Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.

1.31.2008

Liquids, Part 2

Liquids cover 70% of the earth and they also make up a good percentage of our comments from the traveling public. Post your suggestions and concerns about liquids in this blog post. (Click here for Part 1) Refresh your knowledge of traveling with liquids.

So, how much damage could a liquid explosive cause? See for yourself from the Myth Busters page on TSA.gov:

» Click here to see our video (wmv, streaming).

Labels: ,

146 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why is it that there is never an answer to the issues raised concerning tossing "hazardous" items in a common bin next to passengers in line, challenging TSA to prove that liquids are, in fact, hazardous, and the other issues people have raised here. Instead, every so often a TSA employee pipes in with "come on people, follow the rules" or "these rules have been in place for a couple of years." We know that. The point is the rules are silly and baseless. Nagging us to follow them, rather than providing some rationale for them, is precisely why the public is fed up with TSA.

March 20, 2008 5:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where's "Liquids, Part 1.5", where Kip explained how the TSA scientists can't mix liquid bombs under laboratory conditions?

March 21, 2008 12:09 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to the TSA restrictions on liquids in carry-on luggage, a padded, zip-sealed travel bag is now offered to protect bottles when transported inside checked luggage. The bag, Wine Mummy, is a durable double layer polybag with layers of bubble padding. It holds a wine, spirit or champagne bottle and can easily be stored inside suitcases of all sizes. I used in on a flight to Canada.

March 21, 2008 12:47 AM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

And yet the blog authors still fail to address the scientific impossibility of their rule. These comments are merely collecting complaints, and are not action items.

March 21, 2008 11:15 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have one word on liquid carry on's

"LUSH"

They have solid everything. Easy to use and purchase and TSA will let you take as much as you want with you. Also it makes my wife's hair shinny and soft.

March 21, 2008 1:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"LUSH"

Thought spam was prohibited?

March 21, 2008 4:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thought spam was prohibited?

Depends on who is doing the screening and if they happen to like Spam.

March 21, 2008 6:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I fly out of RRWNA about every 2-3 weeks on short hops along the East Coast. Usually I carry on and therefore take liquids through security. I have noticed over the past several months that while I have no problem in DC with the size & amount of liquids going thru security, on my return (particularly from Boston, Providence & Nassau Bahamas) that a liquid that is cleared in DC is confiscated at these other airports, usually for being "too much".

Why the inconsistancies? Certainly all of our lives would be made easier if TSA screeners were at least consistant in the implementation of the policy.

March 22, 2008 12:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just do not get the liquid thing. If I have a 6 oz toothpaste container, everybody is an uproar. If somebody as a 10 oz water bottle in their pocket, they can walk right through security with no problem. Why is this?

(yea, I know they are not supposed to, but since they can, what is the point of wasting time checking for the little baggies)

March 22, 2008 2:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a breastfeeding mom, and feel that the liquid rule needs to be changed to specifically address breastmilk. I frequently travel away from my child, but continue to pump breastmilk while I'm away to take back home with me. Since I don't have a child travelling with me, I am required to check this precious liquid. If my bag is lost, my milk will be ruined by the time the airline locates it. Breastmilk is not like shampoo or Diet Coke- it is an irreplaceble resource and should be treated as such.

March 23, 2008 8:47 AM

 
Blogger Shawn Hearn said...

The rules due seem extreme in some areas. I am sure they have been in place long enough now to know what areas can be adjusted.

Shawn A Hearn

March 23, 2008 2:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear "Lush" advertiser:

Do they sell solid toothpaste? I can travel without shampoo or conditioner on board (since I won´t have a shower either), but I think traveling 24 hours (long international flights + connections) without toothpaste is inhumane.

March 25, 2008 10:40 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear "Lush" advertiser:

Do they sell solid toothpaste? I can travel without shampoo or conditioner on board (since I won´t have a shower either), but I think traveling 24 hours (long international flights + connections) without toothpaste is inhumane.


They do sell tooth powder

March 25, 2008 11:14 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tooth powder! Sounds like a great idea! Where can I get that outside the US? Can I be assured no one will think it is an illicit drug and confiscate it?

March 25, 2008 5:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tooth powder! Sounds like a great idea! Where can I get that outside the US? Can I be assured no one will think it is an illicit drug and confiscate it?

Make your own with some baking soda, salt, and if you want a mint flavoring to cut the taste of salt.

March 25, 2008 8:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About Liquids, for Screening Officers and for Passengers
There is one good rule of thumb;
If it:
POURS…SPREADS…SQUEEZES..or.. SPRAYS
Then it IS a liquid, paste, creme, lotion, gel or aerosol.

Jelly Bellies, grapes and crème-filled chocolates are ARE NOT liquids,
Yogurt IS.

Once you determine if it is considered a liquid, then 'at least two' regulations do apply:
1- the 3.4 oz rule (that is per item and per the label, not how much is in the container)
2- (Non-medication) liquids must be in a 1-quart zip top bag for your carry on.
Anything larger than 3.4 oz per the label, must to go in checked bags except medicine, check with a supervisor.
If you have liquid medication, it is best to take it out of the carry on and place it in a bin to be x-rayed separately.
If you have questions, you may ask for a supervisor at any time.
The Liquids guidelines are posted on the TSA Website at www.tsa.gov and on signs or flyers at the airports.
Pepper spray and mace are NOT allowed in carry on!
TSO Lori

March 26, 2008 3:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tooth powder = baking soda. Sounds very "middle ages", but just might work, unless of course someone thinks it is another form of white powder. Now all I have to find out is how to get hold of solid contact lens solution...

March 26, 2008 8:50 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry about that folks. Tooth powder is forbidden as being a liquid (it pours). I tried.

March 26, 2008 9:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Recently I flew out of O'hare to Seattle and my boyfriend forgot to remove a 8.5 oz bottle of mouthwash from his carry on. Security didn't find it and we didn't even realize it was in his bag until we were emptying our luggage at home. If liquids are so dangerous why were we able to get this through security? Shouldn't TSA do a better job of ensuring liquids don't get through.

March 26, 2008 10:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's time to get rid of the liquids ban already. This is way, way past ridiculous. That would go a long way to improving your public image.

March 28, 2008 3:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An anonymous poster wrote in "Gripes":

"I'm confused by the "squeeze and smear" comment. I can squeeze a block of cheese or a bean bag. I can squeeze my backpack. I can squeeze an empty plastic bottle. I can smear crayons and pencils onto paper -- that's how they work!"

I am confused too - and I am a Chemistry professor! I think the liquid rule changes with the mood of the screener.

I sure hope chocolate and cheese are not considered liquids. Hard to travel without in these food deprived airline days...

March 28, 2008 5:48 PM

 
Blogger Aerospace Sales Guy said...

The TSA suffers from poor leadership and a government which thinks "if I can scare you, I can control you" hope for better leadership in the near future and they will ahve the wisdom to abolish this agency

March 28, 2008 10:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After reading through the liquid guidelines again, I still don't see anyplace that the 3.4 oz or less bottles have to be original commercial bottles, rather than unlabeled bottles you have put a travel amount of product in. Why then do these unlabeled travel bottles, clearly less than three ounces, get confiscated sometimes and not other times? It is frustrating to follow the rules and still have stuff taken away. And why is solid lipstick sometimes allowed, sometimes not?

March 29, 2008 3:28 AM

 
Blogger TRAVLR said...

This has probably been asked before, but why is it I can put 5 or 6 3.4 oz bottles in a bag and it's ok. But if I put 1 6 oz bottle in the bag it's not. It's ok to carry 20 oz of liquid as long as it's in separate bottles, but not one bottle that is 6 oz.

March 29, 2008 4:53 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish all the airports/employees would actually follow the rules... and its not just the airports that almost have an excuse with being very busy; smaller airports are also lax about the rules. I have my "liquid bag" that I've been flying with that has remained unchanged for the past 6 months (gone through security with it 8 different times) and didn't have any problems until this last trip. Apparently my lotion bottle was actually 4oz and I had to take it out. You would have thought someone would have noticed and said something one of the previous 8 times I took it through security.

March 29, 2008 7:12 PM

 
Blogger pnwsun said...

Hi,
I think this blog is a good idea to improve communication but I can't find any responses to the many questions about why the TSA has the prohibition on liquids. I have seen the video and a couple of posts but these really just replay the rules. The question everyone is asking is WHY? What is the justification for the rules? We can put a man [or woman] in space; I can't believe we can tell when a liquid is water. Or some non-lethal substance.

March 29, 2008 9:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

does anyone know if i can bring something to keep breast milk cold?

March 30, 2008 4:49 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My husband and I live in Japan due to being in the military and the Japanese have an interesting machine that scans bottles with liquids to determine if they are safe or not. Why not consider implementing the use of these machines in the US?

March 30, 2008 8:40 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many plastic water bottles are added to the garbage everyday through this policy? We buy them, throw them out full, then turn around the corner and buy another. Simply make us take a few big drinks, talk to us to ensure that it is swallowed and be done with it. Is every single bottle of water that comes through the back door for resale inspected? The idea that water could be tampered with prior to delivery is real. Do you make them throw it out too?

A baggie full of 3 oz liquids. Hmmmm.. Just how hard would it be to empty the contents of those little bottles and fill up a dozen of them with gasoline or other explosive/flammable materials? The contents of those little bottles are never checked. But, again, throw the easiest thing to verify out, water. Ridiculous.

These policys were made in a hasty moment, understandably. Now that time has passed and the system has had time to be reviewed, make some modificiations that actually make sense.

I understand the need for scrutiny, but make it based on intelligent discovery and revamp the process accordingly.

Finally, when given the directive of having to throw a knife or bottle of expensive perfume out, why not have a postal office near the security center and give people the option of retaining their belongings. Right then and there, time allowing, have the people go to the postal center, buy the packaging necessary and mail it to their home. Then, go through security again. EASY SOLUTION!!! Use your heads people......

