USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Liquids, Part 1 (Commenting Disabled)

Archived Content

Please note that older content is archived for public record. This page may contain information that is outdated and may not reflect current policy or programs.

If you have questions about policies or procedures, please contact the TSA Contact Center.

Members of the news media may contact TSA Public Affairs.

Thursday, January 31, 2008
Liquids cover 70% of the earth and they also make up a good percentage of our comments from the traveling public. Post all of your suggestions and concerns about liquids in this blog post. 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

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


Submitted by Anonymous on

I recently flew back directly from Belize City, Belize to ATL, my final destination. In the BC airport past security I bought 2 bottles of duty-free rum, put it in my carry-on, and flew back home with it. I deplane, get my checked luggage, recheck it, and go to leave. When the TSA employee checks my carry-on bag he immediately goes to confiscate my rum. When I complain and point out that #1 the bottles haven't been opened yet, #2 the bottles haven't been outside of a secure area since I've had them, and #3 Atlanta is my FINAL DESTINATION and I am LEAVING THE AIRPORT and not flying again, he winks at me and puts back one of the bottles!

What kind of absolutely brainless policy created this pathetic mockery of "security"? DROP THE LIQUIDS BAN. It's ridiculous!

Submitted by Charlie on

What about gels that are labeled by weight instead of volume?

Gels are often denser than water, so the rough assumption that 1 fluid ounce is equal to 1 (avoirdupois) ounce does not work.

The TSA cannot hide behind an idiosyncrasy in the English language and be ignorant of the fact that two separate metrics (volume and weight) are overloaded with the same name (ounce).

If you must prohibit gels as well as liquids, please specify a weight limit in addition to the volume limit. Otherwise, the TSA agents' practices when posed with a container labeled by weight will continue to be arbitrary. Also, please use the metric system as that will prevent the TSA agents from getting confused.

Submitted by JP on

I'm glad I finally get to share my gripe with this new "policy" of TSA's.
First, has there ever been any attempt to do damage to a plane with liquids? I certainly haven't heard of any... just because some of your mad scientists are concocting new ways to explode things doesn't mean you should punish the public. We shouldn't have to be forced to make a choice between a) practically dying of thirst -or- b) shelling out a ridiculous amount of money to buy a drink in the terminal.
All your policy is doing is giving airport retailers an excuse to charge passengers an arm and a leg for things. And I'm sure those companies making their "special flight-approved" sized containers are ever-grateful to you.
I was completely upset when I had to shell out FOUR dollars for a puny bottle of Minute Maid Orange Juice in Oakland.
All in all... I vote no for this liquid policy of yours. Please change it... My college student wallet can't take it. And neither can my body. Traveling from CA to DC is long and tiring I shouldn't have to wait till I'm 2000 feet in the air to get some free liquid. Let us bring our beverages on board/in the terminal.


Submitted by Jet-tech on

I flew out of Bozemon MT last week with some friends, one was stopped by TSA for not having a 1oz bottle of lotion in the zip-lock bag,,TSA agent read her the riot act, then let her throu,,,we arrived home and noticed a 16 oz jar of salsa in the same bag the TSA agent pulled the 1 oz lotion bottle from,,,,great job TSA !!!!!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Liquids restricted ... safety ... okay.
I wonder why an airline crew member (pilot and/or flight attendant), who has cleared a ten year background check & is trusted with aircraft and passenger safety can bring liquids unrestricted while in uniform, but has to follow general public rules while not. A uniform does not prove anyone as a 'trusted' party. Yet, a current airline/airport badge does!

Submitted by Anonymous on

If my toothpaste is truly a threat to security, why is it placed in a bin that hundreds of other passengers shuffle past? At a minimum you should call the bomb squad. Unless....

Submitted by Muse0fire on

Further inconsistency in the liquid ban:

While in the airport in Montego Bay, I purchased a bottle of rum. I brought this rum, legally, on the flight back to Atlanta. When I reached Atlanta and got to customs/security, I was told that the bottle of rum could not continue with me through the customs security, and would now have to be placed in my checked baggage.

Please explain to me the reasoning behind this.

Another example of irrationality: my father was traveling back from South America and was very ill, with bad diarrhea. The hotel doctor had PRESCRIBED Gator Ade to him, so he was trying to travel back with two bottles, and was denied, although he had a note from the hotel doctor. Eventually the TSA agent relented and let him bring ONE bottle with him, but not both. Why? This makes no sense. Why not just let him take both? Is he less likely to try to blow up the plane with two bottles of GatorAde versus just one?

