Liquids, Part 2
Liquids cover 70% of the earth and they also make up a good percentage of our comments from the traveling public. Post your suggestions and concerns about liquids in this blog post. (Click here for Part 1) Refresh your knowledge of traveling with liquids.
So, how much damage could a liquid explosive cause? See for yourself from the Myth Busters page on TSA.gov:
» Click here to see our video (wmv, streaming).
posted by Glen at
9:03 AM
Subscribe in a reader
186 Comments:
Why is it that there is never an answer to the issues raised concerning tossing "hazardous" items in a common bin next to passengers in line, challenging TSA to prove that liquids are, in fact, hazardous, and the other issues people have raised here. Instead, every so often a TSA employee pipes in with "come on people, follow the rules" or "these rules have been in place for a couple of years." We know that. The point is the rules are silly and baseless. Nagging us to follow them, rather than providing some rationale for them, is precisely why the public is fed up with TSA.
March 20, 2008 5:38 PM
Where's "Liquids, Part 1.5", where Kip explained how the TSA scientists can't mix liquid bombs under laboratory conditions?
March 21, 2008 12:09 AM
In response to the TSA restrictions on liquids in carry-on luggage, a padded, zip-sealed travel bag is now offered to protect bottles when transported inside checked luggage. The bag, Wine Mummy, is a durable double layer polybag with layers of bubble padding. It holds a wine, spirit or champagne bottle and can easily be stored inside suitcases of all sizes. I used in on a flight to Canada.
March 21, 2008 12:47 AM
And yet the blog authors still fail to address the scientific impossibility of their rule. These comments are merely collecting complaints, and are not action items.
March 21, 2008 11:15 AM
I have one word on liquid carry on's
"LUSH"
They have solid everything. Easy to use and purchase and TSA will let you take as much as you want with you. Also it makes my wife's hair shinny and soft.
March 21, 2008 1:53 PM
"LUSH"
Thought spam was prohibited?
March 21, 2008 4:25 PM
Thought spam was prohibited?
Depends on who is doing the screening and if they happen to like Spam.
March 21, 2008 6:41 PM
I fly out of RRWNA about every 2-3 weeks on short hops along the East Coast. Usually I carry on and therefore take liquids through security. I have noticed over the past several months that while I have no problem in DC with the size & amount of liquids going thru security, on my return (particularly from Boston, Providence & Nassau Bahamas) that a liquid that is cleared in DC is confiscated at these other airports, usually for being "too much".
Why the inconsistancies? Certainly all of our lives would be made easier if TSA screeners were at least consistant in the implementation of the policy.
March 22, 2008 12:20 PM
I just do not get the liquid thing. If I have a 6 oz toothpaste container, everybody is an uproar. If somebody as a 10 oz water bottle in their pocket, they can walk right through security with no problem. Why is this?
(yea, I know they are not supposed to, but since they can, what is the point of wasting time checking for the little baggies)
March 22, 2008 2:33 PM
I am a breastfeeding mom, and feel that the liquid rule needs to be changed to specifically address breastmilk. I frequently travel away from my child, but continue to pump breastmilk while I'm away to take back home with me. Since I don't have a child travelling with me, I am required to check this precious liquid. If my bag is lost, my milk will be ruined by the time the airline locates it. Breastmilk is not like shampoo or Diet Coke- it is an irreplaceble resource and should be treated as such.
March 23, 2008 8:47 AM
The rules due seem extreme in some areas. I am sure they have been in place long enough now to know what areas can be adjusted.
Shawn A Hearn
March 23, 2008 2:15 PM
Dear "Lush" advertiser:
Do they sell solid toothpaste? I can travel without shampoo or conditioner on board (since I won´t have a shower either), but I think traveling 24 hours (long international flights + connections) without toothpaste is inhumane.
March 25, 2008 10:40 AM
Dear "Lush" advertiser:
Do they sell solid toothpaste? I can travel without shampoo or conditioner on board (since I won´t have a shower either), but I think traveling 24 hours (long international flights + connections) without toothpaste is inhumane.
They do sell tooth powder
March 25, 2008 11:14 AM
Tooth powder! Sounds like a great idea! Where can I get that outside the US? Can I be assured no one will think it is an illicit drug and confiscate it?
March 25, 2008 5:00 PM
Tooth powder! Sounds like a great idea! Where can I get that outside the US? Can I be assured no one will think it is an illicit drug and confiscate it?
Make your own with some baking soda, salt, and if you want a mint flavoring to cut the taste of salt.
March 25, 2008 8:41 PM
About Liquids, for Screening Officers and for Passengers
There is one good rule of thumb;
If it:
POURS…SPREADS…SQUEEZES..or.. SPRAYS
Then it IS a liquid, paste, creme, lotion, gel or aerosol.
Jelly Bellies, grapes and crème-filled chocolates are ARE NOT liquids,
Yogurt IS.
Once you determine if it is considered a liquid, then 'at least two' regulations do apply:
1- the 3.4 oz rule (that is per item and per the label, not how much is in the container)
2- (Non-medication) liquids must be in a 1-quart zip top bag for your carry on.
Anything larger than 3.4 oz per the label, must to go in checked bags except medicine, check with a supervisor.
If you have liquid medication, it is best to take it out of the carry on and place it in a bin to be x-rayed separately.
If you have questions, you may ask for a supervisor at any time.
The Liquids guidelines are posted on the TSA Website at www.tsa.gov and on signs or flyers at the airports.
Pepper spray and mace are NOT allowed in carry on!
TSO Lori
March 26, 2008 3:11 AM
Tooth powder = baking soda. Sounds very "middle ages", but just might work, unless of course someone thinks it is another form of white powder. Now all I have to find out is how to get hold of solid contact lens solution...
March 26, 2008 8:50 AM
Sorry about that folks. Tooth powder is forbidden as being a liquid (it pours). I tried.
March 26, 2008 9:06 PM
Recently I flew out of O'hare to Seattle and my boyfriend forgot to remove a 8.5 oz bottle of mouthwash from his carry on. Security didn't find it and we didn't even realize it was in his bag until we were emptying our luggage at home. If liquids are so dangerous why were we able to get this through security? Shouldn't TSA do a better job of ensuring liquids don't get through.
March 26, 2008 10:18 PM
It's time to get rid of the liquids ban already. This is way, way past ridiculous. That would go a long way to improving your public image.
March 28, 2008 3:27 PM
An anonymous poster wrote in "Gripes":
"I'm confused by the "squeeze and smear" comment. I can squeeze a block of cheese or a bean bag. I can squeeze my backpack. I can squeeze an empty plastic bottle. I can smear crayons and pencils onto paper -- that's how they work!"
I am confused too - and I am a Chemistry professor! I think the liquid rule changes with the mood of the screener.
I sure hope chocolate and cheese are not considered liquids. Hard to travel without in these food deprived airline days...
March 28, 2008 5:48 PM
The TSA suffers from poor leadership and a government which thinks "if I can scare you, I can control you" hope for better leadership in the near future and they will ahve the wisdom to abolish this agency
March 28, 2008 10:51 PM
After reading through the liquid guidelines again, I still don't see anyplace that the 3.4 oz or less bottles have to be original commercial bottles, rather than unlabeled bottles you have put a travel amount of product in. Why then do these unlabeled travel bottles, clearly less than three ounces, get confiscated sometimes and not other times? It is frustrating to follow the rules and still have stuff taken away. And why is solid lipstick sometimes allowed, sometimes not?
March 29, 2008 3:28 AM
This has probably been asked before, but why is it I can put 5 or 6 3.4 oz bottles in a bag and it's ok. But if I put 1 6 oz bottle in the bag it's not. It's ok to carry 20 oz of liquid as long as it's in separate bottles, but not one bottle that is 6 oz.
March 29, 2008 4:53 AM
I wish all the airports/employees would actually follow the rules... and its not just the airports that almost have an excuse with being very busy; smaller airports are also lax about the rules. I have my "liquid bag" that I've been flying with that has remained unchanged for the past 6 months (gone through security with it 8 different times) and didn't have any problems until this last trip. Apparently my lotion bottle was actually 4oz and I had to take it out. You would have thought someone would have noticed and said something one of the previous 8 times I took it through security.
March 29, 2008 7:12 PM
Hi,
I think this blog is a good idea to improve communication but I can't find any responses to the many questions about why the TSA has the prohibition on liquids. I have seen the video and a couple of posts but these really just replay the rules. The question everyone is asking is WHY? What is the justification for the rules? We can put a man [or woman] in space; I can't believe we can tell when a liquid is water. Or some non-lethal substance.
March 29, 2008 9:18 PM
does anyone know if i can bring something to keep breast milk cold?
March 30, 2008 4:49 AM
My husband and I live in Japan due to being in the military and the Japanese have an interesting machine that scans bottles with liquids to determine if they are safe or not. Why not consider implementing the use of these machines in the US?
March 30, 2008 8:40 AM
How many plastic water bottles are added to the garbage everyday through this policy? We buy them, throw them out full, then turn around the corner and buy another. Simply make us take a few big drinks, talk to us to ensure that it is swallowed and be done with it. Is every single bottle of water that comes through the back door for resale inspected? The idea that water could be tampered with prior to delivery is real. Do you make them throw it out too?
A baggie full of 3 oz liquids. Hmmmm.. Just how hard would it be to empty the contents of those little bottles and fill up a dozen of them with gasoline or other explosive/flammable materials? The contents of those little bottles are never checked. But, again, throw the easiest thing to verify out, water. Ridiculous.
These policys were made in a hasty moment, understandably. Now that time has passed and the system has had time to be reviewed, make some modificiations that actually make sense.
I understand the need for scrutiny, but make it based on intelligent discovery and revamp the process accordingly.
Finally, when given the directive of having to throw a knife or bottle of expensive perfume out, why not have a postal office near the security center and give people the option of retaining their belongings. Right then and there, time allowing, have the people go to the postal center, buy the packaging necessary and mail it to their home. Then, go through security again. EASY SOLUTION!!! Use your heads people......
March 30, 2008 8:55 AM
My main confusion is the discrepancy between TSA agents at different airports- Some airport Screeners enforce a strict 3.0 oz rule, while others announce they are looking for 3.4 oz and below. (The equivalent of 100 cc). I assume the TSA believes the average american has no clue what 100 cc is, and chose 3 oz because it fits a nice mnemonic (eg 3-3-1). I jsut wish ALL the airports would pick one or the other and let us know so we don't lose our stuff half way through our trip.
March 30, 2008 9:21 AM
Sorry if this is off topic, but I couldn't find a good place for it. I support the TSA mission, but it seems that there is a problem with thinking ahead of the potential terror threats.
It seems that new security measures are only developed after a terror threat is uncovered by the media. First there is the 'shoe bomber' plot; then our shoes are screened. Next, there is the 'liquid bombing' plot; now we can't bring a bottled water onto the plane.
It seems like we are only using stopgap measures to cover old plots rather than trying to find real solutions. Shouldn't we have people thinking about potential threats, analyzing which could be the most damaging,and generating potential solutions for those threats?
My biggest fear is that somebody tries to smuggle a plastic explosive on board inside their large intestine. I dread what TSA's response to that would be.
March 30, 2008 9:43 AM
To be honest I think this may have started out as a security issue and then became an employee perk. I have a friend, who has a friend who works at an airport. When I go visit my friend he gives me all kinds of stuff from the airport that they have taken from passengers. I have about 20 cans of shaving cream in a closet right now. I've got Paul Mitchell shampoo. It's crazy how much stuff they have, and they don't throw it away, they take it home and give it to friends and family. I think this has given TSA too much of a reason to hold on to this liquid rule.
It should be referred to as the 3-1-1 employee perk.
March 30, 2008 10:19 AM
I wish I'd known about this site earlier, after flying out of Santa Barbara and having my entire bag of makeup, lipstick, moisturizer, all of it, confiscated. I had packed at my friend's house, and unfortunately she didn't have the one quart size Ziploc. She gave me the larger, one gallon size. I put my items in it, no more than would have fit into the one quart size. The agent, clearly infused with a sense of his own power, took everything out of the bag and kept it, with the exception of a small bottle of contact lens solution. His level of rudeness was unforgiveable, made moreso by the fact that it was 5:15 a.m.
Carolyn A.
March 30, 2008 10:21 AM
Don't worry guys, it's not like ALL of your stuff gets wasted. Most unopened liquids get split up among the other airport employees!
March 30, 2008 10:44 AM
All you have to do to get your liquids through is be a flight attendant or other flight crew. They get to bring their coffee and whatever other kind of dangerous liquid they want.
March 30, 2008 10:47 AM
Where did the 3.4oz requirement come from (as in, why is it 3.4 and not 4oz or 5 oz)? If going on a long trip, 3.4oz of conditioner, shampoo, etc. is just not enough to last. I shouldn't have to buy extra to replenish the 3.4oz bottle every time I travel. Also, last time I traveled, one woman was allowed 2 quart-sized bags' worth of liquids. Why was that allowed? We need to eliminate the inconsistencies.
March 30, 2008 10:58 AM
I really, really don't see what purpose the 3-1-1 rule serves. If I can cram that one, one quart bag full of three ounce containers full of some sort of hazardous materials, what difference does it make whether I have a 3 oz. or 4 oz. container? I'll just split it up between several smaller ones if I really need to. A girl I travelled with recently made a really good point as well - what am I going to do, attack someone with 3 oz. of shampoo?
Get real - this is absured and everyone's ticked off about it. Do something better with your time; invest in some medical help. I saw a woman having a seizure in a customs line in TX and one of the members of my party was a EMT. He quickly went and helped out and I was through customs and airport medical help STILL hadn't shown up.
March 30, 2008 11:12 AM
Better training is needed. I have traveled multiple times taking 2 different types of contact solution with me. Unfortunately I happen to be allergic to ingredients of those cleaning solutions that are made in sizes allowed as a normal carry on. One is a cleaning solution one is a saline. They were being carried as allowed per instructions under the exception of medical necessity. The last time I carried they were almost thrown away except there happened to be a "new" contact wearer in the security group who understood why I was carrying 2 different contact products. International travel (cancun to Denver) back to the US is a whole other item of concern. Things I know are allowed (nail clipper) in carry on and the contact solution were trashed. I realize not as much control with this kind of situation but better communication in regards to updated policies may keep $15.00+ items from being thrown away.
March 30, 2008 11:55 AM
Remember the good `ol days when flying used to be fun? When there was this sense of glamour that came with going to the airport and flying across the country or around the world? I know, I know… those days are gone and the world has changed. Flying lost that allure once airlines cut back everything from food to pillows to general service. So, if we have to sit in misery for hours on an airplane, can’t we make the process of getting to the airplane easier to deal with? i.e. getting through security with your insanity still intact.
First of all, let’s get to the root of the overall problem… this department of the TSA is something that’s NEEDS to be privatized and not run by the government. Haven’t they screwed enough things up over the past 8 years? That being said, and knowing that will most likely never happen… there are ways to make things better.
I find it amazing that when traveling to other countries, the security lines all seem to move much faster and more smoothly than any lines I’ve waited in this country. But why? Can the TSA not look at the way other places are run and adopt some of those rules? When I went to London last year, the line moved so fast and smooth that when I approached the screening area I started to take off my shoes (standard procedure here in the US) and the guy looked at me and said “What are you doing? You don’t have to take off your shoes.” WHAT? Unbelieveable! Someone finally gets it! Someone realized what a waste of time and effort in taking off people’s shoes. Bravo to the British, who, by the way, have been dealing with the threat of terrorism much longer than we have. So why can’t we learn from them instead of making up our own inane rules? Just like the liquid ban. Can’t anyone figure out that as soon as one of these rules goes into effect, the terrorists have moved on to something else. Why do we waste our time being retroactive?
