Airports and 100ml liquids

HungryCol

The silly rule airport security has on allowing up to 12 bottles of 100ml liquid but not your 500ml bottle of water is ridiculous to say the least. All considering that you now have to buy the exact same bottle of water after you're passed security in the duty free shopping section, let alone if you have to make a transfer with you bottle of whiskey you bought in New York only for it to be confiscated from you in Heathrow when you have to transfer to another destination.

This got me thinking. As the bottle is mine, whatever it may be, alcohol, perfume, water, coke, insofar as I own the bottle, can I keep the lid of it when they say they have to confiscate it? I think this may make a big enough inconvenience whereby airport security will have many many open bottles lying around therefore being problematic enough for them to reconsider their silly 100ml rule!

And that's why this post is in soapbox... and don't even get me started on the whole belt & shoes thing. Next we'll have to wear paper jumpsuits to go through security :x

NFMC

FFS...why do you think you know better than the national security service? Just don't take a bottle. It's not exactly a hardship, is it???

It really fvcks me off to see all the numpties at security suddenyl start rummaging through their bags saying things like, 'oh, does this apply to me?' Of course it does!

If you don't like it, don't fly. Simple as that.

mrushton

Check it into the hold luggage and you can take any size you want. the rule only applies to carry-on items. Nothing you can do so buy some water on the departure side or don't fly.

iainf72

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17 ... rror_labs/

A friend of mine was at Gatwick a while ago, had passed through security and there was a fire alarm. All the passengers were herded out onto the runway. Eventually, let back in and had to go through security again.

Guess what happened if you'd bought a bottle of whiskey in duty free? Yep "I'm afraid you can't take that through sir"

Eventually they decide if you had the receipt you could take it through, but there were a lot of moody people.

HungryCol

Ok so tell me the rationale behind twelve 100ml vessels versus one 1.2 litre vessel?

mrushton

HungryCol wrote:

Ok so tell me the rationale behind twelve 100ml vessels versus one 1.2 litre vessel?

there isn't one. The people on Security are given a set of rules and are not required to be creative because they would get sacked. they prob. agree with you, but they are required to follow a procedure. The safety lecture on the plane is probably no good in a real emergency but the staff have to carry it out. That's how it is when you fly from the UK.

HungryCol

No doubt set by a National Security Advisory Service or other some such Government department in order to keep us living in a state of fear. We abide by the rules like sheep. We don't question them because we allow ourselves to be dictated to. "Don't walk on the Grass" and we don't. Rules should be common sense. The 12 x 100ml v's 1 x 1.2L is imposed only as an inconvenience.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for security, but for security for security's sake not security for inconvenience's sake. It's ok to question things sometimes and have open free discussions on Government policies we don't agree with.

NFMC

Absolutely...there are a set of rules and it's up to us to agree with them or to choose not to travel.

The thing is, it's really not a hardship. Why do you care so much? Maybe if you were referring to baby-milk or essential medicine, but a bottle of water? Buy it when you get through (pre-sealed and security checked), or buy a coffee or drink from a tap.

NFMC

It's ok to question things sometimes and have open free discussions on Government policies we don't agree with.

Agree with you entirely with you on this one. But, if I'm reading it correctly, your suggested way of starting that debate is to be deliberately difficult by leaving empty full bottles. Maybe you were joshing, but I travel pretty regularly and it's unbelievable (and highly frustrating) to see the number of people who decide to start the debate with the poor guy manning the security line. He has a job to do and all it does is cause delays and queues.

top_bhoy

I also believe these rules are an international standard implemented by the relevant and responsible international aviation organisation and not soley a single Govt. I've flown from several international airports and they have been in place in each airport.

HungryCol

NFMC wrote:

...is to be deliberately difficult by leaving empty full bottles.

Not quite understanding empty full bottle thing.

My point is two fold

1. They are enforcing rules that hold no merit. I can simply decant 1.2 litres into 12 100ml bottles carry all the 12 bottles and the empty 1.2 litre through security only to refill the 1.2 litre bottle again the other side of security. This baffles me.

2. Since I am the owner of the bottle, and the liquid inside, and all the security want is the liquid should I not then be entitled to retain everything but the liquid? They can have the liquid and even the bottle it comes in but I want the lid.

Sure, my second point is an inconvenience for security but just reinforces the stupidity of the rule enforced in my first point.

NFMC

Not quite understanding empty full bottle thing

In my haste I typed incorrectly! I meant open full bottles.

Yes, you could 'down' the water in one go or pour it on the floor (good luck to you on that one, I suppose) before giving them the bottle. The thing is, whilst you're doing this - and all the other people are doing the same - it causes more queues. Then travel and airports become a less and less pleasurable experience to have.

It's not just people like you who may have a valid beef about the absurdity of specific rules (that generally have been brought in with the best intentions, rather than in some way of generating a 'culture of fear'), it's people who somehow think it doesn't apply to them. Or people who don't get their passport out when checking in. And then it's at the bottom of their bag. Or then don't get their boarding pass out when going through security control. It's all highly annoying!!!

Tourist Tony

The rules are applied by the Dept of Transport and are international. The DoT regularly has observers watching the security staff, as well as CCTV coverage.
Any staff who do not follow the exact system imposed on them are liable to be sacked.

So how does giving them grief do any good at all?

