Rules On Liquids and Laptops To Be Eased At UK Airports From June 2024 80
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Rules around taking liquids and laptops through airport security will be eased from June 2024, the government has said. The announcement of the biggest relaxation of aviation security regulations in decades confirms reports last month that the change would come in the year after next. Passengers at most major UK airports will be able to carry liquids in containers holding up to two liters, a huge increase from the current limit of 100ml. Travelers will also no longer need to carry the containers in clear plastic bags, or remove tablets and laptops from hand luggage at checkpoints. The Department for Transport said major airports would be required to install new technology that gives security staff more detailed images of what is in passengers' bags. It will lay new legislation around the changes in parliament on Thursday. The transport secretary, Mark Harper, said: "The tiny toiletry has become a staple of airport security checkpoints, but that's all set to change. I'm streamlining cabin bag rules at airports while enhancing security."
"By 2024, major airports across the UK will have the latest security tech installed, reducing queueing times, improving the passenger experience, and most importantly detecting potential threats."
"By 2024, major airports across the UK will have the latest security tech installed, reducing queueing times, improving the passenger experience, and most importantly detecting potential threats."
The real benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
People can take their own drinks through security and no longer be ripped off by vendors in the departure lounge.
Re:The real benefit (Score:4, Insightful)
People can take their own drinks through security and no longer be ripped off by vendors in the departure lounge.
Oh yes. Instead you'll be charged a $39.99 "processing" fee for each and every time you're forced to use the "latest security tech" coming soon to every "major" airport (meaning all of them.)
Not like they are going to take money out of their executive bonuses to pay for it.
This isn't a story about easing airport restrictions. This is a story about mandatory surveillance upgrades and convincing you why you need to pay for it.
No, it's a story about the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) doing something useful for the average traveller.
If you put the tin foil hat away you might see that.
These rules come down from the CAA, airport fees are controlled mainly by the airport operators and they're already doing everything they can to rip people off there (almost every major international airport now charges a drop off fee), the elasticity of demand is already limiting what they can charge as airlines seek to move to cheaper airports and passengers cut down on flying. Also I'd hate to break it to you, but for decades they've already known everything about you when flying, you really want to look into the hassle you need to go through to enter the US as a foreigner.
Re: (Score:2)
If they already know everything about you when you fly, then why the security theater? Why should I have to prove who I am and that I'm not a criminal if I want to fly? If they have everything, let me buy my ticket (with cash) and get on the plane.
If you think getting into the U.S. on flight is a has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No - you are thinking about voting
Re: The real benefit (Score:3)
I traveled domestically in Australia yesterday and I never had to show is to anyone. Walked up to the self check-in and used my booking reference to get my boarding pass without showing anything to any staff.
Was then able to pass through security without showing any paperwork to the security people (they didn't even care if I was actually flying). Only thing I needed to show at the gate was my boarding pass.
Absolutely zero checks that the person getting on the plane was the one named on the ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
almost every major international airport now charges a drop off fee
Good. I fully support this practice. The issue was when drop-off was free, people used the drop off area to park and circle while waiting to pick up passengers. And it isn't even people who did this. Many companies did this, many transport services did this. All of this combined made it fucking impossible to drop someone off at a major international airport.
I fully support charging people in the drop-off area by the minute. It's about the only way to stop people being selfish arseholes and blocking sections
Re: (Score:2)
If airports integrated properly with public transport, this wouldn't need to happen. Denver finally got it right, when they extended their light rail all the way along Pena Blvd. Crucially, the cost of a light rail ticket from the airport to downtown is the same as an all-day ticket around the rest of the light rail network. Compare this to Sydney, where you are required to pay extra to take the train to/from the airport. The railway lines are part of Sydney's normal rail network, but it costs you $17 to ta
Re: (Score:2)
London Underground has served Heathrow for 40 years. I do have vague memories of seeing a story in the past couple of years about improvements; possibly what I saw and what you're thinking of was something to do with the new Elizabeth Line, which adds some new routes.
Re: (Score:2)
Some might, and I've seen it outside the US but just from recent memory...
JFK? No. Free cell phone lot
LGA? No. Free cell phone lot
DEN? No. Free cell phone lot
SFO? No.
LAX? Pretty sure no
CHI? Pretty sure no.
YYZ? No, pretty sure free cell phone lot.
Cell phone lots and aggressive enforcement of (un)loading zones forks fairly well though.
Re: (Score:2)
DEN? No. Free cell phone lot
Also no enforcement against parking on the shoulder right outside the terminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yes. Instead you'll be charged a $39.99 "processing" fee for each and every time you're forced to use the "latest security tech" coming soon to every "major" airport (meaning all of them.) Not like they are going to take money out of their executive bonuses to pay for it.
