Yeah. All this talk about c-rations stirred the ol' memory banks. I do recall eating c-rats back in 1981 when for some incomprehensible reason I voluntarily attended RANGER school and submitted myself to all the abuses the kind-hearted RANGER staff is renowned for. We used to take the c-rats out of the boxes and slip the cans inside our socks with pieces of cardboard inbetween to prevent the cans from rattling. And, of course, we used everything inside those c-ration boxes, including the wrappers and carton containers and left no evidence behind indicating our presence.

My first assignment was at Bragg, and we were one of those units that always got the first new items in the Army inventory...MREs being one of those items along with the new BDUs (the ones with the heavily stitched seat that made it feel like you were wearing diapers) and other new toys.

What can I say? They say that your memory is the second thing to go...I forget what the first thing is....

I was just about to ask about the status of MREs and I'm glad I searched first!

My fiance just returned from Louisiana yesterday (9/15) after spending two weeks serving on a feeding crew based in BTR. He had an MRE that had been given to him by some young fellow with the National Guard, and he was trying to bring it home (he actually likes them, go figure :)) It was in his carryon and it was confiscated at the security checkpoint. They wouldn't give him any explanation as to why it wasn't allowed.

So if the issue is the heater, would he have been allowed to keep it if he'd opened it and given them the heater pack?

I may eat my words
 

I just read an article in the St Petersburg Times that apperently there was a roadblock set up on the westbank. Unbelievable. The sheriff didn't want NOLAs problems.

There are many other stories we're going to hear/read/see about the ugliness that arises in panicked efforts to survive. Some of them we've heard already, but I fear that those will pale in comparison with what may eventually come out. While the implication of this thread is that TSA somehow contributed to slowing down efforts to evacuate people (and this still remains to be proven by a credible source), the truth is that government officials at local, state and federal levels made some pretty stupid decisions that DID contribute to the tragedy.

The thread asserts that the TSA (at some locations) does not permit C-rats(sic)/MREs in carryons. We have two independent accounts - the original EMS guys and cabingirl's post above. Good enough for a whining TSA-basher like me.

Let me spell it out for you in terms you can understand: TSA policy does not prohibit MREs. The meals, utensils and other similar items are allowed inside carry-on and checked baggage. MREs still sealed in the manufacturer's original packaging are allowed inside checked baggage and will not be confiscated or disturbed per TSA policy. Opened MREs are subject to inspection and the most common items removed are matches and the MRE heating element. The rest of the MRE is not prohibited. At the checkpoint, MREs are allowed as long as the heating element is removed and disposed of properly. Otherwise, they must be placed in checked baggage still sealed or minus the heating element and matches if the seal is broken. Read the warning label on the outside of the MRE packet: it advises that the heating element must be removed if transported via commercial aircraft. TSA makes the exception to this warning by allowing MREs still sealed in the original packaging to be transported.

The title of this post accuses TSA of prohibiting MREs (erroneously referred to as c-rations) as a matter of policy. TSA policy does not prohibit MREs. What you and I don't know is if the screener explained the options to cabingirl's fiance for properly disposing of the MRE heating element (as I explained above) OR if this was a matter of a screener doing his or her job incorrectly. If it's the latter, shame on that screener and shame on that screening checkpoint supervisor for not training his/her screeners on the correct procedure. But as far as TSA policy goes, it's pretty clear to me, hopefully to you as well, of what is and what isn't allowed.

Policy, schmolicy. When every TSA screener works strictly according to policy, we'll discuss it.
In the meantime I don't care, because it's meaningless if it can be ignored on a whim.
Which it is.
Frequently.

Clear enough to me from her post. Take your blinkers off and read it again.

See above.

What a whiny bunch of babies overprivileged and adolescent travellers can become, when not treated with the deference they believe that their status as masters of the universe entitles them.

Honestly, if any of these attitudes come out at performance reviews (which I doubt), I suspect that certain people would be bucked back to Assistsant to the Assistant in Charge of Paper Clips, instead of retaining their full assistant title.

I guess everyone needs to work out their personal demons somewhere. Looking for someone that you can feel superior to, and abusing them, is a time honored technique.

Sorry, pal, but the thread, if you care to look at the title, is worded to read that TSA has changed its policy regarding MREs. This is completely untrue. That's my point.

As for screeners who fail to follow policy correctly at other airports, that's beyond my control. I can only influence what happens on my shift and at my airport. I come to this website to inform passengers what the correct policy is so that if they find themselves in a similar situation, then they can at least challenge the judgment call at the scene, hopefully get a supervisor to intervene and make the correct policy decision. I truly believe in passengers' rights and informing people when their rights have been violated. Of course, this relies on supervisors being competent professionals who are not afraid of doing what is right as opposed to covering up what may eventually turn out to be an embarrassment. Unfortunately, there are supervisors out there who will defend a screener, even when they know the screener is wrong, because they don't have the testicle fortitude to admit when a mistake has been made.

As I've posted frequently, leadership in TSA leaves a lot to be desired. But I often wonder if TSA happens to have flaws in leadership or if this is a reflection of our society today. Yesterday, I had a problem with a floor supervisor at a store where I purchased a product and expected a service to be performed. I was disappointed. I spoke with the store manager and explained my concerns. The biggest problem, I explained, was the poor communications skills his floor supervisor had. While I was greatly upset at the lack of service, I was even more upset at that supervisor's poor communications skills which led me to believe that another customer would receive the same poor service down the road. So I couched my concern in terms that this is not just a one-time occurrence; it may be something that will become a trend and result in customer disatisfaction, leading to loss of future business which could all be prevented with the proper oversight. (Should have seen the manager's reaction; he was glad I wasn't yelling and appreciated my comments; offered me all sorts of discounts which I turned down: my focus was on fixing a problem that was well within his scope and capabilities.)

The point behind this digression is that the policy is sound. Yes, it can be improved in certain areas and there's the whole risk-management versus risk-avoidance thing, but the policy itself IS a good policy. The problem is with the leadership that either doesn't monitor how the policy is being carried out OR who does NOT know the correct policy. But this isn't something limited to just TSA. Not making an excuse...just an observation.

Well, let's not pee in the pool just because we disagree with the lifeguard. I think it's reasonable to be treated in a courteous, professional and competent manner. This is especially true at an airport security checkpoint where people are already pressured by the time limits artificially placed on them in terms of boarding time, stand-by status and the additional time required at the checkpoint due to the ever-popular SSSS on the boarding pass. Before I was a screener, I used to travel quite frequently...so much that I still maintain that I've probably put more miles in the air than many of the frequent flyers on this website (there may be one or two who have more). So I haven't forgetten what it's like trying to get through security with time enough to take care of nature calls, a snack, perhaps read a chapter or two out of the book I'm carrying before having to deal with cramped seating and screaming babies in the seat behind me (they ALWAYS seem to sit BEHIND you).

However, there are those who post outrageous hyperbole in here. Some do it just to get a rise out of one of us TSAers, others just to vent frustrations and others because they're so angry with what they experienced and want to know if anyone can provide answers. I try not to let the ridiculous posts get to me, although I'm human, too, and will sometimes allow the Airborne Demon who resides within me to surface and get the better of me. Human nature, I suppose.

Even though tempers do flare in here from time to time, what I like is that folks in here do calm down and then go on to another topic. I've been on some web sites where some people have actually threatened to physically harm me because of some of my comments, thoughts and opinions. Now THAT'S childish. So I wouldn't be so critical of some of the comments made in here; a great majority of the people here are really quite reasonable even when they post some pretty inflammatory, albeit also amusing, comments about airport security screening.

Not speaking for all the whiners y'unnerstan', but while I am critical of certain aspects of the policy I can live with it. Or I could if it were consistently applied.

An unacceptably high proportion of screeners I encounter either do not know the policy or choose not to follow it; and I don't much care if it's because such actions are condoned by the FSD/manager/supervisor/lead or simply because those screeners are idiots or bullies or both.

The bottom line, for whatever reason, is that the TSA (as an organization) lets them get away with it. Yeah I know, we're supposed to submit a complaint; I may be wrong but I don't recall anyone ever posting here who received a satisfactory response from the TSA having done so. By satisfactory I mean some tangible evidence that the necessary remedial steps were taken.

The impression that is left is that the TSA deosn't care, it doesn't have to (nod to Lily Tomlin).

Thank you, Bart, for explaining what should have happened. Just to clarify, I checked with my fiance and he said that he was not told at any point that he had the option of removing the heater pack and matches. He was just told that it was not allowed in his carryon.