Most of the stuff we’re forced to do in security lines is a waste of time. I’m all for screening, whether its x-ray, or metal detector, etc. But let’s be realistic, the more time wasted the more it leads to delays, long lines and an airport full of angry frustrated passengers. Can’t we make this system work better? I think we can.
March 30, 2008 12:26 PM
I understand the threat of brining liquids on board, but don't they serve liquids on board? I can't bring on a diet coke but they can serve me one? Makes no sense to me.
March 30, 2008 1:03 PM
It is obvious that TSA will not ever get rid of the bans. Once they start enforcing them, they have a continuous need to justify them, and eventually that becomes reason in itself to keep the bans going.
Of course the liquid ban is fundamentally ridiculous, as has been pointed out here many times, if the stuff was truly a hazmat risk, would the inept TSA flunky blithely toss it over his shoulder into a common bin, to later be wheeled out to the dumpster? The answer is obvious.
But if they were to stop doing it now, it is a tacit admission that the whole thing was in fact "Security Theater" and in no way was any danger ever posed by the mythological amateur chemist mixing up something in the lav.
March 30, 2008 1:15 PM
I am a mother of a 9 month old baby boy. I have been flying with him since he was a week and a half old as my in-laws live in WA, and we live in PA. His father is also Military, so we travel a lot for that reason as well. My main concern with liquids relates to traveling with my son. I think the policy on traveling with children needs to be clarified. From reading the TSA website, it leads me to believe that I am able to travel with more water than would normally be allowed because it is for my son as long as I declare it at security. I have done this and depending on which airport I am at, have had to either empty all of his water from his bottles, had to mix formula into all of it (which formula once mixed only is good for up to two hours unrefrigerated), or I was able to go through with no problem. I feel that this rule should be clarified and should be enforced consistently throughout each airport. I never know what I can take for him, including baby food, juice, water, and formula. And when traveling with a small child, it is much harder to just empty out all of these items or throw them away while trying to balance him, a carry on, and his diaper bag let alone if we are traveling with a stroller or car seat.
March 30, 2008 1:16 PM
The whole aiport security thing reminds me of the old adage that "Generals are always preparing for the LAST war".
We all (should) know that an aircraft is a vulnerable target.
If someone really wants to take it out badly enough to die in it, he will likely succeed. Though we all want to minimize it, we are willingly accepting this risk every time we board a flight.
If a bottle of shampoo or tube of toothpaste can take out an aircraft, so can a solid. Most explosives are, in fact, solids.
Liquids are just the "last war" that was won. Before that was the "shoe" war and the "knife" war.
I don't believe anyone will ever again take over a paasenger aircraft with a knife. Bowie knives could be allowed aboard and still the mass of passengers would fight.
We need, and I hope this IS happening, a contingency team at TSA. A group of people who would take on the question the terrorists face, "How could we take over and aircraft?". Then, develop the counter to the threat that hasn't yet been exposed. This would be a much better use of people's time and resources than re-fighting past events.
March 30, 2008 1:45 PM
I understand and am pleased with most of the services that are provided by TSA for the safety of the travelers in America's skies. I do have a problem though with the liquids restrictions. My 2 year old son is allergic to cow milk and on a recent trip we were not allowed to carry a 4 ounce container of goats milk with us. I also have a problem with the stores inside the "safe" zones of the airports across America charging at least double for a simple bottle of water. The we can't bring snacks and drinks with us but we can be charged double for them inside, that is not right.
March 30, 2008 1:47 PM
I'm so glad to finally have a place to voice my frustration! The ridiculous rules on liquids have made traveler's lives miserable long enough -- and serve no purpose in increasing security. The policies are reactionary and baseless. I am not going to blow up a plane with lipstick, contact lens solution or toothpaste --so why I can't just have my toiletries and be comfortable and clean on my trip?
I've started avoided flying in any way I can because TSA has made it even more miserable than the airlines themselves have made it. I'm going to Hawaii for my honeymoon this August -- I sure wish I could drive!
March 30, 2008 2:11 PM
I like how its okay to have liquids if they are in a "clear plastic bag."
Like the zip lock bag is going to contain the explosion of some liquid bomb.
Its so stupid, they keep taking my toothpaste and other items I forget to put in a zip lock.
Either do it all the way and allow NOTHING liquid or lets just forget it.
I could bring frikkin gasoline in a 3 ounce bottle as long as its a zip lock and i can bring on matches so whats the point of all is?
WHat a waste of tax dollars.
March 30, 2008 2:16 PM
Is there a limit on the number of 3 ounce containers one is allowed to have?
March 30, 2008 2:36 PM
"Where did the 3.4oz requirement come from (as in, why is it 3.4 and not 4oz or 5 oz)? If going on a long trip, 3.4oz of conditioner, shampoo, etc. is just not enough to last."
3.4 oz is the same as 100ml.
March 30, 2008 2:49 PM
Is there a risk of someone making a molotov cocktail from items fund at post-security duty free shops?
March 30, 2008 3:09 PM
I am a frequent flier and am tired of the TSA rules re: liquids. I believe that the regulations also state that only one zip lock bag may be carried on. Stop making us hostages to imagined threats by wasting perfectly good cosmetics and personal hygene items. If TSA could improve the speed and open more lines on busy times, perhaps we could have time to check the questioned items.
March 30, 2008 3:19 PM
The way we handle the confiscated liquids proves how disfunctional our government is. What do they do with this potentially hazardous liquid? Do they turn it over to the bomb squad? Put it in a secure container? No. They put it in a trash container right where they are standing, and eventially turn it over to the local trash hauler. If anyone really thought that they would find explosives and hazardous materials in passanger carry-ons they certainly would not handle the confiscated materials in such a fashion. Just another example of the government spinning its wheels. I am convinced that we are no safer today than we were pre 9/11
March 30, 2008 3:29 PM
I know this is redundant because 99% of travelers think the 3 oz rule is ridiculous but add me to the list. Me and my father travel ALOT and run on tight schedules when we do so and checking our bags is a nuisance to our scheduling. We can no longer carry on our bags anymore because of shampoo and aerosol deoderants that are too large for the 3 oz rule. Like most other travelers, we do not feel any safer by this rule we simply feel annoyed at the TSA and our government.
March 30, 2008 4:02 PM
Why is it that a tube of toothpaste > 3.0 oz weight is confiscated? The 3-1-1 policy clearly states that the 3.4 oz rule is by volume (see http://www.tsa.gov/311/index.shtm) - not weight. Toothpaste is measured by weight in the US, by volume in other nations... I recently purchased a 4.4 oz tube of Crest in South America that was also listed as 88 mL. Because of the *weight* of the toothpaste marked on the package, the toothpaste was confiscated, despite being under the *volume* limit... Seems like any tubes of toothpaste under about 5 oz should be within TSA guidelines...
March 30, 2008 4:48 PM
So I understand TSA is just trying to keep people safe, but seriously, this thing about liquids is so incredibly obnoxious. What's the difference between a 3 oz. bottle and an 8 oz.? Why can't there just be a rule that all liquids get scanned and do away with the size limit? Also, I think we should be allowed to bring things like yogurt through security. It's sealed! You can check to see if it's tampered with! Why do you have to throw it away? And why do you have to deprive me of my water? I think we need to re-examine our security measures. El Al (the Israeli airline) is one of the safest airlines to fly on. Maybe we should take a page from their book. . .
March 30, 2008 4:54 PM
I have always carried my liquids in a clear vinyl container that zips and truly protects the liquids from spilling. No bottle will hold more than 3 oz. I had no problem bringing it through West Palm Beach and have had no problems with it at O'Hare, Ft. Lauderdale and Midway. It allows the TSA to properly observe what is in this carrier.
When coming home from Dallas in January, it was almost confiscated. This would have upset me as it was quite expensive. The TSA employee at DFW said "this isn't a quart bag". "What do you not understand about using a quart bag?"
When I tried to explain that it allowed him to see everything in it and he certainly could unzip it (no more difficult than opening a quart bag) he began to confiscate it until someone else told him to let me go and not take it.
Not only, is it more secure than a quart bag, it is as accessible! It would be nice if your employees all followed the same rules.
Flying has become so difficult that one does not want to go anywhere that involves a flight, all because of SOME OF YOUR EMPLOYEES.
I'm a small Jewish Grandmother. I hardly fit the "profile" of a terrorist. I see my grandchildren less and less because of TSA!
Eileen Penta aka Neelie
March 30, 2008 5:05 PM
I support the original idea behind this, but think it's rather impractical as it is now.
I was just told the other day by a TSA that saline was actually allowed. I have been checking luggage I never would have otherwise because of saline. Yes, it's on the Web site, but I just now am looking at the Web site. Instead of all those 3-1-1 signs, I think that information should have been posted as well. I use a specific brand because I have very sensitive eyes, and they just do not make it in a "small" size. It's a large bottle or nothing. This is good news for me as my luggage was lost on my last flight, and I have no desire to check luggage again for a long, long time.
Some airports actually have the quart-size baggies to give away for you to put your liquids in. That's nice. I, too, have had them miss liquids. I took an old backpack with my laptop in it last summer, never even realizing I had a bottle of hand sanitizer in it. They never took it, and I was in and out of 4 airports that weekend. Some consistency would be nice.
I also would very much like to know why some places allow you to fill small bottles with shampoo, etc. (which most of us do because travel size are so much more expensive than buying empty bottles and simply refilling) and those aren't checked, just their size is. Maybe we should be a little less worried about size of liquids and more worried about contents?
March 30, 2008 5:46 PM
My husband and I travel a lot so we have the quart sized bags with little travel sized bottles and go through security without any problems.
My problem is that even after going through security you are not allowed to bring beverages that you have purchased INSIDE airport security check points onto the airline. The rationale is that "well maybe you managed to smuggle some explosive through security and have now transferred it to the new container." But that argument makes no sense. If the TSA did their jobs that shouldn't happen and essentially states that even with all the whoopty-doo about airport security the airlines don't believe that TSA is doing a good enough job. Secondly, if someone did manage to smuggle an illegal substance through security why would they call attention to it by transferring it to another container prior to when they wanted to "use" it? It defies logic.
And while most policies are merely inconvenient this one can actually put someone’s health at risk. Long before this policy came into being people were already at a risk for deep vein thrombosis and the consequent risk of pulmonary embolism. Now that we are being fluid restricted this risk has gone way up. Not only have the airlines not compensated for the new policy by offering plenty of fluids on flights, in fact, some airlines have started charging for water!! When this policy was written it should have had a provision mandating that either beverages purchased inside airport security check points were allowed on airlines or that airlines had to provide a certain minimum volume of beverages per hour to prevent that risk. But that hasn't happened. One of these days someone is going to die on a long flight of a PE because they did not have access to adequate fluid on the flight.
March 30, 2008 6:29 PM
Just took a 45 minute flight from Harlingen,Tx to San Antonio on Wednesday, and was asked to throw out my toothpaste, (travel-size!) and my lens solution just because I didn't have the 1 quart baggie. Granted, it's my fault that I forgot the baggie, but that doesn't excuse the rude and condecending behavior from the screeners! THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!
March 30, 2008 6:33 PM
My main problem is that I cannot bring cheap bottled water on the planes now, and airlines are SO MEAN about giving you extra water on board. I feel abused that even if I want to carry water from home, they would throw it out, give me a hard time for it, then charge me extra money to buy new ones at the airport/on the plane. It just screams CORPORATE PLOT to me, squeezing pennies from middle class people.
March 30, 2008 6:42 PM
I just came back from a long flight from Europe with a 4 year-old. Not to be allowed water and then having the unopened can of juice we had received on the plane taken from us was very inconvenient, tosay the least. We had a 3-hr layover and had to spring $2 for a small bottle of water!
Also, because of not being allowed to lock your checked bags, my jewelry was stolen on another trip. Sure, it shouldn't have been in the checked bag, but it was put there by accident. I definitely did not expect thieves among the employees of AA or TSA, whoever took my things!
March 30, 2008 6:54 PM
Okay, okay, enough of this liquid stuff. I just got back and had my water confiscated. It was an unopened bottle, still factory sealed. I usually can't even get these open, much less tamper with them in any way. I am a small, caucasian woman, 5' about 90 lbs. Do I really look like I would do something terroristic? I thought not. How 'bout some profiling here? I really believe that the whole water bottle idea is a scam to make you buy airport water at about $2.00 a bottle. Who exactly gets the proceeds from this scam? I want my cut! And I am wondering, what exactly does it take to make a liquid bomb? From the descriptions on the net, basically anything that you can carry on could potentially be used. So, why not just ban carry ons?
C'mon people. Let's use some of that "government intelligence" to actually do some good and quit harassing innocent travelers! BRING BACK THE WATER!
March 30, 2008 6:55 PM
So I dont think that it necessarily makes economic sense to require passengers to throw out their bottles of water. When you can get a 12 pack of water at the grocery store for 3-5 bucks and it costs 2-3 at one of those airport stores, esentially you are creating a monopsony with these little stores. Why can't you put brita water stations by the media charge stations - so that regardless of what airport you are in you can have access to clean drinking water just bring your own bottle( the water out of some of the drinking fountains in airports are gross).
March 30, 2008 6:58 PM
I understand security and am all for it; however, you need to think of alternatives regarding the liquid policy. If going on a short trip, I could just take a carry on and did not have to worry about checking baggage. Well, that convenience went away with the new liquid policy. Therefore, I need you, TSA, to come up with an alternative means for checking our liquids so we don't have to worry about checking our baggage. The little ounce requirement is not enough for those short flights. I find it annoying that the only reason I have to check my baggage is because I need more lotion, shampoo, conditioner, etc than the policy allows.
March 30, 2008 7:22 PM
Last year in Houston, I'd forgotten to take my mini-sized hand sanitizer out of my purse and put it into a plastic bag (I travel internationally quite a lot, and I arrived into Houston from Quito, Ecuador with it in my purse the whole time, however, after arriving, I had to switch terminals and go through security again). After waiting in a long line, I finally got through only to then get "selected." At this point, the TSA person rifled around in my stuff and then pulled out this 1-oz container of hand sanitizer which was almost completely empty. He said he had to take it because it wasn't in a plastic bag. I felt this was ridiculous due to the size and the fact that I had absolutely no other liquids in my possession. I asked if I could just use up the remaining amount there in front of him. He said no. I asked if I could squirt the remaining amount into the garbage can right next to him so I could keep my container (I can't find them anywhere for sale anymore...which is a shame). He said no. I said, okay, well, I happen to have a plastic bag which I can put it in and you can pass it through the x-ray machine again. He said no. The only solution he offered was for me to go to the very end of the line (it was a long, long, long line) and come back through with it in the plastic bag. How ridiculous is that?! The agents should be taught to use their brains and common sense. What difference does it make at that point whether I have 0.5 ounces of a liquid inside a plastic bag or outside of a plastic bag? It's 0.5 ounces of hand sanitizer!!! Safety and protection are one thing...what's currently happening with TSA is another. It's ridiculous.
March 30, 2008 7:36 PM
I just think it's crazy that I can't bring a SEALED, UNOPENED soda or bottle of water onto an airplane. If it's sealed, then it's straight from the factory and is no different than the same soda or water that they sell in the secured area of the airport. And the airport businesses will happily charge me ten times more for it than I paid at the grocery store.
