Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Are Liquids Really Banned?  
User currently offlineB777a340fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 765 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10061 times:

I've been traveling a lot lately and I came to wonder why liquids are banned through security... If the rationale is because someone could detonate or make a bomb or impose danger with that liquid, then why are liquids sold inside the "safety" zone you go in after check in. This boggles my mind. I have to throw my bottle of water or lotion to go through security and two secs after, I can go to the duty free shop and buy myself bottles that were twice as big! My only thought is that they want to give airports a chance to charge passenger $5 for a bottle of water.

111 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 10054 times:

This was the original cause (sorry for the wikipedia, but you have to start somewhere)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

You can judge for yourself whether the continued restrictions are justified, or pointless. As for buying the same stuff after security - I suppose the presumption is that a bottle of water bought after security actually is a bottle of water.

[Edited 2009-07-06 08:12:15]

User currently offlineNwafan20 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9976 times:

all merchandise sold after security has already been screened. They know that they are safe, however, the 2006 plot uncovered that you can sneak in explosive liquids, and therefore no more liquids can be brought through security.

I personally think it should be allowed, but what do I know...



Long live the Red Tail! | WMU Flight Science major
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9959 times:



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 1):
You can judge for yourself whether the continued restrictions are justified, or pointless. As for buying the same stuff after security - I suppose the presumption is that a bottle of water bought after security actually is a bottle of water.

I wonder how much scrutiny those liquids, inside security, actually get from the TSA, if any?


This was just another, typical, knee jerk reaction.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineOffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9856 times:

I'm sure the initial idea was security related, but as a handy side effect, it allows airports and airlines to charge way over the odds for drinks, knowing that pax can't bring them through.

I've always thought the liquids ban is a bit of a joke when after security you can buy highly flammable liquids (i.e. alcohol) and what could be an offensive weapon (i.e. the glass bottle it comes in) plus any number of lighters. (Yes, I know they have a sign saying "Not for sale if travelling to the USA" - but I've never seen anyone asked for their boarding card.)



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I hear (sorry don't have a specific source) that the EU, or countries within the EU, are to drop the ban on liquids soon.


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9625 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 5):
I hear (sorry don't have a specific source) that the EU, or countries within the EU, are to drop the ban on liquids soon.

I've heard speculation to that end in the US, as well. I suppose the plan is to roll out screening equipment that specifically looks for certain chemicals? I don't know.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 3):
This was just another, typical, knee jerk reaction.

You know, I don't mind a knee-jerk overreaction in the days and weeks after an event. But it's been years now, so there has been time to assess the threat and fashion an appropriate response. I can only hope that the TSA is doing such work.


User currently onlineAirFRNT From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2824 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9601 times:



Quoting B777a340fan (Thread starter):
I've been traveling a lot lately and I came to wonder why liquids are banned through security... If the rationale is because someone could detonate or make a bomb or impose danger with that liquid, then why are liquids sold inside the "safety" zone you go in after check in. This boggles my mind. I have to throw my bottle of water or lotion to go through security and two secs after, I can go to the duty free shop and buy myself bottles that were twice as big! My only thought is that they want to give airports a chance to charge passenger $5 for a bottle of water.

Because liquid bombs can blow a hole in the side of a aircraft, and can't be caught by X-Ray machines.

Simple as that.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9590 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 3):
This was just another, typical, knee jerk reaction.

Yet, had they not taken any action, and somebody actually had blown up an aircraft with such explosives, there would have quickly been those demanding answers why the Powers-that-be didn't "do something" to have prevented the disaster.

They can't win....


User currently offlineLufthansa411 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 692 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9526 times:

If you go through security at just the right time, you can see various airport personnel putting liquids through then normal checkpoint scanners, such as water and booze for lounges, newstands and duty free. When I have seen them going through, they are given less scrutiny than the pax fluids, even though they are in MUCH higher quantities.


Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
User currently offlineR2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2579 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9523 times:

This whole liquids ban thing is another example of overreaction by governments needing to show that they're doing something, even if it's pointless. Just shows the general security paranoia that we live in today. It does nothing to increase effective security, is a major pain in the ass for passengers and airports (not for airport cafeterias or airlines charging for drinks on airplanes, though). It's just another limitation introduced into our everyday lives to create a false sensation of safety. In short: the terrorists have won again.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30580 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9498 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tharanga (Reply 10):
They'd exist, with or without that policy.

Of course they would. The liquid ban is just one part of the "self-perpetuation" goal.  Wink


User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9484 times:



Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 11):
I know 9-11 was bad, but it was only a fraction of the total airline history and is far from the norm. But I digress.

Airline history has a large number of successful hijackings and bombings, not just 9/11. Depends on what you'd want to call the norm, but I think the word 'commonplace' could almost be applied to domestic and US-Cuba incidents in the 60s and 70s; metal detectors have helped reduce that.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 11):
Ah.. so it takes more than 3.0 oz to cause an explosion? i am pretty sure that 1 oz could probably do the same.

Depends on the identity of the chemical at hand, doesn't it? I wonder how arbitrary the volume limit is.


User currently offlinePetera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On a number of occasions I have forgotten to remove the liquids from my bag for separate screening and the good old TSA hadn't spotted it! Wearing a smart uniform with a shiny badge doesn't make you any safer!

Peter  Yeah sure


User currently offlineERJ From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9422 times:

Take it for what its worth, but liquids probably should have been banned after the PR 434 attack. If nothing else, it proves that liquids can be a threat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9387 times:

I'm not sure why people have such an issue with the liquid ban. Sure it doesn't happen all too often that there is a liquid bomb threat, but it doesn't happen all to often that there is an actual bomb threat but we still screen for that. I would rather be safe (banning liquid does make me feel safer) than be able to bring a water bottle on the plane. Yes TSA might miss the liquid sometimes but I still see the need to ban liquids.

User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9353 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 18):
Yes TSA might miss the liquid sometimes but I still see the need to ban liquids.

I think scans that look for specific chemicals would be much more effective, and we are told that those will be in place sooner or later.

With good technology and well-trained staff, I suppose we can have better safety AND less inconvenience. At least, one can dream.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9243 times:



Quoting R2rho (Reply 13):
This whole liquids ban thing is another example of overreaction by governments needing to show that they're doing something, even if it's pointless. Just shows the general security paranoia that we live in today. It does nothing to increase effective security, is a major pain in the ass for passengers and airports (not for airport cafeterias or airlines charging for drinks on airplanes, though). It's just another limitation introduced into our everyday lives to create a false sensation of safety. In short: the terrorists have won again.

Absolutely correct. Whenever the military-industrial complex sees revenues declining, it sends proxies to invoke "national security" in response to "terrorism" the motives and goals of which are rarely questioned.

Unlike many other aspects of government, which are highly scrutinized, Homeland Security does not have any standards to meet. They can make any decision without any real evidence that their actions are necessary or effective. Liquids are banned and shoes are x-rayed not because it improves security but as a delayed response to exaggerated TV reports of terror attempts.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9083 times:



Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 8):
Because liquid bombs can blow a hole in the side of a aircraft, and can't be caught by X-Ray machines.

And how is limiting it to a few 3oz containers per passenger any safer? All it means is that now it may require a few people to buy a plane ticket to get all those little bottles past security, then re-assemble it into one large device. Pure stupidity at work. We're talking about people who have the ability and intelegence to organize themselves. If liquids are really a threat, then ban it all. Otherwise, leave it alone.


User currently offlineYfbflyer From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 298 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9072 times:



Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 8):
Because liquid bombs can blow a hole in the side of a aircraft, and can't be caught by X-Ray machines

There are any number of non-liquid explosives that can't be detected by x-ray. There are even a few explosives that can't be detected by the standard ETD equipment.
The entire liquid ban is simple knee jerk response to dubious threat.


