TSA ? - 3 oz of product in a 4 oz container?

[CarolA]

You could hope for that to be it, but the reality is we are the government. We put the people in power who make these decisions. If we really though it was important to change what they were doing, we could make it happen.

There's a reason I voted the way I did last Tuesday!

I have written my elected officials and will continue to do so. I also have contacted the TSA and will continue to do so.

I document EVERY inconsistent and/or rude interaction I see for my documentation. I feel certain that the TSA will soon put me on the no fly list. Thier reaction to complaints seems to be "SHOOT THE MESSENGER" (i.e., the TSA agent who threatened to have someone on flyertalk arrested for writing "Kip Hawley is an IDIOT" on thier ziplock. The agent apparently has NEVER heard of the First Amendment!)

 

[salmoneous]

Stop saying nasty things about TSA just because they aren't doing what you want them to do.

People are going to continue to say nasty things about the TSA when the TSA deserves it. If you don't want to read such posts, the easiest solution is to stop reading them, rather than trying to stop other people from pointing out the TSA's faults.

 

[Lewisc]

Earlier in this thread Carol gave us an example of a TSA agent that was rude and abusive. Carol complained and said she hasn't seen the agent since. I'd like to think the agent was either fired to transferred to a job that doesn't require contact with the public.

Unfortunately some people say nasty things about the TSA when the TSA enforces polices that people don't agree with. Shoe removal and the limits on liquids are examples of such policies. There isn't any reason for the TSA to explain the reasons for their polices. Having passengers separate the liquids into a zip lock bag sure makes the screening process go quicker. Having an objective, 3oz, limit is a lot easier than having passengers argue with the TSA agent over how big a bottle is small or reasonable.

I'll agree with Bicker, some people don't like not being "trusted" and don't think the rules should apply to them.

People are going to continue to say nasty things about the TSA when the TSA deserves it. If you don't want to read such posts, the easiest solution is to stop reading them, rather than trying to stop other people from pointing out the TSA's faults.

 

[NotUrsula]

My issue isn't trust, and it isn't thinking that any rule doesn't apply to me. My issue is that no one at TSA can seem to agree on what the rules *ARE*. Of all the things that slow down the lines, that inconsistency is at the top of the list.

Some examples:
Kip Hawley tells the WSJ that refill containers that are fine, but they are rejected at checkpoints.
Kip Hawley tells the WSJ that empty containers are forbidden, but empty water bottles pass every checkpoint.
Internal memos say that the disabled need not remove their shoes (they have to submit to a secondary search and an ETD swab instead); but I and many other people have seen disabled individuals told that they MUST somehow get their shoes off if they want to fly.

I don't have a problem with the baggie, and in fact I used them before they were required, and since I always carry spares I tend to give them away to the checkpoint-needy. I don't have a problem with the 3 oz., either, because I always used travel containers that small. I don't even have a problem with removing my shoes; I relish every chance I can get to go barefoot. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FOLLOWING RULES!!

 

[Lewisc]

I wasn't referring to you in my post, you don't have PM's enabled or I would have sent you a PM.

There are posters who object to the baggie and other requirements.

My issue isn't trust, and it isn't thinking that any rule doesn't apply to me. My issue is that no one at TSA can seem to agree on what the rules *ARE*. Of all the things that slow down the lines, that inconsistency is at the top of the list.

Some examples:
Kip Hawley tells the WSJ that refill containers that are fine, but they are rejected at checkpoints.
Kip Hawley tells the WSJ that empty containers are forbidden, but empty water bottles pass every checkpoint.
Internal memos say that the disabled need not remove their shoes (they have to submit to a secondary search and an ETD swab instead); but I and many other people have seen disabled individuals told that they MUST somehow get their shoes off if they want to fly.

I don't have a problem with the baggie, and in fact I used them before they were required, and since I always carry spares I tend to give them away to the checkpoint-needy. I don't have a problem with the 3 oz., either, because I always used travel containers that small. I don't even have a problem with removing my shoes; I relish every chance I can get to go barefoot. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FOLLOWING RULES!!