March 30, 2008 7:42 PM
The beginning of this month I returned to the US from a business trip to Quito, Ecuador. I unfortunately had to fly Delta (I hate Delta and their so-called service and have for over a decade and avoid them whenever possible). So I get to the gate security screening--hand checks of all carry-ons and then a wand check front and back side of every single person...extreme and ridiculous...since we'd all already passed through security with the alarm sensor and the x-ray belt--and I had no liquids at all whatsoever in my carry-ons. Instead, the person pulls from my bag an empty 12-oz water bottle and says it's not allowed. I was shocked. I've flown internationally and domestically quite a lot, and I've never come across this. I said "It's empty!" And they said that it didn't matter, that there was the utmost strictness of screening for Delta flights because they were going to be arriving into the US, and it wasn't allowed. I said again, "It's empty!!!" and they said "Well, you could mix something together and use this to do it," and in my amazement, I said "With what?! You've just gone through all my belongings...what do I have that could be mixed?!!!" Their response "I don't know." I said again, "But IT'S EMPTY!!!!!! I arrived from the US into Quito with that same bottle." Their question was if I flew in on Delta. I said no, I flew in on Continental (which is what I usually fly), and they said that Delta was more strict. Ridiculous. I had to throw away an empty water bottle because it wasn't allowed. Ludicrous. And since then I've looked up policy for the liquids ban and I see absolutely nothing about not being able to carry empty water bottles in your carry-on when flying into the US. TSA people should be taught to use their brains and common sense. This whole thing is asinine.
March 30, 2008 7:47 PM
Last year at this time I traveled on my first international flight, and had to leave behind my travel size contact solution because it was just over the allowable size container. I don't mind decanting other things I need on the plane, but the stores don't sell contact solution in a small enough container to agree with the requirements. I can't decant the contact solution without risking an eye infection. So I got several eye drop containers and used that instead. My other problem was on the way back, I became very dehydrated because I couldn't bring a regular purchased water bottle on the plane. It was taken away at both international airports. I had been through the metal detector checkpoint, but a second screening with regular tables was set up at the gates, and both times they took away my unopened water bottles that I had purchased after going thru the intitial security. It was an awful trip back.
March 30, 2008 9:33 PM
I am wondering when TSA and the airlines are going to come up with a plan for travelers who come from overseas will be allowed to bring back ETOH, perfumes, etc that is not available in the US. There are limits to what you can bring back, but then you can not hand carry them on the planes.
There should be a system put in place by TSA and ALL airlines where passengers can purchase these otems and then have them placed in a safe container of some sort and then upon arrival back in the US, they are passed onto the customers.
March 30, 2008 10:42 PM
I used to be able to carry a train case with my toiletries while I travel. I take a lot of medications and use a lot of toiletries (i.e. hairspray, makeup, etc.). When I put my liquids in my check in bag, I always have at least one leak...eww! I really wish I could use my train case for my toiletries again, so nothing leaks and I can do my hair and makeup when I arrive at my destination. Can't they just hold a little white disk over it and make sure my girly things and my meds are really what they say they are?
March 30, 2008 11:21 PM
Regular travellers acting clueless are my main gripe. Recent trip a few weeks ago, the business woman in front of me declared in a very snotty, annoyed voice that she "wasn't told" to take her quart size bag of liquids out of her bag before sending it through the x-ray machine. The only thing the TSA person said (neutrally) was "Um, ma'am, there are liquids in your bag." I don't necessarily agree with nor understand the TSA liquids policy, but acting out and holding up the line doesn't help the rest of us stuck behind you!
March 30, 2008 11:30 PM
We are lucky TSA lets us carry any liquid on board an airplane, I saw a video where to liquids were mixed together, a total of one ounce, a toothpick was then dipped into the liquid, only the tip, and then put into a pen. A match was placed inside of the pen and the pen was then stuck into a watermelon and lit. The watermelon vanshied once the liquid ignited. Hence the need to control the amount of liquids brought on broad an aircraft.
March 30, 2008 11:54 PM
Enforcing the no-liquids policy is another hassle that is not worth the effort.
March 30, 2008 11:54 PM
WATER!!! If you are going to continue to confiscate water, I really feel that you should supply people with coupons for one bottle of water redeemable at airport stores or provide bottles of water just beyond security. Shampoo, I can live without, but WATER! I cannot afford to buy a $2 bottle of water everytime I go to the airport and yet, it is important to stay hydrated especially when you are flying. I sent this exact same comment to the TSA directly (not on this blog) and they replied to me by saying that I should take my "business ideas" to their site for business partners. That was irritating. Please please please supply water.
March 31, 2008 12:03 AM
I was flying with my wife and two kids 1 18 month old and 6 month old. WE had one water bottle that was unopened for my 6 month old formula and it was confiscated. We walked 10 steps past security and there was stores selling the same water for unreasonable prices. Was it actually security or the airlines trying to make a quick buck.
March 31, 2008 12:42 AM
"I wish I'd known about this site earlier, after flying out of Santa Barbara and having my entire bag of makeup, lipstick, moisturizer, all of it, confiscated."
The same thing happened to me. I was out of town a few years back when the whole "liquid bomb" issue came around and had to fly back home (before I had even heard about it on the news, actually. Needless to say, I figured out something was up when the airport was a MESS). Subsequently, all of my shampoo, conditioner, soap, and (Expensive!) makeup was confiscated. I realize at the time that it was a pressing issue and they were still figuring out how to deal with it. But now, years later, I have had liquid makeup confiscated all the same, despite that I separated it into the clear plastic bag and it was the correct amount to be traveling with.
How is stealing my goods making anyone safer?
March 31, 2008 1:06 AM
I just got off the plane a couple of hours ago, only to find my bag which I checked in ripped open and soap all over my stuff. Apparently, the TSA felt it necessary to check my bag to see if it was something other than soap.
The first thing is this: EVERYONE has heard by now that liquids/gels cannot be brought on CARRY-ON bags. But what about checked-in bags? If I knew there checked-in bags would be checked like this over a bottle of soap, I never would have stolen it from the hotel! Please be consistent. Are these types of things done on a case-by-case thing, or is this done all the time. And if so, why don't we get an ad campaign like the one the TSA put on to warn us about carry-on luggage? PLEASE BE CONSISTENT!
Second thing: If you rip open a bag & then rip open a bottle of soap, DON'T PUT IT BACK IN THE BAG!!!!! IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE! I would rather lose a bottle of soap than ruin the rest of my stuff.
March 31, 2008 1:22 AM
I don't understand why I can't bring in a SEALED bottle of water with me. It is frustrating because purchasing materials that I will need on a long flight are often ridiculously expensive inside the airport terminal. Sometimes I wonder if this is just a ploy to force travelers to purchase supplies at the overpriced stands in the airport. This has become especially tiresome now that airlines are forcing you to pay for food, some even drinks, on the flight as well as limiting the amount of luggage we can check in to one bag. I feel like the airline industry is one industry where consumers have no say and have to accept HORRIBLE customer service.
Also, couldn't a bomber just bring powder materials in their carry-on and mix the explosives with a liquid once on the airplane? I think that no matter what we do, or how much we restrict, those evil forces are always going to find a way around the laws! In the meantime, we are just make the millions and millions of good travelers more and more miserable.
March 31, 2008 2:17 AM
Regarding liquids on commercial airliners:
I would like to know the dollar amount of all items collected/confiscated from travellers since this "rule" was put in place.
I would then like to know, of all the items collected/confiscated, the percentage of items that turned out to be dangerous explosives.
I believe this "rule" is on par with the man standing in the middle of Times Square in NYC with a banana stuck in his ear. When asked, "Why do you have a banana stuck in your ear?", he replies, "To keep away bears". When he is then told that there are no bears in Times Square, he replies, "See, it's working!".
TSA is the man with the banana in his ear.
I'm pretty sure 100% of the millions of dollars worth of items confiscated by TSA turned out to be harmless (i.e. exactly what there are supposed to be).
March 31, 2008 2:23 AM
Please clear up the confusion! I've been told I don't have to put my tube of lipstick in the clear, quart baggie. Then I've been told I do. I don't want to risk losing a $20 tube of lipstick due to the whims of whatever baggage inspector I run across. Exactly what cosmetics CAN I carry? Nowhere can I find a complete list. Obviously this rule is here to stay, and I DO understand the reasoning behind it. I want to comply, but we need detailed rules on this. What about a powder compact? Armani makes a powder foundation that I bought because I am hoping it wouldn't have to go in the baggie. I'm taking a two week trip and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to put everything I need into a one quart plastic baggie.
Can anybody tell me what I can safely put in my makeup bag in my purse? Thanks.
March 31, 2008 8:29 AM
Hi,
Thanks for opening the dialogue. I hope you here what many people have to say. I would like to know if you can do something about the cost of bottled water once you pass the security point. My last flight it cost over three dollars for a 12 oz bottle. Flight attends have so much work already they don't go around offering you more water. And the taste at my airport fountain is very chlorinated that it feels like I am drinking from the pool.
Please put this into consideration,
Becca
March 31, 2008 6:32 PM
all cosmetics are allowed...but lip gloss mascaras face creams & liquid eyeliners should be pulled out of carry ons so that we do not have to check your bag...
i work for tsa phx and we have very freindly tso's!!!!1
March 31, 2008 10:43 PM
While at the Atlanta airport about a year ago, I encountered the usual 'barking' about putting liquids in plastic bags. The TSA agent was basically telling people that if they didn't have a plastic bag, they'd have to go all the way back to buy one. I didn't have any liquids myself, but we had already missed our flight just standing in the line, which took an hour and a half just to get to the security machines. I thought that was a little unfair for those not traveling with someone old enough who could run back to get some. I've seen in many other airports where they are generous enough to provide you with a bag if you don't have one. Why not get a cheaper bulk purchase from Glad(r) and employ that practice at all checkpoints?
April 1, 2008 3:04 PM
I've given some thought to the liquids policy (or lack thereof) and came to the conclusion that the threat they're attempting to 'protect' us against has nothing to do with binary explosives, making explosives on board and aircraft, but is instead an attempt at protecting the traveling public against binary chemical (think nerve gas) weapons.
That senerio is the only one that makes any sense to me as to why TSA continues in it's liquids policy. I seriously doubt that the next terrorist attack will have anything to do with with airlines and will instead be against chemical plants, nuclear power plants, crops (biological weapons), or some other unprotected high value targets.
April 1, 2008 6:40 PM
...Wow. What a country we live in where people are lauded and encouraged to insult and talk down to those persons whose job it is to help attempt to protect their PRIVELEDGE (Flying is a priveledge, NOT a right) to fly. Shades of post Vietnam where veterans were ignored, spat upon, and cursed by the very people who gave of themselves whether or not they actually BELIEVED in the cause for which they fought. I am not going so far as to say the TSA is on par with a Vietnam vet in all aspects, but for the treatment the average one puts up with on account of having to follow his or her superior's orders, They share that much in common. In re: to a couple of comments above- Yes, breastmilk is, and should be allowed. No, the UK doesn't allow water (last time I flew from there they still outlawed ALL carryon period, nevermind liquids, lest we forget the UK was the impetus for this rule everyone now hates so much), It IS actually possible to mix liquid explosives under home conditions (Nevermind the actual compound HMX, just see any news report dealing with a meth-lab for combustible liquids veracity), NO, Hazmat items SHOULD be segregated and NOT thrown away (they are at the airport in which I work), and NO, per federal instruction (and under pain of firing), TSA employees do NOT keep the liquid items abandoned at the checkpoint (however they cannot and do not control the 'dumpster diving' that sometimes occurs with the janitorial and airline staff.) And finally, to the poster who lamented how badly the TSA has done in the last 8 years, I offer this: Check your research, this agency hasn't been around that long yet.
As far as the 'drunk with power' issue, I can only offer this, from my experiences flying, both as a veteran, TSA employee, and a civilian parent of multiple small children:
There are always options. YOUR attitude often affects theirs. You always have the right to find and talk to a supervisor or manager. You cannot expect them to recite to you the 'why' the rule verbatim, but they are mandated to give you just as much of an answer as they are legally allowed insofar as it does not interrupt the flow of passengers behind you. Inconsistencies abound, they do everywhere, it is to be expected. Have you ever been to a restaraunt and received the wrong order? Have you ever ordered something online and had it turn up at your door broken? Have you ever dealt with a CSR (customer service rep) at a retail agency who was 'less than polite?'. Sure you have. So have I. It happens. Same as it does in the Airport. While that is not a justification of behavior of that nature by far, it should serve to remind some people to step back out of their comfort zone and realize that just because Screener 'X' in ATL treated you badly on Monday, doesn't mean ALL screeners are this way. Many of us work daily to overcome that bad image and some of the public simply will not ALLOW you to be nice to them. I would offer anyone who has the chance to come fly through our airport down here in GPT in the state of MS if your plans bring you through this region. As a staff supervisor here, I pride myself on my team's consistency, accuracy, pleasantry, and dedication day in and day out. I will not defend the goings on in airports I do not work at (but have not truly witnessed inconsistencies when I flew off duty) but I will vouch for them here. I applaud both ends of this blog where a true discourse has gone on, and simply shake my head at those inflammatory and uninformed posts (from both sides,sometimes) that serve to do nothing but foster a negative attitude. Good day to you all.
-Proud STSO in GPT
April 1, 2008 9:13 PM
Anonymous
Anonymous said...
Sorry about that folks. Tooth powder is forbidden as being a liquid (it pours). I tried.
Wow! Now they are even re writting the rules of physics! Last I checked, powder would be a solid, but air is considered a liquid because of the week atomic bonding and lack of crystaline structure.
April 2, 2008 12:02 AM
I work for TSA. When I'm at the checkpoint checking bags for liquids, pastes, gels, and aerosols, some passengers get upset when I tell them that some of the items are too big or they need a baggy for their items. They tell me that they were able to get through security with those objects from other airports, but they can't here. At the airport I work at, we follow everything to a T while others don't. I can understand for the bigger and busier airports, but that's no exception. Shouldn't all airports follow the rules to ensure passengers safety no matter what?
April 2, 2008 10:29 PM
this is in response to travlr on march 29. i m a truck driver these same rules apply in carry hazmat. i can carry 50 barrels of 45 gallons of gas, and do not need to place a plackard on the side of the truck. but if i put 1 barrel of 50 gallons i must use a plackard. same crazy logic.
April 2, 2008 11:49 PM
This is in response to the traveler on April 1 asking why TSA doesn't offer baggies to individuals at all airports. Some airports, like where I work, offer the baggies free of charge to the traveling public and booties for your feet as well. TSA is not involved with this in any way.
April 3, 2008 6:50 PM
Liquid eplosives? Scheiener on Security found this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=555465&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Explosive name HMTD. Do a google search on it. Lots of cooling ( 3 hrs at 0C), short shelf life, decomposes in presence of metals, very sensitive to shock, vibration.
Looks unlikely as in very unlikely.
April 3, 2008 7:48 PM
"Why is it that there is never an answer to the issues raised concerning tossing "hazardous" items in a common bin next to passengers in line, challenging TSA to prove that liquids are, in fact, hazardous, and the other issues people have raised here?"
Good question. No one is saying that the liquids, in and of themselves, are dangerous. Not TSA. Not anyone. What IS dangerous is accessible property on the plane. The devices modern terrorists use are not pre-assembled ACME terrorist bomb kits. They are IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES. The key word being IMPROVISED. Terrorists practice their tactics multiple times prior to actually carrying out any attack. They practice concealment and the assembly of dangerous devices. The reason we can't allow liquids is being spelled out in the trial of the plotters in the London incident:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=555465&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
It's the same reason a gun can be declared and checked in as luggage but cannot be carried in the cabin. The accessible nature of the property is what causes problems and the whiny, spoiled, self-centered nature of many modern travelers is what makes lines so long. Modern Americans just can't imagine not being able to take everything they want wherever they want it.
April 4, 2008 8:01 AM
I want to thank {I assume they are a TSA person] for the comment providing a reason why the liquids policy exists. So now I understand why no liquids can pass the security line but why allow liquids to be purchased then? If the goal is to prevent improvised bombs using bottles and typical liquids, why can we purchase them after we pass security? Removing them at the checkpoint serves no purpose.
I don't consider myself a whinny American traveler; I just would like to see the government ustilise effective and efficient solutions - not heavy-handed procedures that appear to be working.
April 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Ok, a big inconsistency among government agencies here...
Why is it that the US Food and Drug Administration can deem a factory-sealed 3.5 oz product to be safe for the public? After all, according to the TSA, factory-sealed 3.5 oz products are potentially dangerous and are not permitted through security.
