Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#381

Post by gampleman »

dingaling wrote: post #199
kstenerud wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about making people feel safe. We're not rational beings, so what do you do about an irrational fear? You invent a magical thing that protects from that irrational fear. You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more. You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many…

> It's about making people feel safe. I don't think that's a common perception of airport security. Few people take reassurance from it, most consider it a burden and hindrance that could stop them getting their flight if they don't perform the correct steps as instructed. The lifting of this restriction is an example, the overwhelming response is "oh thank goodness, now I don't have to pay for overpriced water" and…

I thought so too. But having talked to a few people who are generally afraid of flying, they absolutely do take re-assurance from the security theatre. They are very much not interested in having the ease of subverting this security explained to them.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#382

Post by n4r9 »

Halan wrote: post #380
n4r9 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but Heathrow has around twice as many departures per day (edit after your edit:) than Gatwick. This is on BBC news. Heathrow is twice as busy as any other airport in the UK. It's the easiest major airport to reach from London (other than LCY which is not that "major"). I literally know people who are leaving from Heathrow this week and are affected by this. C'mon, it's newsworthy.

Yeah and 50% more than Rome, but overall less than all airports already doing it in Europe. This news made front page out of two things: 1) English people do not know anything about continental Europe 2) Americans do not know anything about Europe

Oh okay, you're asking why is it on HN front page rather than more generally why is it newsworthy. That's a fair point. I suppose it's a big feat of logistics and engineering to manage a switchover at such a large airport with so many terminals

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#383

Post by throwaway290 »

closewith wrote: post #359
sethammons wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you drop a sarcasm tag? Anyone can make a fire on a plane as they allow lighters on a plane, and batteries, and any number of flammable objects. None of that is facing any scrutiny nor stopping crazy people from being crazy.

Flammable liquid and all high temperature lighters are forbidden, as are Li-ion batteries over 100kWh.

You can buy up to 5L up to 70% alcohol after security, no? Sounds pretty flammable

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#384

Post by bluebarbet »

michaelt wrote: post #271
kleiba wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never done that yet I've never had any trouble finding water past security or even on a plane?!

Airport prices in the UK for recreational travel work like so: Flight from London to Barcelona: £16 Bottle of water past security: £5 Train to airport: £26 Taxi enters drop-off area for 30 seconds: £7 A person who wants to get the advertised flight at the advertised price has to be very careful.

Tangential, but given the myriad externalities of air transport, such low fares for flying are deeply unethical and a perverse incentive that we are going to need to address one day.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#385

Post by mlrtime »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #308
gizajob wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it’s got out and out criminal at this point. Not sure why we should accept a £6.40 charge to drop someone or collect someone from an airport when that’s the actual function and necessity of using an airport. I got charged £100 at COUNCIL OWNED Manchester airport for picking up a friend who accidentally had put themselves in the drop off zone rather than the collect zone. Just completely vile and disgusting corpo…

Are you saying they fined you for picking someone up in the drop off area? If so that's pretty wild. It's all just traffic at the end of the day.

I do that all the time in certain airports when the drop off is essentially empty with 0 line but pickup is a half mile row of cars.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#386

Post by jakub_g »

jonah wrote: post #21

We transited through LHR yesterday. Still had to go through security - not sure why since we stayed on the air side. Anyway, signage required us to empty our refillable water bottles. Odd. Thankfully we eventually found a refill station. The scanners flagged a still sealed can of ginger ale left over from our incoming flight. It was "fine" but she still swabbed it. Shrug.

Flying with connections mostly within Schengen, or EUUS via CDG, I never had to clear security again at layover, but I recently learnt this is rather an exception, and apparently it's a very common thing in most airports to have to clear security again.

LHR is actually notorious for this; you don't have to clear security again at LHR only when the connection is domestic.

In many other airports it's the same when e.g. you switch a terminal. Best to check for a particular airport what are the rules before booking.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#387

Post by throwaway290 »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #277
sethammons wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you drop a sarcasm tag? Anyone can make a fire on a plane as they allow lighters on a plane, and batteries, and any number of flammable objects. None of that is facing any scrutiny nor stopping crazy people from being crazy.

I've heard that cell phones often catch fire on planes, and the crews know how to deal with that. I guess they have to because the odds of one going up are pretty good across so many flights.

It's easier to deal if it's in carry on bag. This is why batteries are forbidden in checked luggage. Once it all burns the airplane has got to land asap and it's an emergency.

My checked luggage did not pass xray multiple times because they detected powerbanks. I had to come back and take it out. However it also did pass xray a couple times with powerbanks so it's not a reliable system.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#388

Post by mlrtime »

dataengineer56 wrote: post #305
ssl-3 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grunts working for TSA on the floor at airports aren't desperately clinging for the notion that they're doing something important, or working towards some lofty, noble, and/or altruistic goal. It's just a job. They're principally motivated to do this job by the promise of a steady paycheck and decent benefits -- the same motivation that most other people with steady paychecks and decent benefits also have.

In my experience many of them do feel like they're doing something important, and some seem principally motivated to do the job by the promise of being able to bully travellers.

>do feel like they're doing something important

First I agree TSA is mostly theater... however if you HAD to have it, you want the people to work like this. I might be old-school but I think everyone should have pride and responsibility in their work. Even if from the outside it is meaningless.

100% no reason to be a bully, that is not pride/responsibility. Every job has ass assholes.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#389

Post by tirant »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #363
jandrewrogers wrote: post #71

This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this. The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me. The…

Schiphol at Amsterdam had this for a year or so, you could bring any type of liquid and leave everything in the bag. But they reverted the liquid rule, if I remember correctly, because of the confusion it caused.

This happened due to a change in regulation in Europe.

Some airports, like AMS or MUC, invested on new machines with higher detection capabilities, and decided to allow all liquids and improve efficiency in boarding. The EU updated the rules claiming those new machines were still not sufficient and airports should go back to forbidding liquids.

It was a mess. I remember flying from MUC and being allowed all liquids and on my return flight, also from EU, when trying to fly with a normal water bottle, security people looked at me wondering what the f I was doing: "Don't you know liquids are not allowed, sir!?"

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#390

Post by BrenBarn »

closewith wrote: post #356
BrenBarn wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have we protected against the motivated terrorist, or only the motivated terrorist on an airplane?

Is your contention that there haven't been any terrorist attacks, therefore airport security isn't effective? Because over the last 25 years, there have been a _lot_ of "successful" terrorist attacks in the West, and none of them were on planes.

My point is that if improved airport security just shifts terrorist attacks to other places, the overall safety benefit is not as great as it may at first seem.
Post reply on HN