|
Why are you making the assumption that everyone checks a bag?
|
Originally Posted by spleenstomper
(Post 8099943)
Seriously, How is toothpaste a liquid??? It seems to me if you can put toothpaste on the tines of a fork and it doesn't seep through, then it isn't a liquid!
|
Originally Posted by Points Scrounger
(Post 8100229)
Why are you making the assumption that everyone checks a bag?
|
Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer
(Post 8100340)
Toothpaste is a gel. The restrictions are for liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs).
Thanks for the clarification. Until the toothpaste incident, I had just checked everything for convenience. |
Originally Posted by Kiwi Flyer
(Post 8100340)
Toothpaste is a gel. The restrictions are for liquids, aerosols and gels (LAGs).
|
Your being WAY TOO LOGICAL for this lot....
Of course people trying to circumvent the system will probably lead to more random patdowns. Hey, it doesn't matter that YOUR PERSONAL GREED will lead to more hassles for those WHO DO FOLLOW THE RULES now does it???
Oh by the way flyertalk geniuses CREST has an Alumininum lining...So trying to get it through the metal detector WON'T WORK. I laugh every time some moron tries to pull this trick.
Originally Posted by Kanada goose
(Post 8099993)
I'm wondering why so much energy is put into circumventing the system? why not just put your otrivin, or suntan lotion or whatever into your checked luggage and bring a small bottle (less than 100 mls) in your carry on if you need it onboard.
As a Canadian living in NZ, I note that airports all over the world are now complying with this edict which was brought into affect by the US. IN the long lines at the security check in tables, I see that most of us have gone to great lengths to meet these requirements with our little zip lock bags of small bottles of stuff) and the agents are tied up in front of us, dealing with US citizens who refuse to comply with this issue, and then argue when their large bottles of stuff are confiscated. What is up with this? Who needs a large bottle of shampoo or suntan lotion on a plane? |
Originally Posted by CLELOSER
(Post 8101869)
Of course people trying to circumvent the system will probably lead to more random patdowns. Hey, it doesn't matter that YOUR PERSONAL GREED will lead to more hassles for those WHO DO FOLLOW THE RULES now does it???
It's abject contempt for asinine rules and the filth who created these rules. Those who enforce such idiotic rules are not beneath contempt either.
Originally Posted by CLELOSER
(Post 8101869)
Oh by the way flyertalk geniuses CREST has an Alumininum lining...So trying to get it through the metal detector WON'T WORK. I laugh every time some moron tries to pull this trick.
Out of curiosity, what's your reaction every time someone successfully brings undeclared liquids past the pathetic and unnecessary x-ray check? Someone I know brought 4 amenity kits of liquids past the "security" checkpoint less than a month ago. Good thing we're on the honor system for explosives detection, eh? Feel free to tell your little pissant boss, Comrade Hawley that I'll cut him a deal on "No Terrorism, Please" signs. They're cheaper than his stupid policies and a lot more effective than Workfare. |
Hey, TSA geniuses: Try finding some real threats to aviation security, like, I don't know... bombs in all that unscreened air cargo that just gets shoveled aboard aircraft without so much as a wand-wave?
Might as well have a big flashing neon arrow on the air cargo area: "TERRORISTS, LOAD YOUR BOMBS HERE." You also might want to, I dunno, find the liquids and gels that I carry on every week and never get caught with? Heck, I've got a 1.75l of Crown Royal Special Reserve in my bag tomorrow. Bet they won't find it. |
I'm wondering why so much energy is put into circumventing the system? why not just put your otrivin, or suntan lotion or whatever into your checked luggage and bring a small bottle (less than 100 mls) in your carry on if you need it onboard. As a Canadian living in NZ, I note that airports all over the world are now complying with this edict which was brought into affect by the US. ... and the agents are tied up in front of us, dealing with US citizens who refuse to comply with this issue, and then argue when their large bottles of stuff are confiscated. What is up with this? Who needs a large bottle of shampoo or suntan lotion on a plane? |
Originally Posted by Kanada goose
(Post 8099993)
...I note that airports all over the world are now complying with this edict which was brought into affect by the US.
For those wishing to refill empty store-bought containers understand that you may run into problems. Despite the fact that I have never seen or heard of one of the liquid/gel rules stating containers must be labeled, some of the rent-a-cops at airports around the world like to make rules up as they go along. "Your container must be labeled" seems to be a reasonably popular self-made rule. I suggest refilling some other, labeled, container. Hotel shampoo bottles work pretty well for this purpose. |
Originally Posted by DL4EVR
(Post 8092449)
First off, I'd like to apologize to all of the TSA rah-rah's on this board for starting a subject that might aid the terr'ists.
But on a more serious note, what's the best way to conceal an innocent tube of hair gel. I can't find this brand in any container less than 5.1 oz unfortunately. I think it's been said that the cap often gives it away because it's more dense. Would wrapping it in a bunch of towels make it very hard to detect on the x-ray? |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 8103209)
...I have seen passengers not get to fly because they concealed liquids.
If the customers you witnessed being denied access sulked home without summoning the GSC to intervene, then that is their loss. |
Originally Posted by bocastephen
(Post 8103265)
I doubt this. If the liquids are not dangerous, there is no grounds for denying access to a customer - and a reminder - the airline, not the TSA decides who flies and who doesn't if the customer is not on a prohibited list.
If the customers you witnessed being denied access sulked home without summoning the GSC to intervene, then that is their loss. |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 8103803)
It's called "artful concealment" and TSA calls the GSC and tells the GSC that the pax is deliberately trying to circumvent security and TSA recommends that they don't fly and guess what? THEY DON"T FLY!
|
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 8103209)
Why would you want to do this? Is it worth it? Is it a game to you? I have seen passengers not get to fly because they concealed liquids.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:18 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.