February 11, 2009 6:09 PM

U.S. Airports Adjust To New Security

(CBS/AP)  Airports across the U.S. struggled Friday to adapt to stringent security precautions put in place after British authorities arrested 24 people in an alleged plot to blow up U.S.-bound planes.

The White House, meanwhile, tried to reassure Americans that, because of those precautions, they can continue to travel safely.

Lines at security checkpoints moved relatively smoothly on the second day of the new protocols, even though already heavy security restrictions got worse.

Thursday night, British Airways banned carry-on bags from all flights between the United States and Britain, and on Friday, passengers in the U.S. will be subjected to a second security check at their boarding gates. Officials want to prevent anyone from getting onto a plane with liquids that could be used as explosives.

Rather than filling trash cans at security checkpoints with now-banned bottles of makeup, perfume and suntan lotion, travelers were packing those items in their checked luggage.

Thursday saw long lines and confusion as security officials enforced tighter luggage restrictions and a ban on liquids of all types.

Security check lines for domestic flights shrunk to lengths closer to normal Friday morning at Miami International Airport, spokesman Greg Chin said.

Operations at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport were also back to normal, with waits between 30 and 60 minutes, said Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Lara Uselding.

"Things are running very well for a Friday" at O'Hare, said United Airlines spokeswoman Robin Urbanski.

The new rules were hastily added early Thursday after the alleged terror plot was disrupted in London. It wasn't clear how long they would remain in effect, though Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., said the situation "eliminates the days of carry-on baggage."

Get the latest news on the investigation into the plot
Frances Fragos Townsend, President Bush's homeland security adviser, said it's safe to fly even as she acknowledged that investigators continue to search for some of the terrorists accused in the plot.

"We are looking for connections between anyone in the United States and the plotters in the U.K., but we don't have any evidence that there is an active threat or cell here," she said on CBS's The Early Show.

Though British officials have arrested two dozen alleged plotters, several suspects remain at large, including the suspected ring leaders of the London plot.

Still, Townsend said people should continue to fly.

"People ought to feel safe about traveling because of all the precautions we're taking," she said.

National Guard troops arrived to back up airport police on both coasts, but no show of force can defeat the type of threat at the center of the London plot. The federal government has worried about so-called liquid bombs since the mid-90s. Various security contractors have been working on detectors that can identify liquids and identify the hazardous ones, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

But millions of tax dollars, intended for explosive detection, have been diverted to pay the salaries of security screeners. And for now, airports are not equipped to detect liquid bombs or their component parts, Orr reports.

Security was tightest on flights to and from the United Kingdom, with more items banned and additional luggage checks for passengers. Some long lines formed ahead of Miami's early international departures Friday, but they quickly cleared out, Chin said.

Kingsley Veal, 35, a geologist from England, said his Continental flight from London's Heathrow airport to San Francisco was "long and boring" because, under British flight restrictions, he couldn't bring any books or music on board. But he thought the no-carry-on policy should always be in effect.

"If no one's allowed anything, then you'd know, right?" Veal said.



© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 12 Comments
by misdiva21 August 14, 2006 1:30 PM EDT
My name is Rachel and I was on a flight from traverse city to chicago, then from chicago to San Francisco. A time of five hours in the air and about three hours of checking in and layovers. I understand the need for the extra security, but nobody is talking about how they are taking away baby food in sealed jars. My seven month old's baby food was thrown out at security an hour before hour flight left, so that left me no food for her for about seven hours. Plus they will allow baby formula but they forget to let you know you cant bring the water ro mix the formula with. Does anybody else think this is wrong? My daughter was denied solid food until I could get in her bag that was checked in. Luckly a flight attendent gave me apple sauce and a passenger gave me a bananna, but at my daughters age she needs the extra solid food not strickly formula for eight hours. I just wanted to mention this and that it was not right! thank you rachel mccoy email address misdiva21@hotmail.com
Reply to this comment
by prp8396 August 12, 2006 3:20 PM EDT
My wife and I both have the extreme "pleasure" of being business travelers. We spend 3 or 4 days of our lives, virtually every week, in airports all over the country. The sad fact of these new restrictions is that I don't feel any - I mean 0% - safer. I simply feel harassed.

It's ridiculous the number of hoops that people have to jump through just to fly anymore. The last saving grace of the exisitng system was, until 2 days ago, carry-on luggage. Now the government has removed the last shred of tolerability from airline travel for those of us who must travel constantly to earn a living. I'm tired of ineffectual knee-jerk reactionary policy. If the government wants to do something about terrorism, get out there in the world and do something. However, it's blatantly obvious that confiscating my lip balm, and the "War On Terror" will not, and cannot, accomplish anything.

