Will the airport 100ml liquid restrictions ever be lifted?

Ubbquittious

When these were brought in on the back of some knee-jerk reaction to some lad allegedly trying to set off a bomb many years ago they were supposed to be temporary. They were supposed to expire at some stage but they are still around. Much like the USC

It is awful codswallop that in this day and age you can't even bring back a jam jar from your holiday without paying through the nose for a suitcase to be checked in. The conspiracy theorist in me reckons the economic benefits of having everyone dump their perfectly good stuff to re-buy once they get to their destination will have every shop that sells liquids and gels in proximity to an airport up in arms if anyone tries to lift the restrictions.

Does anyone remember the system Aer Lingus used to have where if you bought a shiny new Victorinox chef's knife while away the cabin crew would put it into a special bag for the captain to mind during the flight?

suicide_circus

Safety theatre

Grayson

Unlikely.


The rule was brought in after an attempted bombings. It was originally thought that the bombers were going to use an explosive called TAPT. If that was the case the restrictions would have been stupid because the process of mixing TAPT in an airline toilet is hilarious. However they were using something else.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/
And since that stuff is viable in quantities greater than 10ml then I don't think they'll change the rules.

biko

Magic 8 ball says "no"

Try_harder

Ah sure he was only messing! I can haz jam!

seamus

"Safety Theatre" as the man above says.

You don't actually need a bomb to cause devastation in mid-air, anything that can ignite with sufficient ferocity would do it. And for that you can carry some of the material you need in your carry-on and source the rest in the Airside shops before you fly.

Realistically it doesn't happen because the number of people who want to die on a plane is very small.

Modern plastics mean that someone could very easily bring several weapons undetected onto a flight that are as strong and sharp as box-cutters, which is what the hijackers had in the WTC attacks. It has yet to happen, because it's basically a freak occurrence.

But because they're cooped up in a metal tube 10,000m above the earth, people want to feel like they're as safe as they can possibly be. So airports maintain security rules to help people feel safe, even if those rules are pointless.

Grayson

seamus wrote: »

"Safety Theatre" as the man above says.

You don't actually need a bomb to cause devastation in mid-air, anything that can ignite with sufficient ferocity would do it. And for that you can carry some of the material you need in your carry-on and source the rest in the Airside shops before you fly.

Realistically it doesn't happen because the number of people who want to die on a plane is very small.

Modern plastics mean that someone could very easily bring several weapons undetected onto a flight that are as strong and sharp as box-cutters, which is what the hijackers had in the WTC attacks. It has yet to happen, because it's basically a freak occurrence.

But because they're cooped up in a metal tube 10,000m above the earth, people want to feel like they're as safe as they can possibly be. So airports maintain security rules to help people feel safe, even if those rules are pointless.

Weapons like that aren't as useful anymore since the cabin is locked.

retro:electro

I’d rather have the slight inconvenience of having to pour my cosmetics into 100ml containers for my luxury weekend break away, than the rather massive inconvenience of being obliterated and blown to bits mid air by a self made bomb.

Hector Savage

I can't take my 120ml bottle of water, but I can take my 99ml bottle of liquid explosive ....

hmmmm

Ubbquittious

I have been thinking for a long time that the various middle eastern terrorist groups must have depleted their supply of eejits thick enough to be willing to go out and kill themselves in order to bring down a plane or kill a few randomers on the street. They can't be very well funded either because if they paid some proper engineers and chemists to design some real bombs for them they could do fierce damage without requiring anyone to kill themselves for the cause.

Instead you see the odd loon driving a rented Hyundai onto the pavement and a botch job explosion here and there.

take everything

seamus wrote: »

"Safety Theatre" as the man above says.

You don't actually need a bomb to cause devastation in mid-air, anything that can ignite with sufficient ferocity would do it. And for that you can carry some of the material you need in your carry-on and source the rest in the Airside shops before you fly.

Realistically it doesn't happen because the number of people who want to die on a plane is very small.

Modern plastics mean that someone could very easily bring several weapons undetected onto a flight that are as strong and sharp as box-cutters, which is what the hijackers had in the WTC attacks. It has yet to happen, because it's basically a freak occurrence.

But because they're cooped up in a metal tube 10,000m above the earth, people want to feel like they're as safe as they can possibly be. So airports maintain security rules to help people feel safe, even if those rules are pointless.

Wow that's interesting.
Never heard that before.

