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!

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.

Yesterday’s post regarding the TSA’s possible introduction of a 3.5 fluid ounce standard for carry-on liquids yielded a small storm in my e-mail inbox, including a thoroughly disposable form letter response from the TSA itself, encouraging me to check the website. Gee, great. Thanks for that.

But thanks to Benet Wilson, it also yielded this far more helpful response from Amy Kudwa in the TSA’s Office of Public Affairs:

Since the liquid threat was discovered as part of the foiled terror plot in August, TSA has worked very closely with our European partners to harmonize our overall security efforts. As a result, the EU, Canada and several other countries adopted in November a 100 ml standard for liquids. This standard most easily converts to our 3 ounce limit and is readily understood by passengers both in the US and abroad. Our 43,000 TSOs have been trained on this negligible difference and we have not seen any issues with European visitors meeting either standard. (emphasis added)

So the TSA defies the metric system and equates 100 ml with 3 ounces. Close enough for them, good enough for me.

By the way, I was wrong about a minor detail in yesterday’s post: the conversion of 100ml. I had foolishly looked at the label of a European 100ml bottle of shampoo in my bathroom, which incorrectly translated 100ml to 3.2 oz. In fact, 100 ml = 3.38140226 US fluid ounces. Effectively 3.4 ounces.

Carry on!

Regular readers know that the 3-ounce container restriction on liquids in carry-ons is one of my “favorite” gripes. As a person who hates to check bags, I am regularly irritated when I can’t, say, bring a bottle of wine in my carry-on. (Especially when there are reports of airlines refusing to permit wine in checked luggage, either. But I digress…)

But Bob Rosner’s column at ABC News just confused me even more. He writes:

Remember when we were only allowed three-ounce containers on our carry on bags? Recently that was increased to three-and-a-half ounces, according to a TSA supervisor that I talked to.

Why the increase? Because of complaints by the perfume industry. You can’t make this stuff up.

Huh?? When, exactly, did the TSA’s limit increase to 3.5 ounces per container?

The European Union adopted a standard of 100ml per container recently, which technically comes to 3.2 ounces. Many TSA agents might unofficially look the other way on that one, especially for passengers traveling from Europe to the U.S., but I still wouldn’t want to bank on that.

The TSA’s website doesn’t list any change in the rules, either. 3 ounces is all they list. 3.0000.

I’ve put in a call to the TSA to see if there’s any truth to this 3.5 ounce story, and to ask about official policy regarding 100ml/3.2 ounce bottles. I’ll report back what they say.

In the meantime, I wouldn’t risk carrying 3.5 ounces of anything on board. Unless you’re willing to lose it.

Major thumbs up for this new trend: Airports such as Chicago O’Hare are installing kiosks that dispense padded envelopes, allowing passengers to mail prohibited items home or store them for pickup upon their return.

Mail Safe Express works by having security officers escort passengers to the kiosks, where they can put their property in bubble-wrap envelopes that can be mailed to an address or sent to a pickup spot at the Hilton Chicago O’Hare Airport.

The Chicago Department of Aviation’s 60-day pilot program began Monday with six kiosks in three terminals. It had 12 transactions in its first two days. Each kiosk, which accepts only credit cards for payment, has two sizes of envelopes, the larger of which is about 6 inches wide and 10 inches long.

The service costs $10 for storage, or $14 for domestic UPS shipping. The machines only accept credit cards. And those mailers are tiny — can’t they get a bigger padded envelope? At that size, no wonder they’ve only had 12 transactions.

Nonetheless, this is a good idea. As long as the TSA persists in confiscating personal care items over the 3-ounce limit, this is a great alternative. And it’s cheaper than dumping your expensive perfume (or, presumably, any forbidden non-liquids as well) in the trash.

While passengers in the United States keep dumping their water bottles and sacrifice their four-ounce bottles of shaving cream or hair gel, Japan and China are installing machines that actually test for liquid explosives.

Japan has already rolled out liquid-explosives detectors at airports and train stations, though the machines “will be put to use in the near future.” No word on when that future date might be.

China is vowing to roll out similar machines and have them fully operative by the time the 2008 Summer Olympics kick off in Beijing. The machines are built by NUCTECH and run approximately $200,000 each.

The TSA is instead testing “backscatter” x-ray machines, which can detect liquids on a person through a “virtual strip search.” But these machines can only detect what’s on your person, not what’s in your luggage.

China and Japan are implementing technology to make flying safer and less of a hassle. Why isn’t the U.S.?

A few weeks ago, I expressed dissatisfaction at the seemingly arbitrary restriction placed on duty free liquor purchases at Munich Airport. (On October 13, the duty free shop refused to sell me a liter of anything, saying that it wasn’t permitted for flights to the United States.)

I wrote an e-mail to the Munich Airport, asking why this was the case, considering that there was no German or European law that I could find requiring such strict limitations, and since the TSA’s published rule only required duty free purchases to be made “after security,” which this was. (Although, as is common for U.S.-bound flights, there was another redundant — and mind-bogglingly slow — security check at the entrance to the gate area.)

This past Friday, a representative of the Bavarian State Ministry of Commerce, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Technology responded. In German. (I had written to them in English, with the notation that I intended to publish their reply on this blog.)

Luckily I can read German… so here is my translation of the relevant bits:

At the time of your inquiry, only the TSA placed any restrictions on duty-free goods, including the “delivery at gate” procedure. Implementation of such a process was not possible for the shop’s managers. A separate duty free shop solely for the United Airlines and US Airways gates does not exist at the airport.

Since then, the EU-wide regulations governing the transportation of liquids and the purchase of duty-free goods have taken effect. With the implementation of these rules, duty-free goods may once again be purchased.

Click here for the complete reply in the original German (pdf).

I’m sorry, but this still doesn’t explain the intra-European variation between airports. If the TSA’s rules were so clear, then the procedures should have been standard. Other airports were not requiring delivery of liquids to the gate. This sounds like buck-passing by local airport officials or state bureaucrats.

Thankfully, at the end of the day, the standardization of rules across the EU means that such incidents may be less frequent. And you’ve got it in writing, Munich allows duty free purchases for flights to the U.S. That’s good.

But the EU guidelines remain a minimum requirement. Any airport, and any airline, can impose stricter rules regarding carry-on bags. Here’s hoping they don’t.

(image)

Upgraded: The five-star hotel, now with seven stars!
Much like video game point inflation, star-rankings are just getting silly. Following the success of their Palazzo Versace hotel on the Australian Gold Coast, the fashion powerhouse is joining forces with Australian developer Sunland Group to create 15 “seven-star” hotels. Seven stars!?! What makes a seven-star hotel better than a five-star, or the equally absurd (but unheard-of, at least to me) six-star hotel? Apparently, live exotic fish in the pool and “specially-cooled sand.”

Downgraded, potentially: Starwood Preferred Guest points
Seven seems to be the magic number for hoteliers today. Gary Leff spreads the rumor that Starwood is planning to add a tier to their point-redemption rules: Category 7. The ultra-expensive resorts (Bora Bora, Maldives, etc.) would likely end up in this top tier, but other hotels might try to bump up their categorization, thereby costing you more points for free-night redemptions.

Downgraded: TripAdvisor’s reputation
The Times of London sends reporters to hotels and restaurants, offering to write positive reviews on TripAdvisor in return for an unspecified payment. Several properties were amenable to the scheme. More widespread, though: Owners writing their own glowing reviews. (The flipside, not mentioned: Owners tagging genuine, but negative reviews as “unhelpful.”) At least they still work on a five-point scale… My tip: I’m more likely to trust detailed reports that include both the good and the bad (no stay is perfect) and user-generated photos.

Downgraded: L.A.’s image
Who will recognize the City of Angels without its palm trees? As they die, they’re being replaced with oaks, etc. Sunset Boulevard, R.I.P.

Downgraded: Travel guides, travelers’ brains
Pimp my vacation! Where would Christina Aguilera par-tay in Avignon? Where is the best place to get rip-roaring, fall-down-the-stairs drunk as you go city-hopping with your Eurail Pass? And where in Italy will you find the “most awesome ancient ruins”? (real quote) MTV and Frommer’s have joined forces to create travel guides that will point readers “to some of the world’s hottest party scenes and outdoor adventures.” Did Beavis and/or Butthead get a travel writing gig?

Downgraded further: Common sense
If you only have a gallon-sized Ziploc bag, instead of the required quart-sized bag, but you only fill it with 2 tiny 3-ounce bottles, which would obviously have fit into the smaller bag, does TSA let you pass through security at Boston’s Logan Airport? No. Go buy a freedom-inducing 1-quart bag from the newsstand for fifty cents, terror-boy!

Downgraded: Brazil
Not much has been heard in the American news media since the horrific mid-air collision that cost 154 people their lives. The American pilots of the surviving Embraer business jet are still being held in Brazil. Joe Sharkey, the New York Times columnist who was actually on board the luckier plane, has been relentlessly following the story on his blog. While lawsuits and the Brazilian government (and media) are pre-emptively assigning blame to the pilots and their use of the radio transponder, Joe argues that Brazil is trying to cover up their own (military-controlled) air traffic control system. Apparently control of the skies is filled with coverage gaps, language trouble, and overworked employees who take time off in large groups — ostensibly for psychotherapy. Let’s just say that my faith in the safety of air travel is Brazil is minimal at best.

(image)

I went to the TSA’s website just now, and as I saw the now-classic image of the liquids in the plastic bag (above), it hit me: The item on the far right is an aerosol can of Evian water.

Of all the personal items they could use as a demonstration, they chose aerosol water?

The first time I saw this product was on my honeymoon in Barbados. One of the hotels on our trip had a beach attendant who provided chilled washcloths and offered to spray you with Evian water from a can like the TSA is picturing. I thought it was a rather silly extravagance to be sprayed with water — and not just any water, French mineral water — while lounging on an island in the Caribbean.

Yet I still keep a can from the trip in my desk at the office. But maybe the TSA was wiser than we thought, or at the cutting edge of in-flight travel care: Line three of the product description reads, “Great for use after you travel by air to combat the effects of dry, dehydrating pressurized cabin air.”

Effective Monday, November 6, European Union member-states, Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland adopt a common set of new airport security rules. Once again, the zipper-top plastic bag industry is getting a boost.

The new rules essentially mirror the American rules. Small bottles in a clear plastic zip-top bag. Additionally, you’ll be required to remove your computer from your bag and you’ll need to remove jackets before entering the metal detector. Many, if not most, airports already followed these latter two rules, but the new guidelines are intendend to standardize security across the continent. The complete rules are here (pdf).

But be careful if you’re flying from Europe and then connecting in the United States. TSA permits liquids in 3-ounce containers or smaller. The European standard is 100ml — which equals 3.2 ounces, ever so slightly above the American cutoff. If you’re unlucky, you may find a nitpicking TSA agent who denies your 100ml bottle of shampoo. I hope it doesn’t happen, but it might. Be forewarned.

Update: No kowtowing to teetotaling taxicabs
Remember the cabdrivers who were refusing to transport passengers from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport if they suspected the traveler was carrying alcohol? The airports commission has wisely reversed its earlier plans to label taxis as “wet” or “dry.” If a cabbie refuses a fare for any reason, he now has to go to the back of the line. Good. If you don’t want to transport people whom you find objectionable for whatever reason, don’t be a cabdriver. Simple enough.

Economy Parking, Premium Skycaps
Chicago’s O’Hare airport is getting skycaps at Economy Parking Lot E. The new service, run by BAGS, Inc., will allow parkers to check in and drop off their bags ($5 fee) before they head back to the terminal via the train. But you’re expected to drop off the bags a whole 2 hours before your flight. That seems like a stretch.

More airlines lower fuel surcharges
Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines are rolling back fuel surcharges for longhaul flights. Good for them, and for us.

Singapore Airlines’ gift from above
A large metal bolt fell off a Singapore Airlines 747 and hit an Australian man’s house. (He should be glad it wasn’t a DC-10 overhead.)

Behind the scenes at American Airlines
Peter Greenberg spent a week checking out American Airlines’ operations behind the scenes. The result is a CNBC special which aired Wednesday. I missed the first showing, but it’s being re-run on Sunday. Plus, clips from the show are available for download here. Will there be coverage of the mice that seemingly infest their planes?

Europeans: ask for your travel records
Privacy advocate Ed Hasbrouck advises Europeans to find out what’s in their travel records. In Europe, you own the rights to your data. In the U.S., the company that holds the data owns the rights. Might as well have a look, to see if there are errors. Much like looking at your credit report to look for fraud…

Ryanair revises fine print, battles its own employees
Britain’s Office of Fair Trading is forcing Ryanair to change the fine print in its ticketing contract. The changes make it easier to file a claim against the airline for lost, damaged, or delayed luggage, as well as expenses due to flight cancellation. This comes on top of employee actions, including unionization threats, promises of a strike by baggage handlers in Spain, and the refusal of Italian crew to sell food on board. (See here for the unionization campaign’s homepage.)

Terrifying liquid
Via Boingboing: a liquid whose name deserves all the TSA scrutiny it can handle. Best to pack this on in your carry-on, if you absolutely, positively need to bring central American cleaning supplies through an airport.

Terrifying lawns
Taking his work home with him? A Los Angeles plane mechanic has turned his front lawn into a mock airplane crash site for Halloween. It uses real aircraft parts from a Gulfstream. Considering it’s in LA, trick-or-treaters might be unfazed and think he’s running a filming location for “Lost.”

Sharkey strikes back
NY Times travel columnist Joe Sharkey, who survived the midair collision in Brazil a few weeks ago, and whose blog was peppered with hate-filled comments after he posted a short statement of concern for the fates of the pilots of his aircraft, lashed out against his (largely Brazilian) critics in a recent post. The investigation into the accident and the surrounding controversy has become quite the drama. Thusfar no word on his site on whether or not he is, in fact, Robin Leach.

Last week, returning to the United States, I connected via Munich. It’s a great airport in many respects, much nicer than its rival Frankfurt. Heck, it has its own brewery, AirBräu.

But Munich is a maddening place for one reason: Local airport authorities appear to be making up their own double-secret security policies regarding flights to the United States.

In particular: They’ve created a stricter liquids ban than European or American airport security rules demand.

As in many European airports, flights to the United States get especially zealous security, with extra bonus checkpoints, gates set apart from other flights, and a game of 20 questions before boarding. (New question for me this time was “Are you carrying any electronic items, and when did you last use them?”)

But Munich goes a step further, making things illegal that aren’t illegal elsewhere. Travelers on my flight grumbled that their stick deodorant had been taken away, despite being an opaque solid. But even worse, the perennial bugbear of liquids:

The ban on liquids purchased in the secure area of the airport has already been reversed, making it possible to buy duty free liquor or a bottle of water after security. But not in Munich, if you’re flying to the United States.

When the duty free shop denied my effort to buy a liter of hooch, they told me it’s because of American rules. But that’s not true. It’s not the European rule, either. No details at all on the Munich Airport website. Either the revised rules aren’t trickling down to Bavaria, or, much like in Britain, airport operators are making up the rules as they go along.

I suspect the latter. Consider yourself warned if traveling through Munich.

Related:
- Cavalcade of security news: Fingerprints, liquids, and suspicious looking devices
- Making sense of the new TSA liquids policy
- Liquid ban relaxed in the United States

(image)

The UK will be following in the steps of the US, allowing travel-sized liquid toiletries to be brought through security. Finally some cracks appearing the liquid security facade. But don’t bring big bottles of water or shampoo through security just yet:

Each container must be no bigger than 100ml and they must also be carried in a transparent bag and presented for screening.
Permitted items include toothpaste, contact lens solution, travel-sized medicines or anything else that might be needed for a short trip.

Also, the regulations won’t go into effect until early November. It’s not clear why there is such a delay. The U.S. put the change into effect overnight. Why does the UK need a month?

Baby steps. And still good news.

(image: Tomasz Nowak)