As a lifetime conservative and Republican, I can honestly say that I can't wait for November of 2008. I'm seriously considering pulling a straight Democratic ticket. I'm tired of impotent leadership. The Democrats may raise my taxes, but it's funny how I always have more money in my pocket paying the higher Democratic taxes than I do when I pay the lower Republican ones.

Leave honest people alone, please! Stop fixing what isn't broken in the name of "safety," "security," and "terrorism." The methods are not working, and we aren't any safer.
Reply to this comment
by rihan156 August 12, 2006 6:02 AM EDT
I wonder why there was no security system able to detect such threats as part of the security routine since 9/11; it's not supposed to bring us to the edge when such occurences happen. Media may help us keep it real...

Brits take it more lightly, "Terror scare an ace card for PM: When I heard that "they were planning to commit mass-murder on an unimaginable scale" I thought that war crimes indictments had at last been served on Messrs Bush and Blair. But, no; it was just another one of SY's "international terror plots" allegedly uncovered after months of patient and intrepid undercover work. "Something has happened," we were told by hyperventilating "security experts" on every UK TV channel. Yes, it certainly has. This sudden revelation of a Muslim terrorist threat to turn the sunny summer skies over the Atlantic into an airborne slaughterhouse comes at an extremely convenient moment, just when there are rising criticism and even revolt over the PM's handling of the MidEast crisis and his inflexible alignment with the US in the "war on terror". We know that Tony Bush and George Blair are joined at the hip. The perception is-and not just among British muslims-that US policy in the MidEast is skewed in favour of Israel and against the Palestinians. All we are doing is storing up anger and resentment for the future. The chickens are coming home to roost...
It is certainly the terrorists whom we should fear in the short term, but the long-term threat is from paranoid governments.
Reply to this comment
by anon123-2009 August 11, 2006 6:55 PM EDT
Re: Bible comment

So exactly how many wars does the bible say there are left before the end of the world? We would like to know....
Reply to this comment
by BlueInWI August 11, 2006 5:27 PM EDT
Isn't it odd that this type of attack was thwarted in 1994 in Japan, yet we only start worrying about it now after the British thankfully broke this terrorist ring? Also, isn't odd how many repubs and dems are jumping on the bandwagon and trying to take credit for this success and over-reacting to try and look prepared. Midterm elections must be approaching.

Also, I though the $500,000,000,000 we have borrowed (so far) from the Chinese to Occupy Iraq was supposed to keep all the terrorists busy over there? Guess not? Or are we simply 'nation building' - another thing GW said he would never do.

Would sure be nice if our corporate news media complex would ask some of these questions...
Reply to this comment
by tonnie45 August 11, 2006 5:02 PM EDT
Wake up America!!! It is not going to get any better. All of these wars have been foretold. Read the Bible, it's all there.
Reply to this comment
by ssharvey August 11, 2006 4:25 PM EDT
I feel safer when a man in front of me gets his shaving gel thrown away, so I don%u2019t mind it if they remove my toothpaste. They can remove anything they need to make sure no one is a terrorist trying to blow his own guts up. Why is the media referring to terrorist as martyrs? They are cold blooded murderers.
Reply to this comment
by kemig August 11, 2006 3:48 PM EDT
Actually after 9/11 I was surprised that we were allowed to carry anything on a plane. I think this is long overdue and am willing to put up with it. Will it stop all problems and terrorism risks on planes? Probably not, but it will make it more difficultand problematic. We just have to keep staying a step ahead I guess. But I am for the ban of taking anything on a plane.
Reply to this comment
by sara617 August 11, 2006 3:04 PM EDT
How long is the American Republic going to allow fear to rule our streets? Because the American public fears terrorists we are letting our government to take away one civil liberty after another. Right now restrictions on carry on luggage doesn't seem that big of a concession for safety but as our liberties slowly dissappear so do our prespectives! One day it might be that a national curfew or censureship isn't such a large concession for safety. If the American public doesn't watch out soon we will have given up all of the liberties we hold dear for the sake of "safety". Take a look around and ask yourself is your fear allowing our government to take away your freedom?
Reply to this comment
by shaedreams August 11, 2006 2:46 PM EDT
I wish the new restrictions were being more widely distributed on radio stations, news, email blasts, etc., as I didn't even know about this today until I heard a co-worker talking about the ban. I am flying to Mexico for vacation in two weeks and hope this strict policy of no liquids is lifted by then. I didn't want to have to check ANY bags and take the chance of losing them in the Mexico airport, not to mention how long it takes to get your luggage in the Mexico airport. I am dreading our flight there. :o(
Reply to this comment
See all 12 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook