TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread
#692

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: IND
Programs: AA LT Gold, 1.5MM, Marriot
Posts: 1,307
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
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
#693
FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Francisco
Programs: AA 3mm Plat
Posts: 10,068
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.
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.
Last edited by Teacher49; Sep 27, 2006 at 9:23 am
#694
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist



Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 29,078
Originally Posted by kaukau
Was that there yesterday? Thanks for showing me where it is!
started and as i mention in my earlier post (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...postcount=671), i carry the printout with me.
#696
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by cpx
Bart,
Would you consider an ID issued by a State University a "Government issued ID" ??
thanks!
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.
#697
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 99654
Programs: Many
Posts: 6,450
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 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.
#698
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,947
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 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.
#699
FlyerTalk Evangelist


Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Sunshine State
Programs: Deltaworst Peon Level, TSA "Layer 21 Club", NW WP RIP
Posts: 11,372
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.
#701




Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,957
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?
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.
#702
FlyerTalk Evangelist


Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: America's Finest City
Posts: 11,121
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.
#704
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
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.
#705
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
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.
"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.