Stop talking out of your ass. Literally every major airport in the world is in a constant state of renovation, upgrades, and expansion. A large part of these security changes are about making security faster (reads: process more customers for the same amount of staff).
Please apply a bit of thought to your comments.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yes. Instead you'll be charged a $39.99 "processing" fee for each and every time you're forced to use the "latest security tech" coming soon to every "major" airport (meaning all of them.) Not like they are going to take money out of their executive bonuses to pay for it.
Stop talking out of your ass. Literally every major airport in the world is in a constant state of renovation, upgrades, and expansion. A large part of these security changes are about making security faster (reads: process more customers for the same amount of staff).
Please apply a bit of thought to your comments.
Speaking of applying some thought, tell me again exactly how the liquid-is-a-bomb risk is mitigated as every major airport confiscates all those liquid weapons and puts them in a single container right in the middle of the busiest part of the airport, surrounded by dozens of innocent shrapnel catchers walking about?
As I said elsewhere, follow the money. Greed coming up with excuses to justify this is what is flying out of asses, especially considering a dozen 9/11 attacks have walked across an open border
Re: (Score:2)
There's no doubt that the US sucks - and badly - at security. Go visit any country that's actually at risk (Israel is an easy example) and you'll see multiple rounds of checkpoints that also un-group people to avoid making easy targets. You'll see overt profiling - Jews and their party go to one quick security line, single 'military age men' go to a much more through line ... especially if they're dark-skinned. You'll notice security actually talking to each passenger/party at various points and asking q
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of applying some thought, tell me again exactly how the liquid-is-a-bomb risk is mitigated as every major airport confiscates all those liquid weapons and puts them in a single container right in the middle of the busiest part of the airport, surrounded by dozens of innocent shrapnel catchers walking about?
Gladly. Let's assume for a moment that liquid bombs are a risk. The yield of a 1-2L bottle of liquid explosives (despite what you see from sequels to classic Christmas movies like Die Hard) is actually quite low. Most explosive yields are. Land minds, grenades, even smaller rockets directly kill only a few people in the immediate vicinity of an explosion. If you want to actually do proper harm you need the support of infrastructure, i.e. collapse a building on people, or (just spitballing here) bringing dow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The real benefit (Score:2)
This is about the UK. What are Spainâ(TM)s rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, when I transited through Madrid airport last month, the part of security I went through took my bottle of water and tested it. Not sure if the normal security area does this though.
My real point though is I think people will get caught out on their way home.
Re: (Score:2)
People can take their own drinks through security and no longer be ripped off by vendors in the departure lounge.
Not until 2024 (London Heathrow may be sooner, but this is the deadline for all UK airports).
Also only if your final departure point is in the UK or are certain you will not need to pass security again during transit (some airports have additional security at the gate, Singapore Changi for example or if you're passing through the Schengen zone). Basically you're still being held hostage by the rules at other airports.
Re: (Score:2)
England and the USA are the only places I have flown that have these stupid rules about liquids. IIRC it derives from the "shoe bomber" and the "underpants bomber" back in the mid 2000s, back when the authorities were paranoid about 9/11 and were frantically trying to make aviation suck as much as possible. And anyone who pointed out that it was all "security theater," invasive, expensive and inefficient was accused of sympathizing with the terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been to Japan, mainland China, Singapore, Hong Kong, or Australia, or almost any of the EU countries then - and those are just the places I can remember off the top of my head with the same restrictions.
The only country I know of that currently lets large liquids through security is Netherlands (Rotterdam and Amsterdam).
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But how many of those countries implemented those rules becuse they're actually so brickshittingly stupid and useless as the TSA knuckledraggers? And how many of them did it because their airlines would be cut of from the US if they didn't?
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely didn't see this in Belgium, Switzerland or Australia in 2022. They may apply the rule selectively, e.g if you're connecting through the USA or UK?
But yeah, Singapore airport is a joke. I guess they just really like authoritarianism there.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can just take an empty bottle through security and fill it on the airside from a water fountain (if the local water is potable).
Re: The real benefit (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s not always the case. I couldnâ(TM)t find a drinking fountain at Gatwick a few years ago in this scenario. Then there are those airports that do security at the gate and have a final secure departure lounge with no facilities but a couple of vendor machines, if youâ(TM)re lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
Tap water is perfectly drinkable in most European countries. I doubt that these final secure departure lounges you have in mind don't have toilets with washbasins.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you're wrong. No taps. No toilets. No services at all. Very annoying if your flight is delayed.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean I no longer have to freeze my drinks to make them solid in a container to avoid quantity restrictions? (I'm tired of explaining phase transitions to security blokes.)
That's how I read it, but where I live (USA) the strategy has not worked for me and a few others I know.
And I can bring in larger containers of 90% grain alcohol to liven up my drinks. This is great!
It may depend upon where you land. In the US, such a product is illegal in many states.