March 30, 2008 8:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My main confusion is the discrepancy between TSA agents at different airports- Some airport Screeners enforce a strict 3.0 oz rule, while others announce they are looking for 3.4 oz and below. (The equivalent of 100 cc). I assume the TSA believes the average american has no clue what 100 cc is, and chose 3 oz because it fits a nice mnemonic (eg 3-3-1). I jsut wish ALL the airports would pick one or the other and let us know so we don't lose our stuff half way through our trip.

March 30, 2008 9:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry if this is off topic, but I couldn't find a good place for it. I support the TSA mission, but it seems that there is a problem with thinking ahead of the potential terror threats.
It seems that new security measures are only developed after a terror threat is uncovered by the media. First there is the 'shoe bomber' plot; then our shoes are screened. Next, there is the 'liquid bombing' plot; now we can't bring a bottled water onto the plane.
It seems like we are only using stopgap measures to cover old plots rather than trying to find real solutions. Shouldn't we have people thinking about potential threats, analyzing which could be the most damaging,and generating potential solutions for those threats?
My biggest fear is that somebody tries to smuggle a plastic explosive on board inside their large intestine. I dread what TSA's response to that would be.

March 30, 2008 9:43 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be honest I think this may have started out as a security issue and then became an employee perk. I have a friend, who has a friend who works at an airport. When I go visit my friend he gives me all kinds of stuff from the airport that they have taken from passengers. I have about 20 cans of shaving cream in a closet right now. I've got Paul Mitchell shampoo. It's crazy how much stuff they have, and they don't throw it away, they take it home and give it to friends and family. I think this has given TSA too much of a reason to hold on to this liquid rule.

It should be referred to as the 3-1-1 employee perk.

March 30, 2008 10:19 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish I'd known about this site earlier, after flying out of Santa Barbara and having my entire bag of makeup, lipstick, moisturizer, all of it, confiscated. I had packed at my friend's house, and unfortunately she didn't have the one quart size Ziploc. She gave me the larger, one gallon size. I put my items in it, no more than would have fit into the one quart size. The agent, clearly infused with a sense of his own power, took everything out of the bag and kept it, with the exception of a small bottle of contact lens solution. His level of rudeness was unforgiveable, made moreso by the fact that it was 5:15 a.m.
Carolyn A.

March 30, 2008 10:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't worry guys, it's not like ALL of your stuff gets wasted. Most unopened liquids get split up among the other airport employees!

March 30, 2008 10:44 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All you have to do to get your liquids through is be a flight attendant or other flight crew. They get to bring their coffee and whatever other kind of dangerous liquid they want.

March 30, 2008 10:47 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did the 3.4oz requirement come from (as in, why is it 3.4 and not 4oz or 5 oz)? If going on a long trip, 3.4oz of conditioner, shampoo, etc. is just not enough to last. I shouldn't have to buy extra to replenish the 3.4oz bottle every time I travel. Also, last time I traveled, one woman was allowed 2 quart-sized bags' worth of liquids. Why was that allowed? We need to eliminate the inconsistencies.

March 30, 2008 10:58 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really, really don't see what purpose the 3-1-1 rule serves. If I can cram that one, one quart bag full of three ounce containers full of some sort of hazardous materials, what difference does it make whether I have a 3 oz. or 4 oz. container? I'll just split it up between several smaller ones if I really need to. A girl I travelled with recently made a really good point as well - what am I going to do, attack someone with 3 oz. of shampoo?

Get real - this is absured and everyone's ticked off about it. Do something better with your time; invest in some medical help. I saw a woman having a seizure in a customs line in TX and one of the members of my party was a EMT. He quickly went and helped out and I was through customs and airport medical help STILL hadn't shown up.

March 30, 2008 11:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Better training is needed. I have traveled multiple times taking 2 different types of contact solution with me. Unfortunately I happen to be allergic to ingredients of those cleaning solutions that are made in sizes allowed as a normal carry on. One is a cleaning solution one is a saline. They were being carried as allowed per instructions under the exception of medical necessity. The last time I carried they were almost thrown away except there happened to be a "new" contact wearer in the security group who understood why I was carrying 2 different contact products. International travel (cancun to Denver) back to the US is a whole other item of concern. Things I know are allowed (nail clipper) in carry on and the contact solution were trashed. I realize not as much control with this kind of situation but better communication in regards to updated policies may keep $15.00+ items from being thrown away.

March 30, 2008 11:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember the good `ol days when flying used to be fun? When there was this sense of glamour that came with going to the airport and flying across the country or around the world? I know, I know… those days are gone and the world has changed. Flying lost that allure once airlines cut back everything from food to pillows to general service. So, if we have to sit in misery for hours on an airplane, can’t we make the process of getting to the airplane easier to deal with? i.e. getting through security with your insanity still intact.

