Originally Posted by
thegeneral
"Unacceptable because it wasn't a "zip" bag. At DCA."
While this does seem to be nitpicking, you have to think it through. I've heard so many people complain about the actual regulations without stopping to think why they were made this way.
Quart sized bag (exlcuding the argument about liquids not being a threat): ...
The clear Zip lock part: The clear bag lets individual screeners quickly verify what is in them, so that they don't have to mess with opening anything up and resealing it. These plastic bags are inexpensive and easily found. The zip part makes them quickly resealable. A shopping bag is not something that is quickly resealable and has the ability to violate the one ounce limit.
And exactly what friggin difference does it make whether it's resealable? The bag in question was a clear (not brown or white) bag like you get at a checkout. It was clearly less than a quart. No need to open it, the 3 toiletries appeared to fit fine inside. The only thing missing was the zip-top. Is that enough for confiscation? Shouldn't be....
Perhaps the person picked up the toiletries on the way to the airport. Perhaps they had no zip locks at home. Who knows. The INTENT of the rule was met. Only a "by the letter of the book" kind of person would support confiscation of these goods under these circumstances. You, apparently, would allow for no discretion when the size and volume constraints were met. Would you also support arrest for someone going one mile over the speed limit.
Most of us here know exactly what the rules are, and we follow them... without regard to our opinion of the rules. Someone who doesn't fly every day should get the benefit of the doubt when the INTENT of the rule is met. Frankly, the amount of time the TSO spent on this person could have been better spent on real threats, not harrassment of a passenger that was trying to comply.