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9065 times:



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 21):
We're talking about people who have the ability and intelegence to organize themselves.

And spell, as well.  Wink



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePiedmontINT From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9042 times:



Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 8):
Because liquid bombs can blow a hole in the side of a aircraft, and can't be caught by X-Ray machines.

Liquids show up VERY easily on X-Ray machines. They show up as a big black image shape and stand out very well against the lighter colors of clothes and whatnot that may be in a bag. The 3 oz. in a 1 quart bag rule is just to try to limit what a pax can bring on and potentially mix together to make a liquid explosive.

I have heard the reason the liquid ban is still in place is to keep X-Ray screeners at checkpoints on their toes because liquids are so easy to spot and confiscate. It gives them real world experience identifying and confiscating and makes it look like they are actually doing something. Its all about the illusion of security!


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9180 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8801 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 3):
This was just another, typical, knee jerk reaction.

Along with the creation of the TSA and the banning of non-ticketed passengers from passing through security. Frankly, I think the whole thing is a waste of time and tax money. Why is a whole new division necessary? Wouldn't it have been better to just train existing employees to handle certain situations better? That's my thinking anyway. I really do not think the TSA made us safer. I think that is a load.



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineB777a340fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 765 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8785 times:

I agree liquid explosives can be brought in... However, hypothetically (and I do emphasize that) and if I were trying to bring liquid explosive (whatever is the required amount), I would just need to package it in smaller sized-bottles in order to meet the security requirement. Instead of 1 big bottle, I'll just bring 5 little bottles in my gallon-sized clear plastic bag. So if it's really to ban liquid explosives, why allow any liquid at all.

And I do agree with the comment that I'm not sure how much scrutiny is given to bottled waters that are sold inside the security zone. TSA (and TSA-like) are already understaffed with screening passengers and luggage, how much check can they do on merchandise?


User currently offlineRolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1803 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8761 times:

Maybe off topic, but I was just thinking, for handbag liquids, Im sure they can devise some sort of chemical testing device, and ask boarding passengers to drop some of whatever liquid they are carrying into that device (if its above allowed quantities) and they will therefore check whether the liquid is harmful of not.
That would allow passengers to carry bigger quantities of liquid on them. Might not be cost effective, but it seems doable.



rolf
25 Mayor : I can remember when I worked at cargo in SLC, the access gate for the terminal was on our street. We'd see delivery trucks show up, they had to get o
26 DocLightning : I agree. Airport security can stop most wackos from trying to carry a gun or knife aboard a plane. And it can stop an obvious bomb. But elaborate sch
27 Mayor : Next time, lace a jar with some ex-lax and plant it in your bag. That'll teach 'em!!
28 Jbernie : I think for many people it comes down to, we don't object to the ban as a whole, I really don't need more than 3oz of most liquid product on any flig
29 Tharanga : What does the existence of the TSA do? I have to think it reduces the legal liability of airlines and airports, should a terrorist be successful. Tha
30 Cubsrule : IIRC, TSA announced a plan to roll out technology this year that would allow them to end the liquid ban. Like most government projects, it's probably
31 Antonovman : Maybe if you had had decent security in the USA, 9/11 might never have happened The rest of the worlds airports have had such security screening for
32 PlaneInsomniac : ...if you're lucky. I have actually experienced it, in places like MUC, that you go through security, buy an expensive bottle of water in an airport
33 Ikramerica : There is absolute statistical proof that as screening measures increased over the years, in flight incidents have declined both in relative frequency
34 Cubsrule : Really? How did the screening systems we had in place on 9/11 fail?
35 Post contains links L410Turbolet : Some time ago (Nov. 2007) PRG tested such German-invented device called "EMILI 1". Don't know what the results were or what (if any) follow-up there
36 Gc2 : Just for your info, from a UK security officer. The small quantities in the bag are necessary because we can then easily test the vapours in the Sabre
37 Tharanga : In that case, the at-airport security was just fine; it was the behind-the-scenes intelligence that failed miserably. But at least that method is now
38 Cubsrule : That was exactly my point. There was absolutely no failure of airport screening.
39 ERJ : Can you explain any further? Is this why we have to place the liquids in a sealed bag? I always wondered about that part... Thanks!
40 Hestaman : This exact scenerio happened to me in DEL on my way back to EWR. To make it more odd... they confiscated spices too... which were still in the duty-f
41 Gc2 : Yes! And its easy Yes! And its easy to see what's in there too (hence the transparency).
42 Jbernie : Basic example... in SYD you buy a bottle of Vodka duty free, it will be 750ml or so, at this point you are in the secure area so no big deal. You enj
43 Cubsrule : ...but you had your checked bag, where you could have put it for the flight to ORD. That's the easy thing to do (and, with reasonable packing, it won
44 StealthZ : Really, it is my understanding that knives with certain length blades were banned long before 9/11, they certainly were in many other parts of the wo
45 Airbazar : Excuse me? Box cutters and knives were not allowed pre 9/11. 9/11 was a complete failure at all levels. Totally irrelevant in an Internet forum with
46 Post contains links Tharanga : As far as I know, the exact model of knife used that day is not known, but it is my general impression that the hijackers specifically chose the weap
47 Mayor : Oh, yeah......ATH security has always been top notch and where oh where did PA 103 pick up its explosives at. Sheesh.................some countries,
48 Blrsea : My wife travelled to India with our 2 month old kid via LHR recently. She had a small feeding bottle for the baby with around 4 ounces of boiled water
49 Skydrol : 1. To inconvenience and infuriate passengers. 2. To waste passengers' time with security delays and line ups. 3. To gouge passengers for overpriced b
50 Mats : It's from a paranoid "culture of security" left over from the previous Presidential administration. There is essentially universal agreement that liqu
51 SkyguyB727 : Very little from what I've seen.
52 SkyguyB727 : Recently I was traveling and had my 3 ounce tubes of sunscreen in a zip top bag and a brand new, unopened bottle of contact lens solution in a separat
53 Tdscanuck : Some knives were banned pre 9/11, yes. Not all of them though. Box cutters were OK. Before 9/11, the ban was on blades bigger and 4" and knives illeg
54 IAirAllie : What is reallly ironic is that the liquid bomb on flight 434 was disguised in a contact solution bottle which happens to be one of the waived items o
55 Flying Belgian : This liquid ban is THE big joke of 21st century. It pisses off everyone and no pragmatic answers have ever been given to all questions related to that
56 A380900 : I have one question: if liquids are such a risk, how come wasn't it spotted way back by counter terrorism people? How come we had to wait for some pl