I dread having a child and having to try to fly with this inane liquid ban in place. The complications with formula, breast milk, etc. are enough to prompt me to prefer an eight hour car ride to a two hour flight.

And lastly, if I have a small tube of travel-sized toothpaste, why is it only safe if it is inside a zipped quart-size bag? If it's in a gallon-sized zipped bag, is it more likely to blow up? Etc. Etc.

Submitted by Ses on

Why is it that the size of the liquid/gel container is what matters, not how much is in it?

If I carry a 6 ounce tube of toothpaste that is clearly less than half full, I have less than the 3 ounce limit of toothpaste, but that's still not acceptable. How does that make sense?!?

I'm not expecting them to have a scale or a measuring cup to test every item, but sometimes it's pretty obvious based on the size of the container and the amount that is missing from it that there's less than 3 ounces left. This would save a lot of people a lot of money, because buying travel sized everythings gets pretty expensive pretty quickly.

Submitted by Ang122 on

What could you hide in your flip flops? A bomb. That's why we ask you to take them off so we can get a better look.

TSA Blogger

Submitted by Ang122 on

Ben says he knows "for a fact" that our TSA folks have stolen from his mother. A fact huh? Did you file a police report? We'll admit some of our folks have been fired for theft, but theft did not begin at the airport when TSA showed up. If you think you were ripped off at the airport, file a police report... immediately. We don't want thieves in our workforce any more than you do.

TSA Blogger

Submitted by Anonymous on

There's only one thing I dislike:

If I have a sealed bottle of wine (or other such things, such as raspberry jam or a bottle of tequila), and it's obvious that the item in question has been sealed by the factory and not by me, I should be able to take it on board.

I say this after a bottle of Patron Silver had mysteriously disappeared from my checked luggage.

Submitted by Ang122 on

TSA is unable to donate confiscated liquids to local charities because of liability issues. Unfortunately, we do throw them away in many airports (some dfo have recycling bins). If passengers wouldn't bring prohibited liquids to the checkpoint, we would all do the environment a favor because we wouldn't have to confiscate them. Leave the liquids at home, unless they are in 1 quart zip top bag and in containers of three ounces or less.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I completely agree with the comments about security theater, and that the liquid ban is ridiculous.

The only new point I have is that I was in Haneda airport in Tokyo (the usually domestic terminal), with a bottle of water, and they politely asked me to put it in this little tilted tray, pushed a button that lit up green, and gave it back to me. What do they have that we do not?

Submitted by Jay Maynard on

ang122: A better answer is for TSA to drop the incredibly silly, totally ineffective security theatrics of the war on moisture. The reason for it has been scientifically demonstrated to be impossible to perform on an airliner (they don't carry enough ice on board to cool the reaction to the point required for it to work).

This is just one more reason that I'm convinced the TSA is not interested in security, but rather in hassling travelers until they feel secure. I don't feel secure. I feel violated by the massive, systematic violations of the civil rights of law-abiding Americans.

Make no mistake: I have no trouble believing that individual screeners at the airports have their hearts in the right place. It's the folks in Washington that have set up a system that spends lots of money and accomplishes nothing meaningful.

I wouldn't mind having to unpack and repack my carryon every time I go through if I had some confidence that it had something to do with actual security...

Submitted by Anonymous on

I'm probably one of the few people who actually applauded the liquid ban -- I remember getting on a flight in 1999 (aka: pre-9/11) carrying a bottle of water and thinking, "what if this bottle was filled with kerosene?" Contrary to what many might think, a fuel-aided fire, started in mid-flight would be just as deadly as a bomb.

Still, I think the TSA needs to develop a better strategy for stopping this sort of thing. As it stands now, the 'zip lock bag' rule is both arbitrary in its scope and an excessive hassle for travelers. I travel a lot, so have a toiletries bag for all my bathroom gear. Now I have to remove all that neatly-arranged stuff and put it in a big plastic bag, but I still carry the same stuff. How has this improved safety? I believe the '1 quart zip lock' rule was developed as a 'least common denominator' approach to security: rather than having to train TSA inspectors on the nuances of what to look for, an arbitrary rule was developed so that they wouldn't have to think too much about what was going on -- as long as it fit in the bag, it was OK. Well, I guarantee you that with the right combination of chemicals, a smart bad guy could fit all he needed into that bag.

It is a difficult threat to counter, certainly, and the TSA was going in the right direction with the liquid restrictions, but as it currently stands, the restrictions seem to be aimed at increasing the 'perception' of security rather than the 'reality' of security.

Submitted by Thomas Jefferson on

I've quit flying.
Why do you not let my 60-year-old mom carry a bottle of water onto an airplane? It's idiotic. Any inbecile could look at her and tell she's not threat to anybody.

Submitted by Ang122 on

Matt N -- Great point. We will try to get some video up on this blog soon of a small liquid bomb exploding. I saw it firsthand last year and became a quick believer when a sippy cup blew up a plane seat.
TSA blogger

Submitted by Nico on

Michael --
Thanks for the kind words, and you are so right. Our folks do have the authority to clear 2 ounces of a liquid in a 4 ounce container (or similiar situations), though we have found some of them are hesitant to do so. Sorry for the inconveneience, we'll try to make things clearer so our folks use a little more discretion.

Submitted by Plein_Air_Painter on

Coming back from a restful vacation on Cape Cod, I spaced and completely forgot the liquids rule when I packed a new bottle of cologne in my carry on. It was just under the TSA limit on volume, but was in its original box instead of a one-quart zip-locked baggie. How much safer I and all my fellow travelers must have been after the screener made me take it out of its original box and zip it in with my antacid and hand lotion! After I passed through the check-point I repacked it back into its well-padded box , because it was much safer there than clanking around with other bottles in a baggie!

Funny, they missed the little spray-bottle of water that I had packed with my art supplies, also in carry-on. And my travel easel, packed in its customized bag, looking every bit like a possible weapon -- they didn't even notice!

I guess the trick is to divert attention away from your gun case or other weapons with a free-roaming bottle of sweet smelling cologne!

Submitted by Mathman on
1) You can seat about 150 passengers on an average mid-sized plane
2) Each passenger is allowed at least one 3oz. container of liquid
3) No passenger is allowed more than 3oz liquid per container
4) Any passengers can carry empty containers (water bottles, sports bottles, milk jugs) through security
5) 150 x 3oz. = 450oz. = ~3.5 gallons
6) Why the hell would you limit the amount of fluid per container to 3oz if each plane has at least 3.5 gallons of whatever the passengers want on it??? And these passengers can combine the fluid into larger containers!! OH NOES! This is just feel-good legislation that actually does nothing to prevent a determined group of people getting large amounts of liquid or gel through the security checkpoints. And dont get me started on the hypothetical situation of multiple flights worth of people combining multiple 3oz bottles of liquids into larger containers and then giving them all to people of just one flight...
Submitted by Anonymous on

In Puerto Vallarta, at the Delta Ticket Counter Line, there were TSA agents going through every single persons bags that were to be carried on prior to checkin. They took away my sunscreen I purchased that was 4 oz. size and it was half way used. It costs so much and I was frustrated that just because the bottle said 4 oz. they had to take it away.

Another time, I was going on a cruise. The agent forgot to remind me to take out my liquids because we were talking about the new scanning machine and how slow it was. They had to inspect my bag and then test the inside of my baggy. My baggy had items all 3 oz. or less but somethings must of leaked and mixed together because it didn't pass the test and they had to take it away from me. I was so upset because it had my liquid makeup that was $13 plus lotions, hairspray, hair gel and toothpaste. I had to spend a lot to replace it and it cost me alot of money to do so.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Flying to Dallas from OK, I had a used tube of toothpaste in my carry on. It only had a bit left ( less than an ounce) in the tube, not near the 3 oz. limit. But, the TSA agent had me discard the toothpaste because the tube was originally a 7.0 oz. tube. I asked him to be realistic, there is an actual "smidgeon" of toothpaste, use some common sense. I was told that he had to go by the packaging label, not the blatantly obvious small amount apparent in the tube.
If we trust these people to be in these positions, why do we not trust them to be trained to make some judgements in the field?
I have to toss out my 3 days worth of toothpaste, and buy a tiny tube when I get to my destination all because we can't expect the TSA employee to think independently. Absolutely brutal, I don't feel any more safe.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I have a diabetic condition and require liquids on long flights. In fact, since 2003, if my travel destination is less than a 12 hour drive from me, I no longer fly.

When I do have to fly, I am forced to discard liquids when going through the screening process; I always have to keep additional money on me so I can buy some liquids prior to getting on the plane. The prices for "in terminal" purchases are outrageous ($4 for a bottle of water?!). Worse - the terminal stores aren't always open to sell you back the stuff that was taken away from you.

Some airlines are doing away with the complimentary sodas. Even when complimentary beverages are offered, the airlines don't offer enough water or other liquids for free during the flight. The 4oz plastic cups are useless and many airline employees get upset when you ask for the whole can or bottle saying "there won't be enough for others if I give you a whole can." I understand their frustration, and would like to have just brought enough water for my needs in my backpack.

If you have to take my liquids during the screening process, fine: but please put the following rules into place: 1) Terminals must have at least one vendor open at all times that the security screener is open that sells close-able beverages (e.g. Fountain drinks are easy to spill on bumpy flights, but my 20-oz plastic bottle of coke with its screw-cap works quite well. 2) The prices charged for these beverages should be in line with those prices charged by any convenience store, gas station, or super market near the area of the airport. If they are not, the vendor should be brought up on charges of gouging consumers (like raising the price of bottled water during earthquakes in California). 3) Bar the airlines from canceling the complimentary beverage policy or placing an arbitrary limit on consumption.

All of these changes need to be enacted simultaneously. Just one change won't do it.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Hey sra - how about driving then. The liquid ban has been in effect for well over a year and if you can't comply, then you should have it taken away!!! It's not stealing, it's abandonment, you have the choice to not bring it with you in the first place. These people are here to make our flights more safe and I think you should respect that.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I feel extremely confused. Why is it TSA cannot find fake bombs when government officials send them through, but they never miss a bottle of water? What's worse is that people need water to stay healty and emotionally sound. Lack of water causes serious health problems and headaches. Several months ago, a government agency tried passing a bill that requires airlines to provide basic survival items to people (water, toilet, etc.) when they sit on the runway for a certain period of time.

I could be sympathetic with TSA confiscating water if they did a good job with finding all the fake bombs. But until then, it seems like the priorities are extremely mixed up. Energy and attention spent confiscating liquids could be better focused elsewhere (unless there's overwhelming evidence that those liquids--ie water--are clearly producing bombs.)

Submitted by Anonymous on

When I fly from the US to Canada, I have to take out my zipped up bag of liquids for inspection. When I clear US customs in Canada, then go through security there, I do NOT have to remove my zipped up bag of liquids for inspection. Why? This has happened EVERY time I fly up and back, without fail.

Submitted by Sph-associates on

On one flight, I forgot to put my deoderant and toothpaste in a plastic bag. My bag went thru the e-ray and near the security exit area, the TSA rep took these items out of my bag.
He then asked if I had a plastic bag for these? I did not - so then he tossed them away.

Think about this for one moment TSA. If someone handed me a bag, I could have then placed them in the bag - and I would have been able to keep these items.

and 3 seconds later, i could toss the bag.

SOOO explain to me why my items were tossed?

They never opened up the toothpaste nor deoderant - could easily have explosive substance in said item

VERY strange TSA very strange. This silliness - allows the terrorists to win.

Hope no one ever has an underware bomb!! think about that one travelers!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on

This is another of the restrictions that does NOTHING to protect us. So you determined that 3 oz is safe for us individuals, but not more?

What about a half-dozen terrorists on the same flight who carry on 3 oz each of whatever "threat" your scientists are imagining? Or is that logic unreasonable? you haven't made a dent in the threat but you have inconvenienced millions of travellers.

You need to explain how this individual restriction on fluid quantity protects us from the multiple-terrorist scenario that WE ALREADY SAW on 9/11. I don't see it.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I traveled recently and TSA confiscated my small tube of hand cream and a very small tube of lip gloss. If they had been in a plastic bag, I could have kept them. So...on my return flight, I put these types of items in a plastic bag, which was approved and given to me to take on the plane.

What? Unless they hold the plastic bags during the flight, then what is to keep someone from removing the "hazardous material" from the plastic bag? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I was in the Army in the 1970's, and did a lot of work with explosives.

I can tell you that explosives come in every shape and consistency you can imagine. Liquid, putty, jello like, hard plastic like, rope, wet suit material like.

But the TSA saw the Richard Reed attempt and the plot with liquids.

So after the fact they acted with lightening speed!

But for all the other issues, since nothing has happened yet, it can be ignored without any political repercussions.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I have heard a rumor that bombers are now smuggling plastic explosives in their rectums.

Next week we will all get cavity searches based on this rumor ... a rumor with as much validity as liquid explosives.

Threat Level search areas:

Low - Your pockets
Guarded - Your nostrils
Elevated - Your mouth and ears
High - All of the above
Severe - Call your Proctologist

Submitted by Mike-san on

I went through the Portland International Airport in Oregon, and my 2/3 Empty 4 Oz. tooth paste was confiscated. I was told that it is not the amount of residual content in the 4 OZ tube, which was merely 1.33 Oz., but the print on the tube that said 4 Oz.

Can the terrorists use this TSA Logic and print 3 Oz. on a 5 Oz. bottle filled with explosives and get away with it.

I fly very frequently, and don't mind going through the check for the sake of safety in air travel, but must we put unreasonable people, who are not well trained to screen people and luggage? We can do better.

Submitted by Anonymous on

As a airline employee its amusing to read these comments. This rule has been in place for some time now, but you still complain about something being taken. Come on people, follow the rules!

Submitted by DMentia777 on


Full sized shampoo is not a terrorist weapon. Full size toothpaste will not hurt anyone on a plane (except those with dirty mouths).

Increase the limit to 6 oz and eliminate that stupid quart-sized zip-top bag. Require that liquids be placed in a transparent plastic bag and be run on the conveyor belt separately. BUT GIVE ME MY FULL-SIZED SHAMPOO WITHOUT HAVING TO CHECK (read: lose) A BAG!

Submitted by Mike-san on

I went through the Portland International Airport in Oregon, and my 2/3 Empty 4 Oz. tooth paste was confiscated. I was told that it is not the amount of residual content in the 4 OZ tube, which was merely 1.33 Oz., but the print on the tube that said 4 Oz.

Can the terrorists use this TSA Logic and print 3 Oz. on a 5 Oz. bottle filled with explosives and get away with it. They also need to know the difference between grams, milliliter, etc. and how they relate to 3 Oz.

I fly very frequently, and don't mind going through the check for the sake of safety in air travel, but must we put unreasonable people, who are not well trained to screen people and luggage? We can do better.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I'm right there with everyone else. This 311 thing is a pain, and I hate paying $5 for a $0.75 bottle of water once I pass through security, but imagine if we couldn't carry anything on the plane? My question is "If a person has been flying from Airport A to Airport B numerous times every year over the past 10-15 years (you know they can track this!), why do I almost have to go through a strip search every time I go through security with my medications (which do not fit in a 1 quart bag)?"

Submitted by Paul on

If my liquids are so dangerous why do they go in a big garbage can with all the other potentially-explosive liquids. Shouldn't you guys be calling the bomb squad every time you find more than 3 ounces of lethal hair gel?

Submitted by Anonymous on

You know what, either let people carry their toiletries or don't. There is no reason the "TSA" cannot simply make you check them. I've given up on carrying things like this and would rather just buy them from a store at my destination

Submitted by Anonymous on

So liquid is banned due to it may contain liquid explosives. So why when the water or liquid is taken away it is throw into a garbage can? Wouldn't it explode if it was thrown? Why is the bomb squad not there to correctly dispose of it? Is the liquid ban really just a band aid over the real problem to make fliers "feel" more secure but really it is a pointless exercise.

Submitted by Anonymous on

ang122 is a liar. I state this confidently as a PhD physicist, with over 20 years of experience, who works for DHS. A flip-flop CANNOT conceal a bomb. Well, it could be composed entirely of C-4 I suppose, but you wouldn't be able to detect that with an X-ray.

ang122's description of the "sippy cup" bomb is ludicrous. Did you see how the bomb was prepared first? Sure, a cup of nitroglycerine could do some damage (a cup could easily be placed into multiple airtight 3-oz containers and would easily pass through, even the "puffer"), but woe be unto he who tries to carry a cup of nitro through.

ang122 is typical of the TSA cheerleaders that have been planted here to spread disinformation.

