|
TSA Adjusting Prohibitions/Designated "Ask Bart" Thread
Deleted
|
I am sure the last few days have been crazy for you. Good luck with it.
|
Originally Posted by Bart
Hi all,
My advice to you is to carry a pair of socks to wear as you pass through the WTMD without your shoes on. It seems that the shoeless requirement has taken root and may end up being one of the more permanent measures. Sure do hope I'm wrong about this. "You don’t have to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, our Security Officers may encourage you to remove your shoes before entering the metal detector based on the....." Clarify please. Which is it? Required or not required? |
Originally Posted by Evan!
If there is a "shoeless requirement" then why does the TSA.gov web site say, as of 9:27 a.m. EST, Sunday, Aug 13, 2006:
"You don’t have to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, our Security Officers may encourage you to remove your shoes before entering the metal detector based on the....." Clarify please. Which is it? Required or not required? |
Originally Posted by Bart
For example, and this is strictly an example and NOT an indication of any real changes, I am using this to illustrate as an example of how these changes may occur: a tube of Desenex may be allowed if the passenger is flying with infant in arms and all of the usual baby-carrying paraphernalia. However, a passenger who has a tube of Desenex but isn't flying with an infant may be offered the option of either packing that tube in checked luggage or abandoning it at the checkpoint. In one case, it's obvious that a baby in diapers with a rash will require this sort of medication, whereas the passenger traveling without an infant may not.
|
Originally Posted by Evan!
If there is a "shoeless requirement" then why does the TSA.gov web site say, as of 9:27 a.m. EST, Sunday, Aug 13, 2006:
"You don’t have to remove your shoes before you enter the walk-through metal detector. However, our Security Officers may encourage you to remove your shoes before entering the metal detector based on the....." Clarify please. Which is it? Required or not required? I think it's high time all FTer's started wearing orthopedic shoes. That's what I'm going to tell the clowns at security the next time I fly, even if my "orthotics" do come from WalMart courtesy of Dr. Scholl's. :D |
Deleted
|
Bart,
Again, a voice of reason and sanity in an unreasonable and insane bureaucracy. Several posts in the least couple of days call for your input as you are able to give it. Thanks for taking the time to visit us frustrated travelers again. CNN just ran a breaking news piece that "refinements" to the screening process would be announced at midday. I do have to echo a question psoted above...if the shoe carinval is now mandatory, why does the TSA web site, which when you call the national call center you are pointed to the web site to get the most current information, STILL say that shoe removal is NOT mandatory?? Good luck, keep your head down! --PP |
Deleted
|
Deleted
|
Originally Posted by Bart
Please keep in mind that I only used that to illustrate the methodology behind the judgment calls but that this was not, in itself, an example of an actual change.
I disagree with your opinion. On Thursday, I had to confiscate children's cough medicine from a mother whose baby was clearly sick. On Friday, turns out that I could have allowed it. The difference is that Friday's guidance allowed me more flexibility to exercise judgment and discretion. As for the paper socks, I think that's a matter of a bureaucratic blunder that is finally paying off. Back in 2002, when TSA first started requiring shoes to be removed, if I recall correctly, these paper booties were available in the supply catalog. And many airports ordered these items until TSA put the word out that it was not going to keep these in stock. I don't know if they remained in stock or if they simply were banned as TSA purchases. What I do know is that boxes of these paper booties remained inside of supply rooms at some airports while others simply issued them to passengers until supplies ran out. In view of the August 10th measures, I think that some FSDs took advantage of this as an opportunity to get rid of these surpluses. My advice still stands about packing an extra pair of socks. Relying on an assumption that a TSA checkpoint will have booties available is an erroneous one. Also, how much more money are you willing to pay to supply these booties in terms of hidden security costs? I, too, am a taxpayer and don't want to pay any more than I have to. How about you? |
Originally Posted by Bart
...I am personally greatly frustrated with that because this will tend to justify the Nervous Nellies in the bureaucracy who believe that circling the wagons is always a wise move. It is wise to circle the wagons when you are about to be attacked, but it is unwise to keep the wagons circled indefinitely. Sooner or later, the wagon train has to keep moving or else it will wither away....
