LoganFlyer

Hard to believe, but it's been 10 years since the liquid ban went into effect. First it was all liquids, then they "relaxed" the rules to allow liquids of up to 3 oz (and eventually 3.4 oz) to be taken through the checkpoint. It's interesting reading through the old threads in this forum about it. Here's just one:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/pract...uids-last.html

If you go to page 600 or so of this forum, you can find lots more threads about the topic when it first happened. Lots of promises over the years that they'd get machines that would allow us to bring a full bottle of water through security, but of course, that never happened.

Boggie Dog

10 years of a process that has almost zero benefit for improved security and an argument could be made that so much focus on liquids detracts from other aspects of screening.

petaluma1

To quote @AskTSA: How anyone can choose that response with a straight face from their list of canned responses is beyond me.

Carl Johnson

There are already machines that will allow us to bring a full bottle of water through security; they're called metal detectors. The problem is, the TSA is afraid that if they allow water onto planes, some terrorist somewhere will write that blowing up a plane with a liquid explosive is something they want to do, and then the plane will explode through sympathetic magic.

Bakpapier

The liquid ban will never go away. Not for security reasons, but for economical reasons.

- People cant bring bottles of drink and some food stuffs and other products for personal care on board, so they will buy on board (airline revenue) or buy duty free (airport revenue)
- Many LCCs dont have free checked baggage (many mainline too, in the lowest fare classes), and due to the liquid ban you cannot bring all of your necessary items with you. This leads more people to buying checked baggage = airline revenue. (or buy duty free = airport revenue)
- Even if people don't buy duty free or on-board and cant/wont buy checked bags, they will buy their necessary items at their destination, or, on the way back, perhaps throw away some of the excess they bought there. In any case, it's a nice little economical boost. The more people buy and throw away , the more taxes are paid.

- As for the safety side f things, I am sure one could hide some nasty surprises in what looks like a bottle of water. But why then can you bring an entire suitcase full of 'liquids' (which could theoretically have some magical liquid explosive substance) that could blow up the entire plane from the cargo hold? And why can I bring/buy duty free a variety of objects which could potentially also be hazardous? I can bring my lighter and buy some strong booze duty free and start a pretty damn nasty fire in a plane, and I would have bought/brought all of it legally. I have even seen a tv documentary on the nasty bombs you could make with only duty free items....

Boggie Dog

You may be exactly right but that is not TSA's claim.

makeUturn

Well yes, but it must be working. How many planes can you think of that has been brought down by a bottle of liquid in the last ten years?

FlyingUnderTheRadar

Here let me fix that for you

15 years of TSA has almost zero benefit for improved security and an argument could be made that so much focus on specious threats detracts from other aspects of screening.

Carl Johnson

That's absurd. Next you'll be telling us that focusing so hard on water causes them to miss 95% of real threats (or what would be threats if malefactors brought them on board). And that is absolutely not true. They also use behavioral detection techniques such as listening for whistling and watching for excessive leg shaking and these contribute to the failure rate, it isn't all water.

Low Roller

Should we be concerned about how much thought you've given to this?

WillCAD

The trend of people bringing their own empty water bottles through security and filling at drinking fountains has most likely cut into that revenue in the US. There will always be people who buy bottled water at Hudson News or soft drinks at the food courts, but a lot of travelers are wise to the scam and bring their own water bottles. I use a Brita bottle with a filter, so I can fill it from either a drinking fountain or from a restroom sink and don't need to deal with any unpleasant flavor.

Some airport food courts also have self-service beverage stations, and I have yet to find one that doesn't offer free water and ice, so in many places it's possible to get ice water, rather than room temp water from the drinking fountains.

And on at least some flights, beverage service including water and soft drinks is included with the fare, so it is possible to get refills on board at no extra cost.

So I don't think it's largely an economic issue. I think mostly it's an issue of paranoia - too many Americans have seen Die Hard With a Vengeance and believe that "binary liquid explosives" which have enough energy in a single milliliter droplet to blow a chair two meters in the air are a real thing, and must be kept off airplanes.

caughtinthemiddle

why are flight crews allowed to go thru with liquids and no one blinks an eye

FliesWay2Much

The war on shampoo exists so there's something for the public to do to feel like they are contributing to aviatiin security. They are active participants and can feel good about themselvea when the government pats them on the head for being a good citizen. Roosevelt did the same thing in WWII by encouraging citizens to bring in their wrought iron fences, nylons, and blond hair fir the Norden bombsights. The materials were virtually useless, but it was a way to ensure support for the war effort.

catocony

Big Bomb Bad. Little Bomb Okay.

KevinDTW

The liquids ban won't be lifted because that would expose how pointless it was in the first place. But it serves as a good reminder of how difficult it is to reclaim a freedom, even one as small as this, once you've surrendered it.