First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

Nearly two years ago, I bemoaned the fact that Japan was installing liquid testing devices at its airports, but the U.S. and Europe weren’t. It’s 2008, and not much has changed.

What’s perhaps even more frustrating is that this isn’t new technology: Osaka Kansai Airport started testing passenger liquids with a microwave tester nearly four years ago. By December 2006, the machines were installed across Japan.

I haven’t seen these machines in action myself, but the perpetually mobile Tyler Brûlé has helpfully published a photo of a liquid tester on the Monocle website. See below for a peek of what the rest of the world might get its hands on someday.

The bigger question remains: Why is this device good enough for Japan, but not the United States or Europe? There’s money to burn for backscatter x-ray machines and puffer-machines that scan for explosives, but a customer-friendly device like a liquid tester is out of bounds. Priorities.

(image)

Reader J writes in, with the excellent subject line “Sidestepping government buffoonery”:

So I was wondering if you know if it’s possible to get a temporary PO box or a similar thing in order to mail your shampoo, cologne and other liquids to yourself at your destination city ahead of time to make sure you know it’s there before you even step on the plane. Are there such services?

Why yes!

You’ve got a few options, actually, and as long as you’re packing well and not mailing things that violate postal service regulations, then this could be a great way to avoid checked luggage, avoid the theatrics of the TSA war on moisture, and avoid having to buy stuff at your destination, all in one swoop!

There are essentially three options:

1. Your hotel
   Where you stayin’? Call the hotel, ask if they hold mail for guests, and what the restrictions are. In all likelihood, this will be the most convenient and most reliable way for you to receive packages. Tip: Be sure you include “hotel guest” after your name when you address the package.
2. Post office
   The magic words: “Poste restante,” or “general delivery.” Poste restante is an old fashioned mail-pickup service that most countries’ postal services still provide. Mail is addressed to a person, but in lieu of an address for delivery, the mail is sent to a post office branch, where you pick it up. You’ll usually address mail to Name, Poste Restante, the specific name of the post office (usually the main, central office), that branch’s street location, city, postal code, and country. Of course, you need to KNOW the location you’ll be picking it up from beforehand. Check the website of your destination’s postal service before you ship things off. FYI: The USPS’s sparse info page for general delivery is here.
3. American Express
   American Express cardmembers and travelers’ check holders can have mail sent to an American Express Travel Services office anywhere in the world. I took advantage of this once, and it worked great, but it’s been a while (1994). See here to find an office. Call them before sending them mail, and ask if they receive and hold Amex client mail. Not every office will do it.

In all of these cases, underline the addressee’s last name for good measure, or write it in all caps. It can’t hurt to put a statement like “Hold until (date)” on the front of the envelope or package, too.

There may be some restrictions, such as weight. Take New Zealand’s poste restante rules, for example: Packages under 2kg are stored at no charge. Over that weight, and you’ll pay a fee to pick up the goods. Be sure to check with your destination’s post office rules before you ship stuff off poste restante.

Locations holding your mail won’t hold it forever, either. 30 days in the norm, but it’s not universal. (In Mexico, for example, it might only be 10 days.) When in doubt, call ahead.

And even if you mail things to yourself at your destination, be sure you’re not mailing something you’d be upset to lose. Mail can be slow, or can disappear. If you care about the contents, insure.

So the bottom line: Yes, you CAN mail things ahead of time. But at the end of the day, which is the bigger hassle? Dealing with the TSA, or dealing with the post office?

Related:
- Update: TSA compresses 100ml to 3.0 fluid ounces
- Airport Security: TSA Re-Allows Lighters on Board; Non-Flammable Water Still a Threat to Safety
- Rescuing your prohibited carry-on items from the trash
- Japan and China introduce liquid-explosive detectors: Why can’t the US?
- American Express (aff)

(image)

Last week, TSA Director Kip Hawley briefed a group of travel journalists, and friend-of-the-blog Benet Wilson of AviationWeek asked the Kipster about that pet peeve of mine, restrictions on transporting duty free liquor.

My long-standing take: If it’s deemed safe for purchase behind security lines in one airport, it should be considered safe for transportation to — and through — other airports.

