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

811–820 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#811

Post by flakeoil »

HWR_14 wrote: post #620
flakeoil wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, one can also question if the £16 cost for the flight makes any sense. A more correct price would be £500. It's about time that the airlines pay the same taxes for fuel as everyone else.

What is the correct cost for a flight leaving in 3 hours with an empty seat? What is the correct cost for a scheduled flight leaving in 2 months with no seats sold yet? Tickets aren't the same price for everyone, and planes fill to variable levels. Plus there are addons like luggage fees and beverages that have a huge markup. What is the best way to solve for that? Besides, it averages something like 53L of fuel/pass…

You can do whatever calculations and speculations you want, but the fact is that airlines do not pay any tax on fuel and no VAT on fuel. Not sure why they should not.

Another thing with flying is that it is so easy to go long distances as it takes limited time. A trip London-Barcelona is a 1.5-2 day trip one-way by car. You think twice before doing that. An intercontinental trip London-Bangkok is impossible by car, but creates more CO2 than all energy one person uses in a year (heating, cooking, going by car to work etc). Dirt cheap and in the blink of an eye.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#812

Post by pc86 »

ssl-3 wrote: post #781
pc86 wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never saw that Reddit thread where the guy who barely got his GED insisted he was a "federal officer," did you?

I don't pay attention to the stuff that breeds on Reddit. So, no; I never saw that, and I don't care to. But I am pretty sure that punching down on people with GEDs is rather disingenuously classist, and that's no way behave. You can do better than that.

Such an astoundingly oblivious post I'm wondering if this is a ragebait troll account.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#813

Post by andrepd »

WalterBright wrote: post #701
andrepd wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crucially, deaths among pedestrians and cyclists are skyrocketing in the last decade; those people can't really "control" whether the 4-ton SUV with a 6' high bumper mows them and their kids down.

I've driven around blind corners to discover people standing in the middle of the road. I also read in the paper about people being run over in crosswalks. I use crosswalks, too, and I make sure to look before I step into it. When I jog, I look at the driver's eyes to see if he sees me (if he doesn't, I step far off the roadside). Yes, as a pedestrian you do have a significant amount of control.

I just now noticed the username. There's really no point arguing with you on any topic is there Walter?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#814

Post by regularfry »

palata wrote: post #480
regularfry wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cynically, it's so they can sell you another bottle on the secure side. If they spend money to give themselves a working mechanism to distinguish water from not-water, they lose the ability to create retail demand.

I understand the idea, but it's not completely true: I empty my bottle before the security check, and fill it after in a fountain.

Then you have successfully circumnavigated a problem that more forgetful people will run into head-first. It doesn't have to catch everyone for the shops who are tenants on the secure side to complain about lost sales.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#816

Post by vidarh »

direwolf20 wrote: post #741
vidarh wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are even restaurants in London you can't get to without going through a scanner. E.g. half the restaurants at The Shard. But to give an idea of how idiotic it is: Those are on the 32nd and 33rd floor. Next door is the Shangri La hotel of The Shard, where you can walk straight in and take the lift to the 31st (no scanners), and change to a lift for the 52nd floor (no scanners).

Wouldn't a terrorist want to bomb a building on the ground floor, anyway, so that all of it would fall down?

Quite possibly, but that doesn't seem to be their concern for whatever reason. It's very unclear to me what the supposed threat profile is for those cases (perhaps they're concerned it might be easier to do sufficient damage higher up given that the Shard narrows floor by floor; who knows), but The Shard one strikes me as particularly "funny" given you gain access to more of the building by wandering in the entrance next door to the one where the scanners are.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#817

Post by ghaff »

pc86 wrote: post #729
mcny wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've flown with someone who simply said she has prescription medication with her. I mean it was the truth. It was legitimately prescription medication. In this case. But I can imagine someone could lie.

I can't speak to UK airports but TSA policy is that any medication needs to be in the original container, including prescription medication. So if you have any unmarked pills they'll toss them if they find them, same with multiple different pills in a prescription pill bottle or similar.

Never encountered that over probably hundreds of flights. From what I read, it's recommended but not required. I'd probably be more conservative with any controlled substances. (And, based on some things I've read, it's probably not a bad idea to have a photo of the labels.)

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#818

Post by butvacuum »

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…

Is it really unclear what the theater is actually for? It was immediately weaponized that any opposition placed you somewhere between 'anti-american' and a 'terrorist'. A perfect environment to pass any legislation, no matter how ineffectual and illegal.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#819

Post by astura »

account42 wrote: post #503
astura wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody disallows empty bottles through security, that's a lie.

I have had an empty water bottle thrown away once so it's not a lie even if it might not be universal.

I can also make up fake stories.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#820

Post by butvacuum »

aylmao wrote: post #761
y0eswddl wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People stopped flying after 9/11 and airlines lost money until the TSA was created and made people feel safe to fly again

There's room for both. You can have security checkpoints where they check your bag for liquids, and you should be allowed to fly with them once they confirm its innocuous. I'm no chemist, but I can't imagine it's hard to test if something is an explosive or just body cream. To pack a punch, I have to imagine explosives need very specific compounds in them.

1) its way harder than you'd expect as many compounds are safe in low concentrations and have other uses. Take TATP- triacetone-triperoxide. yes, the peroxide and acetone(nailpolish remover) in most people's bathrooms should never be mixed.

2) might want to look up how often firearms make it onboard in carry on bagage accidentally. This isn't the typical snarky use of that phrase- it's just so insanely common people don't want to beleive it.

Post reply on HN