I haven’t been able to find a satisfactory answer to the question as to why we need to put liquid items into a plastic bag of a certain size and dimension. Normally, I just ignore it because I have so little liquids that I carry on, but last month I get stopped and told to put everything into the bag.
The only other time I had this happen I was carrying a bottle of perfume for my wife. It was the only liquid I was carrying and was the full 100ml, so I took it out of my bag and showed it to the security person. They said it needed to be in a plastic bag. Okay, it is already wrapped in plastic, and in cardboard, and in glass which holds the perfume. Why the baggy? Because it has to be. So, I put it into the baggy and now everyone is happy again.
What is the benefit of putting things into a bag that I can hold in my hand and show them directly? I can then dump them into the bin like other people dump change there.
Several TSA-employed friends have told me that the reason is basically “because we said so.” That, and it seems to make their jobs that much easier. A plastic bag holding all of your liquids makes it easier to isolate them visually when viewing through the machine.
As to why they’ll make you put even one item in a bag, I’d wager that it’s because that’s the way the rules are written. All liquid items go in a bag, period, and if they make an exception for your one small liquid bottle, they run the risk of you asking for an exception for your two small bottles next time.
Sometimes the answer really is “because we say so.”
Maybe because the plastic bag maker has a kickback arrangement with somebody high us in TSA?
Remember back after 9/11, when we were told to keep a few rolls of duct tape on hand, as part of any home’s “survival kit” in preparation for a terrorist attack? Caused a huge run-up in sales of duct tape, many stores ran out. Then later we learned that the main duct tape manufacturer was a big Bush campaign contributor. But no connection, of course. Ha!
One thing that I suspect: if other travelers’ toiletry items like toothpaste, shaving cream, sunscreen etc. behave like mine do, tubes and other containers that have been opened tend to leak slightly (i.e. the toothpaste tube has a thin sunscreen coating, the shaving cream tube has a thin mosquito repellent coating, etc.) The plastic baggy may well be intended to keep all that goo off screeners’ hands (and off the next passenger’s items that the screeners handle).
I suspect the policy was put into place to make sure that the passenger’s total liquids were not above a certain quantity, even though they may be in multiple 3oz/100ml containers. The idea was that if a passenger had no more small vials than could be put into a quart zipper baggie, they wouldn’t have enough to blow up a plane. The quart baggie was very easy for passengers and screeners to use and understand. It makes it quite simple to determine compliance almost instantly in a moving screening queue, as well as leaving little room for debate between the screeners and the passengers.
I guess your question is why do they require the plastic bag even when you have liquids that are obviously in compliance with the total. I guess the screeners have instituted the policy because it is easier and quicker to just make everyone put their liquids into a compliant baggie, rather than having to make case by case determinations.
Sometimes rules get applied across the board for the sake of expedience and efficiency. Yes, there was no real reason for you to put one thing in a bag. But it does prevent two other problems - the person behind you with 3 things not in a bag who complains “You let that guy through without putting his liquids in a bag!” and the next time you fly with 3 liquids “Last time they let me through without a bag!”
From what’s been said, and thanks for the replies, logically it must be just to determine the total amount of liquids you have as Bildo suggested. Because I don’t think the typical person they have at security would have a clue as to what is any of the containers you might be carrying and I doubt the x-ray scanner would be able to determine shampoo from liquid explosives, either.
I guess I should be glad we’re allowed to carry anything onto a plane at all. Heaven forbid they find people able to smuggle explosives as clothes or in their fillings.
Leaving aside the issues of whether private homes need a terrorist attack survival kit and who contributed to whose campaign, I’ll note that duct tape is in fact quite useful for improvised repairs, a thing I learned when dealing with severe storm damage to the home of a friend.
From the horse’s mouth, so to speak:
That’s what I was thinking when I read the OP… people use that complaint a lot.
Well, I don’t complain to people who can take me into a back room and then tell me to bend over. It seems to me that is an easy way to deal with complainers who want to take advantage of the system rather than getting all bureaucratic over a bottle of perfume in its original packaging.
I was just wondering what the sense of it was. A simple explanation posted on the wall while we stand there waiting our turn at the scanner would help quite a bit for those of us interested. Or a pamphlet explaining in detail the purpose of it.
Why do I have to take flip flops off when walking through security?
I see this is GQ, so I’ll just say that most security measures make little sense when applied to an individual situation.
You can thank Richard Reid, a/k/a the Shoe Bomber, for that. He attempted to ring down a trans-Atlantic airline flight by lighting explosives contained in his shoes, but was foiled by an observant flight attendant.
As a result, the airport security agents must screen passengers’ shoes to be sure that nobody boards aircraft with explosive footwear.
Similar to the idea that requiring that even a single small vial be put in a zipper baggie leads to simplicity, speed, and avoidance of disputes at the screening counter, asking that all footwear be removed – whether or not it actually or arguably is too small to contain a bomb – is a straightforward rule that will move people through the line efficiently.
Except the problem is that if you really wanted to bring explosive liquid on a plane, there is a very easy way to do it - strapping it to yourself.
Taking your shoes off, having gels and liquids limited to x ounces, bla bla bla… basically all of the security restrictions at airports are far more about the illusion of security for the benefit of the traveling public than actual security.
I bet it’s only a matter of time before someone brings down an airplane by surgically implanting explosives into themselves. What happens after that? Everybody flies naked, and you need to have a note from your doctor for any scars? Full body MRI for every passenger?
Related question: in what countries must shoes be removed and inspected? Here in Canada, I’ve never had to take my shoes off to go through the checkpoint. In the US, I’ve always had to (well, since Reid pulled his stunt). What other countries require shoe removal?
I also suspect that there’s a certain element of behavioral analysis at work here. The extra hurdles force TSA to interact with passengers more, giving them more chances to notice if someone is acting really weird. If nothing else, they seem to be stopping more drunk pilots.
To be honest, I’m glad for the plastic baggie requirement. I’d much rather have to use a plastic baggie for my toiletries (which, quite frankly, I already did) than have my luggage doused by someone else’s spilled cheap cologne.
And every time I fly, I give thanks that Richard Reid was known as the shoe bomber, and not the underwear bomber.
This quote is from TSA Leader Kip Hawley, taken from a 2007 interview conducted by security expert Bruce Schneier.
My mom was once flying with only chapstick, and she put it in a ziptop sandwich bag to save space. TSA required her to remove it and place it in a quart-sized bag (which they gave her). They are sometimes very serious about that baggie.
I’ve had to take my shoes off in Canada a few times. Normally not. I’ve never had to take them off in Dubai and only sometimes in Frankfurt. Because I travel so much I make sure I don’t have metal buttons, etc. I usually go through security quickly, but the baggy thing seemed so pointless that I’ve ignored it up until now pretty successfully. So much so that they made me put a small bottle of hand sanitizer (usually my largest liquid item) in a baggy at the pre-screen check point. After passing that I took it out and stuffed it back into my carry-on bag for the next checkpoint and the scanner and no one said boo about it.