But that’s not the way it works in reality. You might buy booze (or perfume, or anything liquid) in one airport, fly from one city to the next, and have the liquids confiscated when trying to board your next flight. Idiotic. (Though not nearly as idiotic as the limits within the same airport, a la Munich…)

If you think that there’s a solution at hand, you’re wrong.

Hawley said that everyone is looking for a private sector solution where there is an assured supply chain, one way or the other. “If they can find an appropriate supply chain bringing the duty-free goods to the airport and protecting it along the way, we’re open to it,” he said. “But as of today, there’s not a bag that is commonly agreed to that meets all of our standards.”

This is essentially a private sector opportunity to adjust their business model to meet security requirements, said Hawley. “But we won’t spend taxpayer dollars on finding ways to make it easier to buy duty-free liquids,” he warned.

Protecting the duty free goods along the way? Like a Secret Service motorcade? Or an armored car?

Something tells me that the food and drink served up at airport restaurants isn’t subjected to the same demands for protection. But the (hopefully non-explosive) sandwich you buy after security is safe to carry between airports. Double standard.

Sigh. So buyer beware. If you’re changing planes on an international itinerary, you might have trouble bringing duty free liquids into the United States.

Once again, we’re dealing with security theater, not real security. Makes me want to pour a stiff (duty-free) drink.

Related:
- Duty free liquids allowed on board, except when they’re not
- Update: Munich Airport responds to questions about its duty free policy
- Traveling with booze: Policy clarifications and changes
- Duty free liquids soon to be liberated?

Downgraded: Any last smidgen of credibility for inflight radio interviews
If you’ve ever flipped through the inflight audio dial on American Airlines, you’ll know that there’s a channel (#9) devoted to “interviews.” University of Chicago economist and Freakonomics author Steve Levitt was invited to participate… for the low, low price of $3995.00. I honestly never gave those interviews advertorials much of a listen, but the participants pay-to-play? And for that much?? Wow. ZERO credibility. (Thanks, Dr. Vino!)

Upgraded, possibly: The international airport welcome wagon
The U.S. Senate has passed a bill expanding the “model airport” program to other international ports of entry.

In April, the DHS designated Houston’s Bush International Airport as the first “model” port of entry, adding multilingual signs and informational videos narrated in Spanish, French, German and English to guide arriving travelers through the customs and immigration process. Arriving visitors are also presented with a “Welcome to the U.S.” brochure.

Unclear if general tone of the arrivals halls will feel any less like a police station, what with the fingerprinting and generally gruff attitude of every employee, but here’s hoping it helps.

Downgraded: British Airways’ standing among royal Qataris
Members of Qatar’s royal family were kicked off a British Airways flight for not following safety procedures, when they refused to take their seats. Why wouldn’t they sit? “After boarding, the women complained about the seats they had been allocated because they were next to men they did not know.” Setting aside the culture clash: None of this would have happened if British Airways would actually allow advance seat assignments for passengers on fares lower than the most expensive tickets. (Given their seating concerns, I imagine the royals flew discounted business business class.)

Downgraded: Your privacy (who knew it could be downgraded more?)
Under an expanded security agreement between the US and the EU, gobs and gobs of personal data can and will be shared with governments. If asked, airlines will be required to hand over any information they collect from you. Ask for a king-size bed as part of your package? Homeland Security will know. (Via Consumerist)

Upgraded: TSA Chief Kip Hawley’s internet presence
Downgraded: Logical explanations
Security guru Bruce Schneier is running a multi-part interview with TSA Director Kip Hawley this week. The first part is here. Bruce questions the logic of the 3-ounce liquid restrictions, etc. I’m happy to see Hawley reaching out again, but some of the answers just don’t cut it. For example: “If a TSO finds you or the contents of your bag suspicious, you might get interviewed and/or have your bags more closely examined. If the TSO throws your liquids in the trash, they don’t find you a threat.” Huh? What? Read the whole thing.

(image)

The TSA has ruled that lighters will once again be legal to take onto airplanes, effective August 4. Not Zippo lighters or other “torch” lighters, just “common” lighters.

Amazing. Bottled water is still illegal, but a container containing a flammable liquid is permissible. That’s freedom, baby.

And why the two week delay? Do lighters’ magical terrorist powers somehow expire at midnight on August 3?

Sounds like a big step forward in the expansion plans of all-smoking airline Smintair!