57 DAL763ER : Allowing people with knives/box-cutters...should anyone have needed that, have him/her check them or throw them... What's infuriating? You just respe
58 Fco110 : I have as well-and it is almost a habit now that some items are not in the plastic bag. The only airport that seems to catch everything is Kansas Cit
59 Mayor : Well, from what I can gather, the saline is EXEMPT!!!
60 Revelation : Sure. Get yourself an apartment overlooking the airport, wait for a plane to taxi by, take out your heat-seeking missle, fire, run like hell. Bottom
61 AirbusA6 : A further irritation is at airports like KUL when the you change planes I flew from LHR to KUL to connect to a flight to SIN, and my duty free was con
62 Mayor : Did we have zero security?? I don't remember that. Actually, I don't see that what the TSA does today is much different from what security used to be
63 Post contains links Aviateur : Something like that, yes. You could ask more or less the same question regarding airport security's obsession with pointy objects. You can fashion a
64 Tharanga : back in the 50s and 60s, there was pretty much zero security. There was then a spate of hijackings, and metal detectors were introduced. Who was goin
65 Decoder : I think it's ironic that the only time I've been allowed a full 1,5 liter water bottle through security was at TLV, which is of course the most securi
66 Mayor : Who's paying for it, now? The taxpayers, of course. Would it not be better to have the users of the security pay for it? And yet, does that make it n
67 Revelation : The general feeling amongst the public in that shaky climate after 9/11 was that we couldn't trust the airlines or contracted personnel to do a good
68 Decoder : In my case it wasn't a lapse of security. I had been tagged threat level 6 (one step down from a palestinian) and they sure as hell went through ever
69 Ckfred : There is a series on the Discovery Channel called "Future Weapons." It isn't running currently, but I hope it returns later this year. I was watching
70 Tharanga : The users do pay for it, in part. Notice the "September 11 Security Fees of up to $5.00 each way" when you buy a ticket? I don't think the fee covers
71 Tharanga : Do you remember the basis of the technique? Do X-rays have that level of capability for chemical characterisation? (I should know this, but don't). M
72 Mgmacius : Yeah, that's what I love - rules with no practical sense, their only reason of existence being "it's a rule". Thanks to that people are not respectin
73 Tharanga : I'm guessing Australia does that to respect the wishes of the country at the other end of the international flight. Australia may not care to restric
74 Gc2 : Nope, we just have to look for the other weapons and IEDs too! Yet still we get criticized.I have seen live examples of the fake containers for liqui
75 Mgmacius : Most probably you are right, it's almost certain. But this is just one of these moments when you scratch your head and think "do they really think we
76 Viscount724 : I think you're over-dramatizing. I've flown at least once a month since the liquids restrictions were imposed and after my first 2 trips I was used t
77 Tharanga : I also think it's a minor inconvenience, but combined with checked-bag fees, it can be a nice kick to the stomach sometimes. I recently gifted a frie
78 Rolfen : En Anglais c'est 'paranoids'
79 Lijnden : Some airports are very paranoid regarding liquids. 3 july: AMS > LHR on KL, I could bring the 4 x 200 ml apple juice packages for my kids. Very easy a
80 Jbernie : Or just don't buy anything at all and ignore their stupid prices and get the "free" drinks on board... well you already paid for them in that sense.
81 SkyguyB727 : I wear contact lenses. I remove my lenses to sleep. I need the saline solution to do that. Saline solution, like other medical supplies, is exempt fr
82 Tdscanuck : Pre 9/11, the major risk was perceived to be hijacking. A liquid bomb isn't a particularly practical hijacking weapon (it would be easier to just use
83 Cubsrule : That's not a screening failure. The screeners did not let anything through that was not supposed to get through. No...my guess is that they're specul
84 Tharanga : You think so? Even after PA 103, AI 182? Bojinka was disrupted in 1995; PR 434 was in 1994. I don't know what the CIA or FBI or FAA thought, but I th
85 SkyguyB727 : I've actually been told by TSA screeners that rules about things like removing shoes vary based solely on the whims of the particular screener workin
86 Aerokiwi : I think this is the most questionable aspect of the whole thing. Why 100ml? Is that really the limit before a liquid item becomes dangerous? And what
87 BA : We here in the U.S. were spoiled about being able to go passed security without a ticket when the rest of the world has always only allowed ticketed
