![]() |
Deleted
|
Augh, wish I'd had that info before I left or I wouldn't have given up my little bottles quite so fast!
I still just can't believe it happened- can't believe she confiscated everything and wouldn't even let me check my stuff in a bag! Bart, can I still write a letter with date, time, flight info and as much detail as I can provide? Who would I send it to? This supervisor said travelers have never (I'm assuming she meant since 9/11) been allowed to carry bottles that weren't labeled by the manufacturer. What is so dumb is that I could have had a manufacturer-labeled shampoo bottle with God-knows-what inside. It doesn't matter if you've refilled it, just that it has a label? How does that make sense? Argh! Argh! GG |
Originally Posted by Bart
Key is to be non-confrontational. And this is something that can be done with a smile. Don't make any smart remarks ...
Hope this helps. Still I am chilled by this particular part of your advice. While this is a good strategy in any social interaction, the implication of their being negative consequences for someone staying within the law and yet doesn't smile and allows themselves a "smart remark" is troublesome. It bespeaks of advice to be subservient to authority even when it is abused. I may choose to smile, but why should be a necessary strategy to avoid trouble? I may not make a "smart remark," but why should exercising my right to free speech be something to something to avoid in order to avoid retaliation. We all have a right to express indignation in a not threatening way even if it is confrontative. We all have a right to confront authority when it errs without bowing, smiling and scraping. Again thanks for the practical advice and for your good work. I simply lament the implications of the kind of role the citizenry is expected to adopt with any public servant - screener, LEO, who ever. I have grave concerns over the direction in which our country is drifting in this regard. |
Originally Posted by kaukau
Was that there yesterday? Thanks for showing me where it is!
|
ID Question
Bart,
Would you consider an ID issued by a State University a "Government issued ID" ?? thanks! |
Originally Posted by cpx
Bart,
Would you consider an ID issued by a State University a "Government issued ID" ?? thanks! I remember even using my work ID tag once to try it when I worked for the public school system. Worked too. :) |
Originally Posted by Superguy
I don't see why it wouldn't. I used university ID's before with no problem. Might run into trouble with a private school.
I remember even using my work ID tag once to try it when I worked for the public school system. Worked too. :) I've used my library card and work ID before... with 50/50 chances... but never tried the university ID before.. Just wanted to know the "official" policy. |
Originally Posted by Teacher49
Still I am chilled by this particular part of your advice. While this is a good strategy in any social interaction, the implication of their being negative consequences for someone staying within the law and yet doesn't smile and allows themselves a "smart remark" is troublesome. It bespeaks of advice to be subservient to authority even when it is abused.
I may choose to smile, but why should be a necessary strategy to avoid trouble? I may not make a "smart remark," but why should exercising my right to free speech be something to something to avoid in order to avoid retaliation. We all have a right to express indignation in a not threatening way even if it is confrontative. We all have a right to confront authority when it errs without bowing, smiling and scraping. Again thanks for the practical advice and for your good work. I simply lament the implications of the kind of role the citizenry is expected to adopt with any public servant - screener, LEO, who ever. |
I'm Thinking, not Over Thinking
Originally Posted by GeoGirl
What is so dumb is that I could have had a manufacturer-labeled shampoo bottle with God-knows-what inside. It doesn't matter if you've refilled it, just that it has a label? How does that make sense?
Nowhere on http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...ted-items.shtm can I find any reference to Original Factory labelled Containers ONLY. Like GG, many things that you only need a small amout of for a few day trip are easier to put a dab in a 2 x 2 inch ziploc, much lighter than carrying even a 2.99 oz tube. The Official Approved "My Ziploc"™ picture at http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/..._guidance.shtm shows seven 2.99 ounce (under 3) continers Resting Comfortably™ in their quart baggie. My math says if I dumped the original contents and filled them all with water I would have 20.93 ounces of water. Yet I cannot bring a 16 ounce bottle of water. To really show the lack of uniformity of the Partial Water Ban Rules v. 9/26 per v. 8/10: At http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...rial_1059.shtm it says Travelers with Disabilities and Medical Conditions Medications Additonal items you may bring include: Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition; Life-support and life-sustaining liquids Has TSA declared Dehydration to be "Not A Medical Condition"? Has TSA declared Water to be "Not A Life-Sustaining Liquid"? Can TSA get the Surgeon General to put this New Think Not Overthink redefinition of life in a letter? "It is unlikely that additional changes in the liquid, aerosol and gel policy will be made in the near future." Sigh. |
Deleted
|
Originally Posted by GeoGirl
Augh, wish I'd had that info before I left or I wouldn't have given up my little bottles quite so fast!
I still just can't believe it happened- can't believe she confiscated everything and wouldn't even let me check my stuff in a bag! Bart, can I still write a letter with date, time, flight info and as much detail as I can provide? Who would I send it to? This supervisor said travelers have never (I'm assuming she meant since 9/11) been allowed to carry bottles that weren't labeled by the manufacturer. What is so dumb is that I could have had a manufacturer-labeled shampoo bottle with God-knows-what inside. It doesn't matter if you've refilled it, just that it has a label? How does that make sense? "After testing a variety of explosives, the FBI and other laboratories found that tiny amounts of substances — so small they fit into a quart-size plastic bag — can't blow up an airliner." So it should not matter what the containers say or don't say. |
Originally Posted by Bart
That supervisor needs to learn the SOP. There is nothing that says a container needs to have the manufacturer's label. The only situation I can see prohibiting an unlabelled container is when it alarms the ETD with a "strong hit" for explosives. It that case, it only makes sense to prohibit it. In all other cases, it does not.
|
Deleted
|
Originally Posted by Bart
Not at all, and that's my point. The supervisor who decided to prohibit these containers because they had no labels made an erroneous decision.
|
Originally Posted by ND Sol
This article says why the quart bag is acceptable:
"After testing a variety of explosives, the FBI and other laboratories found that tiny amounts of substances — so small they fit into a quart-size plastic bag — can't blow up an airliner." So it should not matter what the containers say or don't say. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:07 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.