Domestic flights in Japan have no ban. They will scan your bottle, then give it back to you.

They have a special machine at every x-ray machine, with a slot for plastic bottles and a slot for metal bottles/cans. Put on the bottle and you get a green light after a couple of seconds. Easy.

Also no need to take your shoes and belts off and no ID check is required. Just swipe your e-ticket or IC card at the start of security and in you go. All very civilised.

I totally agree. The way flying should be.
I have gone from curb to gate in 5 minutes in Kobe, and 10 minutes in ITM. Haneda is bigger, so maybe 20.

New scanning technology in 2012 - liquids to fly again
 

Hi,

Thought that this article might interest you all:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226200218846

Looks like it will be possible to fly with liquids with a volume that is greater than 100mls again soon, at least from Australia, not sure about where to though.

^ Yeah, just saw a one-line mention on the (Sydney) evening news. Seems to be just int'l departures from Australia (noting that Aus domestic doesn't have any liquid restrictions anyway). Whatdya wanna bet flights from Oz to the US still have restrictions?

Now if they'd just do something about the stupid policy in HKG of confiscating liquids on the jetway for Aussie-bound flights under a bogus claim that Australian law prohibits liquids over 100 ml on international flights. :(

Agree, would love a standard policy across all airports. Looking forward to being able to bring decent bottles of wine with me when I travel, if I can't pack them that is.

One downside is, if they do change the rules about flights into Australia, we will need to start carrying our DF to gate in Singapore.

There is no question about that. Israel has no restrictions about bringing liquids onto flights. We can carry them through Security and board airplanes headed to any country in the world -- except the US.

For US-bound flights there is a check of baggage at the gate in which the only thing that they are looking for are liquids. The airlines, themselves, carry out this check in order to comply with US law.

(I don't know if this applies to El Al or only the three U.S. companies, Delta, Continental, and US which fly to Israel.)

European airlines allow us to bring liquids on board when departing from TLV but if we have a connecting flight in Europe they will be confiscated.

Could not agree more! And why do they often act like a-holes? Kindness goes a long way...

I have to admit though, I tend to get pissed at the terrorists every time I have to remove my shoes, or throw out a perfectly good bottle of water, or stand in a ridiculously long security line... ignorant fools.

Your anger is misplaced.

Our reaction to a single day's events over ten years ago causes your shoe removal, wasted time and restricted belongings, not to mention threats to your privacy and health. Complain to those who are supposed to represent your interests. :mad: They are to blame for this—not a bunch of tunnel-visioned zealots whose last competent assault team killed themselves off in 2005 (London).

That day's events broke the very paradigm which allowed them to occur. Passengers now routinely coordinate to control, not comply with, in-flight threats. Cockpit door hardening means attacking pilots may compromise acquisition of a functioning aircraft.

Certainly the future will hold new terrorist agendas, groups and actions, but none of the charade you rightfully dismiss will prevent them.

Airports against lifting the liquid ban
 

And in the news/blogs again...

Airports against lifting the liquid ban

Wow... We spend all of this money on technologies that are still "not good enough."

Is this surprising? Are they more interested in pretend security or $3 bottles of water?

It's all about money...
 

The TSA throw your water bottle away so you'd have to BUY water bottles from the vending machines located so strategically a few feet beyond the TSA check point. I witnessed happy workers filling up the vending machines for water bottles joking about how the passengers get ripped off. That's how corrupt gov officials get rich.

Well said! The whole thing is a scam and a lot of people have not waken up to the reality that the TSA is not in it to protect you but only to get rich out of the manufactured fear.

I'm not sure it's government making the $$ - TSA does not own the machines...

That said, this IS why I typically carry my own refillable bottle!
:)

I may have missed it, but has anyone emptied their bottle of water into the liquids zip-lock bag to go through security, and refilled the now empty bottle once past the checkpoint?

Not going to work.

You are allowed a baggie-full of 3.4 ounce or less containers of liquid and it is not uncommon for TSOs to challenge (and deny) a container based on 1) the amount the container holds is not printed on the container (even if the container is clearly so small that it can't be over-volume) and 2) the container (toothpaste, for ex.) clearly has less than 3.4 ounces in it, but the container's label indicates a larger potential capacity.

