And the above is a perfect example of European protectionism...........And it really Pi**es me off!!!:mad: :mad:

Why do we have the restriction on liquids?
 

Can anybody yet explain what all this is about? What is this dramatic new explosive that is only effective in quantities greater that 100ml in an unsealed container?

It seems to me that we are all being sheep here -- despite reasonably diligent research, I have yet to discover what the threat is. We should demand to be told what the threat is. How would that compromise safety?

For example, it seems a good idea to prevent guns being taken into the passenger cabin -- although they regularly are (in the hands of those who are deemed to be "safe").

Can anybody explain?

:ugh:
Do you need to know how to fly an airplane to travel with it? No. I guess that's enough of an explanation for you.
And mind you, guns are useless without ammo, so you rather can carry a brick instead...:rolleyes:

Do you:
1, Get issued a receipt for confiscated property?
2, Have it visibly disposed at the time into a sealed quarantine container?

If not, I am a bit surprised as I thought that would be the norm...

The "dramatic new explosive" is probably the one that was used in Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction:

http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00087.html

On a side note, I took my Leatherman Micra through security at STN the other day - completely by mistake. They didn't spot it.

They miss a lot. On my last two trips I left a half litre bottle of coke in a part of my hand luggage that I don't use much, this was not spotted at frankfurt, Heathrow, Zurich or Belgrade.

More worryingly while I was in Belgrade the local police presented me with a 'police knife' This is a really evil looking weapon with a blade of about 7cm, weighing about a kilo, a seriously dangerous piece of equipment. I gave it to my colleague, who's Icelandic and likes such things. She put it in her laptop bag and forgot about it. Security at Belgrade airport (which is done by the Police) failed to spot the illegal item, she didn't realise it was in the bag until we arrived in Zurich. I'll be sure to raise this with my friends in the Serbian Police when I'm there again next month:)

Security check in airports is a last line of defence and is there to give is the illusion of safety, it's ineffective and carried out by people, for the most part, who have no security expertise.

With regard to security in BAA UK airports a quick check of the BAA site reveals an advertisement for security people at Gatwick paying £18,000 per year. No previous experience is required in security, experience in a "customer service role" is desirable though. Applicants should also be "fluent in English" and be able to "stand for long periods"

Interestingly they should also be able to "keep queues to a minimum"

Without being derogatory to those working in these roles I would think it would be extremely difficult to recruit and retain quality personnel given the extremely low pay.

Quite Frankly, Who Cares?

She had no intention of using the knife to kill people on the plane though, right?
Only those 0.000000001% or whatever with the intention to do harm need to be stopped....and the determined are not going to be detered even by the security currently in place.

OOoooooh, you got through security with a plastic bottle of coke..Shock, Horror!! ....were you hoping to drench the cabin crew into a sticky submission or something?

Of course security miss alot. Havent you worked out that its just there to make the less intellegent of the public masses think the government is doing something to protect them, and severely piss the rest of us off.....

When is the public going to wake up and realise we are paying for a farce....

Regards, SD..

SD
Agree entirely.

Security in airports, as I said in my post, is to give the travelling public the illusion of safety. Most of the rules are a farce. For example the one concerning no liquids of more then 100ml in each indivudual container. Some bod in whitehall has read somewhere that liquid explosives need to be more than 500ml to yield an explosion large enough to cause an aircraft a serious problem, hence the rule. Of course if I was a terrorist I'd then use 5 containers of 100ml and then transfer all the liquid into a whisky bottle I'd bought airside. If I wanted to make a really big bomb I'd also get a few of my terrorist mates to get on the same flight and do the same thing.

Of course if I was a really intelligent terrorist I'd become a real pilot and then get a job with an airline, then I wouldn't need a bomb at all.

Profiling passengers is the only way to give effective security on planes.

That liquid explosive . . .
 

I must humbly apologize to LuckyStrike for seeming to be so stupid as to ask the simple question about liquid explosives.

Equally, I thank 25F for researching an article (in his link) which poses the very question. So HOW were they going to do this?

