My wife once decided that a baby jar (under the 100 g limit) of apple sauce would make a nice snack on an airplane. It was confiscated on the grounds that you can take baby food on board only if you have a baby. Is this really a rule or was the guy making it up on the spot?
Makes sense to me. From what I can tell, the only approved liquid-type-item that doesn’t require a kid to be present is breast milk.
Maybe with babyfood but when I had a feeding tube due to cancer I always flew with two 500ml cans of liquid food and never had a problem although sometimes they ran the cans through the bomb sniffer.
I thought any liquid was fine as long as it was under the 100 ml limit.
That’s what I thought, too, but you should have seen the TSA’s reaction when I tried to bring 95mL of nitroglycerin onto my flight. I mean, really!
I was going to ask why she didn’t bring one of those small cups that are meant for schoolkids’ lunches, but I happen to have some of those, and they are just a little too big…111 ml.
Was the jar in her 2-qt plastic baggie? I think that parents get an exception for baby food (they can bring more than what fits in their baggie) and it makes sense that the kid actually has to be there to get the exception.
Yeah, that was my question. I’ve never had them worry about what my 3-oz liquids actually were, so long as they were under the limit and all in my allotted baggie. But if you were trying to bring it through in addition to your baggie because baby food doesn’t count toward your limit…then yeah, you need to have a baby with you.