Must be a Zip-Loc
 

Flying LAS-RNO today on WN. I use a Tom Bihn 3D Clear 1-Quart Organizer Cube for my liquids, http://www.tombihn.com/page/001/PROD/ACC/TB0917, which is great and doesn't frequently wear out like Zip-Loc bags. This is similar to the bag that WN sent out to customers a few years ago, only Tom Bihn makes a much better product and it is made in the US. At the check-point, a TSA supervisor tells me that liquids can only be in a 1-Quart Zip-Loc or Zip-Loc-type bag and nothing else, due to a heightened level of security at LAS. When I asked for more details, including how there was an increased risk in using a Tom Bihn CLEAR cube for liquids versus a Zip-Loc, he could only reply with "This is a new rule from the Federal Security Director at LAS." The logic escapes me as to how the two bags differ from a security/safety standpoint. Has anyone else experienced this at a check-point?

"Rules" made up on the spot for no apparent reason, nor measurable increase in security on the whim of heightened security just instituted that day?

Yeah, it happens at every checkpoint, at every airport, every day.

Remember, you have NO IDEA what they see, and only they can protect America from the next bomb. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

I'd like to think here they were asking for zip-top style freezer/storage bags. But hey, next thing you know they'll only be allowing ZipLoc™ branded bags through.

Interesting. I came through LAS on Tuesday. A couple ahead of me had to 'surrender' their LGAs because both of them had their items in regular ziploc bags - but the gallon size, not the quart size. The TSO explained that the problem wasn't the size or quantity of the LGAs, it was the size of the baggie. :rolleyes:

The only LGAs I happened to have on me were eye drops and a chapstick. I often have them in a snack-sized baggie, but fortunately this time I had them in a quart-size baggie (ran out of the small size) or I might have had to surrender my LGAs too.

I wish the local news would cover things like this. Make an attempt to contact the LAS FSD. Explain on the evening news that there have been reports from the field of 'heightened' attention to baggie size and style at the LAS airport. Provide a few anecdotal examples, then ask the FSD for a comment (none will be given, of course). Close with a comment wondering about what dastardly sort of potential threat has just been narrowly averted by the LAS FSD's timely directive.

I once was given the :rolleyes:pp:rolleyes:rtunity to v:rolleyes:luntarily surrender my eyedrops because, as the only liquid I had on me, they weren't in a quart-sized zip-top bag and they couldn't tell if I was under the limit or not.

Srsly?

This is why they can't find true threats, because they're so easily distracted by nonsense. I've learned if I just leave my eyedrops in my backpack, separate from my LGA bag that doesn't come out of my rollaboard, they don't even seen them.

Some airports have nice tsa people:D, they have a supply of ziploc bags to give to pax who don't have them.

Well, it doesn't surprised that some uniformed prick tried to flex his authority on some passenger who poses no threat whatsoever to anyone, but I am puzzled as to how the TSO found the baggie in the first place. OP, are you still placing your baggies in that filthy grey tray? It is my understanding that the TSA does not require those to be removed from carry ons any more - it's been ages since I took my baggies out of my carry-ons.

Huh. Didn't one of the TSOs here tell us many months ago that policy had been changed to permit bags larger than 1 litre/quart and that gallon size bags would be permitted so long as the contents fit into a quart size bag?

Then again, LAS is 'on my list' similar to EWR. It is where I had a TSO try and humiliate me for wearing a medical device, where I saw a group of Japanese tourists being shouted at like animals, and where it took over 15 minutes and several tries to obtain a comment form.

That might be true at his airport when he is at the checkpoint watching the baggies. I don't believe the website was ever changed. Certainly none of the signs/videos that I have seen have been updated.

Also, OP indicated it is some kind of special LAS FSD directive - elevated threat level, no doubt. :rolleyes:

While I don't support the liquids rule at all, as I think the premise is flawed, I can understand (to some extent) why the rule is written (and enforced the way it is).

They are trying to eliminate judgment as much as possible from the equation. So, they make the rule as straightforward as possible - 1 quart or 1 litre zip-top (not Zip-Loc, which is a brand) bag, 3 oz or 100ml of liquid, gel, etc. per container in the bag, no exceptions. I think this is in recognition of the capacity of some of their employees. If you give them the responsibility to apply judgment, they are bound to use it improperly.

Unfortunately, much of the traveling public, (and believe it or not, even some of the TSA staff) who can exercise judgment, see the ludicrous results this sometimes generates. Some our willing to exercise judgment even though the powers-that-be would prefer they didn't - others don't.

