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

And you thought liquid checks were bad....Here come powders

And you thought liquid checks were bad....Here come powders

Old Aug 22, 09, 2:21 am
  #106  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (usually), GVA (occasionally)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 4,787
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Gee RG, we have signage at all the entrances to the airports, in the bathrooms, announcements blaring overhead, more signs on the concourses, notifications on airline web pages, news stories (both print and video media), blogs, web sites, and even pamphlets that are available, and people STILL cant get the right sized liquids in their carry-on's. Just what the heck do you think one more sign, one more announcement or one more web page are going to do?
Gee, Ron, a lot of people DO get the right sized liquids (at least, we try, within the inconsistent rules) but how is anyone supposed to "do the right thing" about powders when there's absolutely no official information on this. I'm not talking about "one more announcement or web page" I'm talking about having even ONE formal mention of this. Dean says it starts Monday at his airport. Do you think everyone showing up there is going to be ready? We don't even know what "ready" is. Will some kinds of powders be allowed? Is there a size limit? Will powders in single use paper packets (instant coffee, sugar) be opened for testing, in which case they're ruined? The fact that some people ignore your information doesn't excuse TSA from providing information on new, potentially intrusive, time-consuming, expensive policies. to you too.

Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Geez, and you people call the TSA unreasonable! Exercise some personal responsibility and take the time to find out for yourself!
Please provide one official source of information about this powder policy that was available at the time stamp on my previous message. Just one. I googled "TSA powder" and most links came back here, or to PV with old questions about dry shampoo and powdered medicine.

I don't fly to the US anymore, Ron, and your colleagues at LAX, DEN and BWI are the reason why. But I make a point of knowing your policies because my Australian colleagues and friends look to me for advice. Increasingly, my advice is "go somewhere else."
RadioGirl is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 4:00 am
  #107  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
Gee RG, we have signage at all the entrances to the airports, in the bathrooms, announcements blaring overhead, more signs on the concourses, notifications on airline web pages, news stories (both print and video media), blogs, web sites, and even pamphlets that are available, and people STILL cant get the right sized liquids in their carry-on's. Just what the heck do you think one more sign, one more announcement or one more web page are going to do?

Geez, and you people call the TSA unreasonable! Exercise some personal responsibility and take the time to find out for yourself!

Well Ronnie, when a traveler went to the TSA website for information on the 3-1-1 rules the documentation was conflicting, inaccurate and wrong. In this day and age there is absolutely no reason for anyone to poop out documents that are inconsistent with each other.

TSA must like the bad press, complaints, and rage against it. Ronnie, is that how TSA gages the operational efficiency? More complaints=doing the job correctly?

TSA = State Organ
AngryMiller is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 4:42 am
  #108  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
Originally Posted by njx9 View Post
Ok, so while it's annoying that the TSA is yet again making a decision that doesn't appear to remotely impact the security of the flights I'm taking, I've been having a really hard time figuring out where this one affects me at all. I'm a guy, so make-up is out. I don't carry talc powder or Gold Bond or anything like that. Is there something they're going to classify as a powder that I'm not thinking of here?
Most solid antiperspirants are powders; at least that's the residue they leave on the applied area. Some solids are gel-like.

You can't win. Long hauls are going to stink, literally.
mre5765 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 7:00 am
  #109  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by LoganTSO View Post
Well, no public policy, but there's an SOP on it. I kid you not, I was required to read on and sign off on it.



Just a sign with some wording... that hasn't been provided to us... so apparently... we're legally required to put the sign up... but... HQ apparently expects us to make the sign and not just send some out to us...
And then people wonder why I say TSA Delenda Est. Which probably keeps me on "the list" not that I give a rat's @$$.
n4zhg is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:31 am
  #110  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by AngryMiller View Post
Well Ronnie, when a traveler went to the TSA website for information on the 3-1-1 rules the documentation was conflicting, inaccurate and wrong. In this day and age there is absolutely no reason for anyone to poop out documents that are inconsistent with each other.
And even the signage that poor, poor, pitiful Ronnie is whining about is inaccurate, since TSA insists that the 3.4-1-1 policy be promoted as 3-1-1.

