The thing that bothered me is that I’m a contact lens wearer and to make things easier in case my bags get lost, I like to carry some solution with me. That was impossible with the liquid limits. It also makes things hard if you are just traveling for business for a day or two and only want to take one carry on. I do see your point about the technology aspect, but honestly I see other lapses in security in the Italian airports, that it more bothers me that there is a different standard on enforcing the rules, how people are searched, etc depending on what airport you travel through.

Report this comment

I would be more concerned if the current rules made any sense. You can’t have a 12 oz bottle but you can have 4 3 oz bottles. That makes me safer how?

Report this comment

I realize we have very different views on airport security, but here are my thoughts. As a frequent world-wide traveler, I will be very happy to see these liquid bans gone altogether. Never made me feel a bit safer… Nothing airports/airlines have done to date has made me feel any safer… There are too many holes, inconsistencies, etc., it’s just theater in my mind. And I have no problem assuming the risk and boarding an airplane. It would be a whole lot more convenient if the liquid ban were gone. I agree that if the machines were to go down it would be a big problem. However, I don’t see the problem of someone with dangerous liquids boarding an airplane, I see the problem of passengers stuck in the terminal going through manual searches or having to check all liquids. If the machines do go down, maybe the airport could have some sort of system where they put your liquids into a box and check it through for you at the security checkpoint? Or am I dreaming?

Report this comment

“I haven’t read many negative comments about the liquid limits on flights, so why change it”

It has been a pain for many, many thousands of travellers. It is a real pain if you are only taking hand luggage or you are travelling with small children, particularly as it hasn’t been administered with any common snese. Good riddance to it. I would rather put my faith in technology than the useless officials who currently act like Nazis at our airports.

Report this comment

“I haven’t read many negative comments about the liquid limits on flights, so why change it?”

Maybe not on your site, but I’ve posted repeatedly about the war on liquids elsewhere, as have many others. I’ve been “liberated” of bottles of water I acquired AFTER the security checkpoint, “liberated” of bottles of water I got ON THE PLANE, had my sunscreen and toothpaste “liberated” in a tiny airport in Hawaii where I told I could had to check my day pack for the 20 minute island hop flight… Nursing mothers have been put through all kinds of hell for trying to travel with breast milk, there are ridiculous tales of passengers being told they can’t travel with pie or jam or – I read this recently – snow globe souvenirs because of the liquid inside. And the combination of liquid restrictions and bag fees has made packing a carry on a puzzle in planning. Too much shampoo for security? Is that deodorant a solid or a liquid? It’s a 12 oz tube of toothpaste but it’s nearly empty, oh, not good enough, the CONTAINER has to be 3 oz. I could go on and on, but I’ll stop now.

I can’t WAIT for this annoying, inconveniencing, erratic regulation to end.

Report this comment

I mentioned on facebook just today how I was liberated of jam-filled cookies recently. Store bought, nothing fancy. Just your regular jam-filled pack of christmasy lebkuchen. Apparently, cookies are OK, but not jam filled. Oddly enough, they were perfectly OK to get on the plane with in Germany, but not in Sweden. So Pam, I feel your pain. I’ll be so happy to see that stupid liquids ban gone.

Darren, IMO, Europeans just complain a lot less and are a lot less vocal. They just grumble inside.

Report this comment

I agree, I was on a flight from Denmark and was not allowed to bring a bottle of water onboard. Being a terrible flyer, the water is one of the only things i can do to keep me calm. I think they really need to start justifying the new laws or at least a broad education strategy.

Report this comment

As an “aging” woman who travels internationally a LOT and for long periods of time and whose checked baggage has been lost (permanently) on several occasions, I DESPISE this rule. I wear long pants, with knee socks underneath and stick anywhere from 10 to 20 items containing face creams, cleansers, (very expensive) wrinkle products, etc. in there and walk through the metal detector – constantly. The metal detector does not detect liquids. Trust me, if I were up to no good I could have brought many a plane down already. STUPID rule. If someone is evil and wants to do evil, they will. The only ones who suffer from this are innocent people – and disproportionately women.

Report this comment

Let’s say that this rule does not bother anyone, which it does a lot, but let’s imagine just for a minute that everyone is ok with it, what is its purpose any way; to protect? I don’t think so. Let’s say that there is a terrorist on board and he wants to create an explosion with some liquid explosive; first of all since it is ok to have many small bottles a binary explosive is not excluded, the real “threat”. The max amount of liquid one can carry is a litter, so one could have a litter of such an explosive in 10 100ml bottles. So where is the protection? The same applies to most of these rules.
They say you cannot have a golf club or a skate board on board. Imagine a 7 foot (213cm) martial arts trained passenger attacking an 86 year old 5 foot lady co passenger; who do you think is the scariest and who will win?
Now imagine someone that weighs 120 pounds (55 kilos) he is allowed to carry 70 pounds (30 kilos) of luggage, a total of 190 pounds (85 kilos). If he wants to carry an extra 20 pounds (10 kilos, 210 pounds total (95 kilos) while traveling from Athens to Prague he will have to pay 220€ extra. Now someone that weighs 220 pounds (100 kilos) is also allowed to carry 70 pounds (30 kilos) of luggage, a total of 290 pounds (130 kilos). So passenger No 2 carries 35 more kilos in total and pays 220€ less… Is this logical? No! Why do they do it? The simple answer is money!
They first create an atmosphere of insecurity, they make people panic and then they charge the hell out of them. New threat=new security measures that we (passengers) pay=more money for them. No anything on board=us buying more in the airport shops and on board=more money for them!!
Wake up it’s all about the money. Just think of this: if someone wanted to kill people does he have to hijack an airplane, plan for months and have the least chances for success? He can always rent a car and drive through a crowded park on a sunny Sunday….

Report this comment