Slashdot Mirror


United Airlines Claims TSA Banned Comic Books In Checked Luggage For Comic-Con, TSA Denies It (boardingarea.com)

schwit1 shares a report: San Diego Comic-Con has become so much more than just a comic book convention. But comic books remain the heart and soul of Comic-Con. In addition to attendees being there to buy comic books, vendors flock to Comic-Con to sell their comic books as well. That's why participants in Comic-Con were shocked to find a notice waiting for them at the San Diego airport after Comic-Con: "COMIC-CON ATTENDEES: REMOVE ALL BOOKS FROM CHECKED BAGS." On Twitter, United Airlines confirmed the ban: "The restriction on checking comic books applies to all airlines operating out of San Diego this weekend and is set by the TSA. ^MD" Consumerist reached out to TSA and were told by a spokeswoman that the warnings about not allowing comic books -- or any kind of book -- in checked bags were simply not true. There is "no restriction on anything related to putting comics or any type of books" in baggage, and TSA never put out any guidance to that effect, she said. "In fact, they are allowed in both checked and carry-on baggage," the spokeswoman told Consumerist, adding that there were no delays in the processing of checked bags out of San Diego yesterday.

107 comments

  1. Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait for a few dozen comic books to include the evil organisation "United Airvillains" in their plot.

  2. Usual United Airlines shenanigans by pem · · Score: 2

    Books are heavy.

    1. Re: Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And hard to break, dammit.

    2. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heavier in checked luggage than in carry-on?

    3. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Xenx · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending the ban or anything, but you can fit more comics into checked than you could carry-on. So, from a quantity aspect... Yes.

    4. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And United charges for overweight bags, just like everyone else.

    5. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Airline employees don't have to pick them up if they're in your carry on. This is probably one of those great ideas some union guy had "and we can blame it on the TSA".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Books are heavy.

      Isn't there a weight limit on checked bags? If so it doesn't matter.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      United Airlines limits the weight of your checked luggage to 40# within the US (50# if you have status). So to paraphrase an old question, which weighs more: 40# of comic books or 40# of feathers?

    8. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It does matter if not every bag is usually right on the weight limit - except for Comic Con. But that's not the passenger's problem. That's the airlines problem - they need to sort out their shit, not play stupid games.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re: Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On an airplane? The feathers weigh less because the volume 40lbs worth of feathers would take up would never be allowed as checked baggage. Maybe air freight.

    10. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      depends on how many comic books you can buy with 40£

    11. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by hazardPPP · · Score: 2

      Airline employees don't have to pick them up if they're in your carry on. This is probably one of those great ideas some union guy had "and we can blame it on the TSA".

      Union guys are already protected from overweight baggage.

      Most airports will refuse to check-in bags weighing over 32 kg (even if you're willing to pay the overweight charges - most airlines accept up to 20 kg before starting to charge you extra fees), because that is the max. weight their employees are insured to lift, i.e. the insurance company wont pay for injuries resulting from lifting heavier things, so they don't lift heavier things.

      I was told this once when I had a ticket which had unlimited baggage. As far as the airline cared, I could bring a suitcase weighing 100 kg. However the lady at the airport forced me to remove some stuff from a bag weighing 36 kg - I could have as many bags as I wanted she said, but none could be over 32 kg - firm airport policy.

    12. Re: Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And even harder to read

    13. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I have a suspicion that this isn't due to weight, but density.

      I've had problems with checked bags that have a lot of books. They aren't opposed to books as books. They become a black box on the X-ray machines that checked bags go through. I've watched TSA scan my bag and then search exactly the place where the books are, pulling each one out and looking them over. I almost wanted to shout over "it's a book, maybe if you knew how to read you'd know that..." but better judgement prevailed. Other bags packed similarly wound up with the "we searched your stuff" notices inside.

      It could be as simple as a comment from an agent at the airport checked scanner to a United baggage handler that a lot of comic books packed together would cause more bag searches. Maybe. Maybe not.

      I don't know any reason why United would put up such a notice without some prompting. They're much better off if you check the heavy stuff at the check-in because that allows them to know weight and balance and have the real baggage handlers deal with it, instead of you packing an 80 pound "carry-on" that you then gate check and has to be handled by the gate agents.

