New security practice at SCL
 

Thought I'd seen most everything until boarding a LAN flight from SCL to LIM on Friday night. The security lady confiscated my 120 mL nalgene bottle filled with shampoo. Yes, 120 mL is 20 mL over the single container limit, but she didn't check the volume (which is written clearly on the bottom of the container) and didn't question me on that. No, the reason was that all liquids and gels must be in their original containers.

Aside from the annoyance of having to go and buy another nalgene container, it was no big issue for me, buy my colleague boarding the same flight who lost some expensive face cream was pretty cheesed.

Chock another one up for security insanity. :(

The whole thing is a farce. If one person with two 20 oz bottles can mix a BLE on the air side as easily as the TSA claims, then two people with quart sized bags full of 3 oz bottles can just as easily do the same.

The only purpose to this that I can see is the ability to charge 3$ for a half liter bottle of water.

I have bought my shampoo and lotion from a local bath and body shop. They have their own 'house brands' in huge pump containers. You choose the size bottle you want (including small travel size) and they fill it. There's no label, never has been, not on the bottles I buy or on the giant containers they fill it from. For that matter, there's no size designation on the bottles. Guess I better manufacture some labels, including volume size.

Unfortunately this is nothing new. This is why I never bought me GoToob bottles. Instead, I just got some arbitrary labeled travel size bottles and refill those with anything I want to carry on.

TSA logic: Unlabeled bottles with unknown contents bad, labeled bottles with unknown contents good.

Yep, I do the same thing. Face wash in a conditioner bottle, toner in mouthwash bottle, etc.

Looks like there's an opportunity for someone to sell some nice labels to put on travel bottles, or for travel sized bottles with a nice decor. Nobody should notice if the volumes mentioned are a bit "pessimistic" (don't want to short change customers after all).

Anybody with ideas on how to make my own waterproof labels for travel bottles, or how to print a nice decor on them?

That is not a real TSA requirement. It was made up. TSA rules state n:rolleyes:thing of the source of the container, whether it should be labeled, or how it should be labeled.

Sounds like a good opportunity to label 120 mL bottles as 90 mL.

xyzzy...the OP was flying out of SCL - Santiago, Chile, to LIM - Lima, Peru. Both of which are out of TSA jurisdiction.

Sssshhhh don't let facts get in the way of TSA bashing here.

FB

In the sense that the aren't the people doing the screening, sure, but they certainly set standards that airlines flying into the US are required to follow. Remember the security directives after the "Christmas bomber"?

Agree, SCL personnel are trying to interpret TSA requirements.

Just to clarify, the "catch" was not at the security check following Immigration but at the gate. The flight was LA 530 which flies SCL - LIM - JFK. First time I have taken this flight since some time last year. Used to be that JFK-bound passengers were subjected to gate search which LIM passengers bypassed. But they've recently tightened the screws so that all passengers get the gate search. And, I'd say they have liberally interpreted the requirements of the TSA for flights to the US---as noted in another post, original packaging has never been an issue for the TSA, at least not for me and I fly through the US several times a month.

Or maybe the security lady just decided she needed some Head & Shoulders shampoo and my colleague's fancy face cream?

I've had the TSA tell me things must be in original packaging. One time, two levels of supervisors spouted the same made up rule and told me that that had always been the rule at that airport with no exceptions. 5 minutes later, at a different checkpoint in the same terminal at the same airport, n:rolleyes: such rule was in place.

...but I digress...

Gee, do you think the Chileans got these stupid ideas on their own, or is some disgusting, un-American agency twisting their arms? :confused:

An excellent way to deal with this. Reading between the lines, it sounds like you voluntarily told both levels of supervisors that you "did not want to fly today", and then exercised your right to leave the checkpoint, a strategy I have previously advocated on these boards.