Liquid ban on flights to continue until 2013

planeticketsI can't decide which side of the liquid-ban-on-planes argument I fall on the side of. Taking 100ml containers of liquids in hand luggage is hardly an inconvenience, and anyone who complains about having to throw away expensive perfume and aftershave at security shouldn't be so dim - it's been a flight requirement for five years.

However, my barely-concealable joy at seeing somebody ranting at security because they've had their bottle of Hai Karate confiscated shouldn't distract from the fact that civil liberties and personal privacy has been eroded to dust in the name of security. Ultimately, if somebody wants to blow up a plane they'll find a way to do it.

So where to stand on the news that the restrictions won't be lifted until 2013, or that new hi-tech screening machines aren't been installed in airports because they cost up to £50,000 each? An MEP is accusing airports of using national security as an excuse to avoid paying for the new scanners, which will be able to detect liquid explosives.

Brian Simpson claims that the Airport Operators Association is stalling, not because of security worries but because of cost. The EU was due to start phasing out restrictions in April, but the day before the partial lifting was due to begin, a six-month delay was announced - airports didn't trust the new security measures. Last week, that six month delay turned into two years.

The Transport committee chairman believes that when security decisions are reviewed again in 2013, airports will once again fudge the issue on the grounds of terrorist threats. Until the price of paranoia is more affordable for airports, the Hai Karate will have to stay at home.



  • Naomi
    I do find the ban slightly irritating if I'm going somewhere with only hand luggage- but then I'm a girl and I wear contact lenses that require lots of solutions. It's less the 100ml and more the total quantity of liquids that annoys me. I'd welcome any measures that meant a slightly quicker route through security- the main problem is the slow down all the additional stopping to check liquids takes. And it has been proven (by a journalist I think) that getting bomb-making equipment through security is easy enough, if you're determined. Most of the security measures mean nothing anyway- I'd feel a bit more charitable about them if they worked properly.
  • Gunn
    I dream of the day when I can just hope on a plane like you do for a train, with these new scanners it would hopefully speed things up. The whole take off shoes, belts, jackets, hats, unpack laptops is just plain annoying. What I suppose is most frustrating for me lately is that most of my flights are less than 1 hour but due to security you end up taking more time at the airport than in the flight.
  • callum
    The 100ml limit makes no sense whatsoever. What do they possibly achieve from it? If you have an explosive liquid that you need more than 100ml of, take several 100ml bottles and combine them on the other side. Unless I'm missing something?
  • TeflonMan
    Posted by callum • June 1, 2011 at 9:50 pm The 100ml limit makes no sense whatsoever. What do they possibly achieve from it? More drinks sales after security.
  • Businessman
    I had a 1-liter of Jack Daniels confiscated THAT I HAD BOUGHT IN THE DUTY FREE. It's not about security it's about showing you who's boss.
  • Cindy
    Hi, I check the liquids from web-site called it is pretty easy and I have not lost any item for the security boys
  • liam r.
    You can take big bottles of drink over 100ml purchased say in Tesco or where ever through security at Luton airport. That's if you are driving airside... Unless security failed to notice there were big bottles of drink in the van I was driving...

What do you think?

Your comment