 

[CarolA]

I also object to the fact that while I am being threatened with a strip search (for having a corkscrew in my carryon... Corkscrews are allowed, I promise the agent took it out, looked at me and said "we should strip search you" I had said NOTHING to him or any other agent to that point!) the cargo is just being loaded away, our ports are grossly underprotected and there are other significant weak points in our security. (Not to mention those "dangerous" four oz bottles are just thrown into bins at the security checkpoint. Has it never occured to the TSA that bombing the checkpoint might be a good terrorist target?)

The TSA seems to operate only in "reflex" mode. In other words, the terrorist threat is discovered and then they do something. There is very little proactive thinking going on there. I am concerned that the terrorists are smarter then the TSA!

 

[CPT Tripss]

It's the claims of "exhaustive research" that lead me to wonder what's special about a 1 qt ziplock baggie as compared to a fold over sandwhich baggie. Why is a half used 4 oz tube of toothpaste more dangerous than a full 3 oz tube? Why do TSA rules not get followed by the checker?
Yes, I want to know. we have the right to know. It ain't about "trust me."
There is a big difference between being screened respectfully and being treated like a criminal, idiot or worse.
Well, that's it - 5 and out!

 

[CarolA]

It's the claims of "exhaustive research" that lead me to wonder what's special about a 1 qt ziplock baggie as compared to a fold over sandwhich baggie. Why is a half used 4 oz tube of toothpaste more dangerous than a full 3 oz tube? Why do TSA rules not get followed by the checker?
Yes, I want to know. we have the right to know. It ain't about "trust me."
There is a big difference between being screened respectfully and being treated like a criminal, idiot or worse.
Well, that's it - 5 and out!

TSA management doesn't own stock in "fold over" baggies???? (Maybe the "exhaustive reserach" was for thier stock portfolio?)

 

[bicker]

... the easiest solution is to stop reading them

Or continue to object to them. That's what I'll be doing.

 

[salmoneous]

Or continue to object to them. That's what I'll be doing.

We'll complain, you'll object. Let's just keep it civil....

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

It's the claims of "exhaustive research" that lead me to wonder what's special about a 1 qt ziplock baggie as compared to a fold over sandwhich baggie. Why is a half used 4 oz tube of toothpaste more dangerous than a full 3 oz tube? Why do TSA rules not get followed by the checker?
Yes, I want to know. we have the right to know. It ain't about "trust me."
There is a big difference between being screened respectfully and being treated like a criminal, idiot or worse.
Well, that's it - 5 and out!

I'm not against bashing the TSA but think about it... Containers of liquids are being quickly tossed around, sooner or later one is very likely to have a loose top (even my dh utterly failed "Screwing a Cap On 101" in preschool) and leak all over a $200,000 xray machine.
Having liquids in a clear, sealable bag is just common sense to me. I did it long before the TSA ever asked us to.

 

[TDC Nala]

What the TSA rules do is prevent us from standing in even longer security lines because they want to open everyone's carryons and check every darn thing we bring onto an airplane. To have any real effect on safety, that is what the TSA SHOULD be doing. It's not going to happen (unless we have more terrorism incidents) because the public won't stand for it. This is a compromise because the American public was very unhappy with the requirement to put all liquids in checked luggage.

We're not happy with this one either but at least this way we can maybe get in a short trip without having to check any luggage.

 

[CarolA]

NOTE Most of us are NOT complaining about the requirement itself just the INCONSISTENT manner in which the TSA enforces it.

If the TSA will make up the rules and STICK to them most of us will adapt. It's impossible to adapt to the current "I get to make up the rules today" method in use by large numbers of the TSA agents in the US.

(And when you say your prayers, PRAY that the next terroirst threat isn't explosive clothing..... think about what the TSA will do then.)

 

[CPT Tripss]

(And when you say your prayers, PRAY that the next terroirst threat isn't explosive clothing..... think about what the TSA will do then.)

Worse yet, edible explosives.

 

[bicker]

We'll complain, you'll object. Let's just keep it civil....

Sounds good to me.