I thought it was the quantity of liquid they wanted to control since someone decided it was less than is necessary for one of those homemade bombs such as were used in the London underground. What the BAG has to do with it is totally opaque to me.

Several years ago the FAA instituted an order prohibiting air traffic controllers from wearing Dickies brand clothing in the workplace. The Dickies company was notified of this stupid governmental policy and apparently contacted the appropriate officials. The FFA order was rescinded within days

I would let the folks at Tom Binh know that there is a policy prohibiting use of their product at LAS.

Too late; S.C. Johnson got in first, that's why the TSA insists on Ziploc. ;) ;)

ZipLock bags have been proven to prevent explosions. ;)

I have a particular problem with the baggies. Zip top bags of this exact size are simply not available in my part of the world. There are zip top bags, sold by the size of their sides (not volume), none of them are square, and obviously they look different and therefore dangerous to the astute TSO at the frontline.

I´ve tried all sorts of compensation tactics, and been scolded for:

1. Using a 23 x 17 cm baggie (wrong size, not square).
2. Using a torn baggie (old one I got in the US and reused until in tatters).
3. Using a durable non-disposable baggie which holds 960 mLs (I measured!), is transparent and has a real zipper on top. (not zip top baggie = bad).
4. Using a sandwich baggie (no zip top, but exactly 1 L volume, square size, like a US ZipLock).

My problems only decreased after SSSS disappeared and I stopped taking the baggie out.

My Kippie bag has remained in by carry on for over a year with 3-4 RT's every month. Not a word has been said. Zilch, zero, nada. That may change on my next flight. I will apologize for forgetting, and run it through. Until then, it stays in my bag.

Having seen the TSA get all excited over a diaper or two in collapsible strollers sent through the x-ray machines, nothing with these TSA clowns really surprises me. Wait until the TSA is weaned off federally-funded milk, then the TSA will be shrieking worse than any baby in a plane who has just been weaned off breast-milk.

Have you tried to order them from amazon.com or some such that would ship to you?

1. I refuse to pay US$ 20-30 shipping and wait 6-8 weeks to get plastic baggies just to please the TSA. Give me a break. There is nothing superior about US-purchased baggies versus our non-square ones, or the non-disposable one, or a non-zip top (unless of course they now plan to keep us safe against leaks).
2. Amazon does not sell taxable products abroad - mostly just books can be bought from Amazon here. Many other countries, like Canada, have separate Amazon sites, with a different, shorter, product list.

Seriously?

Why should someone have to order specially-sized bags (not locally available) just because the dimwitted high-school drop-outs in the blue shirts can't understand metric?

Especially when the whole 3-1-1 rule is fundamentally flawed in the first place?

^ And there is that, too.

I'm simply offering another solution to the "problem." Other solutions, if they don't want to be "scolded for" their solutions, include buying a box the next time they're in the US, or asking someone in the US to ship them a box.

I'm not saying the rule isn't flawed, or that they shouldn't continue to use their methods. However, I'm making other suggestions, rather than just whining about the problem and the rule.

I'd much rather see the TSA eliminated and airport security returned to 9/10/2001 standards.

Another alternative would be to fire every last employee of the TSA who makes up bogus rules like the one mentioned in the OP.

I wonder if anyone working for TSA is surprised when the public calls them stupid?

Some of the posters here who claim to be TSA seem inordinately proud of that.

Except in very limited circumstances, the FSD may not unilaterally change the TSA SOP to make it more restrictive. For example:

I would urge everyone to keep their ziploc bags inside their carry-ons. The WTMD screen jockeys obviously don't care about them and therefore omitting to take it out of ones bag means that one is in full compliance with TSA regulations.

Besides, if the ziploc bag is removed from your carry on, there is a chance you will forget it in the filthy, grey plastic tub.

We need a list of FSD phone numbers so when some TSA employee pulls this local rule stuff we can say "Ok, give me a moment so I can call your FSD and we will see about this local rule."

I suggest a new thread pinned to the top of TS/S for FSD contact info.

I understand you are just trying to list options. However, you should understand that my problem illustrates that of many foreign travelers. I provided a number of perfectly reasonable substitutes for the US ZipLock (including a used US ZipLock purchased one of the few times I had the time to visit a supermarket), but had trouble with all of them. Should I really have to go to unreasonable levels of action because these rules and the people enforcing them are so stupid?

