"You get as many tries through the x-ray as necessary."

I'll take zero, thanks.

Fuel prices soaring, major cutbacks in aircraft and flights, large numbers of airline employees being furloughed, passengers, both business and leasure, beginning to shy away from flying, the industry heading towards a massive collapse and the TSA chooses this time to further infuriate the passengers that do remain by instituting another one of their bulls**t, hassle filled, useless rules.

Why dont airline ceo's tell the TSA to take some of their useless, bulls**t rules and shove it?, you answered that question and it would probably not do any good if they did, but the idea of someone other then John Q Public standing up to TSA and telling them that is a nice thought indeed^ .

Don't know if this is related to these alleged upcoming SOP changes, but in early June I had a screener at SEA tell me that a new policy "soon" would be that if you leave your baggie in your bag (as I did on this occasion) the baggie gets tossed and you get booted to back of the line.

I chalked it up to the usual ........ and TSA bluster at the time, but who knows?

Nah...that TSO was just being an a$$. That is not going to happen.

This was mentioned as a new SOP last year but few if anyone has had it happen to them.
1) going to the back of the line violates that once you start screening, you have to finish
2) when they boot grandma's meds or anything else necessary for survival, the TSA will have one heck of a time 'splainin themselves on their website.

You two are probably right, but I see the TSA as being less and less concerned with its public image. I just read the thread about the new procedures for "verifying identity" in the event of not having one at the airport and it made my stomach turn.

Why, this fine little agency almost causes me to think in Jeffersonian terms now. Something about the blood of patriots and tyrants, I believe... ?

It actually was/is written policy, but I most airports didn't enforce it in that way. We actually didn't see the purpose in making people go back out and do it again so we could screen them twice. Chances are if we had done that, they would still get it wrong the second time anyway. And no, going to the back of the line does not violate the "once you start screening, you have to finish" rule.

Maybe, maybe not!

My interpretation is that it will be left up to the individual screener to decide whether or not an oversized liquid poses a hazard and should be allowed past the checkpoint.

This will, of course, lead to a nightmare, as some X-ray operators will call bag checks, while others will allow the items to sail right through. PAX won't know what to expect, and I fear they'll be even more upset than they are already.

Frankly, I resent being required to participate in an annoying charade with every PAX who brings their toothpaste to the checkpoint.

"Ma'am, this item is over 3.4 ounces and thus is considered potentially dangerous .."

"You can see it's just toothpaste! There's nothing harmful in it. I should be allowed to take it through."

"Well alrighty then! Go right ahead .."

The people who give up their item without a fight are going to be awfully unhappy when they learn later that all they had to do was dispute the TSO's claim that it's dangerous, whereupon they would have been allowed to keep it.

Don't wanna make it seem like I'm picking on ya, Cee!

Just wanted to add ... I flew out of my old airport last year and they actually followed the SOP on this! If your items were small, but weren't in a baggie, you either had to surrender them, or go back out to the landside gift shop, buy a baggie for 50 cents, and go back through the line.

And no, my former co-workers didn't cut me any slack!

My response was to Sydneysider who was told that if the baggie was in the bag, the baggie would get tossed. That's not gonna happen.

Yep...I am not looking forward to it either.

Wow...that sucked for you! But, as a TSO...did you make anyone go back out and do it again (at your current airport)? I have heard that the smaller airports follow the liquid policy rather strictly, but I was under the impression that the larger airports did it the way mine does.

How very, very sad. This has what it has come to. I can't imagine the justification if someone asked how that makes us any safer.

Mike

My point exactly...it's disgusting to me with everything else going on in the world today that you think being detained for 25 minutes is a civil liberty injustice.

Why don't we let everyone fly without ID so even the terrorists can have their privacy! Free movement and association? Are you kidding me?

This is coming from someone who's probably never had to pay for the freedom you seem to think is free.

You know what has me so worked up about this post? It's that most of you complaining about being inconvenienced...having to wait a few extra minutes to get to your first class seat so you can get a free drink in your hand, take your freedoms for granted.

Sorry if I take offense to your minimizing the importance of remembering the deaths of Americans and lessons learned. I bet you'd feel real good if your rantings about inconvenience reduced security enough to let it happen again.

I doubt you've ever truely been inconvenienced in your life.

My M-4 wasn't empty. Neither was my 9mm.

I'm more disgusted that there are people who think their rights are worth so little and security and fear are more defining purposes in their lives.

Life has risks. Deal with it.

Liberty is more important than security.

Doesn't it also violate the limit to their jurisdiction? They don't own the line before the ID checker. The airport/airlines do.

And the claimed SOP that they don't retaliate, which has been shown to be a lie.