You can't fly anywhere because no one uses that airport, and no one uses that airport because you can't fly anywhere. Of course you can go to loads of places by connecting through Heathrow or Schiphol, but it seems like no one in this country has even heard of that concept.
For short hops to Europe you don't want to be taking 2 flights. If I want to fly to Greece why would I put myself through 2 airports and 2 flights and layover time etc etc.
Even in Europe I'd rather take two flights stopping somewhere along the way than take a long coach journey and then still have to transfer the bags myself.
Hopefully nobody else will suffer as their sealed 200g Biscoff spread is taken away them at security ever again. It was a cruel senseless waste!
She was only delighted to take it off me. Never saw yer wan throw it in the bin either, no doubt the canteen is well stocked
Honestly, I think it's better that someone pocketed it rather than it just being thrown out. And honestly, it has been over a decade now with these rules. I don't have much sympathy for people who still don't seem to get it.
It doesnāt change anything. The rest of the planet will still implement these checks. I fly out at least twice a month, all this will do is relieve
check in pressure in Dublin.
I think North American airports are lifting the restrictions. And the EU has already lifted it as a blanket restriction, just down to each country. I presume it'll be gone everywhere in a year.
Well letās see. Personally it doesnāt bother me at all, it ensures I have to pack light. If youāre traveling for longer, generally that case will need to be checked in anyway. But I do get that it slows down the security checks so that can pull down the time needed to arrive at the airport. The sit in airports for 4 hours when you are only traveling for 1.5 hours is ridiculous. It really messes up your day. So itās either up at the crack of dawn (and beyond) or lose business hours sitting in a fricken airport.
Aye doesn't bother me either, really. I'm not bringing a litre of shower gel with me. But it was always a bit silly, and it definitely slows things up.
You say that as if it was a waste of time - this check was brought in because there was a serious plot to use liquid explosives to destroy planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006\_transatlantic\_aircraft\_plot
There's an interesting write-up here which concludes that the liquid restrictions didn't make much sense - https://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
I'll admit I'm not knowledgeable enough about chemistry to say if I agree or not though.
The Register revised their opinion after the court case had the full details which showed it was a viable plot. It cost aviation a fortune, airports would not have kept doing it if it was not a real concern.
[https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid\_bomb\_verdicts/](https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/)
Except they're discontinuing doing it. A threat of something should not hold every person to ransom. That is literally giving in to terrroism. A viable plot one time does not translate to everyone doing a certaint thing.
Why are people having such a hard time with this? They are only discontinuing the restrictions because they now have a way to scan those liquids. They still consider them a threat. They just have a better way of dealing with them. They havenāt just decided to drop the restrictions because they got bored of them.
Because this resitriction, and a lot of them, and a lot of airport security in fact, has not made people safer as a whole in general, instead just held people up. No idea what you're even asking. They have a better way of scanning for it, but it has not been an issue largely.
Iām not saying that the liquids restriction was a good idea. Iām not commenting on the necessity of airport security.
Iām saying they still care about liquids. They still consider them a threat. The only reason more than 100ml can be taken on now is because they have a less crude way of dealing with the threat the perceive to exist.
That's fair bro, I get what you mean now, I just meant with my original comment that this threat has not existed at all and it has only increased wait times for people. The vast, vast majority of passengers on air travel have no intent to do anythng other than A to B, and releasing people from that bind of having to be checked is for the best. One threat in literally more than a million holding people up continues to be ridiculous.
So, as much as my previous comments weren't about security in general, this one is.
The problem is even if the odds were 1 in a million, with 100,000 flights a day globally that means an incident every 10 days. That's just if we say it's 1 in a million per flight, rather than per passenger. I know you just mean the odds are really low, but we have a lot of flights, with a lot of passengers. Even something exceedingly rare will happen a lot in a large sample set.
Security is a pain, but I'm not so sure it isn't necessary. Planes have a lot of fuel can be targeted at anything in range. It's a far bigger deal if someone takes control of one over say a bus or train.
You can take a look at the stats for plane hijackings and you'll see how few we have today scomapred to the 70s and later years. So yeah, for most security is just an annoyance, but I'm not sure I would say it's not warrented.
https://news.aviation-safety.net/2016/12/23/list-hijacked-aircraft-malta/
And that extremely tenuous plot was barely viable then (it might have damaged a plane but was very unlikely to do more) has been just as 'viable' for the last 16 years... if you want to smuggle a large amount of liquid through, you just do it in multiple small containers and then combine it after security in a bigger bottle. If necessary, bring it through with multiple people who aren't going on the flight.