    14. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Are the pages laced in drugs? If not the books were fucking worthless. And until you get some damn books dipped in LSD they can leave those things where the fuck they got them from, the trash!

    15. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Books are very heavy. I was thinking this directive more likely came from the baggage handlers union, not the TSA.
      From United's perspective heavy luggage = additional fees, so I don't think these shenanigans are coming from them.

    16. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Books with lots of high quality ink set off the X-ray machines. So does peanut butter.

    17. Re: Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate... Books? Seriously?

    18. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Books are heavy.

      Aha! So people can use books as weapons, so books must be banned! :p

    19. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      When I moved home from Japan after several years of working overseas, the heaviest and costliest category of moving boxes I had left after selling off the furniture (I was getting married, so all new stuff in the new place) was my books. Today, that whole library would fit on a tablet.

    20. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      It is almost assuredly because of weight restrictions.

      I know many years ago, when I was at University, all the Professors went on strike, so we didn't have any classes or anything for a couple months around Christmas. However as students we were required to keep up, and indeed when we returned sometime after Christmas break we had "Exams". My family didn't live anywhere in the same community, so I had to travel home the 2000km for the break. As such I took a large carry on and stuffed as many textbooks as I conceivably could into it to keep up with my readings (this was largely before things were easily available on this thing called the "Internet"). Anyway as such, my carry on probably weighed as much as I did (which is why I didn't put it in my checked bag as it would have been way over weight). I could see those that are attending Comic Con, particularly if they planned on selling/trading a lot of materials might do the same, which if everyone is doing it could pose a problem for the airline....

    21. Re: Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just suck out the air. You'd be surprised how well feathers can be compressed.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It is almost assuredly because of weight restrictions.

      It almost assuredly is not. Weight restrictions are not based on what you carry, but on a simple weighing the bag when you check in. Maybe you don't notice, but there is a scale you set your bag on at the checkin counter (at every airport I've been to). The agent sees how much it weighs a long time before it gets to TSA. She doesn't care if you have 49 pounds of comic books or 49 pounds of feathers in the bag. United doesn't care if you have 49 pounds of feathers or 49 pounds of comic books.

      United actually wouldn't mind if you have 55 pounds of comic books, because they get to charge you a bundle for an overweight bag.

      Anyway as such, my carry on probably weighed as much as I did

      That's a common practice. I've carried on stuff that would make my checked bag overweight, too. I even packed it so that I could gate check it if I wanted to. But -- that is a reason why they would NOT want to tell you you can't carry comic books IN YOUR CHECKED BAG. If you're just going to put them in a heavy carryon, then they aren't saving anything on weight, they are making it harder to know the true baggage weights and thus harder to get a good weight and balance number. They're moving the problem from baggage handlers who deal with 50 pound bags all day to the gate agents who have to lug the gate checked bag down the gangway.

      No, forcing you to put stuff in your carryon where they cannot charge you for overweight, and where they don't charge you for checking it at the gate, is not the reason United would say "no comic books in checked bags".

    23. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL.. Aircraft which are out of kilter weight and balance wise are very much the passengers problem, even if they are unaware of the issues. Unfortunately, overweight or aircraft with out of tolerance centers of gravity are exceedingly dangerous things to fly around in. Problem is that pilots don't necessarily know about the problem until it's too late. The aircraft still flies, until you happen to hit a part of the performance envelope where weight and balance start to play a role (like on short final when slowing down or on departure when going slow), then the aircraft becomes unflyable and crashes. Everybody has a bad day in these cases, and it's happened more times than you'd care to know.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    24. Re: Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Just suck out the air. You'd be surprised how well feathers can be compressed.

      Better would be to use your alchemist's stone to convert the 40 pounds of feathers to 40 pounds of gold. Three benefits: it's smaller, it's lighter, and it's worth a lot more.

    25. Re:Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a suspicion that this isn't due to weight or density, but the fact that they constantly mishandle luggage, and some of these comics can be pretty expensive and rare.

    26. Re: Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Outside security, there tends to be a pile of banned items abandoned. This could just be a clever employee that made this shit up so they could collect all the abandoned comics.

    27. Re: Usual United Airlines shenanigans by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      This is the first time in my life seeing "#" instead of "lbs". Not only does it not look right, it doesn't even sound right. Given the need to shift the keyboard to type a #, why be different? Are you retarded?

  3. Beware! by sanf780 · · Score: 1

    The comic book I bought is da bomb, dude!

    1. Re:Beware! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your a doosh

    2. Re:Beware! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Its funny that not only do you not know how to spell, the fact that you have never even been close enough to a vagina to know what a "doosh" is, you are quite the "doosh" nozzle yourself. And maybe, just maybe, one day some woman will feel sorry enough for you that she actually lets you see hers in person.. Probably wont let you touch it unless you pay her 3x as much.. But at least you will get to see one.

  4. Not a bad idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should be common sense not to leave related valuables when so many things come up missing in luggage, probably more so during any flying around a huge convention.

  5. This is how the end begins by sarbonn · · Score: 1

    I think this was in the book of Revelations. Page 75, Paragraph 8b.

    --
    Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
    1. Re:This is how the end begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your a faggit

    2. Re:This is how the end begins by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      If you're gonna quote fake bible passages, at least get the syntax right.

    3. Re:This is how the end begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um....if you're going by page number, you have to cite which translation, which edition, year of printing, publisher, etc, etc, etc.

      Or are you stupid enough to think that every bible has the same page layout.

      Only bible-thumping religious nuts know as little about the bible as you.

  6. United Airlines at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything United can't screw up?

    1. Re:United Airlines at it again by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      systemd?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:United Airlines at it again by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      just give them time...

    3. Re:United Airlines at it again by bobbied · · Score: 2

      My dad worked for them for 35 years starting just before the transition to jets, and I can assure you there is nothing I've seen so far, they cannot mess up with stupid mismanagement and/or lack of caring. They've even managed to mess up aircraft maintenance a time or two and crash a couple of planes as a result... But that's how big organizations always are. Inept, inefficient and dangerous if not well managed.

      I will say this though, for an airline, they are one of the better managed carriers for it's size, at least they where before the bankruptcy. After that, who knows? Seems of late the management is sorely lacking in any vision for customer service in their quest for keeping their narrow profit margins. But that's a problem for the whole industry, now that price is more important to the consumer than service or safety. All I can say is this little experiment will NOT end well and people will die to pay for this cost cutting eventually. Aviation history, as short as it is, makes that clear.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:United Airlines at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of hearing about "narrow profit margins" in industries like this especially after they manage to cough up 3 billion to buy Continental. This "narrow profit margin" mantra is just another phrase used to justify another round of price hikes or cost cutting. Every fucking business has a "narrow profit margin". Every business has expenses. Every business has the ability to implode spectacularly if it's mismanaged. Airlines are no different.

    5. Re:United Airlines at it again by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      That's like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.

    6. Re:United Airlines at it again by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Um, they replaced their unix/linux machines with MICROSOFT.

      Yes, they messed up systemd.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    7. Re:United Airlines at it again by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      A few years ago, United was about the only US carrier to make a profit. Unfortunately, all of them made a loss on the business of actually flying planes. They all buy fuel futures to let them plan their operating costs in advance and United made a fairly hefty profit selling some of theirs when prices spiked. I don't know if they've managed to make a profit operating planes since then, but the economics of operating an airline is deeply strange. RyanAir, for example, gets sufficient subsidies from a lot of the small airports that they fly to that they can make a profit even if the plane is empty, the passengers are just there to justify the subsidies (they won't be renewed if they don't deliver a sufficiently large total number of passengers). Anything that they take from their passengers is pure profit.

      Over the last two or three decades, there's been such a race to the bottom for airlines that they're basically having to sell their tickets at below cost and make money elsewhere. They're not the only business to hit this. Some of the supermarkets in the UK got bad press about five years ago for paying farmers below cost for milk. Milk goes off sufficiently quickly that unless you have a second customer lined up, if they supermarket refuses to pay your production costs you either make a small loss selling to them or make a large loss disposing of the milk. In the long term, this isn't sustainable, because it just pushes farms out of the milk business. The same seems to be happening with airlines.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  7. Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by Tanman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the one hand, we have United Airlines. On the other hand we have the TSA.

    Let's just assume they are both somehow lying, incompetent, or both.

    1. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Both are Both....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Informative

      Turns out United is taking full credit for this one:

      "While TSA is recommending that customers keep their comic books in their carry-on bags, there are no restrictions on packing them in checked luggage,” reads the statement. “We misunderstood TSA’s instructions and regret any inconvenience this may have caused our customers."