First of all, let’s get to the root of the overall problem… this department of the TSA is something that’s NEEDS to be privatized and not run by the government. Haven’t they screwed enough things up over the past 8 years? That being said, and knowing that will most likely never happen… there are ways to make things better.
I find it amazing that when traveling to other countries, the security lines all seem to move much faster and more smoothly than any lines I’ve waited in this country. But why? Can the TSA not look at the way other places are run and adopt some of those rules? When I went to London last year, the line moved so fast and smooth that when I approached the screening area I started to take off my shoes (standard procedure here in the US) and the guy looked at me and said “What are you doing? You don’t have to take off your shoes.” WHAT? Unbelieveable! Someone finally gets it! Someone realized what a waste of time and effort in taking off people’s shoes. Bravo to the British, who, by the way, have been dealing with the threat of terrorism much longer than we have. So why can’t we learn from them instead of making up our own inane rules? Just like the liquid ban. Can’t anyone figure out that as soon as one of these rules goes into effect, the terrorists have moved on to something else. Why do we waste our time being retroactive?
Most of the stuff we’re forced to do in security lines is a waste of time. I’m all for screening, whether its x-ray, or metal detector, etc. But let’s be realistic, the more time wasted the more it leads to delays, long lines and an airport full of angry frustrated passengers. Can’t we make this system work better? I think we can.

March 30, 2008 12:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand the threat of brining liquids on board, but don't they serve liquids on board? I can't bring on a diet coke but they can serve me one? Makes no sense to me.

March 30, 2008 1:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is obvious that TSA will not ever get rid of the bans. Once they start enforcing them, they have a continuous need to justify them, and eventually that becomes reason in itself to keep the bans going.
Of course the liquid ban is fundamentally ridiculous, as has been pointed out here many times, if the stuff was truly a hazmat risk, would the inept TSA flunky blithely toss it over his shoulder into a common bin, to later be wheeled out to the dumpster? The answer is obvious.
But if they were to stop doing it now, it is a tacit admission that the whole thing was in fact "Security Theater" and in no way was any danger ever posed by the mythological amateur chemist mixing up something in the lav.

March 30, 2008 1:15 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a mother of a 9 month old baby boy. I have been flying with him since he was a week and a half old as my in-laws live in WA, and we live in PA. His father is also Military, so we travel a lot for that reason as well. My main concern with liquids relates to traveling with my son. I think the policy on traveling with children needs to be clarified. From reading the TSA website, it leads me to believe that I am able to travel with more water than would normally be allowed because it is for my son as long as I declare it at security. I have done this and depending on which airport I am at, have had to either empty all of his water from his bottles, had to mix formula into all of it (which formula once mixed only is good for up to two hours unrefrigerated), or I was able to go through with no problem. I feel that this rule should be clarified and should be enforced consistently throughout each airport. I never know what I can take for him, including baby food, juice, water, and formula. And when traveling with a small child, it is much harder to just empty out all of these items or throw them away while trying to balance him, a carry on, and his diaper bag let alone if we are traveling with a stroller or car seat.

March 30, 2008 1:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The whole aiport security thing reminds me of the old adage that "Generals are always preparing for the LAST war".

We all (should) know that an aircraft is a vulnerable target.
If someone really wants to take it out badly enough to die in it, he will likely succeed. Though we all want to minimize it, we are willingly accepting this risk every time we board a flight.

If a bottle of shampoo or tube of toothpaste can take out an aircraft, so can a solid. Most explosives are, in fact, solids.

Liquids are just the "last war" that was won. Before that was the "shoe" war and the "knife" war.

I don't believe anyone will ever again take over a paasenger aircraft with a knife. Bowie knives could be allowed aboard and still the mass of passengers would fight.
We need, and I hope this IS happening, a contingency team at TSA. A group of people who would take on the question the terrorists face, "How could we take over and aircraft?". Then, develop the counter to the threat that hasn't yet been exposed. This would be a much better use of people's time and resources than re-fighting past events.

March 30, 2008 1:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand and am pleased with most of the services that are provided by TSA for the safety of the travelers in America's skies. I do have a problem though with the liquids restrictions. My 2 year old son is allergic to cow milk and on a recent trip we were not allowed to carry a 4 ounce container of goats milk with us. I also have a problem with the stores inside the "safe" zones of the airports across America charging at least double for a simple bottle of water. The we can't bring snacks and drinks with us but we can be charged double for them inside, that is not right.

March 30, 2008 1:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm so glad to finally have a place to voice my frustration! The ridiculous rules on liquids have made traveler's lives miserable long enough -- and serve no purpose in increasing security. The policies are reactionary and baseless. I am not going to blow up a plane with lipstick, contact lens solution or toothpaste --so why I can't just have my toiletries and be comfortable and clean on my trip?

I've started avoided flying in any way I can because TSA has made it even more miserable than the airlines themselves have made it. I'm going to Hawaii for my honeymoon this August -- I sure wish I could drive!

March 30, 2008 2:11 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like how its okay to have liquids if they are in a "clear plastic bag."
Like the zip lock bag is going to contain the explosion of some liquid bomb.
Its so stupid, they keep taking my toothpaste and other items I forget to put in a zip lock.
Either do it all the way and allow NOTHING liquid or lets just forget it.

