texd

This idea may have already been discussed in this forum. If so sorry. I don't read this forum much and searching the liquid/toiletries issue brings up a LOT of hits.

On Friday, I arrived at BNA as they were closing the security checkpoint. As such I saw a TSA agent wheeling a very large bin full of the day's confiscated liquid booty. God knows where it goes.

Today at BNA, my wife had sunscreen in her bag that she had forgotten about and it was confiscated. Last month, I had sunscreen in my bag that I had forgotten about until I was halfway through the security line (which I had bought at the beach for an inflated price just days earlier) which I had to throw away. (This happens because we travel somewhere either without sunscreen or with our sunscreen packed in our checked luggage, but when we get there, our carry on backpack or messenger bag gets used to carry towels, flip flops, bottled water, sunscreen, etc.)

TSA could go a long way toward annoying people less by giving you a chit for every confiscated REUSABLE toiletry item. You then could use this chit on your way out of the destination airport by handing it to the TSA agent who sits in a chair preventing people from entering through the secure exit, and then pulling something of their choice out of a bin just beyond the exit. Less waste both in real terms and in terms of money spent by travelers replacing confiscated items.

Sure, not everyone would want to take advantage of this, and that's fine. Shoot, demand for it might be so low that they could simply set the bin outside the security exit, forget the chits, and have it be an honor system.

(BTW, IMO reusable items would be those such as aerosols or items with a squeeze bottle as opposed to a full open bottle... shampoo, lotion, shaving cream, hairspray/gel/mousse, etc.)

@:-)

Superguy

You probably could have kept it just by putting it in your pocket. TSA wouldn't know unless you got secondaried.

I have a better idea though: get rid of the liquid lunacy that does nothing to enhance security and this would be a nonissue. @:-)

studentff

A similar idea was propose during the lighter ban, and I think smokers even did informal "exchange" of lighters outside security during that era. (Of course, getting a lighter through in your pocket was even easier than getting banned liquids through in your pocket, but that's neither here nor there.)

I think this is a better solution though:

YCTTSFM

Chits are an elegant solution to an imaginary problem. Non-flammable, non-corrosive liquids, in personal-use quantities, are not a danger to the plane or passengers. They should be permitted in the first place.

Public health issues would work against this plan, too: even if it was restricted to sealed containers, some agency would have to be responsible for checking expiry dates, lead content, etc. From a legal standpoint it's a can of worms. This is why noble suggestions that all the loot collected in the first days of the liquids panic be donated to homeless shelters/Katrina survivors went nowhere.

Besides, you're assuming that TSOs could reliably determine the difference between used and unused toiletries, sort them efficiently, and distribute the chits. On what basis do you make this assumption?

n5667

Confiscated? Nothing gets confiscated...

thegeneral

So how we'll have to pay more for special handling of individual liquid items because you didn't remember to follow the rules? I can only imagine what would happen when lost lost suntan lotion doesn't make it to the destination and the TSA has to try to track it down. There is already a way to do what you're asking. You can mail the item to yourself at most airports or you can check the bag.

Doing what you're proposing would reward people for forgetting items, encourage them to take more toiletries as the TSA will essentially do a curb side (or security side) check of the items, cause lost time of TSA screeners who would have to catalog, label and ferry around individual items to various flights from various check points and cause a hassle for any breakdown in the process. This would require more time as people go through security which means longer lines. It would also require more TSA staff as many would be tied up with this idea.

In the end, it would cause more hassle than it was worth, cause everyone to wait longer at security and cost everyone more money.

"Chits are an elegant solution to an imaginary problem. Non-flammable, non-corrosive liquids, in personal-use quantities, are not a danger to the plane or passengers. They should be permitted in the first place."

Proving that each individual item is non-flammable and non-corrosive is a very time intensive process. While they're not a danger, proving so takes quite a bit of time.