Bruce |
well Bart, thanks for posting.
In the midst of all this confusion, it's good to hear from you.
Yes, I will be checking more, 2 bags instead of just one or none with a carry on. One will be a heavy Zero-Halliburton make up case that is leak proof. I haven't used it for many years due to the fact it is heavy, but here we go....it's coming out of the closet. We need to know exactly what we can carry on board. In my opinion taking medicine from a sick infant is a sin. There is no fexcuse for doing so. You should have appealed to a supervisor to help that Mother. That was cruel. You had the guts to tell us you did so, but it still wasn't the right thing to do. |
Bart, could you elaborate a bit on what security measures have been misrepresented in the media reports. I think there exists much confusion yet.
I think most clearly understand about liquids/gels and so on. However, with specificity to laptops, cell phones, I-pods and so on, could you clarify? As I review the TSA Website, and the question an answer section, it clearly states that although the aforementioned items will be screened at security, they are in fact permitted on board. I am assuming this is correct. I am assuming this is for domestic and Internatiional flights. What about digital camera's? Thank you for your assistance, or to whoever else in in the know who maybe able to impart some accurate information regarding this issue. |
Originally Posted by Bart
We have unfortunately taken a giant step backwards towards risk avoidance. I am personally greatly frustrated with that because this will tend to justify the Nervous Nellies in the bureaucracy who believe that circling the wagons is always a wise move. It is wise to circle the wagons when you are about to be attacked, but it is unwise to keep the wagons circled indefinitely. Sooner or later, the wagon train has to keep moving or else it will wither away.
|
Originally Posted by oldpenny16
In my opinion taking medicine from a sick infant is a sin. There is no fexcuse for doing so. You should have appealed to a supervisor to help that Mother. That was cruel. You had the guts to tell us you did so, but it still wasn't the right thing to do.
--PP |
What I don't understand is how we can be forced to walk on filthy, dirty, germ/fungel infested floors in our bare feet! I have no problem at this time going through, sitting down, and giving them my shoes to go through the scanner - and even subjecting myself to a body search - just to avoid walking on those floors. What do I do with the socks if I use them? Put them (now infested) in my purse? Or do I just throw them away, wasting more and more money?
I just went through on Friday out of LAX, and didn't realize until I was home that I had a tube of lipstick in my purse - they sure missed that potential bomb. |
Originally Posted by Bart
The difference is that Friday's guidance allowed me more flexibility to exercise judgment and discretion.
(That whole issue is a complete mess and totally illogical. The authorities have stated that there is no evidence at all of Australia being involved in any of the latest scare. There is no reason why we shouldn't carry liquids on board trans-pacific flights to the US and then repack them into checked luggage for domestic US connections. Instead, we are being forced to carry no liquids on planes to the USA, because the USA somehow believes it should have jurisdiction over other countries and our governments are too gutless to tell them where to shove it. ... or, more importantly, have the same FUD agenda.) |
Deleted
|
Originally Posted by CME Flyer
What I don't understand is how we can be forced to walk on filthy, dirty, germ/fungel infested floors in our bare feet! I have no problem at this time going through, sitting down, and giving them my shoes to go through the scanner - and even subjecting myself to a body search - just to avoid walking on those floors. What do I do with the socks if I use them? Put them (now infested) in my purse? Or do I just throw them away, wasting more and more money?
I just went through on Friday out of LAX, and didn't realize until I was home that I had a tube of lipstick in my purse - they sure missed that potential bomb. |
Originally Posted by Kremmen
...our governments are too gutless to tell them where to shove it....
Bruce |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
The degree to which other nations kow-tow to the U.S. is truly revolting. If I were a citizen of Australia -- and perhaps one day I will be -- I would let my government know how disgusted I am with them.
|
Yes, I see your point. Still, some diplomatic complaints would go a long way, I suspect.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by CME Flyer
What I don't understand is how we can be forced to walk on filthy, dirty, germ/fungel infested floors in our bare feet!
|
Bart, really appreciate you communicating the latest, both with straight talk, but also some context.