I don't get it! Both the FDA and TSA are responsible for public safety, but there appears to be a massive discrepancy as to the usefulness of a factory seal.
April 4, 2008 1:50 PM
With regard to a couple of issues, theres a quite simple solution to passinb beverages through the screening areas.
simply put, require resealable containers, no unresealable cans for obvious spillage reasone. Limit beverage containers to the common plastic bottles many drinks come in now, and before allowing it to pass into the sterile area, require the passanger to drink from the bottle in the presense of a TSA agent.
I seriously doubt anyone would willingly drink from a bottle containing anything dangerous and this procedure would take no more time than the time taken dealing with arguements regarding procedures.
As a note, prior to the liquids ban, i had this happen several times when boarding aircraft. a simple "sir or ma'am i need to see you take a drink of that beverage."
Big problem solved.
Second issue, regarding people with artificial joint transplants, Regardless of the fact most medical institutions provide a medical card indicating an aratificial joint is present, I've personally seen and heard TSA comment "it could be a forged document"
Now i fully realize its necessary to identify the source when a metal detector alarms, but FAA should find a way to provide an ID card for those qualified indicating joint replacements. While still necessary to identify the alarm source, it would at least document from the juristicting authority such an implant is present.
The liklihood of this document then being forged would be no greater than the danger of other forged Identification documents.
April 5, 2008 10:10 AM
"I am a small, caucasian woman, 5' about 90 lbs. Do I really look like I would do something terroristic? I thought not. How 'bout some profiling here?"
Unreal, more evidence that you can't please everyone! Besides the fact that profiling doesn't work, (Did Tim McVeigh "look" like a terrorist?) now we have those who want "reverse" profiling? So, essentially, you don't "look" like a terrorist, so you should be left alone with your oversized liquid, but a person of non-caucasian heritage should automatically give up theirs? Yeah right! Maybe the ACLU will go for it, why don't you bring it up to them? I'm sure they will give your logic the attention it deserves!!
April 6, 2008 1:19 PM
What in the world do you people think Im going to put into my shampoo that could possible harm anyone?
April 6, 2008 7:14 PM
First, I must say that TSA workers (TSO's?) have gotten much more polite where I fly, mainly Spokane, Washington. The lines move along quickly, there are plenty of bins to put your stuff in, I have been non-judgementally given a free zip lock bag,they are generally mostly polite (the TSO's, not the bins), and I only have to show my ID one time.
There, that's out of the way, now for the gripe. IF my tube of toothpaste has only about 2 oz. left of its original 6 oz, why is it not allowed (the TSO did make an exception, but to be lectured by a slightly pompous 20-something is not my idea of a good time for your average 50 year old). I'm not exactly going to be able to unroll the tube and thereby create more explosive toothpaste or use the tube to mix my IED when I could just as easily use the plastic glass that my ginger ale was served in. Surely it is the amount of liquid or paste or powder that matters.
Now could we move on to whether knitting needles are going to be uniformly allowed?
April 6, 2008 9:24 PM
There, that's out of the way, now for the gripe. IF my tube of toothpaste has only about 2 oz. left of its original 6 oz, why is it not allowed (the TSO did make an exception, but to be lectured by a slightly pompous 20-something is not my idea of a good time for your average 50 year old).
Go to TSA's web site. See which measurement they use to determine fly/no fly. It is volume. Now see how the toothpaste(stick deodorant) mfgs sell their products. Hint, it isn't volume, but by weight. Go ahead, I'll still be here when you get back. So how do the TSOs verify the volume of a container sold by weight? Have you ever seen a graduated cylinder at any TSA checking point? Nope, to them volume = mass. I'm glad that they have no medical doctors working for them.
April 7, 2008 2:03 PM
Ok, so here it is... plain and simple. Any container of ANYTHING that can pour, spread, squeez or spary is considered a liquid. If the container is marked over 3.4oz, REGARDLESS OF MASS OR VOLUME, it can not be brought through the checkpoint. Exceptions are made for baby formula, medications, etc. If the container is marked 6oz, but is only half full; doesn't matter! It is marked over 3.4oz and can not go through. Drinks can not be brought through. Why? Guess what; milk, water, juices are all liquids and their containers are probably marked over 3.4oz. We don't know what is in the container, so we can't let it through. You can buy drinks after you have passed through security because any liquid on the inside is screened and cleared as a non threat. I think I've covered just about everything. And for anyone that want's to argue about the rule, or doesn't understand why you can't bring your favorite hair gel or you energy drink... remember back to Aug. 10, 2006; here's the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm
Just remember this situation next time a TSO askes you to remove your liquids from your bag. After all, we could resort back to the NO LIQUIDS at all rule again.
-BOS TSO
April 8, 2008 9:35 AM
I hope all you that think that the liquid threat is all hype and bs will check out TSAs website today and listen to all the reports from the BBC about the trial of the UK bombers and the plot to blow up airplanes bound for North America. This was and is a viable plot and if liquids were allowed without testing every single oversized bottle for every type of explosives imaginable (not feasible) we cannot be sure that a liquid is not an explosive component to a bomb.
Those of you that think the 311 rule should be done away with really need to do some more research because you are very thoroughly rebutted by the evidence presented at the trial of the bombers.
April 8, 2008 12:15 PM
I hope all you that think that the liquid threat is all hype and bs will check out TSAs website today and listen to all the reports from the BBC about the trial of the UK bombers and the plot to blow up airplanes bound for North America.
So what about the clouds of nasty smelling fumes? How many hours would it take to make that stuff on board the aircraft? How many pounds of ice and salt would be needed? It is still very unlikely that the terrorist goons would have either the access or the resources to do this. I put this one down as reacting to the threat of someone constructing a dye laser from compact mirrors, jello, strobes from cameras and then using the laser to burn a hole through a cockpit door. A Hollywood plot gone awry when the terrorists (muslims) attempted it.
April 9, 2008 4:29 PM
" Anonymous said...
I hope all you that think that the liquid threat is all hype and bs will check out TSAs website today and listen to all the reports from the BBC about the trial of the UK bombers and the plot to blow up airplanes bound for North America. This was and is a viable plot and if liquids were allowed without testing every single oversized bottle for every type of explosives imaginable (not feasible) we cannot be sure that a liquid is not an explosive component to a bomb.
Those of you that think the 311 rule should be done away with really need to do some more research because you are very thoroughly rebutted by the evidence presented at the trial of the bombers.
April 8, 2008 12:15 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said..."
Maybe one day you'll end up as top flack at TSA. Until then, try to actually follow TSA rules and regulations.
April 9, 2008 6:16 PM
Ok, so here it is... plain and simple. Any container of ANYTHING that can pour, spread, squeez or spary is considered a liquid. If the container is marked over 3.4oz, REGARDLESS OF MASS OR VOLUME, it can not be brought through the checkpoint.
I can pour tooth powder out of a container. Does that make it a liquid?
Exceptions are made for baby formula, medications, etc.
TSA's own policy states that is is reasonable quantities for baby formula/food. PAY ATTENTION, people have recently had liquids/pastes for medical purposes confiscated by overeager TSOs. What are you going to do about that?
You can buy drinks after you have passed through security because any liquid on the inside is screened and cleared as a non threat.
So you screened 100% of all containers coming into the sterile area? Sorry, but I've seen shrink wrapped pallets (not just boxesd) of liquids in the sterile areas of airports. You lie.
I think I've covered just about everything. And for anyone that want's to argue about the rule, or doesn't understand why you can't bring your favorite hair gel or you energy drink... remember back to Aug. 10, 2006; here's the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm
McGiver doesn't exist. Stop watching action/adventure fiction. See what it would take to acutally make the explosive the muslims were attempting to make.
Just remember this situation next time a TSO askes you to remove your liquids from your bag. After all, we could resort back to the NO LIQUIDS at all rule again.
-BOS TSO
Tell me BOS(sy) TSO, do you intimidate passengers? Do you scream at them in order to make them obey you? Have you ever used the phrase 'do you want to fly today'? Do you get a thrill whenever you find an over sized container of liquids? Do you ever refer to passengers as 'them/civilians' if you answer yes to any of the above, please get another job where you don't have any power over anyone else.
April 9, 2008 6:19 PM
I'm thinking that some of you still haven't read the article linked to about the UK bombers. They already had the explosives made when they were caught. They weren't going to make it on the plane. Yes it's not really feasible to make TATP or any other type of explosives on the plane, but once made hiding them used to be feasible before the liquids restrictions.
April 10, 2008 1:09 PM
Stop all your whining! You all know the rules, take before you leave home to make sure you are within the guidelines. Or do like I do and buy toiletries when you get where you are going. If you are traveling in the US there are stores almost everywhere that sell travel size toiletries. The only time I had any problems with security is the first time I traveled after the 3-1-1 rule was instituted. It has never, ever taken me longer than 45 minutes to get through security, most times it is 15 min or less. I'd rather be inconvienenced & safe. Traveling is not a right it is a privilege!
April 10, 2008 3:47 PM
Please clarify the policy regarding bottles of ice (that would turn into water) later.
My mother had to dispose of her ice bottles in MSP in Dec, so she didn't take them on a recent trip.
Please clarify as I am taking a trip with a 9 mo. old soon and I would like to take ice with me.
April 10, 2008 5:30 PM
Any container of ANYTHING that can pour, spread, squeez or spary [sic] is considered a liquid.
Hey blog team...
Another reference to some sort of rule of thumb relative to "liquids, gels and aerosols".
Once again, I ask for a link to publicly accessible information that refers to this thumb rule.
It is often used by TSO's on this blog, but I have yet to find it on the TSA web site among the pages and pages and pages of 3-1-1 info on the site.
Is this official TSA policy, or is this an example of TSO's making up their own rules?
April 13, 2008 10:03 AM
They say that the bag has to be a 1-quart bag (8" x 7.5"), but the bags that they give at some checkpoints are not zip-top (they are the press-together ones) and they are 8" x 11", I measured. Why are they handing out larger bags at the checkpoints if we are required to have a quart-sized bag? Is there a threat that our liquids will be confiscated if we use one of these "generously provided" bags?
April 15, 2008 3:47 PM
Come on people...why is this so hard to understand. TSA has never said that you could not take you 40oz size of shampoo with you. You just can't carry it onboard...you CAN check it. If you don't want to check bags, that is your problem and likely the fault of the Air Carriers; yes, I have had bags lost and even a rifle once.
For those of you that seems to have bad experiences with the agents as you call them...OPEN YOUR MOUTH. Ask for a supervisor, complain, tell someone. Get names, hold people accountable. Stop being a martyr.
And for Petes sake, they do not confiscate anything. You know full well you were given options and you choose to abandon your property, be it a knife, liquid, gel or aerosol.
And lastly, if you have evidence of TSA employees stealing, then you have an obilgation to say something; even if you do it anonymously. If an investigation reveals what you say, TSA will fire them.
April 16, 2008 2:37 PM
It has just become totally ridiculous that you are not allowed to take in your carry on toothpaste!! Especially for just an overnight trip, this is just becoming ridiculous and overdone.
I had my toothpaste confiscated even though my husband's wasn't taken because he didn't have his in a plastic bag, just in his bag!
How is a woman to travel without toothpaste, deodorant and cosmetics which are all liquid, gel or lotion form??? I am sure all of us women are planning to blow up a plane with our cosmetics!
In order to comply, you have to check in a bag for an overnight trip because they won't let you through with essential things! Most airlines are now charging for an extra bag and I'm sure it won't be long until they charge for a bag period. So we pay more to take the things we need that are everyday products that we all use and need....it has just become ridiculous!!
April 21, 2008 3:52 AM
The last poster who stated: It has just become ridiculous has been hiding under a rock. The 311 rules have been going on since August 6 2006 and yes toothpastes and cosmetics are liquids, lotions, gels, or aerosols. I'd suggest that everyone go to the tsa.gov website and read the report about the UK bombers and then the understanding of why the rule exists and is enforced will be obvious.
It's been explained over and over but you are allowed to have a quart sized ziptop bag full of small liquids 3.4 oz and smaller. We aren't perfect at finding things in bags as should be obvious but the rules are the same for everyone at all TSA operated checkpoints. Today I heard from a passenger that we are the only ones that enforce the rule while the large airports don't. Of course she said this like she knew and yet still didn't follow the rule prior to coming through the checkpoint here.
April 21, 2008 7:22 PM
I had the privledge of watching the astute employees of TSA take a 6 oz. jar of jelly, vacuum sealed, from a couple at RIC on April 20. Seems they were trying to have a little something to eat since the 10 pretzels the airlines offer would not hold them over on their 4.5 hour flight.
Gee, when will the insanity end with TSA? Obviously our elected officials will not do anything about this out of control agency. Perhaps it is time to throw the rascals out and get someone with some common sense. I was always taught to never give up your rights in the name of security.
April 22, 2008 7:44 PM
had the privledge of watching the astute employees of TSA take a 6 oz. jar of jelly, vacuum sealed, from a couple at RIC on April 20. Seems they were trying to have a little something to eat since the 10 pretzels the airlines offer would not hold them over on their 4.5 hour flight.
Ah yes, the TSA breakroom now has some pretty good jelly in the fridge. But what we don't see in this case and others like it is that we now have security at any cost. That couple is out the cost of the jelly and in a little way they might feel that their government has, in a small way, let them down. Sad.
Has Homeland Security no shame?
April 23, 2008 8:13 PM
What part of liquid, lotion, gel, and aerosol do you folks not understand? Jelly is most definitely a gel and so fits into that category. The rules apply to everyone including those that are taking huckleberry jam home as a souvenir or peanut butter and jelly to make a sandwich while traveling. We aren't being out of control to follow the rules. It's not a common sense issue at all. It's about us doing our jobs of not allowing certain items through the checkpoint and some of you folks getting angry about that. If you put the items in your checked bags then the issue would just go away.
April 24, 2008 2:24 PM
Ah yes, the TSA breakroom now has some pretty good jelly in the fridge. But what we don't see in this case and others like it is that we now have security at any cost. That couple is out the cost of the jelly and in a little way they might feel that their government has, in a small way, let them down. Sad.
Government employees are forbidden to take anything passengers surrender and use it. Ethics rules and theft of now government trash apply. Peolle have been fired over taking jelly out of the trash and taking it home.
April 25, 2008 11:42 AM
Government employees are forbidden to take anything passengers surrender and use it. Ethics rules and theft of now government trash apply. Peolle have been fired over taking jelly out of the trash and taking it home.
Tell you what, why don't you pop on over to Ebay and see what is for sale? Why aren't those items destroyed instead of being peddled?
April 25, 2008 4:17 PM
My wife was recently returning from Europe with two bottles of very good wine. Since she could no longer carry wine in her "carry on" luggage, she wrapped them very carefully and put them in her checked bag, taking care that they were well separated from each other.
When the TSA decided to search her checked bags... they repacked very carelessly, and "expanded" the bag to make it easier for them to zip shut. The result was that the contents of the bag were loose and able to move around, and both bottles broke! Thanks a lot, TSA!
The whole TSA approach makes no sense. First you outlaw sharp objects, then you x-ray shoes, then outlaw liquids... it seems like our security plan is, "See what the terrorists have used, and make sure NOBODY can take those things on the plane." (I suppose we should be thankful that no one has hijacked a plane by strangling a flight attendant with pantyhose! We would have to watch all the women take off their pantyhose at the security checkpoint!)
Interesting... Israeli security is the most effective in the world, and they don't focus on things like these... They look for those who fit "suspect" groups and target suspicious behavior. It seems to work.
We think profiling is unfair. Is it more "fair" to inconvenience EVERYONE with our silly and inconsistent rules?
April 25, 2008 11:08 PM
Repacking bags is a difficult job. We don't want items to break and yet there are so many things inside that as soon as you unzip the bag items fall all over the floor. Our job is to screen the bag and then repack as neatly as possible with or without the passenger present. With them present they still cannot touch the bag while or after it's being screened so having them there is not helpful at all. I wonder why folks think they need to take so many things with them when they travel?