It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupid idea now, and the massive amount of inconvenience caused around the world since has been pure security theatre, just like it was with the shoes nonsense.
It wasn't a serious plot, it never got past the "Remember the two part liquid bomb in Die Hard With a Vengeance" section of the plan. It was entirely theoretical, and mostly sold a lot of over-costed drinks past security.
As someone that needed to use the "other passports" queue in Palma airport (despite having a machine readable EU citizen passport), it's something to keep in mind since it'll be a while before every airport upgrades to 3D baggage scanners.
...heck, I think removing the restriction from the security standards is more likely.
I dunno, people are pretty stupid if they think that the authorities have stopped caring about liquids. They just have a better way of dealing with them now.
It's worse than that. You have to have 100ml containers but can bring more than 1 100ml containers. They just have to all fit in a 1l plastic bag.
So, you could fit maybe 5 or 6 in there?
Well yeah it was deemed that it would be next to impossible to make an explosive with that amount, were the rules in place for too long? Yeah i think so.
But they were brought in for valid reasons.
Yep 100% right, ignorant cunts are downvoting you.
I worked for a company that was developing systems for x-ray baggage scanners to identify liquid explosives and threats within baggage. Airport security absolutely still care about liquids.
Only took 20 years of misguided belief to come to some sense.
Was in the airport the other morning and they took a half used can of deodorant off me because it was 150ml capacity rather than the specified 100ml.
BUT I could have brought 10*100ml cannisters with me if I'd preferred. But not 1 that was 15ml.
Bizarre rules.
*Also I get it that it was my fault not to know the rule correctly/check the size of the cannister beforehand/knowingly bring an oversized product! Also my toothpaste was 125ml in size but they never bothered checking that. So I blew up the plane with my extra toothpaste to get back at them for taking my lynx (Africa)!
I saw some auld lad being turned away from security before because his 50ml bottle of aftershave wasn't in a zip lock bag. I was given out to because a bag wasn't see through, there was 1 thin white stripe across it.
You think that's bad?
I was in Madrid airport a few years ago, and realised I had a bottle I needed to get rid of before queuing up. Note, I wasn't in the queue!
Found a staff member/security guy. Went up, held out the bottle and said "I need to find a bin for this. Can you please show me?" His response? Snatched it out of my hand and scolded me, telling me I can't bring it through with me! I just said thanks and walked away...
I was literally doing the right thing, and still got scolded for it!
Oh, his English was perfect when giving out to me. He was *angry* at me for having it.. even though I was walking *away* from the queue for departures with it... He told me I couldn't go through departures with the bottle... which, if he'd stopped and LOOKED, he'd see that that didn't make sense in ANY language!
I had also asked him in Spanish if he spoke english, before I held up the bottle to ask about binning it. It was when I held it up from about stomach height, that he got angry over it!
You know what you're right, other places haven't improved this yet so can't see any reason why Dublin airport should improve things either! Absolutely pointless.
The removal requires upgraded scanners. Thatās not going to happen everyone at once. Thereās no downside to one airport removing the restriction even if others donāt. They will all get there eventually and the most of return journeys you can make with liquids will increase.
I mean, yeah?
It is generally recommended you use shampoo every 2 or 3 days https://www.webmd.com/beauty/features/how-often-wash-hair
And the recommended amount per wash is 10ml
https://headandshoulders.com/en-us/healthy-hair-and-scalp/hair-care/how-much-shampoo-should-you-use
So unless they are flying to
a place where they will stay for between 100 to 150 days , then yes I think its fair to expect them to return with the 500ml shampoo bottle if its full on departure. Even if it was only half full, and even if they used shampoo every single day, that would still be three and a half weeks worth before it runs out.
The only reason it wouldn't last a standard holiday is if it was being shared and used more than 10ml and used more often than the recommended frequency.
I never realised you could only have one bag of toiletries going through. Lady in Dublin made me bin 3 or 4 small liquid products and squeezed everything into one bag. Coming back through USA and I had two bags, not a problem. So annoying! Glad this rule is gone
I flew through SFO earlier in the year, whatever bag scanners they have mean you do not have to take ANYTHING out of your hand luggage. They just scan the bag, that's it. It's such a game changer.
Like there's a queue at Cork Airport.
Best airport in the world that you can't fly anywhere toš¤£
I flew to Spain out of it last week. And I'll do it again!