I could bring frikkin gasoline in a 3 ounce bottle as long as its a zip lock and i can bring on matches so whats the point of all is?
WHat a waste of tax dollars.

March 30, 2008 2:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a limit on the number of 3 ounce containers one is allowed to have?

March 30, 2008 2:36 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

"Where did the 3.4oz requirement come from (as in, why is it 3.4 and not 4oz or 5 oz)? If going on a long trip, 3.4oz of conditioner, shampoo, etc. is just not enough to last."

3.4 oz is the same as 100ml.

March 30, 2008 2:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a risk of someone making a molotov cocktail from items fund at post-security duty free shops?

March 30, 2008 3:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a frequent flier and am tired of the TSA rules re: liquids. I believe that the regulations also state that only one zip lock bag may be carried on. Stop making us hostages to imagined threats by wasting perfectly good cosmetics and personal hygene items. If TSA could improve the speed and open more lines on busy times, perhaps we could have time to check the questioned items.

March 30, 2008 3:19 PM

 
Blogger Mike P said...

The way we handle the confiscated liquids proves how disfunctional our government is. What do they do with this potentially hazardous liquid? Do they turn it over to the bomb squad? Put it in a secure container? No. They put it in a trash container right where they are standing, and eventially turn it over to the local trash hauler. If anyone really thought that they would find explosives and hazardous materials in passanger carry-ons they certainly would not handle the confiscated materials in such a fashion. Just another example of the government spinning its wheels. I am convinced that we are no safer today than we were pre 9/11

March 30, 2008 3:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know this is redundant because 99% of travelers think the 3 oz rule is ridiculous but add me to the list. Me and my father travel ALOT and run on tight schedules when we do so and checking our bags is a nuisance to our scheduling. We can no longer carry on our bags anymore because of shampoo and aerosol deoderants that are too large for the 3 oz rule. Like most other travelers, we do not feel any safer by this rule we simply feel annoyed at the TSA and our government.

March 30, 2008 4:02 PM

 
Anonymous Jim P said...

Why is it that a tube of toothpaste > 3.0 oz weight is confiscated? The 3-1-1 policy clearly states that the 3.4 oz rule is by volume (see http://www.tsa.gov/311/index.shtm) - not weight. Toothpaste is measured by weight in the US, by volume in other nations... I recently purchased a 4.4 oz tube of Crest in South America that was also listed as 88 mL. Because of the *weight* of the toothpaste marked on the package, the toothpaste was confiscated, despite being under the *volume* limit... Seems like any tubes of toothpaste under about 5 oz should be within TSA guidelines...

March 30, 2008 4:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So I understand TSA is just trying to keep people safe, but seriously, this thing about liquids is so incredibly obnoxious. What's the difference between a 3 oz. bottle and an 8 oz.? Why can't there just be a rule that all liquids get scanned and do away with the size limit? Also, I think we should be allowed to bring things like yogurt through security. It's sealed! You can check to see if it's tampered with! Why do you have to throw it away? And why do you have to deprive me of my water? I think we need to re-examine our security measures. El Al (the Israeli airline) is one of the safest airlines to fly on. Maybe we should take a page from their book. . .

March 30, 2008 4:54 PM

 
Blogger Neelie said...

I have always carried my liquids in a clear vinyl container that zips and truly protects the liquids from spilling. No bottle will hold more than 3 oz. I had no problem bringing it through West Palm Beach and have had no problems with it at O'Hare, Ft. Lauderdale and Midway. It allows the TSA to properly observe what is in this carrier.

When coming home from Dallas in January, it was almost confiscated. This would have upset me as it was quite expensive. The TSA employee at DFW said "this isn't a quart bag". "What do you not understand about using a quart bag?"

When I tried to explain that it allowed him to see everything in it and he certainly could unzip it (no more difficult than opening a quart bag) he began to confiscate it until someone else told him to let me go and not take it.

Not only, is it more secure than a quart bag, it is as accessible! It would be nice if your employees all followed the same rules.

Flying has become so difficult that one does not want to go anywhere that involves a flight, all because of SOME OF YOUR EMPLOYEES.

I'm a small Jewish Grandmother. I hardly fit the "profile" of a terrorist. I see my grandchildren less and less because of TSA!

Eileen Penta aka Neelie

March 30, 2008 5:05 PM

 
Blogger TC said...

I support the original idea behind this, but think it's rather impractical as it is now.

I was just told the other day by a TSA that saline was actually allowed. I have been checking luggage I never would have otherwise because of saline. Yes, it's on the Web site, but I just now am looking at the Web site. Instead of all those 3-1-1 signs, I think that information should have been posted as well. I use a specific brand because I have very sensitive eyes, and they just do not make it in a "small" size. It's a large bottle or nothing. This is good news for me as my luggage was lost on my last flight, and I have no desire to check luggage again for a long, long time.

Some airports actually have the quart-size baggies to give away for you to put your liquids in. That's nice. I, too, have had them miss liquids. I took an old backpack with my laptop in it last summer, never even realizing I had a bottle of hand sanitizer in it. They never took it, and I was in and out of 4 airports that weekend. Some consistency would be nice.