Re: (Score:1)
And I can bring in larger containers of 90% grain alcohol to liven up my drinks. This is great!
It may depend upon where you land. In the US, such a product is illegal in many states.
That's why you make sure you drink the entire thing on the plane so you have to be carried off.
Re: (Score:2)
And I can bring in larger containers of 90% grain alcohol to liven up my drinks. This is great!
It may depend upon where you land. In the US, such a product is illegal in many states.
That's why you make sure you drink the entire thing on the plane so you have to be carried off.
Hard no by FAA: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/sec... [tsa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean I no longer have to freeze my drinks to make them solid in a container to avoid quantity restrictions? (I'm tired of explaining phase transitions to security blokes.)
That's how I read it, but where I live (USA) the strategy has not worked for me and a few others I know.
And I can bring in larger containers of 90% grain alcohol to liven up my drinks. This is great!
It may depend upon where you land. In the US, such a product is illegal in many states.
My sister brings ice in her water bottle whenever she travels. Hasn't had a problem yet.
Bringing alcohol with you is legal (you can bring a quart bag of nips just fine today) however - at least in the US - it's illegal to consume alcohol you brought on board with you. They usually directly mention that along with the no smoking/vaping/etc. warnings.
Re: (Score:2)
My sister brings ice in her water bottle whenever she travels. Hasn't had a problem yet.
Bringing alcohol with you is legal (you can bring a quart bag of nips just fine today) however - at least in the US - it's illegal to consume alcohol you brought on board with you. They usually directly mention that along with the no smoking/vaping/etc. warnings.
90% grain alcohol is illegal in many states within the USA....
It was always about obedience, not security (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why they took all those liquids and put them in a single trash container right in the middle of the largest most densely packed crowd in the airport. The point was never to convince anyone that those liquids were a genuine security threat, but specifically to make it as obvious as possible that they weren't while forcing people to participate in the charade.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they took all those liquids and put them in a single trash container right in the middle of the largest most densely packed crowd in the airport. The point was never to convince anyone that those liquids were a genuine security threat, but specifically to make it as obvious as possible that they weren't while forcing people to participate in the charade.
The thing is, a lot of other nations figured this out years ago. Australia dropped the restrictions on domestic flights years ago but because the US is enforcing it on the entire world they needed to keep the LAG restrictions on international flights.
The UK is loopholing their way out, by claiming that the new scanners which will be installed at every airport by 2024 are good enough to detect anything malicious.
Honestly the best part is not taking my laptop out of my bag any more.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution here is for the rest of the world to collectively say "Enough, this is bullshit, if you refuse our flights we'll refuse all of yours as well. Have fun not being able to go anywhere in the world".
Re: It was always about obedience, not security (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ve also checked in about six years ago at Tullamarine for a domestic flight without having my ID checked. What could go wrong? Things are obviously so much better in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly the best part is not taking my laptop out of my bag any more.
It's generally reassuring to know they are now using scanners capable of seeing through 3mm of neoprene cover!
Re:It was always about obedience, not security (Score:5, Informative)
That's why they took all those liquids and put them in a single trash container right in the middle of the largest most densely packed crowd in the airport.
You are equating risks where you can't. The risk of liquids is obviously quite low, but we've bombed security lines in the past and the death toll is significantly smaller (despite them having a far larger bomb) than taking out a plane. The biggest one was Moscow airport with a deathtoll of 35. You're massively overestimating how many people you can kill easily in an open area. It would be almost more effective to simply go with a machine gun and open fire. Airport security is not armed, and by the time the actual armed security shows up you'll have a body count anyway.
Don't get me wrong most of the security theatre is just that, but the liquid thing was rooted in a very real attack, not some nebulous "obedience" conspiracy. As it stands people were already following strict lists of rules for flying before they banned liquids. I'm not more of a sheep following 35 rules instead of 34.
Liquid thing was rooted in actual attempt! (Score:2)
Your post is so bad on so many levels that it's "not even wrong" as Pauli would say.
First of all, you don't understand how explosives work, or pressure waves. In a giant open area you have to have a lot more explosive to hurt people that are not extremely close to the bomb. As stated, far more efficient to simply go in and gun people down if that's your intent,.
Secondly, you do not even understand how liquid explosives generally work at all, since they usually only activate after combining two elements wh
Re: (Score:2)
First off a bomb in the middle of a packed security line of hundreds of people could kill a massive number in the immediate vicinity
Yeah a massive 30 or so, and that was with a sizable backpack full of explosives. You don't need to guess here, we have multiple examples of this happening and they've all used something far larger than a bottle of liquid. A 1-2L bottle of liquid explosive doesn't have much of a yield, and for the most part deaths from explosions are very limited to the immediate vicinity, especially if the explosive isn't augmented with something more dangerous.
Second the liquid thing was NEVER rooted in reality in the slightest. The entire idea is pure hollywood fantasy.
It was literally the result of a foiled attempt in 2006 to bom
Re: (Score:2)
Doing random searches is better than searching everyone?
Unless they've improved since the last test I heard, doing random searches that are actually thorough and effective might be better than searching everyone, because at one point they were missing 90% of dangerous items.
Re: (Score:3)
The liquid thing was rooted in a very real plot, but it wasn't a real threat. TATP isn't something you prepare just by tipping one bottle into another and shaking it. To get a worthwhile explosive you need to react your acetone and peroxide very slowly with lots of cooling. If someone tried to do it in a plane toilet then they might injure their own hand, but they're not going to bring the plane down.
Re: (Score:2)
The objective of terrorism is forcing political change through terror, not the killing itself. Killing can create terror based on the kind of killing as well as the amount. Attacking the security apparatus create disproportionate terror since it is the thing the politicians claimed would keep you safe which made you unsafe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA you linked, the authorities stopped that plot _before_ any of these rules were in place. They probably used good old fashioned police work instead of expensive, invasive searches of every single passenger.
But, but... (Score:2)
What about job security for all those agents who won't be needed? What about the profits for selling water bottles on the other side of security? What about needless intimidation of passengers, because they didn't properly disassemble their luggage into separate trays? Even the remaining restrictions make no sense.
But...what about security theater? /s
Seriously, the sheer cost in time - centuries of people's lifetimes blown standing in stupid lines - this was always theater and never worth anything.
Re:But, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
>What about needless intimidation of passengers
This is a big one.
I got yelled at by a TSA guy because I didn't take my iPad out of my backpack. The previous time I'd flown, I didn't have to. But that time I did. Being yelled at like he is a drill instructor is unnecessary, I would have taken the iPad out if asked politely too. Also I had no idea the rules had changed; I don't fly often.
They seem to hire, on average, more aggressive people than most other jobs. Any rule changes to reduce the amount of conflict with them at checkpoints is a win, in my opinion.
About time (Score:2)
AMS-Schiphol hasn't required you to throw out your liquids for well over a year now, nor remove anything from your bags. It was never something that made any kind of sense.
The Real Benefit? (Score:3)
Now we won't have to empty our bladders before going through security at any UK airport !
what about liquid cooled laptops? (Score:1)
A buddy of mine's gaming laptop had a liquid cooled gpu, until airport security informed him that airport security noticed this, and told him that they thought it may have been an explosive, and destroyed it. Luckily, he had nothing of importance on it (just games), and they paid him back the cost of it.
It was supposed to be by end of 2022 (Score:2)
Boris Johnson, someone who constantly says things, and does nothing about them, had mandated that all UK airports will have this implemented by end of 2022, so in 2 weeks on Saturday.
Like a lot of things he said, it was nonsense.
Perhaps someone less incompetent has taken charge.
But probably not.
This has always been security theatre (Score:4, Informative)
I flew out of Ben Gurion Airport in 2011 and there were no restrictions at all on liquids. That's an airport that actually has security rather than security theatre .
Re: (Score:2)
"What you have here is not security, but a system for inconveniencing passengers."
—El Al security expert, consulting to the US Transportation Security Administration
Re: (Score:2)
Do we have to retire that old joke now? (Score:2)
I guess this means we have to retire that old Airport Logic [lovethispic.com] liquid bottle joke about "Theater Security Agents" who miss miss 70% - 95% [google.com] of weapons, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And the obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/651/ [xkcd.com]
Aww. I thought it was about liquids and laptops. (Score:2)
When I first read the headline, I thought "there are laws regarding liquids and laptops?" wondering what the EU or UK did.
Did they outlaw spilling drinks on your laptop? Or did they mandate that laptops must contain protections against drinks spilled on them>? I mean, earlier Lenovo laptops had "rain gutters" that if you spilled something on the keyboard, it channeled the liquid down special channels so the liquid got dumped out the bottom of the case. Still a mess to clean up but better than having to
Woohoo (Score:3)
Let's travel like it's 2001 folks!
Re: (Score:2)
That's crazy talk! Back then you didn't even have to have a plane ticket to go through security, you could go to wait in the gate area for your arriving friends or family, or to see them off.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, much more reasonable times in that respect.
"Place liquids in a clear plastic bag." (Score:1)
When will TSA catch up? (Score:2)
Most EU airports have had much laxer security requirements for a long time. The US for example is the only country on earth that makes you take shoes off, a major time suck at the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the USA and UK have these ludicrous policies. Note that in the rest of the world, we still don't see exploded aircraft raining from the sky. It's almost as if the rules are bullshit.
Re: When will TSA catch up? (Score:2)
USA? (Score:2)
When will USA do the same?
Re: (Score:2)