I don't recall ever seeing this labelling requirement spelled out on the website or at the checkpoint videos and signs, but I've see it enforced at the checkpoing on more than one occasion. (Once the TSO got worked up because he said my deodorant (not a gel) was bigger than the container stated (a lot of them do look pretty large, but it's just the container/cap that are big). The best part - it wasn't even an LGA, it was just easier to corral all my toiletries, including my toothbrush, in the Kippie baggie.

If you just pour the water into the baggie, even if it's only two ounces, there's no way for you to 'prove' that the amount is less than 3.4 ounces, so you'll have to toss it. If you put it in a smaller baggie inside the regular baggie, you will still have the missing container label problem.

The thing is it's the corrupt government officials who decide on what can be sold near the check point. In this case, they may get kickbacks for allowing the vending machines to be located just a few yards from the check point (on terminal side).

The question isn't about how much liquid you have with you. It's all about authority and assertion of ego-based abuse of power and authority. It's the kind that the Nazis once enjoyed. Remember, the losers at the checkpoint with the badge have nothing else to feel good about themselves and they are using you to boost their self-worth.

I agreed with this....

Flew out of PHX Sky Harbor today, the anouncements at the Scanner/xray were

"Remove ALL liquids, gels, aersols from your carry-on regardless of size. If you do not have a clear 1quart size bag to place your liquids in, you can either check your carry-on or abandon the items".

The TSA people also stated this was a nationwide TSA rule and that it is now being strictly enforced. I visited the TSA website and there is a search feature, so just for kicks I search for "nail polish" and "mascara" (I searched for these two items because they are common for travelers to carry and are very small). Suprisingly, both these items came up under the 3-1-1 rule.

Bolding mine: Sort of....

From what I've been told, the policy of removing the Freedom Baggie has always been in place however it was sporadically enforced but is now being strictly enforced and......<wait for it>

If one forgets to remove their baggie (i.e. 05:30 flight and not quite awake ;)) or deliberately doesn't remove their baggie, they will win a bag check and will be then sent back to the end of the line to start over. Yes, be sent back to the end of the line and also from what I've been told, there is a big uproar with TSO's and their supes having to enforce this as it is going to majorly slow down the screening process

You Have Got to Be Kidding!!!!
 

Scans and gropes won't galvanize the American Flying Public, but this just might! And not even a poorly designed and reported Gallup poll will make them popular:rolleyes:

I've not taken my Kippie bag out at a US airport for 2 years and have not been asked to. Last week, I checked baggage, but I saw none of this in either RDU or PHL.

No doubt they get sent to bed without dinner, also. :rolleyes:

Mike

All I can say is what I was told by a TSO friend of mine and suffice it to say, they are not happy about it

Um, you should know bettah that the correct word for those of us from The Hub of The Universe is suppah ;) :)

This is exactly what I experienced at IAD last month. Lines were crawling. But I thought it was airport specific, since I didn't experience anything unusual at PIT or JFK later in the month.

It's gonna suck if they're really going to back to enforcing the 3-1-1 rule after years of not caring.

Some airports cared, some didn't.

As much as folks here rail against TSA and its unpublished, inconsistent procedures, I'm glad that TSA has decided to actually start being consistent --- at least with respect to this issue. And if being consistent causes chaos at checkpoints ... well, that also might lead to the mass uprising that people here keep calling for.

I think that the "back to the end of the line" policy for those who have not perfectly complied with all of the CP procedures (secret or not) will have this effect. The sheep will not be happy. Too baaad! :D

Wonder how long before some over-zealous TSO decides to extend this punishment to anyone caught with any 'contraband' in their bag - a bottle of water, for example.

I wonder if this is a snarky poke at former head of TSA Kip Hawley, who said recently that the liquid ban is no longer necessary and should be done away with.

Or perhaps it's the result of Red Team failures - and the obvious answer to those shortcomings would be to apply extra-stringent measures to the pax.

This from the agency that consistently maintains that there is no such thing as punitive actions at the checkpoint. :td:

Warning: completely uninformed speculation follows.