      So basically TSA said "We really recommend you keep your valuable comics in your carry on." and United ran with it as "NO COMICS IN CHECKED BAGS!! BLARGHHH!!!!"

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      More likely, it was something like this:

      TSA: Passengers should not check their comics.

      United: No comics in checked bags.

      Quite possibly there was a meeting where the whys and hows were discussed, and someone taking notes just wrote "Passengers should not check comics" because obviously, everyone reading that would just understand that this is specific case #157 of the general advice to always keep your valuables in your carry-on. But then the person reading the notes sees "TSA says no comics in checked bags" and hilarity ensues...

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    4. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PRoblem with that is...how can we tell who's the real liar?

    5. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Turns out United is taking full credit

      That's a strange approach to the situation. Given the parties involved I would always assume it's 100% United's fault and then be pleasantly surprised when it "turns out" I'm wrong :-)

    6. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should TSA even make a statement about that?
      Do they fear that checked in comic books can radicalize travelers to the extent that they become violent?

      This seems like a case where TSA should have realized that it wasn't their job and that they shouldn't take every opportunity to expand their responsibilities.

    7. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      This time, for a change, TSA was unexpectedly right.

      They were getting bad rap about TSA agents stealing stuff from checked in bags. Someone knew these comic books are valuable and might be tempting to finger dippers among the TSA. So they warned the attendees to keep their valuables safe.

      United, on the other hand, was up to its usual level of incompetence.

      Makes one wonder, if they are that clueless and that incompetent on public facing aspects of the company, what goes on in maintenance and scheduling?

      We have to amend FAA's charter, it should become a mere policeman for all commercial aircraft. The language about promoting air travel should be stripped from their charter and the goal must be realigned. It is not the job of the government to pick winners and losers among the transportation industry.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    8. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Why should TSA even make a statement about that? Do they fear that checked in comic books can radicalize travelers to the extent that they become violent?

      This seems like a case where TSA should have realized that it wasn't their job and that they shouldn't take every opportunity to expand their responsibilities.

      You need to think out of the box a little bit here. Have you ever known anyone who values their comic books? Checked luggages may be inspected (you wouldn't know and you found out later) and that could damage their books because those who inspect your luggage will not be careful or mercy. If the books are damaged, what do you think how the owner would feel?

    9. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Valuable things also tend to disappear from checked bags as well. The government can protect us from shoe bombs but not petty theft apparently.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    10. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government regularly engages in petty theft and recently strengthened policies that encourage it:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=sessions+asset+forfeiture&num=30&source=lnms&tbm=nws

    11. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the government regularly engages in grand theft.

    12. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I know that this is probably a first, and enjoy it because you probably won't see it happen again:

      TSA is not to blame.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Er meh gerd, who to believe?!?!? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      If the comic books are of low value, I have no idea why people would be flying anywhere to transact. If they are of high value, I have no idea why you would check them. They will get lost and you will get offered the original cover price as compensation!

  8. Slippery slope... by decep · · Score: 1

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for the comic books fans—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Where will it end?

  9. I felt a great disturbance in the Force by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    As if millions of comic-book nerds suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I felt a great disturbance in the Force by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      As if millions of comic-book nerds suddenly cried out in terror and then said "Screw this, I'll drive!"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Sounds like UA got pranked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they fell for that one hook, line, and Howard Stern's penis

  11. Hard to tell what to believe by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the one hand is a lazy, incompetent and mendacious corporation and on the other hand is a lazy, incompetent and mendacious government agency. Whom should I trust?

    1. Re:Hard to tell what to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever said it wasn't their fault first is telling the truth. Always.

    2. Re:Hard to tell what to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that the general public doesn't fall into the same "incompetent and mendacious" category?
      After all, ultimately it is the general public who are the principle enablers of both corporate and government behavior and actions. And it doesn't help that every major news outlet in the US is owned by corporations whose number one goal is to generate profits. Publishing facts come in a distant second place. And carefully shaping the information they publish is mandatory if they wish to generate profit. Facts are boring. Facts do not have political slants or bias. This type of information is dry and boring. There is no profit in boring. The same corporations who will also publish anything as long as it supports their editorial line. We are being fed information corroborated only by "Unknown Sources" or from "someone not authorized to comment". We are told we should automatically believe anything coming from these types of sources because if the source wants to be anonymous then their information must be true and worthy of being carved in to stone tablets for future generations to examine and be overcome with embarrassment because their fore fathers were morons. And their editorial line can be modified at anytime if it would increase their distribution thus earning more profits. And how does this insanity exist in the first place? It happens because the general public is "incompetent and mendacious" and a few other negative descriptions could be tacked on when watching the collective IQ decrease as the number of people protesting something increases. A crowd really is only as strong as it's weakest member and today the "weakest member(s)" are grouping together in herds of carefully scripted slogans for the proles to embrace.

