So should we ban everything else from your carryon luggage?
Homeland Security and TSA have announced that any liquid substance (i.e. water bottles, toothpaste, lip gloss) will be banned from customers' carryon luggage at every US airport starting tomorrow. So far the only exception to this rule is baby formula and perscription medicine.
There will also be double-screening in place. Once at the main checkpoint, and the second at the departure gate. Again, such procedures were done after the events of 9/11.
Airport security experts have indicated that laptops, mobile/cell phones, and watches can pose a potential danger to the safety of an aircraft. These plus anything else that uses a battery (electronic devices) should be prohibited from any flight.
Can this be a realistic scenario?
Laptops are pretty much the lifeblood of the business person. We also use laptops to play songs, videos, or games while on a long-haul flight. I usually bring my laptop on my holiday trips because I can upload my pictures from my digital camera memory card without the need to buy spare memory cards. Plus, since hotels offer free internet access, that laptop is useful for tourism and planning out sightseeing trips.
Mobile/cell phones are practically a part of your daily life. We have looked at that phone as an emergency aid. When I was on a plane on the ground, we were delayed for two hours because of a stoppage, and the crew allowed the passengers to use their phones to contact their friends, relatives about the delay. If a serious incident occurred, that phone could be a life saver (i.e. how would the passengers on United 93 be able to figure out what was going on?).
Watches could be considered optional. But over time, it becomes an inconvenience if you need to buy a new disposable watch everytime you travel.
Other electronic devices (CD player, iPod, mp3 player, USB device) could be tolerated, of course what can you do if you are stuck on a 14-hour flight. Or a really long-haul flight from new york to sydney. Obviously, I am sure you can bring a book onboard (with the exception of today's crisis), but if your flight got a poor IFE, that long-haul flight becomes quite uncomfortable. However, if every other airline implemented Virgin's on-demand IFE system, then we would be quite content with being entertained.
The experts talk about the need for safety. Of course we know that. Passengers are more aware and vigilant in reporting suspicious activity. In reality, it is hard to enforce even the most stringent security regulations at the airport. Should we really ban flying altogether? Has the costs and risks outweigh the benefits? The end result is enduring a multi-hour check-in. Quite inconvenient! Of course we can adapt to these new security changes, but such change will need to expand to almost our whole daily routine. Like if you need to go on a corporate or leisure trip, instead of leaving 2 hours ahead of time, you may need to get their 4 hours ahead just for a domestic flight or in a worse case, take the whole day off for an international flight. Honestly, we are approaching the point where air travel becomes impractical. Instead of flying, taking the train or driving would be a better choice, but look at the scenario if safety steps taken on planes were done the same way on trains. Or what if that toll plaza when travelling from Jersey to Delaware becomes a checkpoint? Are we becoming a prison-like nation?
Duty-free shopping will practically disappear since travelers won't be able to purchase any perfumes or liquor products. Tourism would be impacted too. Some of your fragile souvenirs that cannot be checked into the hold would have to be left behind. Liquor and perfume products bought at tourist spots will have to be discarded. You might need to ship everything back home instead.
Security experts even noted terror attacks can occur in an airport terminal, not on a plane. How can we handle this too? A bomber could detonate an explosive device in the checkpoint area where hundreds of people will be waiting in line to get through. Should we build baggage drop-off points away from the airport?
Let's be realistic! We cannot ban everything. In order to make security more effective, we have to look at the security checkpoint process. In some airports, it is quite inefficient and dangerous if some incident were to happen. Banning everyday items is unenforceable. You might as well have everyone strip naked just to be sure everyone is safe.
Friday News
All airports have banned liquids and gel-based products such as toothpaste and makeup onto planes. They must be checked at check-in. Hmm, I have to wonder if duty-free products are also banned.
For Passengers Leaving the UK
According to The Sun newspaper...
BANNED
NO liquids other than those above are allowed — including bottles of duty-free alcohol on flights to the US. Travellers to other countries may still stock up on duty free.
ELECTRIC key fobs, mobiles, iPods and all electrical equipment, including cameras. Books and magazines.
MEDICINES in liquid form are also not allowed unless verified.
CONTACT lens solution and spectacle and sunglass cases. Wheelchairs other than the airport’s own.
ALLOWED
WALLETS and purses plus contents including money, credit cards and identity cards.
ESSENTIAL travel documents such as passports and tickets.
PRESCRIPTION medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight including diabetic kits.
GLASSES and sunglasses and contact lens holders.
BABY food and milk for travelling tots — but the milk must be tasted by the parent or guardian.
NAPPIES, wipes, creams and nappy sacks — but only enough for the flight.
FEMALE sanitary products essential for the flight, unboxed — tampons, pads, towels and wipes.
KEYS and tissues, so long as they are not in a box, handkerchiefs.

Comments
Posted by:
Posted on: August 10, 2006 06:25 PM
So, make up is pretty much banned. Kinda reminds me of the scene of the newscasters in Tim Burton's Batman. Also, another reason I am glad I was born a man.
Posted by: Raj
Posted on: August 11, 2006 02:26 AM
I think that the only way we can be completely safe while flying is to ban flying itself. With this mode of transportation eliminated, we make ourselves completely immune to further terrorists attacks in the air.
