Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 6:45 am
  #691  
Original Poster
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted

Last edited by Bart; Jan 6, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 8:46 am
  #692  
15 Years on Site
 
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
GeoGirl is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 8:52 am
  #693  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Years on Site
 
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.
Bart, I appreciate the information that you provide here. I respect that you are one of the people who are trying to bring a bit more reason and dignity to this system.

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
Teacher49 is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 9:01 am
  #694  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited
1M
20 Years on Site
 
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!
it has been there since the "fly naked nonsense" started and as i mention in my earlier post (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...postcount=671), i carry the printout with me.
goalie is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 9:03 am
  #695  
cpx
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: 99654
Programs: Many
Posts: 6,450
ID Question

Bart,

Would you consider an ID issued by a State University a "Government issued ID" ??

thanks!
cpx is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 9:11 am
  #696  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited500k30 Nights20 Years on Site
 
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!
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.
Superguy is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 9:15 am
  #697  
cpx
 
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'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.
cpx is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 9:17 am
  #698  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
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.
Very well said. These were my thoughts, as well, when I read Bart's response.
GoingAway is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 9:36 am
  #699  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
10 Countries Visited15 Years on Site
 
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?
If the Factory Container is not clear, such as most shampoo bottles, the contents are not visible and could be replaced. Under 3 oz of mouthwash is allowed. "Do not overthink these guidelines". If I carry 2 oz of allowable mouthwash in a 2 oz Head and Shoulders shampoo bottle, is that OK?

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.
Flaflyer is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 10:09 am
  #700  
Original Poster
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted

Last edited by Bart; Jan 6, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 10:28 am
  #701  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
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?
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.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 10:44 am
  #702  
LLM
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
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.
Bart, is that an issue at all? Virtually none of my liquid stuff has ever been in manufacturer's bottles. I purchased unlabelled 1 ounce ones, with spray tops, from a container company to save packing space. I couldn't find these even at the Container Store and I would hate to lose the bottles themselves, let alone be without the contents. I know what's in them by the color. Do I need to apply photoshopped labels?
LLM is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 11:16 am
  #703  
Original Poster
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted

Last edited by Bart; Jan 6, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 11:28 am
  #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.
In your likely new position of trainer - will you be training all over the country or just at SAT? If the former - then that's great news. If the latter, then that's talent wasted.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2006 | 11:32 am
  #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.
I'd like to see info -- all of it -- about the "testing" enter the public domain.
GUWonder is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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.