Uh, OK, the logic on this thread makes no sense. The TSA thinks that certain liquids could pose a threat to aviation security, so why would you expect them to allow amounts of liquid over the limit just because they're in a snowglobe? :confused:

If anything, with all of the complaining about how inconsistent TSA is, one should be applauding them for being consistent on this issue in a way that logically follows from its threat determination.

I can agree that the "logic" in this thread does not make sense. There is no consistency here. The perpetrators of the liquids bomb plot had, among other items, a mother with a baby and a plan to put a false bottom in a baby's bottle. Yet TSA still allows babies and baby bottles to fly. There has never been any arrest or plot involving the tiny amount of liquid in a snowglobe. If baby bottles can travel safely, the liquid ban is unnecessary. If baby bottles do carry a dangerous amount of liquid, then allowing babies and their bottles to travel is proof that pandering to political interests is more important than safety. In no case is seizing small containers of liquid like a snowglobe of any value to security nor is it consistent with the plot that was reported to have spawned the liquids ban.

No one has the gonads to say that babies can't travel. Therefore, the liquids ban is pointless harassment, since the terrorists will be able to easily get around the ban any time they wish.

Choose other words. "Logic" and "consistency" in no way apply to the current situation.

My issue is with the lack of common sense of the TSA agent.

Here is an Anglo/American blue eyed guy with a boarding pass marked "United 100,000 mile flyer" with 2 little blond haired, blue eyed girls dressed in pink flowery hawaiian dresses and this agent still couldn't give me a break and accept the sealed "Royal Hawaiian" hotel snoglobe. I have spent this year travelling all over the world every week, taking off my shoes, laptop and putting the little bottles in the tray and obeying the rules. I wasn't asking for much

I don't think this agent would be capable of flipping a burger.

My girlfriend flew AMS->IAH->DEN last winter with a small snow globe. No problem AMS->IAH, but IAH found it in her bag. The good news is that the screener was apparently very nice, and told her that it was < 3oz, and let her actually just put it in her baggie! Glad they were nice enough to do that, a jerk of a screener could just as easily have told her that since it was unlabeled, they couldn't determine the volume and forced her to toss it.

While I think banning small snowglobes is silly your reasoning about being a 100k flyer and because of such should be trust doesn't hold any water. Wasn't one of the 9/11 hijackers found to be an AA plat member? If you are going to have rules they need to apply to everyone no matter what you may look like or what kind of elite member you are.
cheers
howie

Let me get this straight: As a 1K, you travel enough to understand the rules, yet you want the TSA to make an exception specifically for you? (And, worse yet, based on your Anglo-American appearance?) :rolleyes:

I think TSA's rules are as ridiculous as you do, but if a brown-skinned first-time flier can't get his innocuous child's toy past the TSA, neither should you! These silly, inconsistent rules simply shouldn't apply to anybody.

I totally disagree. How many Anglo/Americans with little blond daughters have hijacked planes? Also if elite members were given a background check (maybe using the same Iris scan technology used by the UK immigration), the TSA could look for terrorists, instead of harrasing their most frequent customers.

Timothy McVeigh, though he didn't hijack a plane, executed the largest terrorist plot in US history until 9/11. As I recall he was blond. Not sure about blue-eyed.

Well the difference is that your critique makes sense: baby's bottles can carry a fair amount of liquid, but are exempt from the rules, etc. ... there's some inconsistency in the rules that seems illogical.

The difference is that in this thread, people are arguing that by virtue of being inside of a snow globe, the liquids are necessarily harmless. That makes no sense.

Well "we" have decided that the TSA isn't allowed to make such judgment calls. In any event, I wouldn't have allowed the snow globe either - who has ever heard of snow in Hawaii? This sounds like some terrorist plot to fit-in gone wrong by his obvious misunderstanding of US geography!

Ever heard of Mauna Loa? Though I agree that does sound like a plot for an episode of 24!

Yup. I understand the rules and feel the TSA should make an exception, as I look like one of our founding fathers ;)

If the TSA wants to stop and search me while I am driving a Ryder truck full of fertiliser, I have no problem with that. It's the airport where I have the issue.

the more practical reason why the TSO may not have made an exception for you is that his supervisor would have his ... (and maybe his job) for knowingly allowing a banned item. although many may view his job as a crappy one, he's obviously there for a reason. no reason to jeopordize it for something like that. if it had been me, i would not have allowed it either (as stupid as i think the rule is).

I've tried to make this point in threads previously, but you have done it much more eloquently than I ever did. Thank you!

Mike

Considering the fact that terrorist have been known to disguise or recruit others that look like their targets your thoughts are a bad idea. Ever hear about the terrorist who disguised themselves as a woman or as a orthodox jew? Guess what it's a new ball game out there and that's why racial profiling doesn't get the job done imho.
cheers
Howie

A workaround would be to stuff the snowglobe (if it's small enough) in your pocket and go through the x-ray detector. If the snowglobe doesn't have metal on it, it won't beep.

I had no problem taking two rather small snow globes through security at ORD in August.