Liquids on planes - a contradition?

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Liquids on planes - a contradition?

TinyTim

902 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 49

Trusted

Topic # 160006 19-Dec-2014 19:38

There was an item on TVOne news tonight about the (expensive) liquids and gels that they have to take off people at airport security (yeah, slow news night).

Why do they confiscate these items? Because passengers may be hiding explosives in them.

So then why, in the last part of the news video, do they have all these items displayed on an open table in an open office, in front of Karen and Sharon? If the items are dangerous they should be in a safe and secure area, and if they are not dangerous, then... then the passengers should be able to take them with them (like in the old days!)

1 | 2

7733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2556

Subscriber

Reply # 1200770 19-Dec-2014 19:41

but how do they know they are not dangerous? they have said 100ml because that's what they deam a lethal amount should it be explosive.

they are not going to sit there and spend time and money testing everything that gets picked up. hence everything over 100ml is conficated

the chances of something being dangerous is very remote but you cant take a chance, especially when there are 100's of people on a plane

scuwp

3071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1551

Reply # 1200773 19-Dec-2014 19:51

2 people support this post

Because on the ground, even with the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance they might be dangerous, it won't kill 200+ people instantly?

Personally I am happy with the rules around this.

Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman

sbiddle

27047 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6503

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1200801 19-Dec-2014 20:45

4 people support this post

What a truly abysmal piece of journalism. No explanations of the LAG restrictions, why it exists, and more importantly the difference between LAG rules for international and domestic (where there aren't LAG restrictions like there are with international). Journalism in NZ really has reached an atrocious new level.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 139

Reply # 1200821 19-Dec-2014 21:03

The inference I got was that some of these travellers were travelling (or connecting to travel) internationally.
I mean who would travel with 500g of butter or jar of marmite in their carryon if they were just an internal traveller

richms

21447 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4353

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1200877 19-Dec-2014 22:52

Someone who doesnt want to pay for a bag on the flight because they are so expensive.

The whole reason airlines love this is that it makes buying a bag more essential for many people.

Richard rich.ms

TLD

687 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Reply # 1200891 19-Dec-2014 23:51

One person supports this post

oxnsox: The inference I got was that some of these travellers were travelling (or connecting to travel) internationally.
I mean who would travel with 500g of butter or jar of marmite in their carryon if they were just an internal traveller

I think most of the butter in the UK comes from NZ anyway. I'm just glad that McVities Hobnobs are not deemed likely to spontaneously combust at 30,000 feet.

Trevor Dennis
Rapaura (near Blenheim)

emb83

3 posts

Wannabe Geek
Inactive user

Reply # 1200893 19-Dec-2014 23:54

I remember at the time that the liquid explosive threat became news they said that the plot involved bringing bottles of chemicals onto the flight (disguised in drinks bottles etc) that would then be mixed in the bathroom to create an explosive. So perhaps they are happy to display them because they're not going to be mixed by anyone and therefore shouldn't explode?

TLD

687 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Reply # 1200896 20-Dec-2014 00:32

emb83: I remember at the time that the liquid explosive threat became news they said that the plot involved bringing bottles of chemicals onto the flight (disguised in drinks bottles etc) that would then be mixed in the bathroom to create an explosive. So perhaps they are happy to display them because they're not going to be mixed by anyone and therefore shouldn't explode?

It just seems to me that if the bad guys want to do bad deeds, the 100ml limit is not going to stop them. Heck you read about IEDs planted in stomach cavities. How crazy is that?! And, according to some of the thrillers I've read lately, state of the art explosives come in crystalline form, and are so powerful, a tiny amount would bring down an airliner.

I've now gone way beyond the point of rather not thinking about reasons to be scared in an airplane, so will now go back to blissful ignorance. Actually, my wife and I flew over the Ukraine with Etihad exactly a week before MH17 was bought down, and the buggers refused to change the route when we came back a few weeks later — although they did fly higher than normal.

Trevor Dennis
Rapaura (near Blenheim)

TLD

687 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 152

Reply # 1200897 20-Dec-2014 00:34

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaerythritol_tetranitrate

Trevor Dennis
Rapaura (near Blenheim)

blakamin

Aussie
4235 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1200903 20-Dec-2014 01:08

What annoys me is the no aerosol deodorant in carry-on. I'm flying MEL>WLG for 14 hours then WLG>MEL, but I can't take my usual.
I'm sure they'd be unimpressed if I deodorise with duty free rum too.

gregmcc

1597 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 332

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1200907 20-Dec-2014 06:08

Jase2985: but how do they know they are not dangerous? they have said 100ml because that's what they deam a lethal amount should it be explosive.

they are not going to sit there and spend time and money testing everything that gets picked up. hence everything over 100ml is conficated

the chances of something being dangerous is very remote but you cant take a chance, especially when there are 100's of people on a plane

Well maybe the answer is if someone is making a claim that it "may" be explosive to actually prove it. Fair enough take it away, but now that the claim has been made go ant get it tested, if it is actually explosive then the person trying to carry it on can be prosecuted, but if it's not then a formal apology, and a return of the item plus some compensation for loss of use.

It just like any other claim someone makes about another, be prepared to backup and prove your claim or shutup.

dickytim

2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user

Reply # 1200910 20-Dec-2014 06:34

Or they refuse you service for not following the terms and conditions, you need to get over yourself.

Or are you going to pay $10,000 to fly from Auckland to Wellington so they can pay someone to run scientific tests on a liquid you want to carry on a plane?

Reality check please.

Jase2985

7733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2556

Subscriber

Reply # 1200912 20-Dec-2014 06:54

gregmcc:
Jase2985: but how do they know they are not dangerous? they have said 100ml because that's what they deam a lethal amount should it be explosive.

they are not going to sit there and spend time and money testing everything that gets picked up. hence everything over 100ml is conficated

the chances of something being dangerous is very remote but you cant take a chance, especially when there are 100's of people on a plane

Well maybe the answer is if someone is making a claim that it "may" be explosive to actually prove it. Fair enough take it away, but now that the claim has been made go ant get it tested, if it is actually explosive then the person trying to carry it on can be prosecuted, but if it's not then a formal apology, and a return of the item plus some compensation for loss of use.

It just like any other claim someone makes about another, be prepared to backup and prove your claim or shutup.

but who would pay for it? no one would

hence the blanket ban which is not in the least bit hard to follow

gregmcc

1597 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 332

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 1200913 20-Dec-2014 07:11

dickytim: Or they refuse you service for not following the terms and conditions, you need to get over yourself.

Or are you going to pay $10,000 to fly from Auckland to Wellington so they can pay someone to run scientific tests on a liquid you want to carry on a plane?

Reality check please.

Are there and actual facts on how much of this stuff taken away is actually dangerous?

Jase2985

7733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2556

Subscriber

Reply # 1200915 20-Dec-2014 07:15

gregmcc:
dickytim: Or they refuse you service for not following the terms and conditions, you need to get over yourself.

Or are you going to pay $10,000 to fly from Auckland to Wellington so they can pay someone to run scientific tests on a liquid you want to carry on a plane?

Reality check please.

Are there and actual facts on how much of this stuff taken away is actually dangerous?

probably not because they more than liklely dont test any of it. easier to make a rule and confiscate it if people offend than to take a chance

1 | 2