April 26, 2008 5:29 PM
I am a TSO Screener at the Richmond, VA airport (RIC). I was watching abc news in the break room when I saw TSA and Kip Hawley. They were speaking of this website and I decided to check it out. I have been reading some of the comments and I wanted to respond to a few. First off I must say that I know as a screener that it is hard working for TSA. We have a lot to deal with and sometimes...well most of the time it seems as if passengers don't appreciate the work that we do. I wonder if any of you passengers ever thought about maybe this is a part of the reason why you all are having such bad experiences. Yes I will admit there may appear to be some loopholes, and TSA is constantly working on fixing them!! We are always finding new ways to do things. Remember that our job is to keep you safe. Alot of the times I find that travelers become frustrated because they don't understand why we do the things that we do such as placing the liquids in the baggies. To not disclose any sensitive information I will just say that TSA does EVERYTHING for a reason. When there were shoe bombs being made, TSA said ok...now everyone must remove their shoes. When terrorists attempt to use liquid bombs to conceal their identity, TSA said ok...now everyone must use small size liquids that they want to carry on and place them in a baggie so we can contain how much travelers take on the plane. To be honest...terrorist are ALWAYS thinking of new things to get past security and bring harm to america. To prove it to you, terrorist overseas are using bras to conceal explosive devices and guess what...TSA is already working on procedures and steps to prevent that from happening here in this country. Last, but not least, my advice to passengers to help you all with the frustration is to familiarize yourself with the rules and regulations. When you are at the airports...READ THE SIGNS AND WATCH the VIDEOS!! I see passengers all the time walk right past the liquid signs and the baggies we offer and then get upset with us when they get to the other side and their things are confiscated! People ask me all the time "Do we have to remove our shoes?" and there is a sign right in front of their face. Don't expect screeners to tell you everything...do the research so you know. In fact you can go on TSA.gov and everything is there for you. So next time you see a screener who appears to be irrate just think of all of the things I have highlighted in this blog and try to help us out by familiarizing yourself with the rules. It helps everything go alot smoother. :)
TSO Brianne Jones
RIC Airport
April 27, 2008 8:29 AM
The threats are always changing, that is something we can't help. I think it is hardest on people who don't fly frequently, it feels like every time they fly, something is totally different. Now the TSA website is helpful and everyone who can should read up before they fly, but we all know not everyone uses the internet. It would just be better if people ob both sides remember that we have to deal with this, it is a necessary evil. The easier we make it on each other the better and smoother it will go for all.
April 27, 2008 9:32 AM
I few months a ago I was flying out of Oakland, Ca on my way home to Seattle. At the time my daughter (who was 9 months old) was still drinking formula from bottles. The lady who I encountered at the TSA checking station made me dump out every bottle that I had! I couldn't believe this. Because it couldn't fit into a small ziplock baggie it had to go. Obviously I became livid. Our family flies regularly and I have never once had to dump out our bottles! I realize that I could brought powder formula sticks, but these are not available everywhere and in every forumla brand.
Airports do not sell formula, they do not have "pumping" stations for breastfeeding moms, and family restrooms are virtually non-existant. Are parents being treated unfairly becuase they travel with young children?
April 27, 2008 9:52 AM
That is one of my biggest worries. On Tuesday, I am flying out with my 1 1/2 year old son. Aside from all the worrying about being in another country with my son, I have been on the TSA website searching to make sure I can bring his bag and his milk on the plane. The prvious post and what I have heard from other people is that they will not let me bring his milk on board. He can probably go 3 hours without drinking molk, but we are connecting and taking anohter flight. We will be flying for about 7 hours, without his milk that could be painful for me and other passengers. Now the TSA website says that we can bring this on board, even if it is more than 3 oz. I think it all depends on who we get at the checkpoints but I kinda feel like printing out the TSA rules for baby needs and bringing it with me. Wish me luck!
April 27, 2008 11:51 AM
I am a TSO Screener at the Richmond, VA airport (RIC). I was watching abc news in the break room when I saw TSA and Kip Hawley.
Okay good for you. Did you get any follow-up briefings or was ABC your only source for job related information?
They were speaking of this website and I decided to check it out. I have been reading some of the comments and I wanted to respond to a few. First off I must say that I know as a screener that it is hard working for TSA.
We all have options and unless you have a 'you can't quit hiring claus' in your employment contract, you are free to leave if you find the job too onerous.
We have a lot to deal with and sometimes...well most of the time it seems as if passengers don't appreciate the work that we do.
Security theater is still security theater. It works with the uninformed and sheeple.
I wonder if any of you passengers ever thought about maybe this is a part of the reason why you all are having such bad experiences.
I went through basic training and am very familiar with intimidation tactics/methods. I can't begin to count the number of times I've heared the screaming/bellowing/roaring of TSO's treating the passengers like criminals/basic trainees. We neither like the process nor the people involved in doing the processing.
Yes I will admit there may appear to be some loopholes, and TSA is constantly working on fixing them!!
Been over to TSA's own website lately? So what is it? 3oz, 3.4oz or 100ml? Your own documentation is inconsistant. Solids are being yanked because they sell toothpaste, deodorant, etc by WEIGHT not VOLUME. Travlers keep hammering you on this and NOTHING changes. You wonder why you get grief over this. Take a look at the posters who recently posted. A mother being told to dump all of the formula she brought with. What's with that? You must not have children or have forgotten what it is like when the children are hungry.
We are always finding new ways to do things.
Try doing some of the things you've been tasked to do PROPERLY instead of moving the line.
Remember that our job is to keep you safe.
No, your job is to keep weapons off of the plane. No more - no less. I don't need a nanny.
Alot of the times I find that travelers become frustrated because they don't understand why we do the things that we do such as placing the liquids in the baggies. To not disclose any sensitive information I will just say that TSA does EVERYTHING for a reason.
So tell me why one of your TSA thugs went (Read) through my papers during a screening process. Tell me when I give TSA secured luggage that I've gotten the luggage back unsecured. Tell me who is responsible for any losses I have when that same luggage has losses. Tell me why a TSA screener wanted to remove a translucent piece of medical tape covering 20+ staples and a fresh incision? Tell me why I'm separated from my belongings (out of eye sight) during the screening process and that any thefts during the screening process are my responisibility. Tell me why all electronics (cables, adapters, wall warts, disks, etc) were required to be removed at O'hare, placed into a bin (filling the bin top to bottom-front to back) after O'hare failed another one of your tests. Tell me why one of your coworkers defaced one of my coworker's belongings because you coworker didn't like the way my coworker packed his tool chest. Tell me why we should give you even common decency when you scream at us (you might get grudging cooperation but you won't get respect).
We don't trust TSA to do the right thing. We don't trust TSA to even follow their own SOP.
April 27, 2008 1:15 PM
In fact you can go on TSA.gov and everything is there for you.
I see nothing there about retaliatory screenings. I see nothing there that addresses the difference between a weight measure of 4 oz or a volume measure of 4 oz. Your on line documentation is pretty much half backed and inconsistant.
So next time you see a screener who appears to be irrate just think of all of the things I have highlighted in this blog and try to help us out by familiarizing yourself with the rules.
Poor baby having a bad day, but when a TSA baby has a bad day the traveling public really suffers. You have the ability to confiscate anything you deem a security risk. How do you think that makes us feel. Some of us travel as part of our jobs and we never quite know what you'll be grabbing this week. It's okay for a TSO to be grumpy but perish the thought that a flier might be grumpy and anything but pleasant.
It helps everything go alot smoother. :)
TSO Brianne Jones
RIC Airport
Smoother for who? We're supposed to just bend over and take it? We are still Americans and the Constitution is still a legal document and the idea of security at any cost is repugnant to many of us.
April 27, 2008 1:33 PM
I agree that travelers should familiarize themselves with the current regulations before they fly (whether they are frequent flyer or not), but what good does this do when the regulations are inconsistent (3oz, 3.4 oz, 100 ml) and screeners apparently can make the rules up as they go along? I apparently can't use my reusable bottles because they don't have labels stating their weight, I may or may not be able to bring medications and medical aids at the discretion of the screener, and we may or may not be able to bring food onto the flight. All I ask for is consistency, then stick to it.
April 27, 2008 3:32 PM
I would like to request that either a larger plastic bag be made permissible for carry-on liquids or that women be permitted to use a second bag for liquid makeup items. I take many two-day trips for business for which I carry on my luggage. My male colleagues have no trouble with the size bag provided, but all my femaile colleagues agree with me that this bag is not large enough for toiletries plus liquid makeup (mascara, foundation, concealer, etc.), even if all the containers indivually meet the permissible size limitations. Consequently, in practice, the size bag used results in gender discrimination. In today's society makeup is no more optional for women in business settings than toiletries like deodorant are for both genders. A policy change to reflet this reality would be greatly appreciated.
April 27, 2008 8:04 PM
Can someone please clarify where TSA states a 3 oz. containers must be LABELED as such? Recently I purchased 2.5 oz. CLEAR containers and filled them (some 1/2 full) with various toiletries (face lotion, shampoo & perfume). They were singled out by the screener and were not allowed as carry on; eventually, we agreed to throw them away. When I asked the screener about this, she said "I get large decorative perfume bottles all the time, I wouldn't know how many ounces they are unless they were labeled."
I'm not sure here, but couldn't any passenger use a label maker and label ANYTHING. I'd think there is a responsibility of TSA to enable or hire screeners to use COMMON SENSE to allow liquid amounts, obviously under 3 oz, properly packaged (3-1-1) as carry on. At a minimum, make it known/ obvious on the 3-1-1 guidelines.
I want to follow the rules; to NOT hold up a long secuirty line. I just need to know, clearly, what guidelines the screeners follow. I did my research BEFORE going through security and it did not enhance or ease my experience with TSA screeners.
April 30, 2008 4:45 PM
After the problems with labeled versus unlabeled bottles, I think I may purchase some little labeled bottles, use their contents, and refill with whatever I please. No one is checking the contents, just how much fits in them according to a manufacturer's label. So much for reduce, reuse, and recycle.
April 30, 2008 6:34 PM
ATTENTION ALL H20 DISBELIEVERS! in case some of you guys didnt realize water is the main component of a liquid. so please do not waste your breath telling the tsa that a water bottle containing water is not a liquid or that your bottle of pepsi or gatorade is not a liquid. seriously we all graduated elementary school and we can all agree that water/pepsi/gatorade/coke/rum/whiskey/whatever else you can imagine going down your throat is a liquid. i would appreciate this from the rest of the passengers in line in order to expedite my wait in line
May 1, 2008 12:49 AM
. I wonder why folks think they need to take so many things with them when they travel?
April 26, 2008 5:29 PM
What business of yours is it? I pack for a trip things I feel I will need. Your job is to keep weapons off the airplane. Try doing just that and no more!
Can we say mission creep?
May 1, 2008 9:34 PM
I wonder why folks think they need to take so many things with them when they travel?
April 26, 2008 5:29 PM
What business of yours is it? I pack for a trip things I feel I will need. Your job is to keep weapons off the airplane. Try doing just that and no more!
Can we say mission creep?
I'm not being nosy by opening up your bags I'm doing my job. If you want all of your things to make it there with you it makes sense to pack so nothing falls out when a screener opens your baggage, or your zipper doesn't break due to straining to hold so many things inside. Clue: if you have to sit on it to close it, it's over full and the airlines will not be responsible for any damage or lost items.
May 2, 2008 8:32 PM
Anonymous said...
I wonder why folks think they need to take so many things with them when they travel?
April 26, 2008 5:29 PM
What business of yours is it? I pack for a trip things I feel I will need. Your job is to keep weapons off the airplane. Try doing just that and no more!
Can we say mission creep?
I'm not being nosy by opening up your bags I'm doing my job. If you want all of your things to make it there with you it makes sense to pack so nothing falls out when a screener opens your baggage, or your zipper doesn't break due to straining to hold so many things inside. Clue: if you have to sit on it to close it, it's over full and the airlines will not be responsible for any damage or lost items.
May 2, 2008 8:32 PM
I never questioned why you look at my stuff. Your statement, "I wonder why folks think they need to take so many things with them when they travel? is what I responded to. Again, what I pack or how much I pack is not a screeners concern as long as all items are permitted.
Don't even start to think your qualified to tell me what I might need on a trip. Your GED does not qualify you for that.
Screen whatever I bring to the checkpoint and if needed confiscate my unlabled 3oz bottle of hand lotion or my medicines that do not have a presciption, ala TSO New York, or whatever other rules you've made up for that day.
I'll worry about what to pack!
Be seeing you at the checkpoint. Have your badge number and a comment card handy, we'll be needing it!
May 2, 2008 9:25 PM
ATTENTION ALL H20 DISBELIEVERS! in case some of you guys didnt realize water is the main component of a liquid.
Hmmm, I can name several things that are liquid at room temperature that have no water in them at all:
metallic mercury
nitric acid
acetic acid
sulfuric acid
etc.
Water does not define liquids. Did you ever have a science class that you passed in school? Making that comment was embarrassing.
May 3, 2008 12:41 PM
I'm not being nosy by opening up your bags I'm doing my job.
So shut up and do your job.
If you want all of your things to make it there with you it makes sense to pack so nothing falls out when a screener opens your baggage, or your zipper doesn't break due to straining to hold so many things inside.
Ah, so now I get to meet the TSA employee who defaced my coworker's luggage because he didn't like how the luggage was packed. FYI Pelican tool chests are expensive and for you or another just like you to write STUPID on the side of his tool case in large letters, cost the US tax payers over $200 to replace that piece of luggage.
Clue: if you have to sit on it to close it, it's over full and the airlines will not be responsible for any damage or lost items.
Hmmm, I had a carefully packed tool chest and witnesses a 300+lb TSA type struggling to get my tool chest closed by sitting on it. I told him that wasn't necessary and instructed him on how to properly repack the tool chest. Once everything was properly packed the lid closed with no problems. Also, why should the airlines be held liable when TSA thugs can't/won't repack the luggage the way they found it? It seems that again, TSA demonstrated a callous disregard for the property of traveling Americans.
May 3, 2008 12:50 PM
so shut up and do your job ? wow. i wonder if someone can come up to you and say that. or call you names. what if...you couldnt defend yourself because you had to take that abuse. then imagine if now your boss says turn around and smile to the people and treat them with kindness knowin they are calling you names and tellin you to shut up and do your job.
whoever wrote STUPID on it definitely was out of line but lets not categorize EVERYONE just because he/she did that. thats like me saying because i ran into an ignorant passenger that now all passengers are ignorant
May 4, 2008 8:00 AM
so shut up and do your job ? wow. i wonder if someone can come up to you and say that.
I do field service work and am front and center whenever I go to a customer site. I've been subjected to and have witnessed outrages perpetrated by TSA types on the flying public. You don't like your job you always have the option of quitting. So either shut up and do your job or find something that better suits your personality.
or call you names.
Hmmm, name calling results in me gathering up my belongings and leaving the customer site. You, on the other hand, select the flying public to retaliatory screening. My leaving the customer site means that they're down even longer. Your retaliatory screening violates several SOPs, but since you answer to no one then you're off the hook.
what if...you couldnt defend yourself because you had to take that abuse. then imagine if now your boss says turn around and smile to the people and treat them with kindness knowin they are calling you names and tellin you to shut up and do your job.
Bark at me like a DI and you get silent contempt. Be pleasant (and that doesn't mean rolling over) and I reciprocate. Not a hard concept. TSA guardians pretty much set the tone for the entire screening process.
whoever wrote STUPID on it definitely was out of line but lets not categorize EVERYONE just because he/she did that. thats like me saying because i ran into an ignorant passenger that now all passengers are ignorant.