    3. Re:Hard to tell what to believe by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Up until a few years ago the TSA is the lowest of the low, then someone at United turned to his friend and said: "hold my beer."

    4. Re:Hard to tell what to believe by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      For United Airlines to not come up worst in this tiff, it would have to somehow involve Comcast as a combatant.

  12. ESRI User Conference had the same sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was there the week before for the ESRI User Conference and the same signs were posted in the airport. They said something like all books from the ESRI UC must be removed from checked baggage. I flew American Airlines.

  13. Remove for security check by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    It appears this meant that books should be removed before the carry-on was scanned as part of the security check, and not that the books were not allowed back in the carry-on after the scanning and security check was complete.

    It was likely a part of this pilot the TSA did, but United didn't get the message that the pilot was over with, or they didn't know the scope of the pilot:
    https://www.insidehighered.com...

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Remove for security check by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Except the TFS says "checked" luggage, not carry-on.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  14. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hopefully those turds get flushed soon"

    (You're not supposed to keep them with you)

  15. Re:Silly Article by msauve · · Score: 1

    One should realize that words with no pictures to aid understanding can confuse the attendees.

    Yep, no ban. United's official Twitter first called it a "restriction on checking comic books...", then later clarified that "You can still place the books in your carry-on."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  16. TSA = security theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The stooges that were stated to be the hijackers on 9/11 (in the official conspircay theory) were almost all Saudi citizens, but the dumb dumb Americans have been mislead by zionist outlets like slashdot into thinking them Iraqis, or Libyans, or Syrians, or Palestinians (the owners of slashdot and other zionist outlets know that the sheeple never read the 'fine print'- so while the Saudi nationality of the 'hijackers' isn't a secret, post 9/11 zionist reporting tricks ensure few US sheeple know this fact).

    9/11 led to the TSA, of course- and the TSA protects against nothing real. But like all Orwellian projects, the TSA exists to lay down an impression of something 'real' in the minds of the sheeple. And this wouldn't work unless the TSA was a constant irritant. So sexual assaults disguised as body searches. X-ray machines designed to damage people AND allow operators to see passengers naked. TSA agents dipping their 'probes' into the drinks of waiting passengers. TSA agents confiscating various laughable objects.

    The point of a police state is that the citizen victims must feel the boot of the state on their necks every time they interact with the state.

    Slashdot attempts to legitimise Orwellian security theatre by implying that it could be done 'right'. Standard apologist psy-op. The nazis aren't bad per se- it's just the bad apples and some poor management picks. Yeah- right. The owners of slashdot are sure the increasing small number of people here will fall for this garbage, just as they voted for the sick evil warmonger who destroyed secular Libya- Clinton.

    1. Re:TSA = security theatre by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Why just fixate on ONE incident in the West. Islamist terrorists kill other Muslims pretty much daily They are a diverse bunch from many countries. It's not just the Wahabis. The Palestinians themselves were innovators in this area. Anyone that wasn't born yesterday remembers this. The same goes for Libya.

      Syria just has a lot of poor fundies that refuse to use a toilet properly and breed like mice.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:TSA = security theatre by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Thanks for making it clear you're an antisemite in the first paragraph, so I didn't have to read your whole racist diatribe. Now go crawl back under your rock.

    3. Re:TSA = security theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on now, you know you read it anyway. Just admit it. You, like many of us, yearn for the days of the clever and funny slashdot troll, and a multi-paragraph AC post was just too good to pass up.

      Natalie Portman

      Hot grits.

  17. I am lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, with two such reputable entitles it's impossible to determine which is lying.

    1. Re:I am lying by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Put both into a sack, get a 2by4, start hitting the sack.