I also would very much like to know why some places allow you to fill small bottles with shampoo, etc. (which most of us do because travel size are so much more expensive than buying empty bottles and simply refilling) and those aren't checked, just their size is. Maybe we should be a little less worried about size of liquids and more worried about contents?

March 30, 2008 5:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My husband and I travel a lot so we have the quart sized bags with little travel sized bottles and go through security without any problems.

My problem is that even after going through security you are not allowed to bring beverages that you have purchased INSIDE airport security check points onto the airline. The rationale is that "well maybe you managed to smuggle some explosive through security and have now transferred it to the new container." But that argument makes no sense. If the TSA did their jobs that shouldn't happen and essentially states that even with all the whoopty-doo about airport security the airlines don't believe that TSA is doing a good enough job. Secondly, if someone did manage to smuggle an illegal substance through security why would they call attention to it by transferring it to another container prior to when they wanted to "use" it? It defies logic.

And while most policies are merely inconvenient this one can actually put someone’s health at risk. Long before this policy came into being people were already at a risk for deep vein thrombosis and the consequent risk of pulmonary embolism. Now that we are being fluid restricted this risk has gone way up. Not only have the airlines not compensated for the new policy by offering plenty of fluids on flights, in fact, some airlines have started charging for water!! When this policy was written it should have had a provision mandating that either beverages purchased inside airport security check points were allowed on airlines or that airlines had to provide a certain minimum volume of beverages per hour to prevent that risk. But that hasn't happened. One of these days someone is going to die on a long flight of a PE because they did not have access to adequate fluid on the flight.

March 30, 2008 6:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just took a 45 minute flight from Harlingen,Tx to San Antonio on Wednesday, and was asked to throw out my toothpaste, (travel-size!) and my lens solution just because I didn't have the 1 quart baggie. Granted, it's my fault that I forgot the baggie, but that doesn't excuse the rude and condecending behavior from the screeners! THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!

March 30, 2008 6:33 PM

 
Blogger audioliquor said...

My main problem is that I cannot bring cheap bottled water on the planes now, and airlines are SO MEAN about giving you extra water on board. I feel abused that even if I want to carry water from home, they would throw it out, give me a hard time for it, then charge me extra money to buy new ones at the airport/on the plane. It just screams CORPORATE PLOT to me, squeezing pennies from middle class people.

March 30, 2008 6:42 PM

 
Blogger Douglas said...

I just came back from a long flight from Europe with a 4 year-old. Not to be allowed water and then having the unopened can of juice we had received on the plane taken from us was very inconvenient, tosay the least. We had a 3-hr layover and had to spring $2 for a small bottle of water!
Also, because of not being allowed to lock your checked bags, my jewelry was stolen on another trip. Sure, it shouldn't have been in the checked bag, but it was put there by accident. I definitely did not expect thieves among the employees of AA or TSA, whoever took my things!

March 30, 2008 6:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, okay, enough of this liquid stuff. I just got back and had my water confiscated. It was an unopened bottle, still factory sealed. I usually can't even get these open, much less tamper with them in any way. I am a small, caucasian woman, 5' about 90 lbs. Do I really look like I would do something terroristic? I thought not. How 'bout some profiling here? I really believe that the whole water bottle idea is a scam to make you buy airport water at about $2.00 a bottle. Who exactly gets the proceeds from this scam? I want my cut! And I am wondering, what exactly does it take to make a liquid bomb? From the descriptions on the net, basically anything that you can carry on could potentially be used. So, why not just ban carry ons?
C'mon people. Let's use some of that "government intelligence" to actually do some good and quit harassing innocent travelers! BRING BACK THE WATER!

March 30, 2008 6:55 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So I dont think that it necessarily makes economic sense to require passengers to throw out their bottles of water. When you can get a 12 pack of water at the grocery store for 3-5 bucks and it costs 2-3 at one of those airport stores, esentially you are creating a monopsony with these little stores. Why can't you put brita water stations by the media charge stations - so that regardless of what airport you are in you can have access to clean drinking water just bring your own bottle( the water out of some of the drinking fountains in airports are gross).

March 30, 2008 6:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand security and am all for it; however, you need to think of alternatives regarding the liquid policy. If going on a short trip, I could just take a carry on and did not have to worry about checking baggage. Well, that convenience went away with the new liquid policy. Therefore, I need you, TSA, to come up with an alternative means for checking our liquids so we don't have to worry about checking our baggage. The little ounce requirement is not enough for those short flights. I find it annoying that the only reason I have to check my baggage is because I need more lotion, shampoo, conditioner, etc than the policy allows.

March 30, 2008 7:22 PM

 
Blogger Frustrated said...