Out of line? That action is borderline criminal vandalism. Would you like it if someone wrote STUPID on the side of your car in protest of the way you parked your car? My coworker had to go to a customer site with a defaced tool chest. Your coworker set the tone for future interactions by defacing my coworker's tool chest. When I get treated pleasantly I respond pleasantly. Schiphol security was quite pleasant. I can't say the same of many airports I've flown through in the US.
May 4, 2008 4:17 PM
Being told to shut up and do my job is offensive. I do my job and get compliments on my own politeness. We humans tend to remember the bad or out of the ordinary experiences with each other a lot more than the normal or pleasant. In other words the few bad apples will stick in our brains and all the good or non-eventful experiences won't. I remember every passenger that has caused a disruption in the checkpoint, or brought an artfully concealed item. Passengers remember every TSO that in their opinion has done them wrong.
This blog is the place where complaining as well as finding some acceptable answers happens, but since I'm polite to you folks I'd appreciate politeness in return. The annominity of internet is no excuse for rudeness.
May 4, 2008 8:03 PM
Being told to shut up and do my job is offensive.
So is:
Being told to lose weight because my beltless pants were falling down.
So is a TSA type attempting to remove my surgical dressing (translucent tape) that you could see the staples through.
So is repeatedly using TSA approved locks only to find them cut off by TSA types (over $100 worth).
So is getting my tool chest back unsecured after I gave it to TSA secured.
So is the DI/SWAT team wannabes at checkpoints, screaming at passengers.
So are arbitrary/made up on the spot rules by vendictive TSOs.
So is the threat of "do you want to fly today?" by out of control TSOs.
So is being told to keep your boarding pass out while you're attempting to remove your shoes, metal, laptop, etc.
So is the near total lack of professionalism on the part of TSOs at some airports (sloppy uniforms, unkempt grooming, horseplay). So is the lack of accountability on the part of TSA towards passengers and their belongings.
So stop your whining and do your job.
May 5, 2008 7:32 PM
Hey Miller if all of this has really happened to you, you have either really bad luck or you walk around with a chip on your shoulder.
Chuck
May 5, 2008 8:15 PM
Hey Miller if all of this has really happened to you, you have either really bad luck or you walk around with a chip on your shoulder.
Try flying 2 or more times a week for seven years. Then get back to me with your own horror stories Chuck.
May 5, 2008 8:58 PM
Miller said...
so shut up and do your job ? wow. i wonder if someone can come up to you and say that.
I do field service work and am front and center whenever I go to a customer site. I've been subjected to and have witnessed outrages perpetrated by TSA types on the flying public. You don't like your job you always have the option of quitting. So either shut up and do your job or find something that better suits your personality.
*WITNESSED ?? I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT WITNESSING SOMEONE ELSE DO SOMETHING. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF SOMEONE CAME AT YOU ?? CAME AT YOU ?? CAME AT YOU CALLING YOU NAMES. PLEASE STOP DIVERTING TO SOMETHING ELSE AND ANSWER THE QUESTION... (THE CAPS ARENT ATTITUDE, JUST A WAY FOR YOU TO KNOW I REPLIED)
or call you names.
Hmmm, name calling results in me gathering up my belongings and leaving the customer site. You, on the other hand, select the flying public to retaliatory screening. My leaving the customer site means that they're down even longer. Your retaliatory screening violates several SOPs, but since you answer to no one then you're off the hook.
FIRST OFF, IF A PASSENGER IS OUT OF HAND, WE DONT SELECT THEM. WE SIMPLY CALL THE AIRPORT POLICE OVER TO SEE IF YOU ARE BIG AND BAD ENOUGH TO SAY WHAT YOU SAID TO US, TO THEM. AND THATS WHEN THE PASSENGER CALMS DOWN. PITY HOW YOU PICK ON THE UNARMED.
what if...you couldnt defend yourself because you had to take that abuse. then imagine if now your boss says turn around and smile to the people and treat them with kindness knowin they are calling you names and tellin you to shut up and do your job.
Bark at me like a DI and you get silent contempt. Be pleasant (and that doesn't mean rolling over) and I reciprocate. Not a hard concept. TSA guardians pretty much set the tone for the entire screening process.
TSA GUARDIANS ??? OK IF YOU PLAN TO HAVE AN INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION LETS NOT MAKE UP TERMS BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW WHO/WHAT A TSA GUARDIAN IS. 2NDLY THE ONLY REASON TSA "MIGHT" YELL IS TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF WHAT TO DO...MAINLY DIRECTED TOWARDS FIRST TIME FLYERS. IF SOMEONE PERSONALLY YELLED AT YOU THEN I APOLOGIZE ON THEIR BEHALF BUT I MAY RAISE MY VOICE WHEN ANNOUNCING BECAUSE IT IS INDEED COMMOTION ON THE CHECKPOINT AND WHEN I TRY TO USE THE SOFT TONE AND TELL PASSENGERS TO KEEP THEIR BOARDING PASSES IN THEIR HANDS THE NEXT 3 SEEM TO HAVE LEFT IT IN THEIR BAG WHICH SLOWS THE LINE UP. SO...I MAKE MY LOUD ANNOUNCEMENT. FOR ME..ITS NOTHING PERSONAL. JUST GIVING ADVISEMENTS.
whoever wrote STUPID on it definitely was out of line but lets not categorize EVERYONE just because he/she did that. thats like me saying because i ran into an ignorant passenger that now all passengers are ignorant.
Out of line? That action is borderline criminal vandalism. Would you like it if someone wrote STUPID on the side of your car in protest of the way you parked your car? My coworker had to go to a customer site with a defaced tool chest. Your coworker set the tone for future interactions by defacing my coworker's tool chest. When I get treated pleasantly I respond pleasantly. Schiphol security was quite pleasant. I can't say the same of many airports I've flown through in the US.
I DONT SEE HOW YOU USE ME AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW I WOULD FEEL IF SOMEONE DID THAT TO ME WHEN CLEARLY I AGREED THAT THE TSA SCREENER SHOULDNT HAVE DONE THAT. ARE YOU JUST HASSLING ME JUST FOR THE SAKE OF HASSLING ? BECAUSE EVEN ME AGREEING WITH YOU RESULTED IN YOU BECOMING PERSONAL.
May 4, 2008 4:17 PM
May 6, 2008 7:37 PM
Miller said...
Being told to shut up and do my job is offensive.
So is:
Being told to lose weight because my beltless pants were falling down.
So is a TSA type attempting to remove my surgical dressing (translucent tape) that you could see the staples through.
So is repeatedly using TSA approved locks only to find them cut off by TSA types (over $100 worth).
So is getting my tool chest back unsecured after I gave it to TSA secured.
So is the DI/SWAT team wannabes at checkpoints, screaming at passengers.
So are arbitrary/made up on the spot rules by vendictive TSOs.
So is the threat of "do you want to fly today?" by out of control TSOs.
So is being told to keep your boarding pass out while you're attempting to remove your shoes, metal, laptop, etc.
So is the near total lack of professionalism on the part of TSOs at some airports (sloppy uniforms, unkempt grooming, horseplay). So is the lack of accountability on the part of TSA towards passengers and their belongings.
So stop your whining and do your job.
May 5, 2008 7:32 PM
HOW I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE REACTION ON YOUR FACE WHEN YOU HEAR YOUR NAME AND "THIS IS THE LAST CALL TO BOARD YOUR FLIGHT" IS BEING SAID OVER THE INTERCOM. AND HAVE A PASSENGER SAY "OOOPS I LEFT IT IN MY BAG. WHICH MAKES THE XRAY OPERATOR STOP THE BELT TO GO GET IT AND THEN GIVE IT BACK TO THE PASSENGER ONLY TO HAVE THEM DIG THROUGH IT ( WHEN THE TSO WHO CHECKED THE TICKET WAS LITERALLY 10 FEET AWAY) AND THUS... WHEN YOU FINALLY REACH YOUR GATE TO SEE THAT DOOR CLOSED. *GASP* OH YES INDEED THAT DOOR ISNT GONNA OPEN BACK UP. WHY ? BECAUSE THAT'S THE PLANE BACKING OUT READY FOR DEPARTURE. AND YOU THINK BACK...WHAT IF THAT PASSENGER KEPT THAT BOARDING PASS IN HIS POCKET OR....SOMEWHERE NEAR HIM SO HE CAN SHOW IT RATHER THAN RAM IT TO THE DEEPEST PART OF THEIR BAG. OH... AND THATS AN EXTRA 125 MINIMUM TO RE BOOK YOUR FLIGHT (YOUR AIRLINE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS) AND YOU MIGHT JUST GET STAND BY WHICH MEANS YOU MAY NOT EVEN MAKE THE NEXT FLIGHT. AND YOUR VERY SAME AIRLINE COMPUTER WOULD SELECT YOU FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING.
May 6, 2008 7:43 PM
i understand what you mean about professionalism. you are very right. but if you have flown for 7 years why are you complaining about being told to keep your boarding pass in your hands ??? seems like you are that passenger who manages to do everything wrong when in the front of the line.
May 6, 2008 7:47 PM
i understand what you mean about professionalism. you are very right. but if you have flown for 7 years why are you complaining about being told to keep your boarding pass in your hands ??? seems like you are that passenger who manages to do everything wrong when in the front of the line.
Being told to have your boarding pass out while you're dissassemble in a TSA inanity. That's what I was complaining about on that issue. I pocket the pass until going through the metal detector.
May 6, 2008 11:17 PM
Miller said...
i understand what you mean about professionalism. you are very right. but if you have flown for 7 years why are you complaining about being told to keep your boarding pass in your hands ??? seems like you are that passenger who manages to do everything wrong when in the front of the line.
Being told to have your boarding pass out while you're dissassemble in a TSA inanity. That's what I was complaining about on that issue. I pocket the pass until going through the metal detector.
May 6, 2008 11:17 PM
it obviously worked because you maintain possession of your boarding pass. like i said the yelling(atleast on my checkpoint) isnt because we have an attitude, but just to make a big announcement so that everyone can hear instead of hearing "oh you didnt tell me" and about your tsa experiences... i so happen to work at dca aka ronald reagan airport.. think we are bad screeners ? unprofessional screeners ???
you can go here and read, for yourself, what people think when they fly through our airport.
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/01/got-feedback-reagan-national-airport.html
May 7, 2008 12:33 PM
Anonymous writes:
i understand what you mean about professionalism. you are very right. but if you have flown for 7 years why are you complaining about being told to keep your boarding pass in your hands ??? seems like you are that passenger who manages to do everything wrong when in the front of the line.
Because while I'm holding my boarding pass in my hand, I also have to take off my shoes, take my laptop out of its case, take my quart-sized bag with liquids out of my carry-on, get all of those items into bins to go through the x-ray machine (along with my carry-ons, of course), and then push them onto the conveyor belt at the appropriate moment. Since I only have two hands, I do occasionally have to put down my boarding pass in order to execute those actions.
Which means that if an overzealous TSO happens to look at me at the exact moment when I've put down my boarding pass in order to untie my shoes, I could get yelled at ... even though I know the rules, and am doing my best to comply.
Disclaimer: I've never had this happen to me, personally ... but I know others here have.
May 7, 2008 9:12 PM
it obviously worked because you maintain possession of your boarding pass. like i said the yelling(atleast on my checkpoint) isnt because we have an attitude, but just to make a big announcement so that everyone can hear instead of hearing "oh you didnt tell me" and about your tsa experiences... i so happen to work at dca aka ronald reagan airport.. think we are bad screeners ? unprofessional screeners ???
Number of times in 7 years that I've missed a plane due to arriving at the airport late is less than 5 times. Three of those were due to heavy ice on the roads. None due to having to fish around for my boarding pass. I recently flew through Schiphol and what amazed me was how quiet that airport was even during a busy time of the day. I was amazed that they didn't have to yell, scream, bellow, rage, intimidate, etc. just to get passenger compliance. Very professional.
As to Reagan Intl, you guys are under a microscope what with many government employees flying into and out of that airport. Got to be on your best behavior then so a Congressional staffer won't complain to their boss. Try flying out of O'hare, Newark, Detroit, Atlanta, Memphis, Kansas City, Orlando, Columbia (SC), etc. to witness just how poorly some airport screeners perform their job.
Someone high up on TSA's food change recently (within the last 2-3 months) made some changes to the way TSO's deal with the traveling public at MPLS. When whoever mandated those changes first put them into place going through the gate screening was eerie - dead silence. A couple weeks later and the people were actually cheerful. Now the horseplay is returning along with the attitude of us (TSA) against them (flying public). It's not too bad right now, but I suspect that if something isn't done soon that it will return to being an unpleasant experience.
Do you or any of your coworkers ever refer to passengers a civilians? If you do then you've set the tone of screening as confrontational (us against them). The traveling public picks up on attitudes like that one and they immediately go on the defense. My recent experiences at Schiphol tell me that security screening doesn't have to be confrontational to be effective.
You have the option of calling a LEO over to shut down an irate screenee. What do we, the traveling public have as an option to shut down an abusive TSO? Complain? Good luck with that one since you protect your own against the public. That's been demonstrated in the news and on this blog. TSA answers to no one and that lack of accountability on the part of TSA to says much about their relationship with travelers.
May 7, 2008 9:35 PM
How old are we? All of you need to grow up and follow the rules. Even little kids have this stuff down perfectly. Quit complaining.
May 9, 2008 11:36 AM
TSA GUARDIANS ??? OK IF YOU PLAN TO HAVE AN INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION LETS NOT MAKE UP TERMS BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW WHO/WHAT A TSA GUARDIAN IS.
Think of Cerberus, the two headed dog that guards the gates of hell.
May 9, 2008 10:57 PM
Number of times in 7 years that I've missed a plane due to arriving at the airport late is less than 5 times. Three of those were due to heavy ice on the roads. None due to having to fish around for my boarding pass. I recently flew through Schiphol and what amazed me was how quiet that airport was even during a busy time of the day. I was amazed that they didn't have to yell, scream, bellow, rage, intimidate, etc. just to get passenger compliance. Very professional.
IF YOU WERE LATE BUT MANAGED TO GET THROUGH EVERYTHING IN A MATTER OF MINUTES JUST ENOUGH FOR YOU TO QUICKLY GET THROUGH THE DOOR BEFORE IT CLOSES THEN IMAGINE WHEN YOU GET TO TSA AND SOMEONE IN FRONT OF YOU FORGETS THEIR BOARDING PASS... THATS WHY WE MAKE THE LOUD ANNOUNCEMENT BUT IM GLAD YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE IM COMING FROM. SMALLED AIRPORTS INDEED HAVE QUIETER CHECKPOINTS. WITH THE NOISE OF X RAY RUNNING AND TSA/PASSENGERS ENGAGING IN CONVERSATIONS WHERE WE ARE INFORMING PASSENGERS ABOUT THE RULES/MACHINES THEN ITS BOUND TO BE SOME CHATTER.
As to Reagan Intl, you guys are under a microscope what with many government employees flying into and out of that airport. Got to be on your best behavior then so a Congressional staffer won't complain to their boss. Try flying out of O'hare, Newark, Detroit, Atlanta, Memphis, Kansas City, Orlando, Columbia (SC), etc. to witness just how poorly some airport screeners perform their job.
YES WE DO HAVE PLENTY OF IMPORTANT PEOPLE COME THROUGH BUT ITS NOT LIKE WE RECOGNIZE EVERYONE. SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN/WOMEN BLEND IN LIKE REGULAR BUSINESS PASSENGERS. ITS ALL ABOUT WHERE YOU GO AND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THEIR JOB. TSA THAT IS.
Someone high up on TSA's food change recently (within the last 2-3 months) made some changes to the way TSO's deal with the traveling public at MPLS. When whoever mandated those changes first put them into place going through the gate screening was eerie - dead silence. A couple weeks later and the people were actually cheerful. Now the horseplay is returning along with the attitude of us (TSA) against them (flying public). It's not too bad right now, but I suspect that if something isn't done soon that it will return to being an unpleasant experience.