Don't mean to turn this into an "Ask Bart" forum, but I haven't been able to get a straight answer on this one (even asked some folks at DCA yesterday, got nowhere), maybe you can give a quick answer. I usually travel with MRE's -- are they now verboten? |
Thanks, Bart
Originally Posted by ButIsItArt
I usually travel with MRE's -- are they now verboten?
Seriously, the only bright light in this Water Carnival is reading a post from Bart. Showing there is AT LEAST one sane person at TSA. We can only hope perhaps there are more. Unfortunately Bart is not in Washington at mail stop number one. Thank you, Bart, for being an island of sanity in a sea of discarded water bottles. |
You hear that said, but it clearly can't be true. Athlete's foot, plantar wart virus, and other foot diseases are both very widespread, apparently very difficult or impossible to control, and highly contagious. As we travel online, we don't get stupid pop-ups for expensive medicines to control hand fungus caught from shopping carts but we're assaulted by nasty foot fungus pop-ups sometimes several times an hour. Why? Because there are so many people who have had these conditions of the feet for years or decades. I have never seen a person with a similarly contagious condition of the hands. You? The diseases we catch on shopping carts are self-contained contagious diseases like colds and influenza, which may occasionally kill us and get it over with, but never hang around infecting us for years on end.
It's like the old saying that the human mouth has more germs than the dog mouth. Fine. I'm still not going around letting every friendly dog on the porch tongue-kiss me! Obligatory on-topic comment: Thanks, Bart, for a voice of sanity from the trenches. I am taking your advice about the socks. Indeed, I often travel with an old pair of socks that I can throw away once I get safely through security and on the airplane, replacing them with a nice clean pair.
Originally Posted by Kremmen
The (chiefly US) obsession with bare feet always amazes me. Unless you're planning to stick your foot in your mouth, it's such a non-issue. The wonderful bacterial breeding ground on the handles of shopping trolleys is vastly more dangerous to you.
|
Originally Posted by Kremmen
The (chiefly US) obsession with bare feet always amazes me. Unless you're planning to stick your foot in your mouth, it's such a non-issue. The wonderful bacterial breeding ground on the handles of shopping trolleys is vastly more dangerous to you.
Many years ago, I had dealings with Chertoff when he was a young attorney. He was an a**h*** then, and he's even more of one now. |
Originally Posted by peachfront
we're assaulted by nasty foot fungus pop-ups sometimes several times an hour. Why?
Originally Posted by red456
Where, at the airport, is there an opportunity to wash one's feet?
However, my main point is that compared to not being able to carry innocuous personal items on board a plane, not being able to carry deodorant, not being able to carry a drink, not being able to carry toothpaste on a 24-hour+ trip (yuk!!!), not being able to carry a screwdriver, etc, taking my shoes off for 20 secs is way down the list of things which I believe are worth worrying about. |
deleted
|
so I'm sorry Bart.
Originally Posted by Bart
Well, I didn't want to come across as boasting. I did, in fact, talk to a supervisor. I explained that it was medicine for an infant, that I could clearly see the baby was sick, and that I thought we should let it go. He told me that the rules were very strict and that it could not be permitted. I then confronted him with, "is this really what we want to do? Are we to become bullies and goons? It's your barbeque, boss, cook it the way you want, and I'll still support you. But look at what we're doing here."
He could have written me up for insubordination and being disrespectful. On a positive note, yesterday, a young mom checked with me while I was working baggage about taking juice, still in its original manufacturer container, as part of a emergency kit for her diabetic son. Usually, I tell them that this is a matter for her to discuss with the supervisor once she arrives at the checkpoint. Instead, I told her to meet me at the checkpoint entrance, and in the meantime I left the pod to discuss this with the supervisor...the same supervisor I mentioned above. The guidance had changed several times since that first encounter, and I knew what the new guidance was (I report to work early, on my own time, just to review the new guidance and prepare a brief to the crew on any changes) and wanted to make sure he knew the guidance. We were on the same sheet of music and agreed that the juice, as part of an emergency kit, was permitted. I met the lady at the entrance, gave her my name and the supervisor's name and bid her a nice day. I'm not trying to portray myself as a saint. I'm far from it, the sins of my past will always be with me. Perhaps this is what drives me to be confrontational with my own bosses when I believe we're about to do something stupid, or perhaps it's because of my military background where I'm accustomed to telling it straight, in colorful terms, and expect it to be received as straight talk without the sugar-coating. The supervisor in question is an old intelligence operator, Air Force as opposed to Army, so I think he took my questions as intended: a straight-forward discussion among professionals. Day one we were in disagreement; day two we're on the same sheet. It works that way. Frankly I have no idea how I'm going to get my own meds through security and have put off one trip for that reason. I just can't take the risk. |
I don't know what kind of medicine it was--for the baby--but if it was nonprescription medicine she probably could have given him a dose then that would have lasted through the flight; or if it were an issue, could have not flown just then.