Speaking of Smintair, the tobbaco-laden German/British airline with the absurd claim that its air will be healthier than nonsmoking airlines’, looks like it’s actually making headway. They recently put up a timetable (pdf) that has them flying Dusseldorf to Tokyo and on to Shanghai starting October 28. The countdown is on.

The Smintair website remains one of my favorites, for sheer comedy. Everything from the poorly translated English, to the 1970s porn-esque styling, to nuggets like this line from the employment page: “Allergics to any kind of smoke or aviation specific conditions, militant Anti-Smokers, or people with other social deficiencies are kindly asked to not apply.”

(image)

Regular readers know how frustrated I have been with inconsistent liquid-ban enforcement and the subsequent confusion over duty free purchases that ensues, like the finger-pointing contradiction-fest I experienced in Munich a while back. Travelers changing planes on multi-leg international flights (say, flying from New York to Frankfurt and on to Johannesburg) were especially hard-hit, with several different layers of regulation hitting them and their liquid cargo.

For the traveler with liquids in tow, two items may be of interest.

First, the European Commission adopted new rules for travelers changing planes in the EU member states, plus Switzerland, Norway, or Iceland. If the airport where you purchased your duty-free liquor adheres to “the two ICAO state letters (1 December 2006 and 30 March 2007), which set standards for tamper evident bags and security levels for supply chains to airport retailing,” then your precious cargo will not be confiscated by European airport personnel or law enforcement authorities. This effectively means that the European Commission now recognizes the security procedures of other airports as acceptable and adequate.

Of course, the problem is, how do you know that your departure airport fits the bill? And it may take some time before the new rules filter down to the people who enforce these rules on the ground. Still: A step forward for common sense.

Second, a reminder from Upgrade: Travel Better contributor Tyler Colman on the rules regarding duty-free limits on wine (or other alcohol, for that matter.) Very often, airport and airline staff unfortunately tell passengers about the “limits” on liquor, when in fact they’re referring only to the duty-free limits. As if the duty free limit is all you’re allowed to carry into the country. Not so!

If you’re flying back to the United States, you can carry in several cases of wine if you like, assuming 1) that you check it as baggage, packed nicely in a padded wine box, 2) that you have receipts indicating the purchase price of the wine, and 3) that you declare the wine to the customs agents when you arrive, and on your declaration form. You can bring plenty back from your travels, if you are willing to pay the taxes, but you only get very limited amounts duty-free. And how much are those taxes? 3%. THREE! That’s nothing! And travelers report that customs agents can’t be bothered to fill out the paperwork on such small amounts, so you might get off with a duty-free case or two.

Of course, carrying that much back means you’re dragging boxes through airports and possibly paying the airline an excess baggage charge. But don’t let anyone tell you you can’t take it with you.

Cheers!

Update:
Reader Steve writes in to point out that I glossed over an important point in Dr. Vino’s post: The rules on how much alcohol you can bring into the country are also set by the state where you land. A snippet from Steve’s e-mail, with a story of zealous liquor enforcement, below:

Your posting on booze coming back into the US is true, but incomplete.

While it is true that the Feds place no restriction on the amount of alcohol you can bring in some states do (or at least used to). So if your first port of entry is NY and NY State only allows two bottle (which used to be the case) then you can be forced to throw everything out beyond that.

That is exactly what happened to me, however it was almost 20 years ago and it is likely (though not certain) that the rules have changed. But since states are still firmly in control of these laws if you intend on bringing in more than the federal limit it would be prudent to call the ABC of the state you will be clearing customs in and ask what the regulations are.

Thanks, Steve!

(image)

As a peripatetic wine writer I often get asked the question: can you take wine on a plane? In this day and age of the Global War on Toiletries, the short answer is no.

However, the good folks at Reef sandals may be on their way to helping plane travelers in need of a nip. They have a pair of sandals known as “the dram” (aff) that has a 1.5 ounce reservoir in each sole. Three ounces? That sounds like the TSA magic number for liquids to me!

The only catch is that you would have to have feet small enough so that the sandals fit inside the infamous one-quart plastic bag. Oh, and the fluid would have to be less than 140 proof (as the TSA helpfully elaborates, that includes 150 proof rum and 95% grain alcohol).

Tyler Colman checked wine in the hold and has some tips from his experience.

I’m not sure why this isn’t getting more play, but the TSA is rolling out liquid explosives detection equipment at six airports. But don’t throw away those 1-quart plastic bags just yet. All the existing prohibitions on liquids, and all the procedures for bagging and scanning your 3-ounce liquid containers, are still very much in place.

This hit the news last week, but our inside man at the TSA nudged us out of complacency with this reminder:

On Tuesday (22/05), the TSA announced operational pilot testing at a number of large airports of the technology capable of screening sealed bottled liquids for explosives. The first unit ready for testing is the ICx Technologies Fido PaxPoint. Because the technology has performed well in initial testing, TSA anticipates deploying up to 200 bottled liquid scanners to the nation’s busiest airports by October. The device is currently being used by the U.S. government domestically and overseas, but this is the first time the system is being deployed in an airport environment. Bottled liquid scanners have been or will be piloted at Miami (MIA), Newark Liberty (EWR), Detroit (DTW), Los Angeles (LAX), Las Vegas (LAS) and Boston Logan (BOS).

The handheld ICx scanner can supposedly sense the presence of explosives or components for making an explosive device through glass, plastic, or metal.

I’m a little confused as to why these devices are being deployed, given the other restrictions that already exist on liquids. If 3-ounce bottles are deemed harmless, then a liquid scanner isn’t necessary. Or, if a liquid scanner is in place, then the 3-ounce limit on liquids would no longer be necessary. But why keep both?

Hopefully this test will prove successful and allow the TSA to eventually rescind the 3-ounce rule. I’ll happily offer my liquids for scanning, if that means I can carry a larger container on board.

Boston Logan Airport apparently got the first allocations of the scanners. Has anyone witnessed liquid scans in action? If so, hit the comments! Let’s hear about it.

Related:
- Japan and China introduce liquid-explosive detectors: Why can’t the US?
- Update: TSA compresses 100ml to 3.0 fluid ounces
- Are unlabeled bottles legal through airport security, and how do you deal with agents who make up rules?
- TSA apparently prefers its water in aerosol form

(image)

Upgraded: Carnival’s beverage policy
Carnival Cruise Lines has revised its recently-changed policy prohibiting passengers from bringing beverages onto the ship. “Guests may bring a small quantity of non-alcoholic beverages,” but the booze is still off-limits. Spokesman Vance Gulliksen admitted the company was “monitoring reaction to the ban” (cough, blogs, cough) and changed the policy in response to the grumbling. “Small quantity” is subjective, though, so expect some hassles if you bring multiple bottles of anything. Got an eyewitness report of Carnival’s beverage enforcement in practice? Hit the comments or drop a line.

Downgraded: The accuracy of Ryanair’s scales
Euro-ultra-discounter Ryanair is accused of improperly maintaining its baggage scales, leading to wide variations in the weight measurement of checked bags. Since Ryanair charges £3.30 (about US$6.60) for every kilogram over 15kg, the numbers could add up to real profits. One bag weighed 17kg in Girona, Spain, while only weighing 14.6kg back in the U.K.

Upgraded: The rights of taxi passengers at Minneapolis Airport
Remember the Minneapolis taxi drivers who were refusing to transport anyone they suspected was carrying alcohol? (Those duty-free bags were a dead giveaway.) First, the city’s taxi commission allowed the discrimination, by labeling cabs “wet” or “dry.” Then came reports that the taxis were refusing service to people with seeing eye dogs, too, since these were “unclean.” So the commission created economic disincentives, by forcing cabs to move to the back of the line if they refused a passenger. Now, the city’s taxi commission is finally imposing real penalties — license suspensions — on drivers who discriminate: First offense is 30 days, second offense 2 years. Good. “Cab driver” probably isn’t the right line of work for these guys, anyway.

(image)

See update below

Those crazy spring breakers, bringing their cases of mineral water and Coca-Cola on board the cruise ships! They’ve simply gone too far! …huh?

Carnival Cruise Lines is clamping down on passengers who bring beverages on board. Their new policy prohibits passengers from bringing beverages onto the ship. That means alcoholic AND non-alcoholic beverages.

Is it because of the seemingly monthly reports of passengers who fall off a ship in an apparently drunken stupor? No.

Is it terrorism fears, the 3-ounce bottle-makers’ lobby, and the TSA-ification of the seas? Nope.

The reason is economics, pure and simple. The cruise ships weren’t selling as many drinks on board as they wanted.

Carnival spokesman Vance Gulliksen said guests had been bringing on too many nonalcoholic beverages. “There had been some abuse of the previous policy which is why the new policy is more restrictive,” he said.

Nonalcoholic beverages? I’m sure people are bringing in cases and cases of Evian.

Maybe they’re trying to play down the fact that their margins on umbrella drinks are astronomical. And by banning non-alcoholic beverages, they can be sure to milk some more money from alcohol-free cruises too, like the Christian cruises they book wholesale.

Rum runners will undoubtedly be upset: Duty free purchases of liquor from dockside shops will be taken and held by the cruise line until you leave the ship. Other beverages brought on board “will be confiscated and discarded without compensation.”

One sole exception remains: “guests (21 years and older only) may bring one bottle of wine or champagne per person on board only during embarkation at the beginning of the cruise. A $10 corkage fee per bottle will be charged should you wish to consume this wine in the dining room or a $14 corkage fee per bottle in the Supper Club.” How generous.

Extortion, thy name is Carnival!

Update: After taking heat, Carnival has backed off their non-alcoholic beverage ban, but the ban on alcohol stays. Here’s the revised policy on beverages:

Guests are prohibited from bringing alcoholic beverages onboard. However, guests (21 years and older only) may bring one bottle of wine or champagne per person on board only during embarkation at the beginning of the cruise. A $10 corkage fee per bottle will be charged should you wish to consume this wine in the dining room or a $14 corkage fee per bottle in the Supper Club. Guests may bring a small quantity of non-alcoholic beverages.

All alcohol, additional quantities of wine/champagne or excessive quantities of non-alcoholic beverages will be confiscated and discarded without compensation. Guests may purchase a variety of beverages on board the ship. Alcoholic beverages will not be sold or served to anyone under the age of 21. We reserve the right to refuse the sale of alcoholic beverages to anyone. Alcoholic beverages purchased in the ship’s gift shops or in ports of call will be retained by Carnival until the end of the voyage.

(image)

Upgraded: Your odds of seeing the Airbus A380 in New York
Want to see the Airbus A380 up close and personal? Lufthansa is bringing the über-jumbo jet to New York (as mentioned previously here), and you can enter their contest to tour the plane. It’s still a long shot, but unless you’re a VIP, this is your only way in. Better hurry: The drawing is March 13, and the plane arrives in NYC March 19.

Upgraded: The civil discourse of travel blogging
The Sydney Morning Herald’s travel blog has a lively comments section, wherein the journalists take guff from their readers, but dish it right back. Barbs such as the French word for “shower” get thrown back and forth in the comments to this post. I have a hard time imagining such an exchange on an American newspaper’s official blog. Viva Australia! (Thanks to reader — and frequent, polite commenter! — S.A. for the tip.)

Upgraded: Surreptitious beverage transportation for ladies
You may recall the Beer Belly, the under-your-clothes beverage bladder that upgrades six-pack abs to a full case. It’s essentially a CamelBak undergarment, most certainly a violation of the TSA’s 3-ounce cutoff for liquids and gels, and your fast-track ticket to a cavity search. But until recently, it the liquid smuggling business was a man’s world. Now, in a celebration of gender equality, there’s a similar product for women, with the beverage storage slightly higher on the torso: The Wine Rack. (via Thrillist; thanks Dr. Vino!)

Downgraded: Blackjack in Vegas
Your odds of coming out ahead when playing the tables in Las Vegas have dropped. Several casinos are reducing the payouts on blackjack from 3:2 to 6:5. You need to check the fine print on the signs at each table. If you want to play single-deck blackjack with 3:2 payouts, you’ll have to head to the El Cortez or Four Queens hotels, though both of these less-than-desirable properties only feature two such tables each. (via Tim Leffel)

Upgraded: Qantas first and business qlass
The Global Traveller points to Qantas’ PR for their soon-to-be-revamped first and business class products. Highlights: pajamas in business class, and the claim that their lounges will be the best in the world.

Downgraded: Daylight savings time
The Wall Street Journal warns that the impending shift to daylight savings time will put international connections out of whack for the coming weeks, as some countries will adjust their clocks but others won’t. But frankly, this has almost always been the case. Europe and the United States always had a week or two’s discrepancy on both the autumn and spring sides. Yes, there will certainly be some connections that are out of whack with the normal schedule for the next few weeks, so if you fly a given route regularly, your typical connections may not be possible for the next few weeks. But the airlines’ timetables should reflect the reality of the new times when you buy the ticket, so just double-check your itineraries. I’ll still take my daylight savings time, thanks.

Upgraded: The number 13
Hotels are no longer enumerating their buildings’ floors incorrectly for the sake of superstition. The 13th floor is making a comeback. The statistics are tinged with irony: “A recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests a large majority of Americans — 87% — would be comfortable with a 13th floor room assignment. But 13% say they’d be bothered by a 13th floor room assignment.”

(images: 1, 2, 3)

Reader Joe H. writes:

In your link to Bob Rosner’s column, I think you missed a point that’s just as big as the 3 versus 3.5 oz. debate. Fourth paragraph:

For example, on my most recent flight I had my baggie full of gels and liquids out and ready to show anyone who wanted to know the secret for my youthful appearance. A TSA staffer scrutinized the bag. She informed me that she’d have to empty one of my bottles because, she explained, they only allowed gels and liquids in their original containers — no camping-style plain plastic bottles are allowed. She methodically emptied out my soap from its container. Apparently terrorists have not figured out how to empty shampoo bottles to put something more dangerous inside.

There’s no regulation anywhere on the TSA Web site that says this. Never heard of it, never seen it. So here’s my question: how would you handle a situation where a TSA agent isn’t acting sans common sense (e.g., you have one two-ounce container, but it’s not in the plastic bag), but is flat out, no-doubt-about-it *wrong*?

I asked my mom (a more frequent traveler than I) what she’d do, and she said she wouldn’t argue. I said I now carry the TSA PDF printouts with me, and I’d immediately ask for a supervisor (nicely, of course).

I’d love to hear your thoughts, and perhaps those of other readers.

There are two, or maybe even three, issues here. The first is about TSA policy, i.e., are the mini-bottles required to be in original packaging, or are empty 3 oz. bottles, refilled with mouthwash, lotion, or whatever, legal?

As you say, Joe, I can’t find anything on the TSA site that suggests that you need to have shampoo in its original package. The only category of items that specifically requires a labeled container is medication:

Please make sure your medications are properly labeled with a professionally printed label identifying the medication and manufacturer’s name or pharmaceutical label. The prescription medicine must match the name on the passenger’s ticket.

So according to the publicly available rules, no one should have to dump out shampoo, soap, or mouthwash, just because it’s in an unlabeled bottle.

(By the way, the New York Times’ Roger Collis got some very similar e-mail this week. He couldn’t find any requirement for labeled bottles in either U.S. or E.U. rules, either.)

Joe’s second question is more about passenger behavior when you face an agent who makes up rules like this, or misinterprets the rules to apply more broadly than they’re published.

Carrying a printout of the rules for permitted/prohibited items, and politely requesting that the agent or a supervisor consider the published rules before confiscating the goods is a good idea. I’m a fan of having the facts on paper (or at least saved as an online PDF on the laptop). That goes for airline contracts-of-carriage, too, but that’s another point…

But honestly, as much as I support civil liberties, I probably wouldn’t fight every fight. So how would I respond to a TSA agent inventing rules? It depends on how much hardship the agent’s inventiveness is actually imposing on me. How much does the item cost? How easily will I be able to replace it? How much time do I have before my flight? Do I feel lucky? If you do fight it, always remain calm, polite, and follow the agents’ instructions if asked to step aside, etc.

But what if YOU screw up and accidentally leave one small (legal-sized) bottle out of the one-quart plastic bag? If the agent gives you a hard time, I’d ask to have the item put back in the bag and rescanned, if necessary. If that didn’t work, then I’d try to speak to a supervisor, taking into account the calculus above (will I miss my flight if I ask for a supervisor… how much is this item worth to me…)

Finally, don’t hesitate to make a mental note of the agent’s name if they disregard the published rules or don’t offer you a common-sense chance to rectify a minor, non-dangerous mistake. Then write a letter to the TSA, and cc: your local Congressperson and Senator.