88 Enilria : There should be some restrictions such as bringing a gallon jug, but the current restrictions are more about show than effect. The TSA isn't even enfo
89 Tdscanuck : PA 103 and AI 182 were checked luggage bombs...passenger screening had nothing to do with them. PR 434 & Bojinka used basically the same bomb technol
90 Gc2 : Not true, in the UK we have ratios that to follow, dictated by the DFT (Department for Transport). Again, read my post about the bag. 100ml enables t
91 Mayor : Much like packages shipped at the post office.....under 16 oz are exempt from any screening or from the rules. I always wondered how much damage 16 o
92 Tharanga : We're talking about risk mitigation, not the 100% elimination of risk. It isn't worth it to anybody to ban or restrict every last thing; you have to
93 Tharanga : OK, if you qualify it that way, it makes more sense - that security may have assumed that the bomber would not want to be on the aircraft, to also di
94 Jbernie : Not quite true, in SYD (all of Aust?) you can go through security with no ticket/pass and spend time at the gate, you don't even need to go through w
95 KE7JFF : You know, I swear I am the only one who thinks the TSA/CATSA is way better and doing a great job over the previous decades of push-over contracted pri
96 Tharanga : While this is true, people feel embattled by the checked bag fees. So people feel they are squeezed from opposite directions by the TSA and the airli
97 Mayor : I should have put a little sarcasm note along with what I said. I worked cargo for 20+ years and to me, the rules do nothing more than make it look t
98 AFGMEL : Jbernie stole my point. Anyone can go through to departures here, but naturally through security first. Personally I dislike it. I much prefer the Ind
99 Tharanga : The better way would require technology that either does not yet exist, or cannot be easily deployed at every post office in the country. In the abse
100 A380900 : Yes but 5 years have elapsed between 9/11 and the "liquids" frenzy. What was that about? Weren't some people supposed to assess the risks ? Aren't pe
101 FlyASAGuy2005 : I always think of the Renaissance at the Atlanta airport. If anyone wanted/ wants to cause havoc, they can. I've always said, if the terrorists reall
102 CXB77L : I disagree. I think it's great that plane spotters and aviation enthusiasts can go to the gate area to take photos. In my opinion, the system where o
103 FlyASAGuy2005 : Don't know where you flying but have never seen that in the US.
104 AFGMEL : Fair enough. We differ, there are still spotting opportunities nevertheless. Well, not you perhaps, but rather the other 98% of the world who seem to
105 Jbernie : Maybe if the health people weren't beating it into our skulls that we needed to drink so much water every day some people might not take a bottle eve
106 Tharanga : It might be unnecessary, but if you allow non-ticketed persons to go the gate at this point, there'd be so many more people trying to get through sec
107 413x3 : the ban is obviously to make sure people have to pay for drinks on the airplane. Instead of searching for just random liquids they should be doing the
108 FlyASAGuy2005 : Why should the US base their safety standards on a foreign country. Far as I can tell, we don't do that for anything relating to safety or security.
109 SkyguyB727 : Back in the first year of the liquids ban, no one was able to take any type of liquid or gel of any quantity onto any commercial aircraft in the US.
110 Ckfred : The company personnel didn't discuss cost, but the machine, which also does x-ray screening, appeared to be about the size of current x-ray epuipment
111 Slinky09 : I for one am glad about that. That alone filled me with horror - as did the practice of not offloading bags if a passenger did not board, which ran i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Are C5, A124 And A225 Banned From EDDF/FRA posted Tue Jul 3 2007 23:10:32 by SailorOrion
Why Are AirVia Banned From UK Airspace? posted Fri May 5 2000 20:23:05 by Jmc757
Why Are Airlines Not Like Globalized Franchises? posted Fri Jun 26 2009 00:40:09 by Birdwatching
Why Are Great Lakes And Cape Air Unique? posted Thu Jun 25 2009 00:40:07 by Tharanga
London To Vancouver - Why Are The Prices So High? posted Tue Apr 14 2009 14:29:28 by Gilesdavies
Are LCC's Really LCC's? posted Mon Mar 30 2009 07:39:52 by UAL747
Why Are Airfares So High Now With Empty Planes posted Sun Jan 4 2009 09:24:12 by SuseJ772
Why Are Some Exit-Row Seats Less-Padded? posted Tue Oct 7 2008 15:06:29 by Soxfan
Why Are 2 Kitty Hawk 733's At Anchorage Today? posted Sun Aug 10 2008 03:09:25 by AA737-823
Why Are EZE Flights So Expensive? posted Fri Aug 1 2008 12:42:25 by GOwithCO332