The Checkout

But Can I Bring My Jelly Doughnuts?

Today, new Transportation Safety Administration rules on what liquid, gels and aerosols are allowed on board airplanes take effect.

The rules--or "refinements," as TSA prefers to call them--are an improvement over the original ban on liquid substances imposed August 10, after British authorities uncovered an alleged plot to hijack planes flying from Britain to the U.S. Airport trash cans immediately filled with discarded lattes, $50 bottles of perfume, and countless tubes of toothpaste. With enforcement left up to the discretion of screeners, parents found themselves sipping breast milk to prove it wasn't an explosive, and cream cheese was eyed as a potential terrorist tool and banished from bagels at some airports.

Faced with the ban's real-life complications, TSA gradually eased up on lipstick, lip balm, saline solution and, of all things, KY Jelly. Not to mention "life sustaining liquids," such as bone marrow, blood products, and transplant organs.

Here's a breakdown of what is allowed as of today. These rules apply to all domestic flights as well as international ones that originate in the U.S.

* Travel-size toiletries (3 ounce or less) that fit "comfortably" in a single quart-sized, clear plastic, Ziplock bag will pass muster at security checkpoints. If you're not sure what "comfortably" or quart-sized mean, you can check out a TSA video short.
(I recommend "Traveling with a baby or small child" for the background Muzak.)

* Food and beverages purchased in the secure boarding area can now be brought on board.
This means freedom, once again, from the tyranny of the beverage cart. (Back in August, when I and some of my fellow Post reporters asked several airlines if they planned to stock up on beverages to make up for the prohibition on bottled water, we were told mechanically, "our beverage service is complimentary.")

* The new rules also mean no more dry bagels or naked salads. Cream cheese and salad dressing can be brought on board, so long as you bought the food inside the checkpoint. Travelers who scarfed down jelly doughnuts rather than part with them can leave the speed eating to Kobayashi.

* Liquid or gel prescription medications are fine so long as the name on prescription medications matches a boarding ticket or ID. These too have to be presented for inspection.

* If you're diabetic, you can carry on up to 5 ounces per container of juice, water or insulin. You just have to declare them at security checkpoints, where security officers are supposed to write up a note that you take with you.

* You can still bring up to 4 ounces of essential non-prescription items such as saline solution as well as gel-filled wheelchair cushions and gel-filled bras and similar prosthetics worn for medical reasons.

How have you gotten by under the restrictions so far? Will the new rules make your life any easier? Share your liquidless tales of woe here.

By Annys Shin |  September 26, 2006; 9:40 AM ET Consumer News
Previous: CSPC on ATVs | Next: NYC to Restaurants: Get an Oil Change


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Oooh. A note from a TSA security officer? Does that rate higher or lower than a note from my Mommy, or Doctor excusing me from gym class?

Posted by: Kim | September 26, 2006 9:48 AM

I can feel the huge airport soda price hikes in the air, like the ozone before the big storm....

Posted by: The Cosmic Avenger | September 26, 2006 9:58 AM

I wonder why they only include breastmilk and formula for babies/infants?

My son is too old for breastmilk and formula and drinks whole milk. My daughter drinks skim milk. Can't buy anything but 2% at restaurants etc.

Also, since we do organic milks (get those darn hormones out of our milk), we have a "problem."

We're traveling in December. I'm planning on bringing sippy cups of milk and calling it formula. Screw the idiotic rules.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2006 10:09 AM

I actually had several instances where I got through our ironclad security with my entire toiletry bag intact, mouthwash and all.

I love how security addons are used to make up for the fact that there's very little anyone can do to stop someone from doing something horrible. It's not like they caught these guys with their explosive sodas and toothpaste at the plane door; they knew who they were catching way way before the airport.

Posted by: meiser | September 26, 2006 10:41 AM

How can I bring my fish home from Florida?

Posted by: Bob | September 26, 2006 10:55 AM

Depends - does the fish have diabetes?

Posted by: h3 | September 26, 2006 11:23 AM

Returning to DC from Tampa last week I had an interesting conversation with some TSOs regarding chili, clam chowder and chicken noodle soup being sold at several eateries in the secure area. The consensus was that it was OK to bring chili on board, but chicken noodle was not and there was mixed response to the chowder.

I wish the new rules had gone into effect a week ago which would have saved me from checking a bag on my trip home from San Diego on Sunday which resulted in a 50-minute wait at Dulles.