The truth is that every time a TSO complains to a foreigner about the size of a metric bag or any other ridiculous thing we don´t have to deal with when traveling in the rest of the World, the US looses more tourism money. I myself only go there for business currently, despite the fact that I have extensive family and friends there.

TSA needs to realise that the US is not the only country in the world, that the US relies on overseas visitors, and that the vast majority of the world with a handful of exceptions utilizes the metric system.

There are still reports of TSA documentation reflecting 3.0 oz instead of 3.4 oz even though the sizing was standardized to the more common worldwide measurement of 100ml.

Unfortunately we have seen many times from TSA as well as from some of their representatives here that what is done outside the US is not being considered as a viable option (not just referring to plastic bag size).

That sort of ignorance and arrogance is just another reason why people here are frustrated.

Count me another one surprised that they're still taking them out of the carry-on -- I haven't removed in months and haven't been called on it at 6 different airports.

I wonder if the common point of failure is the inability of the TSA to disseminate information to its clerks, or the clerks' inability to absorb the information disseminated.

1) 3.0oz -> 3.4oz
2) Nexus cards
3) Photography/videography at the checkpoints

...et cetera, ad absurdum.

AND according to at least one TSO here, gallon size bags are permitted at the checkpoint...

...and how many times have we seen TSA employees post things to various internet fora with "facts" that are entirely untrue? I've lost count.

And that is again a reason why some of us feel that there is a credibility factor. I actually appreciate the input of some of the TSOs here but there have been several threads where two of them posted conflicting information on the same threads. I don't think that it is out of malice or a desire to confuse necessarily, but rather I think that it represents the varying interpretation of the rules that TSOs themselves seem to have.

Skirts is another example - 'bulky items must be removed' = all skirts are bulky and are thus subject to a pat down is the result from some TSOs. Yet other times I can travel for weeks without a skirt induced pat down. I have also quizzed various managers around the US and some tell me ALL skirts and some tell me long, heavy skirts are the issue.

Then there is the issue of contractors - MCI and SFO have different interpretations or different rules, or have told me that TSA gives them directives to follow which differ from those that other airports must follow.

Don't you get it? It's another layer of skewrity. TSA knows very well that metric prevails in the 'stan countries, and therefore terrorists will have difficulty getting quart-sized bags over there. Without quart size bags they will not be able to smuggle their liquid WEI onto aircraft. Only genuine red-blooded 'mericans will be able to find genuine approved bags. TSA is keeping Amerika safe.

FWIW, they were enforcing this at CZM last weekend also. (Yep, I know that's Mexico but I also know they're under a lot of pressure to comply with US screening procedures - and are probably even receiving US financial aid to implement them.)

Luckily I had an extra Kippie on hand to deliver to a fellow pax, who was being told she had to discard something clearly under 3.4 mL due to its lack of bag.

I'm not piling on whomever posted this (forgot to copy the username and my browser is wonky this morning, so can't go back), but it's things like this that make me CRAZY. Seriously? Staff are not permitted to OK a couple of items that would clearly fit into a quart bag b/c of the size of the bag?

If this is going to be the mentality, I'm going to continue to do whatever I can to ensure that we have common-sense security in this country, rather than the current adherence to head-in-the-sand, blatantly ridiculous, rules for the sake of rules.

If common sense is taken out of the equation, all is lost.

Hate to say it, but that ship has already sailed. Long ago.

hee hee hee! Touche...

The rule is fairly simple

1 quart-sized, clear, plastic, zip-top bag

The organizer cube clearly does not fit this description in any way shape or form, and should not be marketed as something that does.

I'm not saying the rule makes any sense, but in this case, I can see why they did not allow it through.

This lack of ability to use common sense is an issue, but I have mixed feelings about this. In the US, the security screener position is generally viewed as an entry level, unskilled position.

In other countries (the UK, Germany, Canada, and the Channel Islands most recently) I see screeners locate and remove items larger than 100ml and/or not in a plastic bag. Generally they investigate the item, swab it, speak (politely) to the passenger, and in almost every case I have seen they allow the item to pass. (The exception I saw recently was at TXL with an older couple having ALL their LGAs full size in their luggage, but the screener kindly explained, arranged for LH to retrieve their checked bag, and found the wife a seat to wait for her husband while he checked those items)

However, the difference I sense is between professionals and generally unskilled labour which seems to lack the ability to follow even basic directives. I don't think that I would want TSOs to use their own judgement on those types of things as right now many of them fail at following the basics.