Carry-on liquid limit to be scrapped?

[Final 3 Greens]

Can you still buy Swiss Army knifes in the specialist shop airside in Geneva Airport?

Ain't been to GVA for a while, but bought a nice Victorinox at ZRH last month, no probs.

Number of attacks ex ZRH using swiss knives = 0!

[Ten West]

Hmm. Now you come to mention it, those Toblerones do look dangerously pointy as well.

I think they should be confiscated. And sent to me for "evaluation"

[urdy gurdy]

what ever happens with the liquid situation, i bet you will still be able to buy it airside and on an aircraft. It's all about money.
Its the same with alcohol. its illegal to board an aircraft under the influence of alcohol, but there are so many bars airside. So if the pax dont buy the alcohol from the bars, who does? pilots maybe?

[Ten West]

Dead right!

Drunken Pax cause more misery than Mus... I mean, Terrorists. Do they ban alcohol at airports? No. Why not? Money.

If I can go through the whole arrival/check in/wait/flight/immigration etc. etc. without a cigarette then I don't see why people can't do it without alcohol.

[Michael SWS]

Originally Posted by Ten West

Drunken Pax cause more misery than Mus... I mean, Terrorists. Do they ban alcohol at airports? No. Why not? Money.

Yes, they cause more general misery. But drunken passengers are unlilely ever to bring a plane down over a city.

Originally Posted by Ten West

If I can go through the whole arrival/check in/wait/flight/immigration etc. etc. without a cigarette then I don't see why people can't do it without alcohol.

You could make the same argument against coffee, or chocolate, or shopping in general. The fact is that most people can enjoy a drink without it adversely affecting anyone else whereas even a single cigarette causes inconvenience to those who do not smoke. And in my experience smokers are entirely unaware of how badly they smell after they've had a smoke.

[Ten West]

Originally Posted by MichaelSWS

Yes, they cause more general misery. But drunken passengers are unlilely ever to bring a plane down over a city.

Maybe. But I would venture to suggest that they are, however, several times more likely to 'bring a plane down over a city' than is a Pax who's not off his face.

You could make the same argument against coffee, or chocolate, or shopping in general.

You could, were it not for the fact that people are seldom removed from aircraft because of violent or disruptive behaviour after a prolonged visit to the English Teddy Bear Co. shop in the departure lounge at STN. Or over-indulgence at Starbucks.
What's the main cause of Pax being late at the gate? Where are they usually found? In the bar.

fact is that most people can enjoy a drink without it adversely affecting anyone else whereas even a single cigarette causes inconvenience to those who do not smoke. And in my experience smokers are entirely unaware of how badly they smell after they've had a smoke.

I think you misunderstand me squire. I'm not saying "If they can drink then I still want to smoke". I'm saying "I don't smoke throughout the whole process, and as tobacco is far more of an addiction (except in the case of alcoholics) I don't see why we should let people drink at airports.

I'm actually very surprised it's still permitted at all. What happens when they need to evacuate quickly in a fire? Drunk, sleepy pax and burning aeroplanes don't mix.

A I aware of how bad I smell? Probably. Do I care? No. I only ever smoke on my own and outside anyway as I hate the smell of it on my clothes and I've no wish to inflict it on others.
I've smelled far worse 'naturally generated' odours on my fellow passengers over the years anyway. Especially the fat ones!