Posted by: Lester Burnham | September 26, 2006 12:04 PM

Has the TSA changed its guidance on breastmilk? Specifically, can I carry on pumped breastmilk (with the pump, if that matters) when my baby is not travelling with me? In case the TSA cares, I actually need the milk MORE when the baby is not with me than I do when he is. If he's not with me, he's drinking from a frozen stash that needs to be replenished. When he's a long, he can take it straight from the source.

Posted by: Amy | September 26, 2006 12:16 PM

I belive the TSA has lifted the ban on breast milk, I think it was one of the first to go. So I say BRING ON THE MILK!

And as for traveling stories my best friend travels a lot for her job and got in a little "tiff" with a security guard in FL. over some toothpaste. He wouldn't let her bring it on the plane, but she was allowed to bring her toothbrush. So she squeezed some toothpaste on her toothbrush and flew that way. I'm sure it was quite a sight seeing her board the plane, toothbrush extended with toothpaste in plane view.

Posted by: Melissa | September 26, 2006 12:36 PM

I haven't flown yet since this happened, but I'm wondering about the prescription thing... I have a prescription nasal spray, but I get it filled by mail order so they put the prescription on the box, not on the individual bottle. Do I have to bring the box with me now to show it's my prescription?

Posted by: Summer | September 26, 2006 12:55 PM

Oh, and one more thing... how did they settle on 3 ounces? I just went to CVS and the smallest bottle my contact solution comes in is 4 ounces. Sort of a "thanks, but no thanks..." situation.

Posted by: Summer | September 26, 2006 2:20 PM

This whole thing is so ridiculous. What if you fill a quart-sized bag with identical 3-oz bottles of the liquid/gel of your choice? I'll bet you end up with much more than one 16 oz bottle...which circumvents the ban on carrying more than 16 oz of one liquid, doesn't it? Not to mention if you fly with a friend or three who do the same thing. This new "refinements" are merely intended to placate the angry public, and as usual, extend the pretence of safety.

Posted by: Lisa | September 26, 2006 2:34 PM

From reading all of these posts and the original article, I can see TSA's biggest problem is informing the public.

Numerous mistakes and misnomers are listed throughout, such as the original article's contention that:

Breast milk had to be tasted, maybe in the UK, but not in the U.S.

Or the comment that you could get around the no more than 16oz. rule, such a rule does not exist. So I see no reason to get around it.

TSA should really set up some sort of website, where all the rules are listed, so people would not walk around being so misinformed.

Posted by: Firebrand | September 26, 2006 2:56 PM

Firebrand -

They have. Try

Additionally all major airlines' websites have links to the TSA regs.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2006 3:12 PM

For the person who complained about their contact solution being larger than 3oz, they've been allowing up to 4oz containers of contact solution for a while now, probably because you can't buy anything smaller. When I traveled last week, I put my 2oz (sample size) container of contact solution in the bin with my shoes at security and had no problems. I suspect that's because contact solution bottles have a very distinct shape.

Posted by: Marissa | September 26, 2006 3:42 PM

According to the TSA site, I can't bring more than 3 oz. of shampoo but can easily carry on my corkscrew, knitting needles, screwdriver and scissors. Someone explain that to me.

Posted by: Arlington | September 26, 2006 4:08 PM

It's Ziploc, and it's a registered trademark of S.C. Johnson. Lots of other companies make zip-top bags, too.

Posted by: Bill | September 26, 2006 5:03 PM

Unfortunately they've still retained the pointless rule that Rx drugs have to have a label on them in your name. LOTS of passengers get prescription drugs, such as asthma or allergy inhalers, in small containers that are not individually labeled, particularly if they use mail order pharmacies, or as small samples from doctors. I was required to throw away a prescription allergy inhaler that, if full, holds just over one half ounce of medication. Yet people are allowed to bring 3 ounce bottles of random toiletries through. This makes no sense at all.

Posted by: Barb | September 26, 2006 6:35 PM

This whole thing is ludicrous and designed to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general public...and electorate. The TSA is nothing more than a propoganda arm for the Bush Administration.

First they take away all of your personal liberties, then they slowly give them back to you. You feel so grateful for being able to take a 3oz container of saline solution that you think of it as a good thing.

Wake up folks, we're being played for fools.