Last year in Houston, I'd forgotten to take my mini-sized hand sanitizer out of my purse and put it into a plastic bag (I travel internationally quite a lot, and I arrived into Houston from Quito, Ecuador with it in my purse the whole time, however, after arriving, I had to switch terminals and go through security again). After waiting in a long line, I finally got through only to then get "selected." At this point, the TSA person rifled around in my stuff and then pulled out this 1-oz container of hand sanitizer which was almost completely empty. He said he had to take it because it wasn't in a plastic bag. I felt this was ridiculous due to the size and the fact that I had absolutely no other liquids in my possession. I asked if I could just use up the remaining amount there in front of him. He said no. I asked if I could squirt the remaining amount into the garbage can right next to him so I could keep my container (I can't find them anywhere for sale anymore...which is a shame). He said no. I said, okay, well, I happen to have a plastic bag which I can put it in and you can pass it through the x-ray machine again. He said no. The only solution he offered was for me to go to the very end of the line (it was a long, long, long line) and come back through with it in the plastic bag. How ridiculous is that?! The agents should be taught to use their brains and common sense. What difference does it make at that point whether I have 0.5 ounces of a liquid inside a plastic bag or outside of a plastic bag? It's 0.5 ounces of hand sanitizer!!! Safety and protection are one thing...what's currently happening with TSA is another. It's ridiculous.

March 30, 2008 7:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just think it's crazy that I can't bring a SEALED, UNOPENED soda or bottle of water onto an airplane. If it's sealed, then it's straight from the factory and is no different than the same soda or water that they sell in the secured area of the airport. And the airport businesses will happily charge me ten times more for it than I paid at the grocery store.

March 30, 2008 7:42 PM

 
Blogger Frustrated said...

The beginning of this month I returned to the US from a business trip to Quito, Ecuador. I unfortunately had to fly Delta (I hate Delta and their so-called service and have for over a decade and avoid them whenever possible). So I get to the gate security screening--hand checks of all carry-ons and then a wand check front and back side of every single person...extreme and ridiculous...since we'd all already passed through security with the alarm sensor and the x-ray belt--and I had no liquids at all whatsoever in my carry-ons. Instead, the person pulls from my bag an empty 12-oz water bottle and says it's not allowed. I was shocked. I've flown internationally and domestically quite a lot, and I've never come across this. I said "It's empty!" And they said that it didn't matter, that there was the utmost strictness of screening for Delta flights because they were going to be arriving into the US, and it wasn't allowed. I said again, "It's empty!!!" and they said "Well, you could mix something together and use this to do it," and in my amazement, I said "With what?! You've just gone through all my belongings...what do I have that could be mixed?!!!" Their response "I don't know." I said again, "But IT'S EMPTY!!!!!! I arrived from the US into Quito with that same bottle." Their question was if I flew in on Delta. I said no, I flew in on Continental (which is what I usually fly), and they said that Delta was more strict. Ridiculous. I had to throw away an empty water bottle because it wasn't allowed. Ludicrous. And since then I've looked up policy for the liquids ban and I see absolutely nothing about not being able to carry empty water bottles in your carry-on when flying into the US. TSA people should be taught to use their brains and common sense. This whole thing is asinine.

March 30, 2008 7:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last year at this time I traveled on my first international flight, and had to leave behind my travel size contact solution because it was just over the allowable size container. I don't mind decanting other things I need on the plane, but the stores don't sell contact solution in a small enough container to agree with the requirements. I can't decant the contact solution without risking an eye infection. So I got several eye drop containers and used that instead. My other problem was on the way back, I became very dehydrated because I couldn't bring a regular purchased water bottle on the plane. It was taken away at both international airports. I had been through the metal detector checkpoint, but a second screening with regular tables was set up at the gates, and both times they took away my unopened water bottles that I had purchased after going thru the intitial security. It was an awful trip back.

March 30, 2008 9:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am wondering when TSA and the airlines are going to come up with a plan for travelers who come from overseas will be allowed to bring back ETOH, perfumes, etc that is not available in the US. There are limits to what you can bring back, but then you can not hand carry them on the planes.

There should be a system put in place by TSA and ALL airlines where passengers can purchase these otems and then have them placed in a safe container of some sort and then upon arrival back in the US, they are passed onto the customers.

March 30, 2008 10:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to be able to carry a train case with my toiletries while I travel. I take a lot of medications and use a lot of toiletries (i.e. hairspray, makeup, etc.). When I put my liquids in my check in bag, I always have at least one leak...eww! I really wish I could use my train case for my toiletries again, so nothing leaks and I can do my hair and makeup when I arrive at my destination. Can't they just hold a little white disk over it and make sure my girly things and my meds are really what they say they are?

March 30, 2008 11:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regular travellers acting clueless are my main gripe. Recent trip a few weeks ago, the business woman in front of me declared in a very snotty, annoyed voice that she "wasn't told" to take her quart size bag of liquids out of her bag before sending it through the x-ray machine. The only thing the TSA person said (neutrally) was "Um, ma'am, there are liquids in your bag." I don't necessarily agree with nor understand the TSA liquids policy, but acting out and holding up the line doesn't help the rest of us stuck behind you!

March 30, 2008 11:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are lucky TSA lets us carry any liquid on board an airplane, I saw a video where to liquids were mixed together, a total of one ounce, a toothpick was then dipped into the liquid, only the tip, and then put into a pen. A match was placed inside of the pen and the pen was then stuck into a watermelon and lit. The watermelon vanshied once the liquid ignited. Hence the need to control the amount of liquids brought on broad an aircraft.

March 30, 2008 11:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enforcing the no-liquids policy is another hassle that is not worth the effort.

March 30, 2008 11:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WATER!!! If you are going to continue to confiscate water, I really feel that you should supply people with coupons for one bottle of water redeemable at airport stores or provide bottles of water just beyond security. Shampoo, I can live without, but WATER! I cannot afford to buy a $2 bottle of water everytime I go to the airport and yet, it is important to stay hydrated especially when you are flying. I sent this exact same comment to the TSA directly (not on this blog) and they replied to me by saying that I should take my "business ideas" to their site for business partners. That was irritating. Please please please supply water.

March 31, 2008 12:03 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was flying with my wife and two kids 1 18 month old and 6 month old. WE had one water bottle that was unopened for my 6 month old formula and it was confiscated. We walked 10 steps past security and there was stores selling the same water for unreasonable prices. Was it actually security or the airlines trying to make a quick buck.

March 31, 2008 12:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I wish I'd known about this site earlier, after flying out of Santa Barbara and having my entire bag of makeup, lipstick, moisturizer, all of it, confiscated."

The same thing happened to me. I was out of town a few years back when the whole "liquid bomb" issue came around and had to fly back home (before I had even heard about it on the news, actually. Needless to say, I figured out something was up when the airport was a MESS). Subsequently, all of my shampoo, conditioner, soap, and (Expensive!) makeup was confiscated. I realize at the time that it was a pressing issue and they were still figuring out how to deal with it. But now, years later, I have had liquid makeup confiscated all the same, despite that I separated it into the clear plastic bag and it was the correct amount to be traveling with.

How is stealing my goods making anyone safer?

March 31, 2008 1:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just got off the plane a couple of hours ago, only to find my bag which I checked in ripped open and soap all over my stuff. Apparently, the TSA felt it necessary to check my bag to see if it was something other than soap.

The first thing is this: EVERYONE has heard by now that liquids/gels cannot be brought on CARRY-ON bags. But what about checked-in bags? If I knew there checked-in bags would be checked like this over a bottle of soap, I never would have stolen it from the hotel! Please be consistent. Are these types of things done on a case-by-case thing, or is this done all the time. And if so, why don't we get an ad campaign like the one the TSA put on to warn us about carry-on luggage? PLEASE BE CONSISTENT!

Second thing: If you rip open a bag & then rip open a bottle of soap, DON'T PUT IT BACK IN THE BAG!!!!! IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE! I would rather lose a bottle of soap than ruin the rest of my stuff.

March 31, 2008 1:22 AM

 
Blogger Pastor Ray said...

I don't understand why I can't bring in a SEALED bottle of water with me. It is frustrating because purchasing materials that I will need on a long flight are often ridiculously expensive inside the airport terminal. Sometimes I wonder if this is just a ploy to force travelers to purchase supplies at the overpriced stands in the airport. This has become especially tiresome now that airlines are forcing you to pay for food, some even drinks, on the flight as well as limiting the amount of luggage we can check in to one bag. I feel like the airline industry is one industry where consumers have no say and have to accept HORRIBLE customer service.

Also, couldn't a bomber just bring powder materials in their carry-on and mix the explosives with a liquid once on the airplane? I think that no matter what we do, or how much we restrict, those evil forces are always going to find a way around the laws! In the meantime, we are just make the millions and millions of good travelers more and more miserable.

March 31, 2008 2:17 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding liquids on commercial airliners:

I would like to know the dollar amount of all items collected/confiscated from travellers since this "rule" was put in place.

I would then like to know, of all the items collected/confiscated, the percentage of items that turned out to be dangerous explosives.

I believe this "rule" is on par with the man standing in the middle of Times Square in NYC with a banana stuck in his ear. When asked, "Why do you have a banana stuck in your ear?", he replies, "To keep away bears". When he is then told that there are no bears in Times Square, he replies, "See, it's working!".

TSA is the man with the banana in his ear.

I'm pretty sure 100% of the millions of dollars worth of items confiscated by TSA turned out to be harmless (i.e. exactly what there are supposed to be).

March 31, 2008 2:23 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please clear up the confusion! I've been told I don't have to put my tube of lipstick in the clear, quart baggie. Then I've been told I do. I don't want to risk losing a $20 tube of lipstick due to the whims of whatever baggage inspector I run across. Exactly what cosmetics CAN I carry? Nowhere can I find a complete list. Obviously this rule is here to stay, and I DO understand the reasoning behind it. I want to comply, but we need detailed rules on this. What about a powder compact? Armani makes a powder foundation that I bought because I am hoping it wouldn't have to go in the baggie. I'm taking a two week trip and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to put everything I need into a one quart plastic baggie.
Can anybody tell me what I can safely put in my makeup bag in my purse? Thanks.

March 31, 2008 8:29 AM

 
Blogger MyCatLulu- Becca said...

Hi,

Th