Had the same problem with three items in a 'snack' size zip-loc. Items were OK, baggie was not regulation size (although it was regulation type). Fortunately, I had a 'regulation size' spare in my bag. Put the small baggie in the quart-sized baggie and all was well.

I think of incidents like this every time I read that we would get better screeners if we paid more. ??? Really? If we paid more, we would get rid of all the current 'bad apples' and replace them with folks intelligent enough to understand the purpose of the screening, ie, a single LGA or LGAs in a small enough aggregate quantity are ok even if not in a 'regulation size' baggie?

All we would get is overpaid people demonstrating the same lack of common sense - or possibly, overpaid people following idiot management directives mandating a pointless adherence to the 'letter' of the law.

When SATTSO originally posted about the relaxing of the baggie size (but not the quantity allowed), I asked at the checkpoint at my home airport - more than once. Even a supervisor laughed and said not to believe everything I read on the internet - there had been no changes.

It may or may not be true at SAT (I know someone who had a very bad non-baggie-related checkpoint experience there that seemed at odds with SATTSO's posts). If I ever fly through SAT, I will try to remember to 'test' and see if a gallon baggie is allowed there or not. I don't want to believe that SATTSO was trying to have a laugh at our expense, but IIRC, the website was never changed and I have been told at multiple checkpoints that there's been no change in the rules.

PHX provides free ziplocs at the checkpoint (nice ones). They used to have baggies with a drawstring that had something like "Courtesy of the Phoenix TSA" on them. Unfortunately, those drawstring baggies were not accepted at ORD because they had the wrong type of closure. :td:

Oooh oooh!! Pick me, pick me!! :D (I know that you are referring to someone else, but I had one too last year at SAT)

I use that experience combined with my reading here to help support my belief that the screening experience is entirely dependent on the individual screener at that moment in time at that particular airport.

Just because someone says here that something is fact or procedure does not mean that it happens that way in real life. Much as I actually believe posters such as gsoltso post in good faith, I know that I will not always encounter screeners who are as knowledgeable or well-trained as he, and must prepare for that.

Not a problem. All of mine say "JANET NAPOLITANO IS AN IDIOT".. Have never run into any issues :)

This forum really does make for amusing reading sometimes! :D

I have no intention by the way of purchasing quart instead of litre size baggies, or finding ones which do not scream 'All purpose bag' in large white lettering on them. Nor do I feel the need to exchange my house brand baggies for some brand name baggie not readily found outside the US. I'm happy to thumb my nose and be a rebel that way, in protest of the variables we encounter at the checkpoint and having to deal with the whims or knowledge level of individual screeners.

If I did not know the level of stupidity these people are capable of achieving, I would find that unbelievable. But sadly, I know it to be true - you couldn´t have come up with this on your own...

One of my family members did once in DUS. I only use clear bags so I can't comment.

This is exactly why I always approach US checkpoints with a high level of apprehension. I despise them, absolutely despise them. Whether or not I like the rules, I will do my best to inform and prepare myself to avoid hassle of any sort. Unfortunately, I never ever know what kind of c**p might surface at a checkpoint, what kind of idiocy might lead to hassles and delays (like a bag check at ATL and admonishments because I had a spare TSA-approved lock in the otherwise empty end compartment of my carry-on duffle).

I avoid eye contact and conversation with every TSO because any contact is an opportunity for hassle. It should not be that way and I travel enough internationally to know that it does not have to be that way. And I have a limited amount of sympathy for the 'good' TSOs, because as far as I am concerned, a 'good' TSO doesn't stand by and watch his/her fellow TSOs act like jerks and not say anything.

Oh, SATTSO is out there. He/she (not sure which) has been vehemently attacking me in PMs daily, including today. :rolleyes: Apparently, he/she violently disagrees with my calling that TSOs do to us "sexual assault".

If that is happening, I'd suggest you contact a TS/S Mod..

In other news, day is night and up is actually down. :rolleyes:

How people do that job, is just beyond me. I'd gladly muck out latrines before I'd don the tin badge.

I find it scary that someone who frisks folks all day long, including children and mentally disabled, is eligible to be a foster parent.

Oh, no worries. The twisted logic, bizarre rantings and outlandish justifications for indefensible behavior are strangely entertaining. It actually provides a helpful window into the warped minds of the people who do this, and think it's acceptable. It's good to know how the enemy thinks.

I was wondering why he was logging on almost every day if he didn't post. Now I guess I know.

I would be very careful what information you disclose. I reported an incident with a severely disabled family member (I was not there) that took place at SAT. He/she wanted specific information under the guise of 'looking into' the incident. A charitable interpretation would be that he wanted to try to say events didn't transpire as reported. Unfortunately, giving specific information might have resulted in the family member being subjected to future harassment or even ending up on an SSS list.

Based on the details, I don't believe the incident was at all unusual, and I'm sure that monitoring checkpoint handling of severely handicapped pax would have revealed similar incidents without jeopardizing the safety and well-being of my family member.

I thought he/she was a voice of reason until 1) the business about the gallon-sized baggies being allowed (not!) and 2) he/she found it humorous when a pax 'joked' about using a gun at a checkpoint to deal with any 'opt-outs' who delayed his progress through the checkpoint. He/she seemed to think that the same TSOs who aren't allowed to exercise independent judgment about a 3/4 empty tube of toothpaste are allowed to chuckle and laugh with a pax making violent statements and determine that he poses no real threat.

I'm no longer sure what is going on. I will take his advice under consideration, but I wouldn't rely on it.