So basically again a decision made for the airlines' bottom line ultimately.

Cienciano

Security theatre as said already. I can't take my 2cm Guinness keyring with knife and bottle opener on board because I might kill someone with it and take over the plane. But I can buy a couple of bottles of strong spirits in duty free, use one as a petrol bomb and the other I can smash and use as a weapon.
I can't see it going away, we're used to it now and airlines duty free shops are happy with it. Security can pretend they're doing a good job by confiscating your 125ml hair gel.

jester77

It was announced last year that this restriction is being lifted. Can't remember if it is later this year, or next year that it will happen.

seamus

take everything wrote: »

So basically again a decision made for the airlines' bottom line ultimately.

For the most part. There is of course a certain level of basic security that should be in place to deter anyone who might be mentally ill and just looking to do something crazy.

But at the top end, someone who wants to cause a major terrorism incident will find ways to get around airport security restrictions.

And it's the latter that people are more worried about. Some crazy guy on a plane threatening to cut people would of course be traumatic, but when you talk about airport security, people are talking about stopping terrorists. And airport security doesn't really do that. But it makes people feel safe, "If I have to go to this much trouble to get on a plane, there's no way a terrorist can get on here".

murpho999

Cienciano wrote: »

Security theatre as said already. I can't take my 2cm Guinness keyring with knife and bottle opener on board because I might kill someone with it and take over the plane. But I can buy a couple of bottles of strong spirits in duty free, use one as a petrol bomb and the other I can smash and use as a weapon.
I can't see it going away, we're used to it now and airlines duty free shops are happy with it. Security can pretend they're doing a good job by confiscating your 125ml hair gel.

That being said, the amount of people being caught out by it and having liquids taken from their bags in every security queue I'm in is unreal.

Ubbquittious

murpho999 wrote: »

That being said, the amount of people being caught out by it and having liquids taken from their bags in every security queue I'm in is unreal.

If you're on the return part of the journey you have nothing to lose by chancing it. I'm sure a good % evade detection or the fella behind the x-ray machine simply cannot be arsed

AllForIt

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I have been thinking for a long time that the various middle eastern terrorist groups must have depleted their supply of eejits thick enough to be willing to go out and kill themselves in order to bring down a plane or kill a few randomers on the street. They can't be very well funded either because if they paid some proper engineers and chemists to design some real bombs for them they could do fierce damage without requiring anyone to kill themselves for the cause.

Instead you see the odd loon driving a rented Hyundai onto the pavement and a botch job explosion here and there.

Yes and I think the same applies to western Europe - I think after those Paris attacks the real loons willing to commit such atrocities came out of the woodwork all inspired by each other and since that hot period attacks filtered out. Sure there is more thinking about it but they will have seen that the police will go in all guns blazing if they find them hiding out somewhere so they might think twice about going through with it.

vicwatson

Is the bottles of water sold airside really subject to different checks than the sealed one I want to bring through security that I bought for one fifth the price in Lidl?

murpho999

Ubbquittious wrote: »

If you're on the return part of the journey you have nothing to lose by chancing it. I'm sure a good % evade detection or the fella behind the x-ray machine simply cannot be arsed

Disagree.

Seen plenty of people losing make up stuff that they didn't want to lose on outward journeys.

Also, think the security people are better than what you give them credit for.

Graces7

Years ago now I included a small bottle of Vit B drops in a parcel to Canada.
It bounced back with a large sign, that suspicious objects had been detected by airporr handlers

so they thought it was dangerous and sent it back?

andekwarhola

In recent times, I just tend to buy toiletries wherever I'm going rather than be arsed with all the buying of travel sized stuff or packing it into containers.

After shelling out for a flight and hotel, some toothpaste, brush, deodorant, razors and shaving soap won't make or break the holiday.

_Dara_

At Dublin Airport recently, I asked at Information if it was one bag of toiletries only or if I could have two (it had been a good while since I hadn't any check in luggage). She hummed and hawed. I couldn't believe that. Surely that's something they'd be well-versed on? She then said two was fine. Got to security. Was told only one was allowed. Hassle ensued. I hate airports.

wexie

Cienciano wrote: »

I can't take my 2cm Guinness keyring with knife and bottle opener on board because I might kill someone with it and take over the plane. But I can buy a couple of bottles of strong spirits in duty free, use one as a petrol bomb and the other I can smash and use as a weapon.