The liquid ban makes no sense. It protects us from nothing. It is easily surmountable. It is indefensible of the TSA to continue to enforce it, and it is evil of the TSA employees to go along with it. If you had any tiny shred of decency--any morals, even the tiniest glint of ethics--if you actually loved this country as much as you pretend to--you would quit your jobs immediately.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I personally feel the ban on liquids is funded by the bottled water industry -- I can't bring on water in an environmentally friendly, reusable bottle, but once I get past security I can purchase a $.99 bottle for $4.00. I love the fact that the mafia is running our security industry!!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on

By the way -- (maybe this should be in the inconsistency section), but I have on several occasions forgotten to remove my liquids for "inspection." Guess what? NO ONE SAID ANYTHING. So I started to play a game, called "How often can I do this before someone says something"? Congrats to Milwaukee, WI -- you caught me & forced me to x-ray my liquid baggy!! This was after about 20 or so odd trips around the country, I feel so incredibly safe by this rule, thanks TSA!!

Submitted by Integrity Travel on

I must agree with and must echo the bloggers here that have stated if confiscated liquids are so dangerous, then why are TSA officers in airports nationwide simply putting these potential explosives in garbage cans, on top of screening equipment, and not having the bomb squad dispose of them?

Submitted by A on

I flew the day after the liquid ban was in place, and at the time, I could see where the TSA might think it necessary. Even if that might be a most impractical method of blowing something up ever, you'd want a week or so just to make sure that everyone is on the same page as to whether or not the threat is something to really be worried about (and, given the many, many statements from chemists, it certainly doesn't appear to be) and what to do about it, if anything.

However, at this point, it seems a little silly to ban all liquids, nevermind any of the previously allowed liquids at all. Isn't there a way you can test something that looks genuinely suspicious... somehow? Or, if there isn't, perhaps it might be worthwile to sponsor efforts to invent such a thing that could be used in airports, not just in labs. The original ban on EVERYTHING, no matter where you bought it, seems like it exposed everyone to a lot of potential lawsuits after someone nearly keels over from dehydration or from related health conditions. That's not to say that it's entirely better now--I'm not sure if I'm technically allowed to take the things I buy in the terminal on the plane, but I've done so the past five or six times I've flown without having them taken away, so maybe it's all right. It seems utterly ridiculous that I even have to worry about such a thing as to whether or not my unopened, overpriced soda is legit!

Sometimes it seems stupid as to what is small enough and what isn't. It's okay for me to have six tiny bottles of shampoo and conditioner, in addition to my tiny travel-sized toothpaste and regular-sized deodorant, but a mostly-used regular toothpaste tube is not? I suppose I can see where maybe one might be suspicious of a person stuffing an empty tube (somehow...) when said tube looks obviously tampered with, but when the excuse was "It wasn't originally [whatever the amount is; I forget]" when it pretty obviously has has been used enough that there's only about a third of the allowed amount left is more than a little silly.

A more reasonable approach and consistency would be really nice, at any rate. I really don't feel any safer for all these regulations--I just feel relieved when I make it through the security line without having to be wanded or waiting for someone to make sure that my books and knitting are on the level.

Submitted by Anonymous on

The whole terrorist liquid conspiracy is garbage. It was proven to be false shortly after the idea was floated by homeland security. Drop the stupid no-liquid rule before you address anything else.

Shoe's I can understand. Liquids - no way!

Submitted by Www Flightatten... on

As a flight attendant, we are not subject to the same level of security screening for liquid as other passengers, in most cases. However, one thing I always don't understand is, we could pack liquid without any restriction in our suitcases and go through crew scanning without problem at most airports, but, holding a cup of coffee in our hand is not allowed. Just a curious thought why such rule is in place. Many of us just pour the coffee into a thermal cup and put it in the suitcase to get through security anyways

Submitted by Anonymous on

Just give us a number. Please tell the traveling public how many planes have actually been brought down since 9/11 by committing the sin of carrying a full can of soda or a bottle of water past TSA. Not to many, I'm guessing...I tell you, those airport vendors just love you guys for all the money you're making them. And in the end, it really all just comes down to money, doesn't it?

Submitted by Anonymous on

What happened to "no matter what, terrorism won't take away my freedom." If going through an airport checkpoint bothers you that much, then they've taken your freedom away from you already. They beat you. That's not acceptable. Man up and go with the flow. You don't have to make sense of all of this. (liquids, shoes, etc.) If there's inconsistency, no one is perfect. Checkout so you know what should be consistent. If you knew why, then they'll know why. Terrorists aren't idiots. They surf the web just like you and me. Now you know what not to bring, next time you'll be wiser. One bad experience weighs heavier than a hundred good ones. Good job TSA. Although I don't agree with some of your rules, I'm glad you're there keeping us safe.