Of course, all of this is moot, since the liquid policy is completely useless and unnecessary, much like Ronny himself.
JSmith1969 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 10:36 am
  #111  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by HSVTSO Dean View Post
Huntsville will begin the new procedure for powder screening monday, I'm told.
So TSA thinks that powders now present some sort of massive threat to aviation so potentially devastating that it merits not just a new procedure, but a new procedure so secret that it can't disclose the procedure on its web site or its blog, but can wait until Monday to implement it?

No wonder America hates you: You're not just stupid, you think we're stupid, too.
JSmith1969 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 11:18 am
  #112  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 252
How about these Enfamil 0.6 oz single serving baby formula packets?
Mr. Gel-pack is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 11:28 am
  #113  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:17 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 11:42 am
  #114  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
While I'm certain TSORon can speak for himself, I'll remind you that the policy was originally 3:1:1 until the metric system was brought into it. Since the overseas standard was 100 ml, TSA modified it to 3.4 ounces. The signage had already been published and disseminated. I guess, in order to be perfect according to your standards, TSA should have spent the extra money to put the ".4" on the signs. But to do as you suggest, unlike Ron, would be useless and unnecessary!
Nice try there Bart at explaining away the signage when TSA's own web site had documents with incorrect, misleading, and conflicting information. It doesn't take but a few minutes of proofreading to insure that the information is correct, consistent, before being posted to the web. It took months of people pointing out to blogdad Bob at PV the documents. TSA refused/neglected to do anything about those misleading documents.

Read the documents before you travel? Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Why do that when the documents are wrong?
AngryMiller is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 12:03 pm
  #115  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
I guess, in order to be perfect according to your standards, TSA should have spent the extra money to put the ".4" on the signs.
That exacting standard of mine would be "telling the truth about the policy citizens are expected to conform to." I would expect the same of any other arm of government -- if the speed limit changes from 35 to 45, signage should be adjusted to reflect that change. I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you find that so outrageous a proposition.


But to do as you suggest, unlike Ron, would be useless and unnecessary!
Just because TSA's policy is useless and unnecessary, as TSA's own behavior and inconsistencies prove beyond any shadow of a doubt, does not mean that TSA should lie to citizens on its signage about the liquid policy.
JSmith1969 is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 1:35 pm
  #116  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:16 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 1:37 pm
  #117  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:16 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 1:53 pm
  #118  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Originally Posted by Bart View Post
What part did you not understand? Or, to put it in Barney Frank speak, on which planet do you live?

The initial policy was 3.0 ounces. A whole campaign was then rolled out based on the 3.0 ounce restriction. It wasn't until later, when TSA found itself running into a problem due to the Europeans restricting 100 ml rather than 90 ml, TSA revised the policy to 3.4 because that's about as close to 100 ml as you can get.

There is no conspiracy. There is no attempt to deceive or mislead. It was a typical bureaucratic foul-up. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be angry about it; you should. But call it what it really is.
Never mentioned any conspiracy. Laziness maybe, but no conspiracy. The issue with documents not in agreement on a government website shows management ineptitude and a callous disregard for accuracy when people pointed out to TSA management the glaring errors and TSA did nothing to correct those errors.
AngryMiller is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 2:06 pm
  #119  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,386
*****

Last edited by Bart; Sep 18, 09 at 7:16 pm
Bart is offline  
Old Aug 22, 09, 2:29 pm
  #120  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
Huntsville will no longer begin the new procedure for powder screening monday, I'm told.

It's been put on hold.

Good times.

Ahem: as with everything else, I'll be more than happy to explain the public-visible, I-know-for-a-fact-that-it-isn't-SSI side of the procedures once the procedures actually get put into place, and it is a publically-visible process. I was planning on doing this monday, but as it seems that we've pushed back the start-up date somewhat, you'll just have to keep gnashing your teeth in anxious anticipation over it. Or... y'know, whatever this is.

(btw, it's not quite as bad as you think it is)

Last edited by HSVTSO Dean; Aug 22, 09 at 2:35 pm
HSVTSO Dean is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: