Skip to main content

Will Liquids Be Allowed on Planes Again in the Future?

Image
By
I've forgotten when was the last time I was allowed to carry liquids on planes --- of course, I am not talking about those that can be put in a quart-size Ziploc bag. This MSNBC video gives us a hope that we might be able to carry liquids on planes again in the future. However, given the fact that travelers have dramatically changed their travel behaviors due to those “one-after-another” airport regulations and airline add-on fees, will things go back to “normal” if liquids are allowed again?
Labels:

Comments

  1. Philip SchanckOctober 18, 2010 at 8:46 PM

    I don't think that this is such a huge issue. I flew just two weeks ago for the first time in 12 years believe it or not, and I didn't find it to be an inconveinience. I think that as passengers, our first desire is a safe flight, and any increased costs that may incur due to 'high tech' magnetic scanning devices will often cause disgruntlement. Anybody traveling for more than a few days most likely has to check a bag anyway, and liquids are allowed in that case(pardon the pun).
    Perhaps in the time shortly following 9/11, passengers were majorly inconveinienced with this 'no liquid' policy, but I think the procedure should have set in by now. Myself, having not traveled since I was 8 years old, found it to be normal practice. Certainly nothing to complain about when my safety was their airlines priority.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 2, 2010 at 10:01 AM

    I find it to be an inconvenience. I am traveling for 4 days, and I do not want to check a bag. It would cost me $25 both ways to check my bag. I am able to fit everything I need on my carry on, but am not allowed to pack my shampoo, conditioner, hairspray, etc. Unless I put it into tiny little bottles. Well I need more than a dab of shampoo for my long hair.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is It OK for Hotel Staff to Wear Piercings and Tattoos?

By
Time has changed. I see more and more college students wearing piercings and tattoos nowadays, but is it OK for hotel staff to wear piercings and tattoos? The answer is “no, no, no.” According a report at USAToday.com, customers across the board do not want to see any hotel workers with pierced eyebrow, pierced tongue, tattooed arm, or nose ring. Some may argue that tattooed and pierced workers may seem more acceptable in edgy boutique hotels as compared to the big franchised hotels, but the survey results did not find any differences among a variety of lodging products. Many respondents believe people who wear visible tattoos and piercings are taking a high risk of their professional lives. If you stay in a hotel, do you mind being served by tattooed and/or pierced staff? What if you are the one who makes the hiring decision? References: USAToday.com: http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010 Picture was downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010P
28 comments
Read more

Where Coffee Meets Culture: My Experience with Orientation, Socialization, and Culture at Dutch Bros (by Karina Martinez)

By
When people think of Dutch Bros, they usually picture colorful drinks, loud music, free stickers, and baristas so friendly they’ll jump in the car with you.  As someone who has had the opportunity to work for Dutch Bros, I can say that the energy customers feel isn’t an act; it is the result of intentional and effective HR practices that are focused on orientation, socialization, and culture. From your very first day, you experience how these practices shape the entire Dutch experience.  Orientation, Socialization, Culture   In HR management, orientation is the introduction of the role and company to new hires. This is intended to help them feel welcomed and informed. Socialization goes beyond the initial training process; it’s how new hires grasp the organization’s values, behaviors, and traditions over time. Together, these fun...
5 comments
Read more

Average/Below-Average Looking People Can Earn as Much as the Attractive Ones

By
Research has shown that attractive people can not only charm interviewers (and thus get hired easier), they are also more likely to earn more as compared to those with average or below-average looks. Accordingly to a Wall Street Journal report , attractive people can earn 3% - 4% more than a person with below-average look. If such difference adds up over a person’s lifetime, an attractive person can earn up to $230,000 more than an ugly worker; even an average-looking person can make $140,000 more. Another relevant Wall Street Journal report also suggests that workers who exercise regularly can earn 9% more than those who do not. If that is the fact (I believe it is), is it legal? Can employers do that? Linchi Kwok and Otto @SyracuseU Career Fair To my knowledge, no law or regulation under EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) considers a person’s look as a protective class. It is true that people in general have an idea of what kind of person they feel attract...
33 comments
Read more