WHERE EXACTLY IS THIS AGAIN ?
Do you or any of your coworkers ever refer to passengers a civilians? If you do then you've set the tone of screening as confrontational (us against them). The traveling public picks up on attitudes like that one and they immediately go on the defense. My recent experiences at Schiphol tell me that security screening doesn't have to be confrontational to be effective.
NO WE DONT REFER TO THEM AS CIVILIANS BECAUSE TSA ISNT APART OF ANY MILITARY. WE ARE CIVILIANS AS WELL. MAYBE SOME PEOPLE ON THE TSA CHECKPOINT HAVE A HISTORY OF MILITARY BACKGROUND AND STILL HAVE THAT IN THEIR SYSTEM.
You have the option of calling a LEO over to shut down an irate screenee. What do we, the traveling public have as an option to shut down an abusive TSO? Complain? Good luck with that one since you protect your own against the public. That's been demonstrated in the news and on this blog. TSA answers to no one and that lack of accountability on the part of TSA to says much about their relationship with travelers.
TO BE HONEST SELDEM DO SCREENERS JUST UP AND HAVE ATTITUDES. ATLEAST WHERE I WORK. MOST OF THE TIME IF THE SCREENER IS IRATE ITS MORESO A REACTION TO THAT PASSENGER. SHUT DOWN AN IRATE SCREENER ??? NAME BADGE NUMBER NAME OF THE AIRPORT WHICH CHECKPOINT HE/SHE WORKS IN AND APPROXIMATE TIME THE INCIDENT HAPPENED AND YOU CAN GO TO KIP HAWLEY OR BOB ALLISON AND SAY THAT SCREENER HAS BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS. UNDERSTAND THAT TSA DOES NOT BEGIN AND END AT THE CHECKPOINT. ALL THESE RULES START FROM HEADQUARTERS. SO YOU DONT HAVE TO JUST CALL FOR A SUPERVISOR...THERE IS A HIGHER CHAIN OF COMMAND. SUCH AS A MANAGER OR AN FSD AT THAT AIRPORT.
May 7, 2008 9:35 PM
May 12, 2008 11:20 AM
Frustrated...
TSA needs to clarify the liquid rule so that there is a clearer understanding. My first time traveling since the heightened security was on May 8, 2008. I downloaded and read the rules regarding liquids from the airline, and TSA and there was not mention of body creams. I was allowed to board in San Diego with 2/4-oz containers with body cream, sunscreen, lotion, and 1 carry-on and a suitcase. On my return to San Diego from Houston, $45 worth of items were confiscated (1 additional body cream that I received as a gift for Mother's Day, and all of my creams from the flight in)-I was also now told that one of my bags had to be checked, all of this after going through security 3 times, I boarded the plane 5 minutes before departure.
May 15, 2008 9:21 PM
A lot of people are asking why 3.4oz and why not 4oz or 5oz. If you still remeber your conversion unit, 3.4oz is an equivalent of 100 ml.
May 16, 2008 1:22 PM
Anonymous said, "A lot of people are asking why 3.4oz and why not 4oz or 5oz. If you still remeber your conversion unit, 3.4oz is an equivalent of 100 ml.
May 16, 2008 1:22 PM"
Yes, but do the TSA screeners remember their conversion units, or are they just going by the straight 3 oz rule found elsewhere on the website? And are unlabeled containers allowed?
May 16, 2008 7:57 PM
Jim Huggins said...
Anonymous writes:
i understand what you mean about professionalism. you are very right. but if you have flown for 7 years why are you complaining about being told to keep your boarding pass in your hands ??? seems like you are that passenger who manages to do everything wrong when in the front of the line.
Because while I'm holding my boarding pass in my hand, I also have to take off my shoes, take my laptop out of its case, take my quart-sized bag with liquids out of my carry-on, get all of those items into bins to go through the x-ray machine (along with my carry-ons, of course), and then push them onto the conveyor belt at the appropriate moment. Since I only have two hands, I do occasionally have to put down my boarding pass in order to execute those actions.
Which means that if an overzealous TSO happens to look at me at the exact moment when I've put down my boarding pass in order to untie my shoes, I could get yelled at ... even though I know the rules, and am doing my best to comply.
Disclaimer: I've never had this happen to me, personally ... but I know others here have.
May 7, 2008 9:12 PM
THATS PROBABLY BECAUSE YOU MAKE UP THE 1 OUT OF 10 PEOPLE WHO DO KNOW THE RULES WHEN FLYING THROUGH THAT CHECKPOINT. NO TSO I KNOW HAS ANY PSYCHIC CAPABILITIES SO THEY DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND FIRST TIME FLYER OR INTERNATIONAL FLYER WHO MAY NOT KNOW THE RULES. SORRY YOU HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO IT.
May 21, 2008 5:54 AM
Ceronomus said...
Let's forget about things like shoes coming off at one airport and not another and talk about a MAJOR inconsistency.
Why are there six year old children, SKY MARSHALS, and heads of State such as NELSON MANDELA, on the do not fly list?
We're looking for terrorists right? We're trying to catch terrorists. Using a list of names is bound to cause inconsistencies and problems since it is so easy to get a fake ID in the first place.
So, while the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security prevent Sky Marshals from boarding the flights that they are to protect (because their name is similar to someone on the watch list), a person ON the watch list only needs a fake ID to breeze onto a plane.
THAT is inconsistent and that needs to be addressed. This "super secret" watch list that is growing exponentially will soon make it impossible for anyone to fly. Heck, a friend of mine was cavity searched while they asked him questions about the Russian mob.
So how about we go back to things that actually work? Prevention, WELL TRAINED screeners, and a little thing called common sense. Looking for a terrorist by name isn't going to accomplish much, they'll just keep using aliases while non-terrorists get refused access to their planes and, apparently, cavity searched.
May 6, 2008 2:42 PM
I HAVE NEVER WITNESSED ANYONE FROM TSA STANDING AT A GATE TELLING ANYONE THEY CANT BOARD A PLANE. BUT THEN AGAIN TO SOME PASSENGERS TSA=CUSTODIANS. TSA=AIRPORT POLICE AND SECURITY. TSA=AIRLINE EMPLOYEES.
May 21, 2008 6:02 AM
Anonymous said...
To anonymous who posted on May 4: "wouldnt recommending passengers not to wear hooded sweatshirts result in tsa doing too much ??"
If the TSA is selecting persons in sweatshirts for additional screening, we should be warned about this beforehand, so we can avoid being singled out for this reason.
Of course, I totally agree that selecting a person for addition screening based on the fact that this person is wearing a hood, or the tightness of their clothes, is ridiculous in the first place.
May 7, 2008 10:48 AM
ridiculous ??? yea so is the person seated next to you who happened to get by with a carbon knife that wont set off the metal detector and was able to get through because his big sweatshirt prevented tsa from seein anything unusual. then what are you gonna do? leave? no because the airplane is 30,000 ft in the air. exit the row ? no because he has the aisle seat so if he/she happens to pull out that carbon knife which was not detected because of the bulk in his hooded sweatshirt then you think about your comments. no justification at all.
May 21, 2008 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
for one.. not EVERY employee has to go through security. there are other access points in the airport for employees who do not need to go through security to report to work. THUS the person got caught. so why the sarcasm ??
Not sarcasm, the person with the weapon had passed a checkpoint controlled by contract security. TSA's supervision of the contract security was inadequate to ensure that no contraband made its way to the secured area. The person was on the aircraft ramp area, so I suspect this is a controlled area.
OK ONCE AGAIN BECAUSE IM STARTING TO BECOME ANNOYED. AIRPORT.. ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME ?? AIRPORT EMPLOYEES "DO NOT" HAVE TO GO THROUGH CHECKPOINTS. THERE ARE DOORS WITH ID SWIPES THAT THEY USE TO GO TO WORK. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHECKPOINT BUT NOW TSA NOT ONLY CHECKS AIRPORT EMPLOYEES BUT THEY ARE ALSO CHECKING PLANES BEFORE FLIGHT CREW AND PASSENGERS BOARD. CONTRACT SECURITY ?? AIRPORT EMPLOYEES SWIPE THEIR ID TO GAIN ACCESS INTO THAT AREA. WHAT SECURITY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ?? YOU HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY MISINFORMED.
Had this person brought a bomb on he could have placed it on an aircraft or into a passengers checked baggage after it had been cleared.
OK IF AN EMPLOYEE SO HAPPENS TO DO THAT THEN WHAT CAN I SAY ? DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WORK AT AN AIRPORT ??? DO YOU REALIZE THAT THEY ALL COME TO WORK AT THE SAME TIME YOU FLY ? SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY WANNA COME TO WORK AND TSA HAS TO SCREEN THEM ? HMMM LETS SEE. PRIORITY IN LINE WHICH MEANS EVERY...LAST....ONE....CAN..AND WILL...JUMP IN FRONT OF YOU. so wave goodbye to your flight if you are running late. 2ndly if an employee were to do that. then thats the credibility of the airline for hiring that person. has nothing to do with tsa.
Additionally, it proves the point that access to the ramp areas is not secure and is the most likely means of introducing contraband.
its not secure for a passenger. its secure for employees because they are sworn in to protect the credibility of the airport so if they do it then jail time or fine. all you can do is hope you hired an honest person. if you..a passenger EVEN THOUGHT you could gain access to the ramp then i would love to see you make headline news.
TSA is busy confiscating water and such and has a severe security whole that remains unplugged.
2ndly airport has 2 different airport police as well as different airport security who patrols the boundaries nonstop. if an employee happens to bring something to work. tsa cant stop it as we deal moreso with the flying public.
Hey, if your ok with that then so am I. I'm willing to take my chances that the next attack will not be via aviation.
May 5, 2008 10:40 AM
IF THE NEXT ATTACK ISNT WITH AVIATION THEN THATS NOT MY CONCERN AS I COULDNT DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT IT
May 7, 2008 12:41 PM
May 21, 2008 6:15 AM
Anonymous said...
re:OK ONCE AGAIN BECAUSE IM STARTING TO BECOME ANNOYED. AIRPORT.. ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME ??
.........................
I don't give a Rats Rearend if your getting annoyed.
Airport..Are you following me.
A person had a weapon on the ramp area of a supposedly secure area.
TSA is tasked to make sure that Civil Aviation is safe.
TSA failed, plan and simple.
If your not checking everyone entering the operations area then there is no reason to check anyone.
TSA=Theater
Not Security!
May 7, 2008 4:47 PM
YOU GOTTA LOVE THE PEOPLE WHO TALK FOR NO APPARENT REASON. AIRPORT...ARE YOU HEARING "ME"?!
HAS MANY DIFFERENT SECURITY/POLICE.
TSA. 2 OR EVEN MORE DIFFERENT SECURITY PATROL OFFICERS AND...2 AIRPORT POLICE.
TSA DEALS WITH THE FLYING PUBLIC SO IF AN EMPLOYEE WERE TO SNEAK SOMEONE ON THE PLANE. HOW CAN TSA FAIL? ITS ON THAT AIRLINE FOR HIRING THAT EMPLOYEE.
2ND THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO PATROL THAT AREA. PASSENGERS LIKE YOU SWEAR UP AND DOWN THAT TSA RUNS THE AIRPORT AND YOU ARE SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH
May 21, 2008 6:23 AM
Carbon Freeze said...
Probably the best side-effect of the TSA's ramp-up following 9/11 was the sudden change from terse, unhelpful, discourteous, unknowledgeable agents to human, effective, courteous, knowledgeable ones. I found this remarkable at the time, but since then the pendulum has slowly and inconsistently drifted back in the other direction. Are we simply no longer engaging in the excellent training program that those initial post-9/11 employees obviously undertook? Or is it rather that we are no longer willing to offer the salaries that we did immediately after 9/11?
In either case, we travelers deserve to be treated as humans, and if the only way to do that is to spend more on salaries and/or training, I say do it.
Even better: Offer, at the cost of $1, a security line where the traveler is guaranteed to be served by one of these better-trained employees. Compared to $300 and $400 airfares, it'll feel like a drop in the bucket!
May 14, 2008 9:46 AM
I GUARANTEE IN THAT VERY SAME LINE YOU WOULD FIND A REASON TO TOTALLY IGNORE EVERY SINGLE RULE LIKE..FORGET YOUR BOARDING PASS, KEEP YOUR SHOES ON, FORGET TO TAKE YA PHONE OUT YOUR POCKET EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW YOU ARE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH A METAL DETECTOR. so such a line would be a disaster
May 21, 2008 6:25 AM
alexander said...
I have two things, and for at least the first comment, I would like a responce.
My first comment is that very recently, my son was flying from miami to pittsburgh with his grandfather. First of all, they were both asked to show ID, in SPANISH. It is a good thing that my son spoke fluent spanish, because the tso did not speak english, and my father wouldn't have known what to do. My son is only 13, and he was asked for ID, and he had to correct 3 tso's (remember, they only spoke spanish) and was subject to additional screening because he didn't have an id on him. You should make shure the rule that anyone younger than 18 doesn't need an id is enforced, and that an international airport inside the U.S. should have some ENGLISH speaking tso's.
secondly, an easy to impliment suggestion. Many people would like more time before security to be able to take off their shoes, take things out of their bags, or to do other things. My other son has braces that he uses to help him walk, and they are difficult to take off, and I would also like this more room. I know that in many airports lengthing the checkpoint is not feasable, but what you could do is in one or two lines, across from the tables leading up to the x-rays, have some chairs that could be used. This would provide the same effect as lengthening the area before the x-rays, but in a more compact version.
May 19, 2008 2:33 PM
YOU DO HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES ETC. JUST GET OUT OF LINE AS YOU HAVE PASSENGERS BEHIND YOU WHO MAY BE LATE FOR A FLIGHT OR IN MORE OF A RUSH THAN HAVE TO WAIT. SO IF YOU WANT MORE TIME SIMPLY STEP OUT OF LINE.
May 21, 2008 6:27 AM
The all-caps Anonymous writes:
THATS PROBABLY BECAUSE YOU MAKE UP THE 1 OUT OF 10 PEOPLE WHO DO KNOW THE RULES WHEN FLYING THROUGH THAT CHECKPOINT. NO TSO I KNOW HAS ANY PSYCHIC CAPABILITIES SO THEY DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND FIRST TIME FLYER OR INTERNATIONAL FLYER WHO MAY NOT KNOW THE RULES. SORRY YOU HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO IT.
But isn't there a better way? Why do you have to presume that I don't know the rules until I demonstrate that I do? How about presuming that I do know the rules until I demonstrate that I don't?
May 22, 2008 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
To anonymous who posted on May 4: "wouldnt recommending passengers not to wear hooded sweatshirts result in tsa doing too much ??"
If the TSA is selecting persons in sweatshirts for additional screening, we should be warned about this beforehand, so we can avoid being singled out for this reason.
Of course, I totally agree that selecting a person for addition screening based on the fact that this person is wearing a hood, or the tightness of their clothes, is ridiculous in the first place.
May 7, 2008 10:48 AM
ridiculous ?? hmmm i PERSONALLY caught a guy with a cocaine pipe and cocaine in his eye contact solution because he chose to wear a vest (which is an outer garment). i have also witness first hand a guy trying to smuggle thousands of dollars in his loose fitting clothes which was more than the allowable limit. you never know what someone is hiding in their clothes. i know your perception is tsa is supposed to stop bombs and such but im afraid its more to it than that. there are plenty of other things that cannot go through the checkpoint as well as things that passengers cannot take or would receive a huge fine for and or jail time if caught with it. such as drugs and more than the allowable limit of cash.
May 27, 2008 6:26 AM
Jim Huggins said...