      You will hit the guilty party.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. We should be able to charge them with something by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    Every time an airline claims their policy is dictated by the TSA and it's not, they reduce respect for and confidence in the TSA. They're going to keep pulling this shit until they start getting some hefty fines, or the idiots behind it do some jail time.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  19. Accountability for merchandise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They probably do not want to have to worry about being held accountable for potentially lost/stolen high-dollar merchandise.

    If the people in power that search/handle luggage are under-paid or over-worked (relative terms, I know) there is probably a better chance that they will steal the high-dollar luggage. Perks of the job I guess. People are people, I don't care what outfit they are wearing.

  20. Valuables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If such a sign existed, could it have been more of a reminder not to check valuables? I'm assuming at a comic book convention there is trading of what might be semi valuable editions of comic books, which are probably better off left in your carry on rather than in your checked back where TSA or airline bag handler goons could pilfer such valuables?

    If this was at a TSA check point, well its common knowledge that such bulky items need to be removed from bags and run though the xray scanner in their own bucket. Just as you have to unpack your laptop and put it in its own bucket.

  21. Re: We should be able to charge them with somethin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reduce it from what? It started at zero for me. I'm not sure what negative respect means , physically speaking , so I just keep it at zero.

  22. United retracted ban before slashdot article poste by clovis · · Score: 2

    It appears that United Airlines posted a statement retracting the ban before the Slashdot article was posted.

    From United Airlines spokesperson earlier this afternoon:
    “While TSA is recommending that customers keep their comic books in their carry-on bags, there are no restrictions on packing them in checked luggage,” reads the statement. “We misunderstood TSA’s instructions and regret any inconvenience this may have caused our customers.”

    At 4:55 PM:
    https://consumerist.com/2017/0...
    At 5:15 PM:
    https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

  23. Does Comiccon actually involve comics anymore? by Smid · · Score: 1

    In the uk the term seems to apply to a cosplay and specialised toys/jewelery fair...

  24. Re:Who gives a fuck? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    But can I keep them in my carry-on? Or should my turds be checked?

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  25. United can justify anything on security grounds by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    Remember the occasion when a male passenger was allowed a full can of beer, but the female passenger sitting beside him denied a full can of cola for security reasons.

  26. The real reason: Weight and balance by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    The real reason UA banned comic books was the weight and balance. People were trying to check 150lbs of comic books in their standard-sized luggage, and the planes cannot handle that kind of density for any additional cost. $1M in luggage fees can't make a 737 haul 5 tons of comic books in the luggage hold, not to mention the wear and tear on baggage handlers.

    1. Re:The real reason: Weight and balance by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't they weight them at check in? I thought there was already a max weight for checked bags.

    2. Re:The real reason: Weight and balance by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's the average that counts.

      In a normal flight, i.e. the kind airlines plan for, you have a handful of people who go over the weight limit, a few more that are close an most that don't come close to it. On average, you have a fairly low bag weight.

      On a flight out of ComiCon, most bags are close to the weight limit or over. And that's something the plane can't handle.

      Yes, it's the usual "oh we'll promise them something, knowing that most won't even come close to using it" bullshit that ISPs are pulling too, only to come crying foul when people actually have the audacity to think they could use what they're promised.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:The real reason: Weight and balance by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the weight limit for the *plane*, not the *bags*.

      There are also balance issues. I don't know if you've ever been on a plane where the captain has asked people to move from fore to aft, or vice versa, but it is pretty common. The center of gravity for the plane must remain within defined safety limits. It cannot be too far fore or aft or the control surfaces will not have sufficient authority to maintain stable flight.

      Passenger aircraft are able to measure the weight on each of the landing gears and determine the CG of the airplane and total weight. If the baggage handlers are not keenly aware of how to load an airplane with dense, heavy bags, the CG could be wrong.

      If all bags weigh "about the same," then as long as they load uniformly it's okay. If 1/3 of the bags weigh 10x as much as all the others, it becomes critical where in the baggage compartment those bags are loaded, and also whether they shift in flight.

      Now, can you imagine trying to explain these complex laws of physics to each and every passenger that checks in with a 250lb brick of paper? I can't, either.

  27. Re:United retracted ban before slashdot article po by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I wonder just which "instructions" the TSA gave them, and if they would be willing to produce a copy of these alleged "instructions" so that we may understand how they might have been "misunderstood."