This tactic might actually have a "consistent" meaning. Recall that one complaint that has been offered against TSA for years concerns the large bin of "surrendered" liquids that are simultaneously too dangerous to be carried into the sterile area yet safe enough to be stored in an unsecured garbage bin.

If true, this new tactic actually has the benefit of simplicity. If you're found with liquid "contraband", you have to leave the checkpoint to take care of it. Whether you check your bag, hand it off to someone else, or discard the item is completely up to you. TSA doesn't have to have a big bin of (un-)dangerous liquids. Moreover, because you have to leave the checkpoint to deal with the item, TSA can't be accused of "confiscating" the items in question.

This is completely speculative. But there might be a method to this madness ...

??? Did you read goalie's post?

If I have a baggie of <3.4 oz allowed lga's, there's no contraband involved. If I am bag-checked and sent to the back of the line because I didn't remove the baggie, I consider that punitive.

The airport checkpoint can be a stressful place, and not everyone who fails to remove their baggie is guilty of deliberately ignoring a (sometimes enforced) TSA rule.

What of those items that someone didn't realize needed to be in the 311 bag? (a tube of lipstick in a side pocket of a purse for example) Will this rule result in all who are non-compliant on any technicality being sent to the back of the line? Would it still be considered punitive if this policy were to be consistently applied to all non-compliant pax? Could this possibly be the tipping point? Are we there yet?

Oh, I'm not arguing that point --- just as not everyone who (stupidly) brings a loaded firearm to a checkpoint intends to hijack an airplane.

My point is this: a rule which is sometimes enforced is in no-one's best interest. It creates confusion among passengers regarding what the "real" rule is, and it opens up TSOs to charges of unequal treatment (perhaps even prejudice) when the rule is enforced for some folks but not others. If the rule is "important", then it should be enforced all the time. If the rule is not important, then it shouldn't be a rule in the first place.

And the ensuing bitterness and chaos will lead to a public debate about the efficacy of the 100ml-1-1 rule --- which, on the whole, is a good thing.

Seeing as there really isn`t a liquid ban, per se, it would probably be a good idea to drop the farce and focus on real security.

I agree, but I think the only way it is going to happen is if some ex-TSA (Chertoff?) person finds an expensive piece of equipment to clear the liquids.

At MCI last Friday and a guy was taking a cart full of drinks, water, coke,etc to the concession stands inside security. Those familiar with MCI will know what I am talking about. There was about 16 cases of bottled soft drinks shrink wrapped. The guy held me up (no big deal I had plenty of time). He had to take every tray of drinks off the cart, through the x-ray machine on the belt, and take them off at the other end back onto the cart. I raised my eyebrows and he said "The TSA makes me do this a dozen times a day and sometimes they randomly sample the drinks too". That seems a little OTT to me?

Well, I guess if security is a concern, then even vendors should go through the motions (although in the past, when vendors bypassed security with carts of liquids, the excuse was that they are 'trusted' vendors). I haven't heard of the 'trusted traveller' program extending that perk to pax.

I think it's very interesting that just a few weeks after Kip Hawley comes out and says the liquid ban should be eliminated, there's no need for it, TSA suddenly starts cracking down on liquids. Is Pistole snapping back at Hawley by subjecting pax to a ramped-up emphasis on 3-1-1 baggies (failure to take the baggie out is now punishable by bag checks and other punitive delaying tactics) and subjecting 'trusted' vendors to stepped up attention when bringing liquids through the checkpoint?

I wonder how many expensive bottles of duty-free alcohol get 'randomly' opened and sampled at the checkpoint? After all, IIRC, AMS actually had an incident involving tampering with the contents of duty-free bottles. It's one thing to ask a vendor to absorb the costs of a few opened and unsaleable bottles of soda or water, but it's another thing entirely if TSA insists on opening and testing random bottles of expensive liquor or perfume.

Maybe they wave a testing strip above the shrinkwrapped, closed containers to detect dangerous liquids. ;)

Re goalie's post about liquids and the renewed interest by TSOs:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...r-liquids.html

I see no purpose to sending someone back to the end of the line if they are already at the front of the line, other than to punish them.

They need to take a lesson from the screeners at MUC and TXL and how they deal with people without baggies, or items over 100ml.

Well they already have something that they put my bottle of water in every time I take it through security.

:D