Posted by: P Diddy | September 26, 2006 8:17 PM

If a terrorist is going to attack an airplane they are going to do it in a way that we haven't considered, using a means that we will over look. These stupid rules of ounces of contact solution and type of soup do not stop anyone but the law-abiding citizen. THE ONLY WAY to prevent another attack is to stop the terrorists before they get to the airport.

Terrorists are smarter than we give them credit for, and until we realize that we will always be one step behind.

Posted by: Kyle | September 26, 2006 8:19 PM

I'm a frequent flyer for my job... and by frequent I mean on a weekly basis... so I've had to deal with this regulation in all sorts of ways. Some notes and comments:

the 3oz limit is pathetic, as one person pointed out, nothing is stopping one from putting the same substance in all the bottles...

That said, I'd be much more in tune with a 4oz rule... since most smaller bottles (shampoo / conditioner / gel / lotion) come in 3.4 or 4.0 oz sizes... Stupid TSA.

For the Nasal spray question... I have one as well. To be honest, I carry my prescription for it (just cut it from the box)... however, not once have I EVER been asked about it. I don't even bother removing it from my bag. It has made it through every airport I've crossed through.

Heck... to be honest.... when you get to it, and want to have fun with them... it all comes down to how you pack your bag... I know of ways to position bottles in my suitcase in which it doesn't get noticed or identified in the xray...

it's all a game when you deal with it all the time.

The TSA has no common measures across any airport, and does not use common sense when creating their 'restrictions'.

Heck, I've had arguments with Screens (and their managers) over Homeopathic medications. I've always ended up winning and keeping what I have.

For the record: the official wording is 'medicinial purposes such as prescription medication'... we all know certain things just don't get a prescription these days.

Posted by: Brad | September 27, 2006 2:20 PM

This whole thing is laughable. The biggest danger I see in the air is pilot error (like turning onto the wrong runway, for example, or trying to continue a flight with one of the engines dead, as recently happened) or air traffic controller error (like not watching the planes as they head for the wrong runway, or guiding two planes onto the same runway at the same time)... I'm not suggesting we put a few of those TSA clowns in the control tower.... that would be REALLY disastrous!

Posted by: Bill | September 27, 2006 2:24 PM

The TSA is the propaganda arm of the Bush admin.? Put down the pipe and get some help for your paranoia buddy.

The facts are pretty simple, until we instill a realistic fear in our many enemies that if they harm the US in any way there will be unbelievably swift and complete consequences, we will all have to live with "restricted" freedoms. By the way, those of you with counting bringing liquids on a flight as protected rights, might want to check the bill of rights a little more closely.

Let the military and the intelligence agencies do there job, no matter how many terrorists have to wear underpants on there heads as "torture", and we will solve the problem once and for all.

Posted by: SD from NOLA | September 27, 2006 2:26 PM

The only way to be 100% sure to stop another attack on/with an airplane is to ban ALL air flights.
Otherwise it is all a matter of degree of risk. The rules are as much a means to make the public believe that they are safe as an attempt to actually be safe. Which you can never really be.

Posted by: Tim | September 27, 2006 2:28 PM

Do the Liquids have to be in the manufacturer's containers or can I put some of my shampoo into a travel size plastic container? I would hope I could, as it wound be easy for a terrorist to replace the liquid in a mfgr's container if they wanted to get a banned substance on board. At least with the clear plastic containers you can see the stuff inside. This is not always true with Mfgr's containers.

Posted by: Steve | September 27, 2006 2:40 PM

hey bob with the fish... Fedex 'em overnight! i 'wouldnt trust my catch with tsa as far as i could throw my boat

Posted by: hr | September 27, 2006 2:51 PM

Went through the checkpoint a couple of weeks ago. They took my liquid eyeliner.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 27, 2006 2:56 PM

By all means check the constitution! The fourth amendment about being secure in our papers (Social "Security" numbers required on medicare cards!) and persons (Full body "pat" downs at airports!) has been neatly torn out of the constitution and thrown away. I think the illusion of security probably helps many people sleep better, but I don't approve of gutting the constitution to provide that illusion.

Posted by: Dr. Leigh | September 27, 2006 2:56 PM

It may seem paranoid and, sure, there's plenty of room for improvement but the complainers do not have the heavy reponsibility of preventing terrorism that the TSA does. If they did, they'd be checking every little bottle too.

God help the TSA if a real terrorist ever commits an attack with a dangerous liquid or plastic explosive. Heads will roll, careers will be ruined, and there may be prosecution - fanned by the flames of public outrage from the same people who were complaining a little while before:

"How dare the TSA let a terrorist get by!? What are they doing? Sleeping on the job while collecting a paycheck? I'm gonna sue! I have a lawyer on retainer just for this."

When you're on spot, you follow regulations and the public could help by not whining.

Posted by: Luis Interiano | September 27, 2006 3:05 PM

I'm just hoping that the next terrorist they catch doesn't have the explosives in his/her underwear......

Posted by: Wes | September 27, 2006 3:13 PM

The TSA are a bunch of nincompoops. I'm just waiting for someone to set off a device in the middle of the lines caused by their pointless security theater.

They are confusing ordinary policing with preventing terrorist attack, and the two are totally different. Terrorists have two things that your ordinary drug-addict thief doesn't: Time, and Money. Are shoes being checked? Well duh, don't put it in your shoe. Liquids prohibited? Ok, let's spend some money on nitrocellulose underwear.

The TSA is using police-think, where preventing some attack mode X improves safety by at least a little. BUT, that works because the preponderance of ordinary bad-guys are either a) broke or b) in a hurry and have to use what's at hand or c) both. In the terrorist-attack prevention world, preventing X while allowing Y reduces exposure by ZERO. It only wastes everyone's time and has no meaning for safety.

I'd be OK with a cursory inspection, looking for the lunatic who really did wake up and decide to take a gun on board. Beyond that, all I see is a giant jobs program for wanna-be Gestapo.

TSA, go home. We'll be a lot safer without you.

Posted by: Karl | September 27, 2006 3:15 PM

the whole thing doesn't make sense. You can buy duty free items, securely brought to the jetway or you can even buy on the plane. Specifically, you could buy Vodka, which with some matches easily carried in your pocket could cause some serious damage on board (Heaven forbid). If they allow the Vodka, why the hell is toothpaste or deodorant any worse?

Posted by: AG | September 27, 2006 3:16 PM

This liquid ban would make more sense if it was even POSSIBLE to combine the liquids proposed to have been combined to actually make an explosive in a five hour flight. Has anyone actually read the instructions about combining these liquids? First you need an amazing amount of these liquids. Then you need to combine them over a period of HOURS at a temperature below zero using pounds of dry ice. You would think that someone would notice this chemistry experiment tying up a bathroom before any of the explosive substance actually was produced.

Posted by: KD | September 27, 2006 3:21 PM

And a PS to Mr Luis, above: if the TSA were really preventing anything, that might be different. They aren't. They are just playing at it so that we'll feel better. There is no prevention against a determined attack. The sooner people realize that they are no more or less dead on an airplane than if the bomb goes off in the ticket line, the better off we'll be, because then we can stop this pretending and move on to some real safety. (Like thinking about ports, and water supplies, and electricity.)

We've dealt with the major air terrorist threat, which is using the plane as a bomb, by cockpit door reinforcement and general awareness measures. Now it's time to move on.

Posted by: Karl | September 27, 2006 3:22 PM

Guess we will soon have bladder checkers and anyone with 3 ounces or more of urine will have to empty it. Dry mouths will be enforced, as will dry eyes. Sweaty palms means probable threat. What next???

Posted by: Stump | September 27, 2006 3:27 PM

Having recently flown from Chicago to Hawaii and back I was just about strip searched due to big metal prosthesis in both legs- and I as a passenger am NOT ALLOWED to pull up my skirt and show the HUGE scars and am treated with additional suspicion 'cause my leg won't lift up while seated BUT the guy seated in front of me got on late with a 2 liter bottle of water and the women across from me had an atomizer of perfume.

Posted by: Lori | September 27, 2006 3:38 PM

The public should help by not whining indeed -- they should stop flying until the airline industry implodes and the TSA goons are put back on the unemployement lines. Playing dominance games at the airport doesn't make anyone more secure, and stupid regulations distract us from the real things we need to do to be secure.

In the current environment, the terrorists don't need to do anything, as the DHS and the TSA are doing their job for them. That's either clever on their part, or rather stupid on ours. Take your pick.

Posted by: SS | September 27, 2006 3:40 PM

on a recent trip in august a friend of mine was asked to eat a piece of hard candy out of a box he had. did they think he was going to poison himself?

Posted by: diane | September 27, 2006 3:53 PM

Was insulin initially banned as carry-on? Wow, if so, did we miss that story!