Years ago (after 9/11) I was flying to Brussels, got pulled up at security because I had a Zippo in my carry on which I wasn't allowed to bring on board (in the end went to the cabin crew and got it back afterwards).

In the same bag I also had a bic lighter and can of deodorant....

I was going through security in Dublin airport, I had my see through plastic bag, with my liquids in. Was stopped & the woman said I couldn't take my bottle of face cleaner because it was over 100ml.
I pointed out that the bottle was less than half full, which Was The reason I brought it, I wouldn't be bringing back.
Nope. No way. No how. Wasn't getting through.
I asked if the restrictions was on liquids or bottles.......
Another guy came along, sent her on her break & let me through with the bottle 😀

Yer Da sells Avon

I used to think it would be great if there were separate flights for people like me, who can't be arsed with all the security nonsense and aren't overly bothered about their own personal safety. But then I realised that those flights would also be staffed and piloted by people who aren't overly bothered about their own personal safety, so I'm not so sure...

Richard Hillman

andekwarhola wrote: »

In recent times, I just tend to buy toiletries wherever I'm going rather than be arsed with all the buying of travel sized stuff or packing it into containers.

After shelling out for a flight and hotel, some toothpaste, brush, deodorant, razors and shaving soap won't make or break the holiday.

The likes of deodorant is actually dearer for one of the mini cans as opposed to the larger ones. So you're better off buying away. The only thing is that some countries are not too bothered with deodorant. In France, it's Lynx/Axe or women's dove. Went for the Dove.

uck51js9zml2yt

take everything wrote: »

Wow that's interesting.
Never heard that before.

So basically again a decision made for the airlines' bottom line ultimately.

It's expensive replacing plants that were blown out of the air. Never mind the families of those blown into little pieces. )

ginandtonicsky

Impossible to be a regular traveller and stick to a decent skincare routine or even to be half arsed about makeup.

I even have all the plastic mini bottles to portion out my foundation/moisturiser/cleansers to fit the 100ml requirement. Then I'll max out on the single plastic baggie allowed through per person and end up binning my expensive products and looking like shyte because I can't properly clean my face for days.

Hate this dumb airport restriction

Zebra3

Sure if anyone wants to take a plane out while on board, all they have to do is switch on their mobile, right?

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

Sure if anyone wants to take a plane out while on board, all they have to do is switch on their mobile, right?

It's gone totally idiotic now though as you can use you phone on some flights and others you are warned over and over to turn it off.

I was making phone calls, emailing and web browsing no issue on a recent long haul flight perfectly allowed, change to a different flight and "the phone could affect the plane"... total nonsense.

DaveyDave

I'm sure I read an article that suggested Dublin Airport was getting liquid x-ray scanners in 2016 or 2017. Must have been mistaken.

The bigger issue here is how many gob****es don't know about the restrictions. Every single time I fly someone is holding up the queue to sort out their liquids.

I flew for the first time in 2013 by myself and I made sure I was aware of all the procedures necessary.

Ubbquittious

DaveyDave wrote: »

I'm sure I read an article that suggested Dublin Airport was getting liquid x-ray scanners in 2016 or 2017. Must have been mistaken.

The bigger issue here is how many gob****es don't know about the restrictions. Every single time I fly someone is holding up the queue to sort out their liquids.

I flew for the first time in 2013 by myself and I made sure I was aware of all the procedures necessary.

The people who don't know about the restrictions aren't gob****es. The people who create the restrictions are

hynesie08

Ubbquittious wrote: »

The people who don't know about the restrictions aren't gob****es. The people who create the restrictions are

Maybe, but the people who walk by half a dozen signs with pictures, into a queue with people who have their liquids in a clear plastic bag, while daa officers shout out the rules, and then act surprised when asked about liquids, are also gob****es.

Every single flight.......

Billy86

I was in Prague over the weekend where they still do the security check directly before the flight, and a guy brought through a 1 litre bottle of water directly behind me. Security just put it in front of some kind of machine that seemed to test the liquid, and through he went. And here was me having been completely parched while in the queue for 10+ minutes, water bottle still in the little plastic protective bag they use.

****ing incredible city, though!

Reckless Abandonment

Ireland and the UK are a pain in the ass to travel into or out of. Just don't get why they are so slow and particular about security when the rest of Europe couldn't give a sh*t. Was in Italy the other day and security was a breeze and it was packed. Same with Spain.