If my son were having asthma problems and someone tried to take his inhaler away, we'd turn around and go home. |
Originally Posted by Lehava
You can go to any medical supply store (and most large pharmacies) and buy yourself some of those paper booties, use for security and throw away, simple and not overly expensive.
|
We had to wear those paper booties *over* shoes at a Level 3 datacenter I worked in. My employer and Level 3 fought over who would pay the medical bills when they caused me to slip and fall.
I would think that if I were to fall while trying to take off my shoes at a checkpoint then the airport would be up for a lawsuit. Which could work. We have to realize that the only ones the TSA will listen to are the airlines and maybe the airport operators. I'm afraid we're going to have to bring our legal actions against them. |
Originally Posted by JakiChan
We had to wear those paper booties *over* shoes at a Level 3 datacenter I worked in. My employer and Level 3 fought over who would pay the medical bills when they caused me to slip and fall.
I would think that if I were to fall while trying to take off my shoes at a checkpoint then the airport would be up for a lawsuit. Which could work. We have to realize that the only ones the TSA will listen to are the airlines and maybe the airport operators. I'm afraid we're going to have to bring our legal actions against them. Write to your carrier of choice and advise them that you are going to curtail your travel unless these restrictions are rescinded, including shoe removal. However, you have to follow up with actions - drive to some destination to which you would ordinarily fly - and advise your airline that you have chosen to drive rather that face baggage checks and dumb a** security checkpoints. |
Originally Posted by doober
Write to your carrier of choice and advise them that you are going to curtail your travel unless these restrictions are rescinded, including shoe removal.
I think it will take people with sufficient resources who are willing to suffer the damages. You have to loose that laptop, get hurt on a flight, fall down at the checkpoint or whatever. Then you have to pay the lawyer to file the lawsuit. It's one thing to deny an aiport or airline revenue. It's another to cost them the money their lawyers will have to spend defending against your suit. I'm not saying to manufacture a reason to sue, I'm saying they will cause it all on their own, we just need to actually go forward with our legal options. Lawyers, start your engines! |
Bart- What is considered medication? I've been wondering this because I always travel with a special anti-perspirant only available in liquid form, or else the faucets are going 24/7. While I only use it nightly, having it get lost in luggage would mean that, come morning, the problem starts all over again. Do I have documentation from my doctor? No, this is OTC, though the only place I've found selling it is in the UK, and getting a replacement takes about 2-3 weeks. It's a 30ml spray bottle, with a little pump at the top. How would one explain this at security, and would the screeners consider it part of my meds?
|
Originally Posted by Bart
Also, how much more money are you willing to pay to supply these booties in terms of hidden security costs?
I, too, am a taxpayer and don't want to pay any more than I have to. How about you? |
Originally Posted by Fly AA J all the way
Bart- What is considered medication? I've been wondering this because I always travel with a special anti-perspirant only available in liquid form, or else the faucets are going 24/7. While I only use it nightly, having it get lost in luggage would mean that, come morning, the problem starts all over again. Do I have documentation from my doctor? No, this is OTC, though the only place I've found selling it is in the UK, and getting a replacement takes about 2-3 weeks. It's a 30ml spray bottle, with a little pump at the top. How would one explain this at security, and would the screeners consider it part of my meds?
|
Thanks for taking the time to post, Bart. I appreciate your personal experiences and perspectives on this.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:53 am. |
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.