Posted by: Hoosier Reporter | September 27, 2006 3:56 PM

The answer to the problem is really simple. It's called racial profiling of "Arab" men between 18 and 45 years of age. Thy are the problem, not the 30 year old business woman or 75 year old grandfather or 12 year old child, eating a bagel or carrying Chanel or a Coke on board.

As long as we (American's) continue to stick our PC heads up our you know where, we'll always be in danger.

You don't think that the terror savages don't read this, the TSA website, cable TV talking head's shows or other newspapers for our vulnerabilities?

The terror savages laugh at our naivete!!

Posted by: Geary C | September 27, 2006 3:59 PM

The TSA & all these idiotic rules are a cosmetic joke. The REAL threats are in the baggage handling and general ports security. TSA screeners do nothing to improve security (see all the news reports of guns, knives, chainsaws, etc. allowed through!).
I agree w/everyone who noted the capriciousness of the sceeners. I take what I want thru the screens and have only once been stopped. The entire process is ludicrous, another gov. pork-barrel.

Posted by: ELG | September 27, 2006 4:03 PM

How about installing the same security precations on every bus boarding or malls, and every other place where masses of people gather. Completely agree with most of the comments, the measures introduced by TSA bring more problems then solve any security treat. They will ruin domestic and international commerce, and life of ordinary people faster than any terrorists would do. The government and the congress have got to think about creating the conditions that will help to eliminate the terrorism as a way of solving problems. They (politicians)should address common people's problems in resolute way, not just BS about it, before their elections. They also should realize that the more US is portraited as superpower, the more resistance and anger, and secret support of terrorists it will produce all over the world from the countries opposing US domination (almost all the countries in the world are against US domination politically, culturally and economically). US politicians have to recognize, that US with the way its going will smash itself against the rock. They should stop fighting with each other, stop information subversion, disinformation of american people; choose new, honest, smart people to lead this country, to whom the american people will trust. And one more thing - drop that stupid idea of globalization, it will produce as much resistance and fuel terrorism enormously, because globalization means losing unique cultures everywhere and establishing one whole culturally homogeneous globus. Ingenious populations all over the world will fight this generic approach. This process cannot be forced, it already going for centuries, so let it be going by its own pace. Evolution or G-D's Will if forced out of its pace will hit back with devastating power.

Posted by: Jeka | September 27, 2006 4:18 PM

Whenever the TSA screeners bark at me, "Step forward!" (whatever happened to "Please"?) I can picture them in Nazi Germany, barking "Mach Schnell!"

Posted by: P | September 27, 2006 4:25 PM

Has this country become stupid and blind at the same time. What about colostomy bags?
As long as its 4 oz, it should be bacon grease. Yes, all terrorists are afraid of pork. Carry pork products on every flight and every public event. It keeps them from going to heaven and getting their 72 if it touches them before they die.

Posted by: jimbob | September 27, 2006 4:44 PM

Hatred spreading in the world because the life conditions are worsening even in rich, industrialised countries. Economic crisis stay on. People loose their jobs by tens of thousands every day. At the same time those jobs are being exported to foreign countries, corporations bying each other becoming financial monsters, huge monopolies that stiff the market. And the governments do nothing about it. They regulate only parts of the big business, to make sure that money flow to government's projects (now it's a war on terror), the rest, the nation, they don't care about. The energy companies can raise the price as much as they want, the corporations and wall street dealing in oil can raise the bar as much as they want, the credit card companies, the insurance monsters have all the leverage on their premiums and on people. For last few years they sky-rocketed, but government still - do nothing. Do we really need this kind of people in our government?

Posted by: jeka | September 27, 2006 5:02 PM

and oil, energy prices, banks rates affected by insurance and government rates create inflation, affects all the economy, even globally. War costs a lot too. Economy goes down -> life conditions go down-> morals go down -> criminal goes up -> terrorism goes up. Very, very simple!!
Only one culprit here-corrupted, irresponsible, incapable government.

Posted by: jeka | September 27, 2006 5:12 PM

I liked the idea of carrying pork products on every flight! Maybe a strip of preserved bacon can be sewn into every seat cushion!

And dry eyes ARE mandatory, stump - it's literally much more dry on an airplane (1% humidity) than a desert (min. 11% humidity)!

I'm always tortured by long, dry flights. So I have always brought 2 or 3 liters of my own home-distilled water, sometimes with a little added lemon juice. I don't trust or like their stinkin' water, plus I don't enjoy having to ask the stewardess every 30 minutes for another serving of water and pester her throughout the flight. Sometimes they're even a little stingy, not giving me as much as I want.
They ought to start offering BETTER water on flights (and in the airports), and more of it, obviously.
And I need my eye drops or else it's very painful, even after just 1 hour!

The best solution is to become filthy rich, then fly by private jet.

Posted by: WhyMe | September 27, 2006 9:48 PM

I've been saying for years how easy it is to forget to leave something at home and realize after you've already made it past security. I actually did have to toss my favorite camping utensil set... they wouldn't let me take the butter knife or fork, but it was ok to have a spoon! I'm sorry, but if anyone is allowed to take over a plane using a little fork or butter knife, well, they deserve it. It's those old ladies and their overpowering perfume we need to watch out for. LOL. I agree- enough PC crap, profile. Better yet, lets not live in fear. The public has a right and reason to whine- why on earth should we have to suffer? As former military, I loved my job- however, there are some stupid things that need improved/changed. If people don't complain, they won't change!
We're bound to get hit again unless we actually use overwhelming force against the terrorist nations.

To the guy who said it took hours and lots of dry ice or chemicals, you obviously haven't taken the time to look up liquid matches on the net. Heck, flint and steel and 3 ounces of lighter fluid in a small container... use your imagination!

The TSA folks actually removed the clock mechanism from a wedding present in a checked bag (discovered after we arrived home)! I feel oh so safe with them watching out for me... idiots and sheep.

Posted by: Chris | September 28, 2006 10:21 AM

Please refer to my post above.

I don't fly often and maybe frequent flying would aggravate me too, but I flew on two occasions in the past few months and was subjected to the whole rigamarole. It was a royal pain but I grinned and bore it knowing that teh detailed search may make a terrorist afraid to fly.

Someone suggested racial profiling and that might have some effect but the civil rights penalties are not worth it. There are many honest Arab-Americans who are not terrorists who will then be profiled. I myself am Hispanic and a naturalized citizen; and have a beard so I look "Middle Eastern." I have no doubt that I would be profiled since I already get strange looks from security guards in airports. Profiling would simply shift the burden to me, even though I don't run the country. If we're all in it together, let's share the burden.

Finally, there is a conumdrum in the anti-terror business - if a technique works (though it may need improvement) then - nothing happens! And the public immediately rushes to judgment - "See we didn't need all that hassle!"

The one statistic we'll never know is this: how many actual terrorists changed their plans and did not fly or attack because they knew the TSA, however goonish, was checking all kinds of seemingly unimportant details. If the answer is that even one terrorist attack delayed or scrapped, then the hassle is worth it. And I believe it is more than one but since we don't know, many asusme the search process is inefffective. This is a true case of ""better safe than sorry."

Improvements in the TSA's techniques are definitely needed but simple complaints do nothing to help. Please post your improvements.

Posted by: Luis Interiano | September 29, 2006 11:13 PM

I am going to europe in a few months. I never been on a plane before. what can i do about my i wonder if i would feel clusterphobic any advice? lol

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2006 4:14 PM

WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE????????????????
YOUR PATHETIC................

Posted by: Sue | October 3, 2006 4:44 PM

WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE????????????????
YOUR PATHETIC................

Posted by: Sue | October 3, 2006 4:45 PM

What I want to know is this: why is a woman in a moslem headscarf checking me at airport security?

I'm sure it's very PC to have a foreign-born moslem checking an american-born christian, but it makes no actual sense.

I mean, how many non-moslem suicide killers have we had so far?

Posted by: TSA victim | October 4, 2006 2:43 AM

Sue needs a chill pill. She is the type of person I am scared to be seated next to on a plane. She's freaked out. She's shouting. And she's no safer because of it.

Posted by: elyrest | October 7, 2006 12:46 AM

A wise boss once advised me never to complain about a problem without being willing to offer a solution. So lacking a better way to thwart potential attacks, I collect trial sizes and am grateful when I land without incident.

Now I think that the TSA should address the obese, the bad-mannered, fashion-challengled, the vile-breathed and plain obnoxious travelers. I'm sure these are all signs of evil-doers as are excessive complaints on blogs.

Posted by: vshogan | October 9, 2006 9:04 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company