  28. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are airlines such douche bags?

    The entire regulator system over air travel needs to be revamped.

    1. No over booking. You buy a seat, you own it. If you don't show up, you still own it.

    2. No moving passengers around to different seats without their agreeing. You buy a seat, you own it....unless you are fat, filthy fuck that affects the other passengers.

    3. No bumping passengers or ejecting them unless you are a stupid, disruptive fuck...like Cenk from the Young Turks.

    4. No cancelling flights. You buy the seat, they fly the seat. Weather and other safety factors of course excepted.

    5. No holding people hostage. If you pull away from the gate, you taxi for take off. If you can't due to air traffic backups, you have to keep the engines running and the AC on and make services available. There are rules about providing AC, food, and water for animals being transported, why not people under these circumstances?

    Feel free to add on.

    1. Re:Why? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      6. All of those nonrefundable tickets would be required to be transferable. In the event that you got sick before the flight, or your grandma died, or you pulled jury duty, you could sell or give your ticket away to someone who could use it. Allow the carrier to charge a fee of $25 or so to validate and register the transfer of ownership, which would also be the fee and procedure for fixing a misspelled name on a ticket.

      Airlines would immediately claim the return of Stalin, but they they would benefit a lot from such a rule, even though it would reduce the number of seats they could sell twice. No more lines of people wheedling for refunds because every case is special, no more screwing around with doctor notes and death certificates. And because passengers would no longer look forward to flying as though were root canal surgery, it would motivate people to travel more. Being able to pick up cheap tickets to Vegas on eBay would even revive the idea of spontaneous getaways that don't just mean jumping into the car.

    2. Re: Why? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    3. Re:Why? by thechemic · · Score: 1
      TSA Confirmed that they were requiring people to remove comic books: https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2017/...

      We are always testing procedures to help stay ahead of our adversaries. We were testing the removal of books at two airport locations and the testing ran its course. ~TSA

      --
      Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
  29. I suspect the concern was theft by TSA agents by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Knowing comics in transit could be valuable, and fear that their agents may steal at an abnormally higher rate than their normally high rates of theft. So the instruction was really meant to be...

    "Please keep any valuable comic books in your carry-on baggage and avoid placing valuable items in checked baggage as our agents are known to steal them."

    1. Re:I suspect the concern was theft by TSA agents by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I thought the stuff they nick is kinda part of their salary? They aren't really expect to survive on the pittance they make, are they?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. Confused by bano · · Score: 1

    I thought comic con was about non-comic book related celebrity appearances and dressing up like a dalek?
    People are actually still taking comic books to these things?

  31. Re:Silly Article by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    This may be a bizarre article, but it's about a bizarre thing that actually just happened, and which affects nerds.

  32. Re:Who gives a fuck? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Hand them to the TSA, they need more personnel anyway, and with a week of training or two...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  33. But we know what TSA really is by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    It's purely security theater. The web and my personal connections are replete with former TSA people and the stories they tell of managerial ineptness is astounding.

    And the federal side has no clue as to what's going on. They're just propagating edicts and so rank and file TSA employees are interpreting those edicts and coming up with ridiculous rules.

  34. It was never about terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to burst the bubble for all of you snowflakes out there, but the truth is the TSA was not put in place just to stop terrorism. That's just the cover story they used to convince the public to put up with the delays and intrusive searches. The same way they sold us the draconian drug laws with the promise they would be used to stop the big dealers, then using them to lock up millions of harmless users, creating profit for cities, states, and prison corporations at the expense of the public they swore to protect. No, the truth is they want to stop smuggling and money laundering. Comic books, like stamps and rare coins can be extremely valuable and a great way to launder and transport money. This is what they want to control. If you cannot put them in your checked baggage, now they can tell who is carrying what without having to search every checked bag.

    This is a secret you are not supposed to know, so I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors.

  35. The TSA Confirmed They Required The Removal by thechemic · · Score: 1
    https://www.tsa.gov/blog/2017/...

    Quotes from the TSA:

    We are always testing procedures to help stay ahead of our adversaries. We were testing the removal of books at two airport locations and the testing ran its course.

    So, with that out of the way, you might be wondering why we were interested in books. Well, our adversaries seem to know every trick in the book when it comes to concealing dangerous items, and books have been used in the past to conceal prohibited items.

    --
    Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.