The all-caps Anonymous writes:
THATS PROBABLY BECAUSE YOU MAKE UP THE 1 OUT OF 10 PEOPLE WHO DO KNOW THE RULES WHEN FLYING THROUGH THAT CHECKPOINT. NO TSO I KNOW HAS ANY PSYCHIC CAPABILITIES SO THEY DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND FIRST TIME FLYER OR INTERNATIONAL FLYER WHO MAY NOT KNOW THE RULES. SORRY YOU HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO IT.
But isn't there a better way? Why do you have to presume that I don't know the rules until I demonstrate that I do? How about presuming that I do know the rules until I demonstrate that I don't?
May 22, 2008 4:18 PM
is there a better way of telling someone who may not know the rules of flying to keep their boarding pass while they are comingled in a line with people who do know how to keep their boarding passes in their hand BEFORE they send it through the xray which causes tsa to stop the flow of the line as well as the xray operator from running the belt because we have to recover that boarding pass. please tell me any other sensible way of doing it other than making a loud announcement so they EVERYONE can keep their tickets out.
even working at the airport there are times where i have to present my id and i slap myself on the forehead because i just put it on the belt by accident. i have had experienced passengers forget so the loud announcement is probably the only way.
May 27, 2008 6:30 AM
please tell me any other sensible way of doing it other than making a loud announcement so they EVERYONE can keep their tickets out.
It's all about attitude. "Loud" and "rude" don't have to be synonymous.
Yesterday I passed through TSA security at DTW (5/27, around 10:00am). As I finished getting my stuff onto the conveyer and was waiting for my turn, the TSO beyond the X-ray machine made a general reminder announcement ... the usual stuff (coats off, big electronics in bins, etc.). His voice was certainly raised above conversational level, in order to be heard above the crowd. But his tone was courteous & respectful; it was clear that his intent was to remind, not to scold. (It was also clear that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular.)
May 28, 2008 7:48 AM
i have also witness first hand a guy trying to smuggle thousands of dollars in his loose fitting clothes which was more than the allowable limit.
May 27, 2008 6:26 AM
I am confused regarding this statement. Is there a limit on the amount of money that a person can carry through the checkpoint?
May 28, 2008 11:54 AM
There are rules about how much cash you can take when traveling internationally. But individual states have different rules regarding this. You can be arrested for driving with too much cash: http://blogs.automotive.com/1000395/miscellaneous/driving-with-too-much-cash-is-against-the-law/index.html
I'm pretty sure the same goes for flying with a very large sum of cash. The TSA doesn't arrest anyone but we have to report large amounts of cash to law enforcement.
May 29, 2008 9:08 AM
why is it that people gripe at the screeners who are just doing their jobs and not at the management and admninstrators who make the TSO's implement these rules.im pretty sure they're like anyone else who has a job, if they dont follow the rules, they get fired.....just saying...
May 30, 2008 9:49 AM
I just read through most of the posts on liquids and I just have to put in my two cents worth. I had the craziest (to me) thing happen today while flying out of Charlottesville, VA. One of the TSA people rummaged through my carry on luggage for my makeup bag (which I’ve carried on probably 50 fights since the liquids ban began and took out my “liquid” mascara and a few other very small tubes of cosmetics and made me put them in with my shampoo and other liquids in the quart size plastic bag I carry with all of those things in it.
Is liquid mascara is really a threat to national security? Why is that even on the list? Of course then she told me I’d need to downsize the overall quantity of things I take with me traveling so I could make all that stuff fit in next time. I was so mad. Why is it that I’ve never been stopped all of the other 49 times I gone through security for breeching security with mascara or those other things?
What about the time I went through security (actually more than once because I forgot I had it in my camera gear) with my Leather Man tool, complete with several knives and security missed that but decided to take my hair gel instead and expensive face lotion instead.
Another complaint I have about the list is that is unfairly penalizes women and children. Take a look at the list of forbidden liquids below and see how many of them apply almost strictly to women and children.
Applies to passengers of all genders but women or more likely to use most/more of them.
Aerosol spray bottles and cans, hair styling gels and spray of all kinds including aerosol, Neosporin or first-aid creams and ointments, lip gels such as Carmex or Blistex, topical or rash creams and ointments, suntan lotions, moisturizers, etc., bug and mosquito sprays and repellents, deodorants made of gel or aerosol, eye drops, hair styling gels and spray of all kinds including aerosol, liquid sanitizers, liquid soaps, mouthwash, non-prescription liquid or gel medicines like cough syrup and gel cap type pills, saline solution, shampoos and conditioners, and toothpaste.
Applies to women only in most cases.
Bubble bath balls, bath oils or moisturizers, hair straightener or detangler, liquid lip glosses or other liquids for lips, liquid foundations, liquid, gel or spray perfumes and colognes, liquid soaps, liquid mascara, make up removers or facial cleansers, personal lubricants, and nail polish and removers.
What is the real function of the TSA anyway? This system is clearly flawed! It is all smoke and mirrors and does little to really protect us.
May 30, 2008 10:42 PM
The whole "liquid" thing is a joke. I traveled for years with a 3.4 oz bottle (shampoo). Suddenly I went through a TSA checkpoint and this time that extra four tenths of an ounce was a threat to national security. He could have opened the bottle. He could have checked the ID and seen it was a Naval Officer with it. But no, four tenths of an ounce was potentially deadly.
When the whole thing started, it became clear it would be a big bureaucracy. Bureaucracies aren't worried about results, but about procedures and processes established to cover the back sides of those heading up the bureaucracy. So that's what we've got - TSA=CYA and nothing more.
June 1, 2008 4:55 PM
To Anonymous 10:42PM:
The screeners at Charlottesville don't have a whole lot to do (few flights out each day), so they get bored and make up things to do -- like going through your makeup bag.
One time I was leaving from the Charlottesville airport, and the screener pawed through everything until she finally found my tiny, fold-up sewing scissors with the .75 inch blades. Heck, they only cost $1.49, but rather than "voluntarily" give them up, I took them back out to the car.
June 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...
I just read through most of the posts on liquids and I just have to put in my two cents worth. I had the craziest (to me) thing happen today while flying out of Charlottesville, VA. One of the TSA people rummaged through my carry on luggage for my makeup bag (which I’ve carried on probably 50 fights since the liquids ban began and took out my “liquid” mascara and a few other very small tubes of cosmetics and made me put them in with my shampoo and other liquids in the quart size plastic bag I carry with all of those things in it.
Is liquid mascara is really a threat to national security? Why is that even on the list? Of course then she told me I’d need to downsize the overall quantity of things I take with me traveling so I could make all that stuff fit in next time. I was so mad. Why is it that I’ve never been stopped all of the other 49 times I gone through security for breeching security with mascara or those other things?
What about the time I went through security (actually more than once because I forgot I had it in my camera gear) with my Leather Man tool, complete with several knives and security missed that but decided to take my hair gel instead and expensive face lotion instead.
Another complaint I have about the list is that is unfairly penalizes women and children. Take a look at the list of forbidden liquids below and see how many of them apply almost strictly to women and children.
Applies to passengers of all genders but women or more likely to use most/more of them.
Aerosol spray bottles and cans, hair styling gels and spray of all kinds including aerosol, Neosporin or first-aid creams and ointments, lip gels such as Carmex or Blistex, topical or rash creams and ointments, suntan lotions, moisturizers, etc., bug and mosquito sprays and repellents, deodorants made of gel or aerosol, eye drops, hair styling gels and spray of all kinds including aerosol, liquid sanitizers, liquid soaps, mouthwash, non-prescription liquid or gel medicines like cough syrup and gel cap type pills, saline solution, shampoos and conditioners, and toothpaste.
Applies to women only in most cases.
Bubble bath balls, bath oils or moisturizers, hair straightener or detangler, liquid lip glosses or other liquids for lips, liquid foundations, liquid, gel or spray perfumes and colognes, liquid soaps, liquid mascara, make up removers or facial cleansers, personal lubricants, and nail polish and removers.
What is the real function of the TSA anyway? This system is clearly flawed! It is all smoke and mirrors and does little to really protect us.
ok do you really need bubble bath balls on your carry on ???
June 4, 2008 5:16 AM
Neelie, you say you are a Jewish grandmother and you hardly fit the profile of a terrorist. Please tell me what a terrorist looks like?
June 4, 2008 6:22 AM
Someone posted that they are a small, caucasian woman, 5' about 90 lbs. Do I really look like I would do something terroristic. Well please tell me what a terrorists looks like again?
June 4, 2008 6:27 AM
Yesterday, June 4, 2008, my wife and two daughters (14, 12) returned from vacation in Orlando, Florida. They flew on NW from Orlando to Omaha departing around 11:30 AM. They processed security through the checkpoint handling gates 40-50. My 12 y/o inadvertently carried a personal sports bottle filled with water in her carry-on. The bottle was discovered upon screening. Instead of being allowed to quickly drink the water, she was directed/commanded to immediately leave the screening area, discard the water, and then re-enter the security processing line. This was not only unreasonable, but it also placed my child at risk. Consider that my wife and other daughter were also undergoing the screening process, and at the moment of the incident, my wife's belongings were being inspected. She could not depart the line to accompany my child. Instead, she had to move through the screening area and wait, without a clear view of my youngest child. This action, in my opinion, placed my child at risk. She could have gotten lost, could have been abducted, or could have been denied entry because she's only 12 and didn't 1) have identification and 2) was no longer accompanied by a parent. To make matters worse, the TSA Screeners were extremely rude, rigid in their attitude, and completely aloof to the alarm they caused my wife at the prospect of sending our youngest child alone through a very busy airport. She could have simply drank the water. As a federal employee involved myself in homeland security efforts, this is an absolute disgrace and makes all of us look bad. The treatment my family experienced yesterday runs afoul of each and every tenet the TSA Service Commitment illustrated on your website. In this case, TSA failed to strike a balance between reasonable security efforts and courtesy to fellow Americans.
James F.
Sioux Falls, SD
June 5, 2008 12:00 PM
What I don´t understand about the liquid rule is the need for a zip lock bag. Limiting amounts can have some sort of strange justification and a transparent bag allows contents to be seen, but why a zip lock??? Have zip lock bags been shown to stop explosions? Wouldn´t it be better not to use a zip lock so particle detectors had a higher chance of picking traces up?
June 13, 2008 9:53 AM
would anyone know this, or do you know where i have to email or call? i will be traveling internationally and would like to take unopened chocalate packages (4oz bars)(cadbury brand; dark, milk, and chocolate with almonds and raisins etc.). i will be taking these choclates as gifts to my friends and for myself. there's about 30 chocolate bars. can i put them in my purse or hand luggage. does the liquid restriction apply w chocolate? i called delta airlines, they were unsure.
June 13, 2008 4:29 PM
Dear anonymous,
This blog has posted that chocolates are not liquids, although tooth powder is. It is a strange twist on the laws of Physics and Chemistry, but works for you. Of course, that does not matter if the officer at the airport you board decides to have up his/her own rules...
June 14, 2008 5:25 AM
For the commenter with the question about the plastic bag, I wondered the same thing. And why a quart size bag? Isn't a gallon size bag going to do the same thing and hold all the liquid containers?
I asked a friend of mine who knows something about terrorists & security and he told me that many volitile conpounds (the kinds they are trying to keep off the panes with the liquids rule) will cause gasous emissions if enclosed in a small bag. In other words, if you put even an ounce or two of one of the liquids in a quart size bag, it will be noticable to the TSA folks who look at these bags. It is apparently anopther way to tell if the liquid you are bring in is "safe" - normal drinks and tioletries do not give off these kinds of gases.
Not sure if this is true, but it sounds pretty valid to me. And it actually explains something the TSA folks do with a real reason. I'm willing to buy it.
June 16, 2008 3:20 PM
Just got back from an international flight. Like many of the bloggers on this page I appreciate being able to drink water on a flight, especially a long one, and the airlines do not usually serve water for an hour to two hours into the flight.
I bought a bottle of water past security, at a shop 50 feet from the gate at the inflated airport prices, and even though it was unopened and sealed, it was still taken right at boarding. This is absurdity.
June 30, 2008 2:35 PM
On a recent episode of FutureWeapons, they demonstrated a new kind of liquid-scanning device by Optosecurity. This device is able to identify liquids, even when sealed in containers.
If the TSA decides to deploy these devices at airports, will that eliminate the need for the 3-1-1 rule? After all, if you can positively identify the contents of a container as harmless, then there is no longer a need to limit the quantities.
July 7, 2008 1:14 PM
The TSA rules lack common sense. They appear to be for the sole purpose of creating the illusion of security. I used to fly a lot, but now fly only when another form of transportation isn't available.
The TSA needs to explain itself and stop treating each person have the unfortunate luck of traveling by air like they are the enemy. We are not and deserve to be treated with respect.
July 9, 2008 1:27 PM
The initial, total ban, on all liquids was horrible. Travel-size liquids are safe to bring through security checkpoints or at least beverages and other items purchased on some secure real estate like a a special area of the terminal after the check point in clearly marked containers.
July 24, 2008 4:22 AM
And yet the blog authors still fail to address the scientific impossibility of their rule. These comments are merely collecting complaints, and are not action items.
July 28, 2008 7:16 AM
I understand the purpose of the ban, and I know that tsa is trying their best. It is sad to know that their best is limited by their budget. I feel safer now than before but it still has a long way to go.
August 2, 2008 4:22 PM
OK.... lets do it like this.. lets say.... in your city or state peop;ple are allowed to wear guns on their hips... follow me ? and suddenly there have been stories or gunshots being fired..
will you impose a ban on guns at that point or would you wait until someone gets shot or killed to put a halt to people wearing firearms in their hips?
whether or not the public or private has proof whether or not the europe plot would be successful or not... they tried it... so the usa is trying not to have it happen here. thats clear enough. lets not wait until terrorists prove whether or not that liquid plot would work. why not stop it all together ? because im willing to bet that after the europe plot story fades.. if usa allowed liquids and a plain as well as hundreds of victims are blown to pieces the public would be on tsa's back askin why is tsa allowing liquids when they heard about the europe plot. and tsa is stupid for not taking head from the europe plot.
i know and all of you who blog here know it. i dare anyone to say what im saying is false..
August 14, 2008 7:41 AM
"If TSA is going to assume the right to commit forcible theft in the name of national security, it should at least treat liquids it steals from passengers as if they are a threat. When you're just throwing them away, instead of treating them as a threat, you demonstrate that you don't really believe that they are a threat."
Found this comment in the blog from January, and thought it was simply the best statement and needed to be repeated.
This rule has become more unreasonable since the airlines are now charging to check a bag. I used to just check anything that didn't comply, that isn't an option for me now. I am not a wealthy person, I live in the country during these hard economic times just like everyone else, and I'll be damned if I will pay over- inflated airfare rates plus pay them to carrying my bag, and end up paying to replace a tube of lipgloss because some undertrained TSA agent thinks that I am possibly MacGyver and can build an atomic weapon with toothpaste, shampoo and a stick of deoderant.
I am so sad to see that common sense has been tossed out the window. I understand that we need to be vigilant and protect ourselves, but when did some government official decided that mascara is possibly dangerous. BTW, don't you think potential terrorist have by now figured out how to bypass this idiotic rule. I am sure the real danger is passing right by me at security while I try to shove one more item into my little quart size baggie.
August 28, 2008 11:20 AM
Stop stealing my drinks!
I haven't flown in awhile and neglected to drink my Odwalla smoothie prior to the big security scan. A TSA guy took it from me. He let go through the 6 juice boxes I had for my kids. Is 24 ounces in individually wrapped 4 ounce containers really safer than one 12 oz bottle?
The TSA liquids policy is not security, it is security theater - a drama enacted at great cost to make the traveling audience feel better.
I don't feel better. The net result is that I look at all safety and security requests made by anyone related to air travel with disdain. When the pilot asks me to turn off my cell phone, I keep right on texting assuming it is as non-sensical as the TSA liquids policy.
December 27, 2008 12:44 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home