I used to say this in jest, but while I was visiting home, some people overheard me and agreed with me.
What happened to America, land of the brave? Why are so many Americans such pussies that they let a *failed* terrorist attempt completely change the way they do things? Are immigrants the only people left with no fear?
By bowing down to the terrorists, we've only shown them that terror works. Thanks a lot, Bush and Cheney. You turned our country into a nation of cowards.
Posted by:
Posted on: August 11, 2006 01:51 PM
I'm less disturbed by having to forgo makeup than I am by walking around an airport with unboxed feminine sanitary products.
Posted by: Heidi Cool
Posted on: August 11, 2006 02:40 PM
My mother flew from Florida to Chicago to Wisconsin yesterday. She said that while lines were bad, esp. at O'Hare she was allowed to bring her laptop because we are only on Orange alert within the U.S.
While waiting for the last flight she sat next to a fellow who had flown in that morning from Manchester, England. He was one of the early flights that got out before the cancellations.
He told her that the made him check virtually everything including books, then they sat on the tarmac for 5 hours while men with machine guns inspected the cabin, and the government conducted security checks on all of the passengers. Apparently it was all quite intimidating.
I recall flying to Viriginia two weeks after 9/11 and it wasn't anywhere near like this. And two years ago I missed a flight from Frankfurt to NYC because passengers going to the U.S. (as opposed to anywhere else on the planet) were required to go through a secondary checkpoint that included hand pat-downs of each passenger, extra scanning, etc.
Raj, I think you make a good point about the concept of fear. Mano Singham wrote a good series on the politics of fear beginning at http://blog.case.edu/mxs24/2005/06/27/politics_and_the_fear_factor
While I am all for practical security measures, as I've seen politely and respectfully practiced in other countries, I think that we go overboard in reaction to panic. Perhaps it is because we've been geographically insulated for so long, but in reality anything could happen just about anywhere, so why be paranoid?
While Al Queda may have their sights on U.S. targets, we're not the only people they (and other terrorists) attack. And they are not the only ones who could harm us. Our own Timothy McVeigh did a good job of that himself. On the other hand, tonight I could get run over by a bus while trying to cross Euclid Avenue.
I think no matter where we are, or what is happening, we just have to be practical and keep living. No matter what choices we will make there will never be a guarantee of safety. But if we just run around in fear, what is the point?
Posted by: J
Posted on: August 11, 2006 03:03 PM
Here's one chilly scenario: a passenger having drunk a harmless, undetectable liquid goes through the security checkpoint, then proceeds to the bar inside the security zone, and drink something else that would create a dangerous binary combination. Or how about waiting till he gets on a plane and drinks another liquid which creates an explosive mix? Thoretically this could happen based on an extreme dangerous scenario. I guess I am overexaggering this but that's the whole point.
Posted by: Trish
Posted on: August 14, 2006 10:47 AM
Slate's Explainer tackled the question of drinking explosive components a few days ago http://www.slate.com/id/2147500/?nav=navoa with the assumption that would-be bombers would only have to swig a small amount to get through checkpoints. It seems to me that to turn yourself into a bomb, you'd have to ingest sickening or lethal amount of some key chemical.
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: August 14, 2006 12:39 PM
I wonder, if instead of metal detectors, we will need to start going through x-ray machines to insure people did not ingest or implant any foreign items.
Posted by: Wing Lai Chan
Posted on: August 17, 2006 10:17 AM
Better safe then sorry.
Posted by: J
Posted on: August 17, 2006 04:19 PM
That's too easy of an excuse to consider. We believe in safety, but it must be done in a reasonable and justified manner. The technology is there to conduct body scans of passengers for explosive materials and new scanners that will detect liquid explosives, but because of red tape bureaucracy and "privacy" advocates, all of these have not been implemented. Now because of the "airport scare" in the UK, the government is rushing all these new regulations and it's doing a botched up job.
Now the "safety advocates" want to see this implemented on transit networks. C'mon, from a common sense viewpoint, this is practically unenforceable. How can you prevent 8 million New Yorkers from carrying liquids throughout the NYC transit system?
We have let fear control our reactions.
Posted by: Roger
Posted on: May 5, 2007 10:06 AM
Difficult subject, where do you draw the line between convenience and safety? Having been at Heathrow shortly after the new restriction were put into place it was like a cattle-market - no wait a minute it was worse than a cattle market!
People were missing their flights as check-in queues were never-ending and it was so stressful that a holiday was certainly needed after it all. We are seriously wondering whether it is worth the hassle this year or whether to holiday at home.
Until targeted action is the norm rather than random inconvenience for all I do not see the situation getting much better.
Posted by: William Masek
Posted on: October 2, 2007 09:04 PM
There comes a time when it seems like there is a grey line between the security needs and overdoing it.
William Masek
www.letsgotraveltheworld.com
Posted by: Perfume_Girl
Posted on: October 16, 2007 07:26 PM
I run a perfume store and at the time this ban was in place i had to leave all my samples i was taking back from the UK from my supplier. It was i real pain. I know security is important but sometimes things can get out of hand.