Rob Sallnow

Tourist Tony wrote:

The rules are applied by the Dept of Transport and are international. The DoT regularly has observers watching the security staff, as well as CCTV coverage.
Any staff who do not follow the exact system imposed on them are liable to be sacked.

So how does giving them grief do any good at all?

I think a bit of the problem is that some of these fluids are not just water or cola but expensive alcohol or perfume and how do you know what the staff do with these things after they have taken them off you....no dout they take them home or sell them down the pub.

Rather than insist you keep the lidf....open the bottle, spit in it and then close the bottle...followed by a 'cheers' as you hand it to them.

nwallace

mrushton wrote:

The safety lecture on the plane is probably no good in a real emergency but the staff have to carry it out. That's how it is when you fly from the UK.

There is a pretty good analysis of that in Fight Club.

Using my own analysis i worked out that sailing in the UK is probably safer than Flying. Not due to the number of crashes (theres been few in both modes recently) but because if once your underway there is a problem with the vehicle, on a boat its got to be really bad to be taking to the little boats. If its that bad on a plane you are probably already dead.

For example, you could have all engines on a cross channel ferry catch fire, the electrical supply fail and the hull spring a leak. Only the 3rd one requires the ship to be abandoned.

killiekosmos

HungryCol wrote:

bottle of whiskey you bought in New York only for it to be confiscated from you :x

I think it was taken off you for bad taste . If you had a genuine bottle of whisky (made, matured and bottled in Scotland) and packed it in your hold luggage it eould have been OK.

During the summer I flew Glasgow to Heathrow to start my holidays. We checked in and as we approached the domestic security desk a large American was ahead of us. He had a large case AND an enormous black bin bag full of stuff. The security staff politely explained that rules only allowed for one piece of hand luggage of a particular size. It was suggested he returned to the desk and checked these bags in. He refused, very loudly. His arguments included:

- I'm an American
- these rules are stupid and don't apply to me
- I'm not going back to the desk.

All this was handled politely but firmly by the security man (Personally, I'd have checked if John Smeaton was on duty to sort the guy out ) The American then insisted he was going nowhere. The guard politely agreed with him - indicating that unless he checked hiis bags in he would be staying in Glasgow! Much mirth all round from fellow passengers. Much later in departure lounge one large American (sans cases) sheepishly appeared.

spen666

Rob Sallnow wrote:

Tourist Tony wrote:

The rules are applied by the Dept of Transport and are international. The DoT regularly has observers watching the security staff, as well as CCTV coverage.
Any staff who do not follow the exact system imposed on them are liable to be sacked.

So how does giving them grief do any good at all?

I think a bit of the problem is that some of these fluids are not just water or cola but expensive alcohol or perfume and how do you know what the staff do with these things after they have taken them off you....no dout they take them home or sell them down the pub.

Rather than insist you keep the lidf....open the bottle, spit in it and then close the bottle...followed by a 'cheers' as you hand it to them.

Alternatively learn the rules and obey them.


All this bleating about being made to obey the rules is a little like the motorist whinging he didn't know the spped limit etc.

If you are travelling it is your duty to ensure you obey the rules & to do this you need to know the rules

Monty Dog

The company I work for have our own fleet of private aircraft to ferry people up and down the country - because it flies from a commercial aifield, we have to comply with CAA regs and subsequently have to endure all the security checks, X-rays etc etc. OK if you go on your hols a couple of times a year - but a real drag the 6th time in a week. Ironically, because of the nature of the work most of us have security clearance and yet have to endure the trivial questions from minimum wage security staff. Any way, we even get stupid situations where a company director was forced to remove the paper clips from a pile of papers because they were not allowed!

The Mechanic

I tend to agree with the argument that the airport security is pointless. for instance, why do some airports require shoes and belts off whilst others don't. Some only pick random shoe/belts candidates. The other thing that really gets my goat is when there is a three mile queue at security, with notices asking us to be patient. Then you get to the machine to find that only two or three out of five machines are manned. Heathrow terminal 1 is a bugger for that. :x

Tourist Tony

BAA was bought by Ferrovia, a Spanish company, with illegal Spanish state aid (the reason the Spaniards were able to corner so much EU infrastructure)
BAA now provide the bulk of Ferrovua's earnings, and they are constantly coming up with new ideas to cut money. Gatwick, for example, introduces coin-operated baggage trolleys this week.
This constant cost-cutting is reflected in the length of the security queues.

RedAende

The liquid thing is a pain in the ar** especially when in transit, but I can live with it, check most stuff in, travel light.

What really gets my goat is the banal questions at check in

Q: did you pack the bag yourself sir.

so as a law abiding citzen

A: Yes

if I was in cahoots with a chap with a beard and afghani robes closely associated with 9/11 the same answer

A; yes.

what do the they expect people to answer, no I gave my bag to a turban wearing chap that I regularly see on TV news and let him repack it for me. doh.

Q: are you carrying anything sharp sir
A: my tongue

Tourist Tony

Once more, questions they are required by law to ask.

Of course, when the naughty stuff is found in your bag, the prosecution will use your replies as evidence.

richa

RedAende wrote:

Q: Did you pack the bag yourself sir?

What happens if you say No. Presumably it is OK for my man-servant to pack my bag for me...

I guess that they just ask to search the bags :?: