Doing the reactionary

Now that my d:struct pliable molding creme has become the top threat facing national security, flying might be getting less pleasant than ever. Those of us who make frequent short trips, for now at least, have the choice of joining the schmucks who actually check baggage or buying new toiletries upon arrival at every destination. Given that the aforementioned hair gel comes at $12 a pop -- and I wouldn't even be able to bring it back home -- looks like I'll be choosing the former.

While it's great that the plot was stopped, it seems we're in the same over-reacting cycle as always. Just like the actions of one deranged nut now has us all taking off our shoes every time we walk through airport security, I wouldn't be surprised to see this liquid/gel ban permanent. Never mind that anyone with basic college chemistry skills could have known that liquid explosives were a possibility for years. The security forces have to show everyone that they're doing...something. Put on a show to make the populace feel safer. I just wish they'd tell me what to do with that closet full of duct tape.

Meanwhile, here's a related proud moment in capitalism. Asked by Reuters about possible ramifications of the liquid ban, travel industry expert Terry Trippler speculated that airlines, most of which are struggling financially, might now have a new way to make a few extra bucks.

Many carriers have done away with in-flight food service in coach classes. Others have begun charging for food and beverages that once were complimentary.

Trippler said that if passengers are prohibited permanently from bringing drinks on planes, then some carriers could perceive an opportunity to make more money on beverage sales.

"I think you wouldn't pass up the opportunity to make a buck," he said.

Well, ha. The joke's on them. Ever try to fly out of LaGuardia? Even when I bring a drink on board, it's long gone before beverage service even starts, thanks to the customary hour-long wait on the runway.