I must also thank SXB for (indirectly) coming to my aid by pointing out that much of what we are subjected to is security theatre, not security. And that is the real point.

I merely picked a nit by questioning the existence of a suitable explosive. I can think of one -- nitroglycerine -- but we can eliminate that one by getting every passenger to jump up and down a few times on a trampoline with their hand luggage :}

Daft rules and security goons.
 

Sad thing about this is that it is the airlines and their employees (including pilots) who will suffer because of all this. With government slapping unjustified extra taxes on fares and the low-cost airlines using all sorts of strategems to increase fares (in the most opaque way possible), passengers will vote with their feet and use rail and sea connections instead. Perhaps not in the UK where rail is so poor, but certainly elsewhere.
We looked recently at fares for a trip to England from Luxembourg. Going Ryanair from either Hahn or Brussels to Stansted added up for 5 of us to about Euro 700. Add another 350 for car hire once in UK and then the hassle factor - the sheer unpleasantness of travelling through airports and being treated worse than cattle in transit.
Alternative, drive to Boulogne, take fast catamaran with no hassle, no crap about liquids in 100ml bottles and toothpaste in plastic bags (can't ferries be blown up? or trains?) and bst of all Euros 88 RETURN for car and 5 pax.
Air travel unless absolutely necessary - stuff it!:ugh:

That is, I believe, happening already.
We are actually flying to the UK next week for a family do. The only reason I am subjecting my family to this is because Airmiles paid for tickets, Airmiles paid for Hirecar and the fact that I dont fancy the whole days drive/sea crossing x2 for what will be only a long weekend.
I have said this before....I still love the flying part of my trips for work, its just all the other cr&p at the airports I have to put up with......And I wont subject my family to it if its not necessary, which means instead of us all flying to visit family this summer we will be driving over....
Speaking to various travellers as you do while on the move, many comment they are only flying because the have to, not because they choose to.
Regards, SD..

Tightslot
Both groups will probably not agree but security clearance in an airport and Cabin Crew are directly comparable, both are direct facing customer service roles. It's just that one of these groups doesn't, generally, understand that.

As for the salaries, I realise some recent entry CC in certain airlines will be earning a lot less than £18k per year, I'm guessing most will also be fairly young but maybe their renumeration is comparable to certain others in the same age group in different industries. My point was that £18k per year, generally speaking, is not a good salary in the SE of England.

Have a look at the CC thread in R & N, according to some posters certain long haul CC are earning between £40-60k per year:)

The following is from a Canadian government site:

"Q1: Why were liquids, gels and aerosols in carry-on baggage banned on
August 10, 2006?

A: The events that occurred in London, England revealed that liquids, gels
and aerosols can be used to make explosives and other threat items."

What a load of :mad:

Now, where can I get resealable 100ml containers so I can take my own
water, juice, etc, through security?

Heard the rumour that security personnel are to sent on courses about liquids evaluation, whatever that is!:confused:

It is to be the testing of liquids present in the 20cm x20cm bag, randomly. It will be in conjunction with the swabbing for explosives and normal bag searching routines.

OK I have another question for any "security guys" reading, or indeed any passenger who might have done this.

I want to carry 4 100 ml whisky miniatures in my hand luggage on a domestic flight from Edinburgh next week. If I read the rules correctly, as long as the bottles will fit in the standard resealable 20cmx20cm plastic bag - no problem. Correct ?

The rules seem pretty clear - no mention of alcohol being banned, and this is a domestic flight. But then rules don't always get applied in a commonsense way... and I'd rather find out now than watch my single malts being chucked in the bin.

13Alpha

13 Alpha, you should be alright, as you say there is nothing in the rules regarding alcohol as long as its less than 100ml. I took 3 75ml bottles of whiskey through STN just before xmas as a present for someone... thankfully they didn't demand that the sealed bottles were opened for testing!

They told a colleague of mine only toiletries were allowed in the bag. This is incorrect of course but typical of the sort of people employed in airport security. They are often confused by the simplest rules and interpret them in their own way. Numerous examples. Won't bore you here.