assume it’s water then why take it in the first place?

His point is if it were truly lethal they wouldn't just add it to the public water supply like that, or hastily dispose of what might be a biohazard in a public trash can.

In other words the TSA is full of shit.

I mean, if someone wanted to put poison in the (waste) water supply, they could just pour it down their own drain. It's not like the TSA has special drains. I think it's fair for them not to worry about poisoning the water supply any more than anyone else does.

I don't think anybody is worried about the water being unsafe except for the TSA, who are hastily discarding it. So no, if they are taking the stance that the water might be unsafe, they are responsible for disposing of it safely.

There are things you don't pour down the drain because they can react with your piping, sewage lines and equipment in downstream treatment facilities. There are regulations and protocols for getting rid of such waste, and pouring them down the drain isn't one of them.

The point is that they're mixing the suspect chemicals, no?

And if they have to assume it isn't water then why not handle it as such? As it stands now they have bins for travelers to discard their potential explosives (water bottles) in.

LAX international terminal tip: there’s a “secret” security check entrance on the baggage claim level meant for people who are connecting (and therefore needing to pick up bags) but they will let anyone use it. The regular security line can be huge and no TSA pre-check for most int’l flights.

> meant for people who are connecting (and therefore needing to pick up bags)

Why do airports in the US do this? At other airports in other countries your bag moves automatically onto the new flight. In the US I have to manually pick it up, almost leave the airport, and then go back in again to drop it off?!

So I don't know why but for some reason even if you're only changing flights in the US you need a full transit visa(if you're from a country that's not part of the visa waiver programme obvs). Was a big pain when travelling to Costa Rica from Europe, because 90% of flights there change in US, which means having to book a visit at the Embassy, pay $150 and pray the consul actually gives you a visa so you can spend 2 hours on US soil to change flights. In comparison when changing flights in Amsterdam you don't need a Schengen visa, the airport is designed to accommodate people changing flights without leaving the airport.

It isn't just the US, I had to manually transfer my checked bag in Mexico City while connecting on a flight from JFK to Lima.

They mostly do in the USA. Two exceptions: from international to domestic or international transfer must go through customs first, so there is a bag recheck and a checkpoint after customs (but usually not in baggage claim). Otherwise, people might buy a connecting ticket who doesn’t have a baggage transfer agreement with their first airline.

Other countries manage international to domestic without picking up your bag! There must be some way.

France does it by deferring customs until your final destination (so you might do immigration in Paris but customs in Nice). I’ve never seen that in another country, however.

Turkey does it too

Not sure why you think this is specific to the US. Plenty of other countries require you to collect your luggage in order to clear customs when making an international to domestic transfer, for example: Japan and New Zealand.

You don't need to do this for regional flights.

Not every airport in the US has customs, if you arrive at an international airport you need to go through customs and then travel anywhere else.

The US has agreements with specific airports in some countries like Canada to allow them to skip that step by going through US customs in another country.

I know you need to go through customs. But why do I need to pick up my bag, leave the airport, and go back into the airport?

For example international transfers in a major airport like Frankfurt you do customs but you don’t see you bag and you don’t basically leave the airport.

In Newark you go all the way out to where people are being dropped off for departures at the curb!

It’s airport specific. Not every airport in the US operates this way. JFK may require a complete terminal change.

You do not have to do this at most US airports. New York City and Newark in particular is a special case of bullshit.. I avoid that place at almost all costs. There’s a reason those tickets are cheaper.

>I know you need to go through customs. But why do I need to pick up my bag, leave the airport, and go back into the airport?

Because a customs check is not complete if they can't also check your bag on demand?

But it’s complete in other countries? I guess they pull you bag back out of the system if needed in other countries. Optimise for the common case if not needing to look in your bag.

key word being international I assume. Which country doesn't have you fetch your bags and go through customs on entering it? (purely transit between international flights excluded sometimes)

In other countries you go through customs but you bag continues through the system without you.

In some countries. It depends on the country. Personally I prefer having custody of my bag through customs. Even in the US, most airports allow you to redeposit your bags without leaving the customs area.

You’re taking a few examples (try something other than Newark next time) and overgeneralizing.

I've never encountered this in the US.

Happens every time I fly from Europe to Newark, and then on to another US city. You go through customs, pick you bags up off one belt, walk a hundred meters, and put it on another belt. And in doing that you leave security so you have to do it all again!! Why not send bags automatically through?

You would have to go through security again anyways since you are coming off an international flight (same is true in japan, Russia, Europe).

As a US man travelling inside the country?

Because this is not about this case

Well don't ruin it by telling people who otherwise wouldn't read a map.

> no TSA pre-check for most int’l flights.

Wait, really? I've yet to not get pre-check when flying internationally since I signed up for Global Entry, but I don't know if that's just luck.

Global entry included pre check.

Right, my point was that I would assume that the standard pre-check program would also work for international flights, even without Global Entry, but that Global Entry was a potential complicating factor in my experiences.

That is strange, wouldn’t such a check be just after customs?

It might not be for that specific reason but there is a secret security check nonetheless

Tom Bradley ground floor?

>"On Ferguson’s very first day, a passenger from East Africa opened her suitcase to reveal rotting dried fish covered in hundreds of tse tse larvae. When they jumped out and clung to Ferguson’s vest, the flustered woman reached across the counter and started eating them off his uniform."

I am East African and would equally find that repugnant just as he did. Earlier tonight l came across this tweet(1). The insects shown seem to be delicacy on the other side of my country. I come from the same part as the gentleman tweeting.

1. https://mobile.twitter.com/Asmali77/status/11986755591670210...

Fried grasshoppers (chipolines) are a staple in Oaxaca's zocalo. They're great with beer.

Celebrities can pay to skip things, people try to smuggle things, false positives happen a lot and bottled water is expensive but - somehow - really profitable!

“Secrets”

> bottled water is expensive but - somehow - really profitable!

The first time I encountered liquids being banned from carry-on luggage – a few years before any ban came into force in North America or Europe – was in China. A bottle of spirits I had packed in my carry-on was confiscated as I passed through security. And yet as soon as I got through security, I arrived at a series of shops selling the exact same stuff that people could buy and take on the plane. At the time, I wondered if this was less a security fear, and more an intentional trick to drum up business for the airport’s own retail by forcing passengers to buy bottled water, gifts and souvenirs from them instead of a cheaper place in town.

I mean I agree the TSA theatre is complete and total nonsense, but the logic here is at least defensible. Those goods are inspected as well and they have a known supply chain.

They’re not worried about bottled water, obviously, they’re worried about something bad that looks like bottled water carried in by you.

TSA theatre isn't complete and total nonsense. The illusion of safety has all kinds of secondary benefits, both offensively and defensively.

The point is that the bottle in the shop is known secure. Your bottle could have been tampered with.

Notice that I wrote at the time. I am uncertain whether the Beijing airport rule, in place well before the 2006 ban in North America and the EU, was truly motivated by security fears as opposed to boosting airport retail sales. I had hoped that someone else might chime in with some proof that the Chinese authorities were already sincerely concerned then with liquids due to terrorist threats.

Anyone can pay to skip things today! There's Clear, but there's also entirely separate security lines and entrances for first class passengers on some airlines.

Clear only verifies your identity. You still have to go through the same security screening as PreCheck.

PreCheck itself is paying money for the privilege of not taking off your shoes.

Not anyone, actually. Non US citizens can't buy Global Entry.

"Well actually", they can if they have a greencard.

The article seems like a collated excerpt from stories shared on the front page of the internet, albeit still a good read. In between the bizarre justification for why water costs more. There are book-ended TIL moments like: for Lufthansa and Air New Zealand departures, I carted out extra handles of alcohol ─ a 'handle' translates as 1.75L (half-gallon/60-pounder) of liquor bottle, to the cheesy ending:

One time, the team popped a can of Pringles and found a live cobra.

In this case, once you pop ─ you will stop.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-term-handle-...

SFO has an occasional tour. It costs frequent flyer miles. It's oriented towards FFs who basically live at the airport anyways and wanted to see what is beneath them. They exist (MileagePlus) but are usually announced on email lists to the FFs themselves.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/...

> Even more disturbing were tools for potential terrorism, such as cell phone signal jammers.

More likely self-defense for teachers /s

Others seem to be commenting entirely from their own perspective. Try viewing this from the TSA’s or an attacker’s perspective instead and thinking about boundary layers.

In regard to the comments about disposing potentially hazardous water bottles, a TSA agent can rightfully assume that an attacker could dump the contents of said water bottle at any point before the security checkpoint, including into the public water supply. The fact they don’t attempt to prevent this from happening doesn’t make them full of shit, it actually saves tax payer dollars.

> Try viewing this from the TSA’s or an attacker’s perspective instead

Those are two very different ones, though. Of the TSA I hear nothing but "theater", so I don't know if they're a for-profit, an organisation to make people feel safe, or just implementing the letter of the law; regardless, the attacker's perspective would be entirely different.

And if you read a few of the comments, most of them do view it from an attacker's point of view. Nobody is going "my precious water has to be thrown away", but rather arguments about what kind of attacks it stops and doesn't stop.

Yes they are very separate perspectives.

I’d argue they’re still viewing it from their own perspective, though one where they are attempting to circumvent security measures as an attacker.

I’m not talking about that kind of perspective shift. I’m talking about putting on the hat of a cold blooded killer intent on making as big a statement as possible.

The article was great, but there are so many ads on the page. Every time I scroll on my iPad, there seems to be another ad in the center of the page. I’m going to assume this disappears for subscribers but just wow. The article was interesting, but the writing here is nothing I’d get a subscription for. Seems like the author read a bunch of TIL Reddit posts and glued their various bits together. It’s all one or two line anecdotes with no additional substance. Celebrities have a private terminal and skip lines? Color me surprised!

http://archive.is/qd1Nf

LAX really employs 55,000 workers?

It's operating 24 hours.

I bet the number of people working at a given time is more like 15,000.

Yep, maybe even less, it is also 24/7, rule of the thumb is that for each position 5 (depending on the contract/mansion even 6) people are needed, to cover holidays, leaves, illnesses, etc., in a year there are 8760 hours, and hours worked are rarely more than 1800 or so.

One of the biggest perks, if not the only one, of being insanely rich (+$50m) is that if you travel by private jet, you don't really need to pass through the snarky eyes of immigration.

I am so glad that my line of work has next to no chance of opening a chip can and finding a venomous snake.

Thanks for sharing, very interesting read!

So, is it only two paragraphs, or do I not understand how to use their website?

You're probably scrolling over the "you've reached your free article limit" part of the webpage. They don't do a good job of making it obvious that the article is longer and that you need to pay to access the rest of it.

Given today's news would paying for bloomberg access essentially be a de facto political donation?

No, all the profit Bloomberg makes from the company goes to charity through Bloomberg Philanthropy.

No, but I was expecting that. I believe Ublock Origin was hiding it.

It's enough to turn off JS. You can find the relevant switch in the bottom-right corner of uBlock Origin.

Thanks. I'm so used to uBlock Origin just working that I didn't even think of it.

Thanks! I didn't knew about that feature

Thanks for the tip!

It is much longer than two paragraphs.

paywall

Reply on news.ycombinator.com