Global_Hi_Flyer

If the TSA were to handle all the materials as if they were dangerous, they'd not be putting them in a trash barrel - they'd be treating everything as hazmat. Ergo, the TSA has already determined that the items are non-flammable and non-corrosive.

If you're going to make an argument against chits, then make the argument that allowing passengers to pick up items left by other passengers opens the TSA to potential liability in the event that the passenger that the item was confiscated from were to introduce some kind of poison into the item (e.g. tampered Tylenol). Then again, they may already take that risk if they give the material to homeless shelters.... Might be that a waiver would alleviate the liability.

thegeneral

There would still be delays in dealing with this, costs in dealing with this and people would in the end still not be any more happy. I can picture now TSA agents trying to explain this to elderly travelers who don't speak English. There's an easy way for people to avoid this that doesn't involve a waiver. Check it or don't take it with you. If you do take it with you, you have the options of checking that bad or mailing the item back to yourself. You can also just part with it.

Sfo-Dub-Commuter

TSA must be really sweet smellin......lol

IslandBased

Better to just sit quietly, smell bad, and die of dehydration

onlyairfare

When I stay at a nice hotel on business trips, I collect the toiletries and donate them to the domestic violence women's shelter at home. They don't seem to have any trouble telling that the items are not hazmat. I rarely check luggage, but nine times out of ten, I don't get any trouble from TSA when they are in my carry on.

Last week at DEN though, there were two TSO's who were very sure they had the "big catch" with my bag of 6 or 8 little shampoos, conditioners and body lotion. Two of them (not one but TWO) grabbed my bag, searched it, and proudly came up with the laundry bag of 2 ounce bottles. I explained I would donate them to the women's shelter and they laughed and said the rules were to throw them away. I suggested that there were women's shelters in Denver too, where they would be useful. Again a laugh, and the proud announcement that "absolutely not, they'll be trashed." OK, no skin off my nose, just trying to help some people in need, and at least I'm not sent off to Gitmo.

Later I realized there were several of the bottles loose in the suitcase that they hadn't confiscated. Not only that, I had forgotten I had a 500 ml bottle of Crystal Light in my back pack which they had totally missed in their zeal to protect battered women from dangerous shampoo.

Re-using instead of confiscating, by chits or whatever means is probably too sensible to work with TSA.

Sanosuke

You might be surprised that the TSA doesn't just dump the toileteries. They re-sell them!

It was documented on TV once -- will have to find the program it was documented about on.

Sanosuke!

thegeneral

"Last week at DEN though, there were two TSO's who were very sure they had the "big catch" with my bag of 6 or 8 little shampoos, conditioners and body lotion. Two of them (not one but TWO) grabbed my bag, searched it, and proudly came up with the laundry bag of 2 ounce bottles. I explained I would donate them to the women's shelter and they laughed and said the rules were to throw them away. I suggested that there were women's shelters in Denver too, where they would be useful. Again a laugh, and the proud announcement that "absolutely not, they'll be trashed." OK, no skin off my nose, just trying to help some people in need, and at least I'm not sent off to Gitmo."

I'm sure the passengers in line behind you appreciated your childish unwillingness to adhere to the rules. Should those shelters be so important to you then you could have checked a bag. There's no good reason to delay everyone else for your actions.

LessO2

And we appreciate your lack of understanding of the new SOP. If you want to assess any fault, it should be to the TSAers. But that involve admitting you're wrong, and I doubt you'd be willing to do that.

SOP now states that screeners are to consider what the passenger says about the liquids, and then give them an ETD test. They obviously decided to throw the SOP aside, presumably because it would make them work harder, in the name of what's easier for them to do, just lie to the passenger. Typical DEN stuff.

Superguy

Not only that, by the quantity described they would have been allowed under the old rules anyway. Every hotel toiletry I've seen is way under 100mL/3.4 oz.

So TSA was wrong on either count. However, that's asking a lot for thegeneral to understand and accept that.