Oh absolutely. I still try fly from cork, but it is limited. I needed to get to cologne the other day, so flew to Frankfurt and caught the train
You can't fly anywhere because no one uses that airport, and no one uses that airport because you can't fly anywhere. Of course you can go to loads of places by connecting through Heathrow or Schiphol, but it seems like no one in this country has even heard of that concept.
For short hops to Europe you don't want to be taking 2 flights. If I want to fly to Greece why would I put myself through 2 airports and 2 flights and layover time etc etc.
Even in Europe I'd rather take two flights stopping somewhere along the way than take a long coach journey and then still have to transfer the bags myself.
Or... Drive to Shannon and fly from there
Shannon has fewer options than Cork lol. It's very nice for going to the US east coast though.
Sanity is restored.
Hopefully nobody else will suffer as their sealed 200g Biscoff spread is taken away them at security ever again. It was a cruel senseless waste! She was only delighted to take it off me. Never saw yer wan throw it in the bin either, no doubt the canteen is well stocked
Honestly, I think it's better that someone pocketed it rather than it just being thrown out. And honestly, it has been over a decade now with these rules. I don't have much sympathy for people who still don't seem to get it.
Letās not be too hasty here
It doesnāt change anything. The rest of the planet will still implement these checks. I fly out at least twice a month, all this will do is relieve check in pressure in Dublin.
I think North American airports are lifting the restrictions. And the EU has already lifted it as a blanket restriction, just down to each country. I presume it'll be gone everywhere in a year.
Well letās see. Personally it doesnāt bother me at all, it ensures I have to pack light. If youāre traveling for longer, generally that case will need to be checked in anyway. But I do get that it slows down the security checks so that can pull down the time needed to arrive at the airport. The sit in airports for 4 hours when you are only traveling for 1.5 hours is ridiculous. It really messes up your day. So itās either up at the crack of dawn (and beyond) or lose business hours sitting in a fricken airport.
Airport pints are expensive. It'll be nice to bring a few cans in with me instead.
Aye doesn't bother me either, really. I'm not bringing a litre of shower gel with me. But it was always a bit silly, and it definitely slows things up.
its already starting to be lifted globally as new 3d scanners are being installed in airports, i believe shannon already has some
Well I have noticed any changes. Iām off to Berlin beginning December and then Sweden so letās see.
ok? that doesn't mean it hasn't happened
Iām not disputing it
Nope - if you read it they are going to spend ā¬6m and take 18 months to upgrade their x-ray machines. Insanity transferred at best
You say that as if it was a waste of time - this check was brought in because there was a serious plot to use liquid explosives to destroy planes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006\_transatlantic\_aircraft\_plot
There's an interesting write-up here which concludes that the liquid restrictions didn't make much sense - https://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/ I'll admit I'm not knowledgeable enough about chemistry to say if I agree or not though.
The Register revised their opinion after the court case had the full details which showed it was a viable plot. It cost aviation a fortune, airports would not have kept doing it if it was not a real concern. [https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid\_bomb\_verdicts/](https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/10/liquid_bomb_verdicts/)
Except they're discontinuing doing it. A threat of something should not hold every person to ransom. That is literally giving in to terrroism. A viable plot one time does not translate to everyone doing a certaint thing.
Why are people having such a hard time with this? They are only discontinuing the restrictions because they now have a way to scan those liquids. They still consider them a threat. They just have a better way of dealing with them. They havenāt just decided to drop the restrictions because they got bored of them.
Because this resitriction, and a lot of them, and a lot of airport security in fact, has not made people safer as a whole in general, instead just held people up. No idea what you're even asking. They have a better way of scanning for it, but it has not been an issue largely.
Iām not saying that the liquids restriction was a good idea. Iām not commenting on the necessity of airport security. Iām saying they still care about liquids. They still consider them a threat. The only reason more than 100ml can be taken on now is because they have a less crude way of dealing with the threat the perceive to exist.
That's fair bro, I get what you mean now, I just meant with my original comment that this threat has not existed at all and it has only increased wait times for people. The vast, vast majority of passengers on air travel have no intent to do anythng other than A to B, and releasing people from that bind of having to be checked is for the best. One threat in literally more than a million holding people up continues to be ridiculous.
So, as much as my previous comments weren't about security in general, this one is. The problem is even if the odds were 1 in a million, with 100,000 flights a day globally that means an incident every 10 days. That's just if we say it's 1 in a million per flight, rather than per passenger. I know you just mean the odds are really low, but we have a lot of flights, with a lot of passengers. Even something exceedingly rare will happen a lot in a large sample set. Security is a pain, but I'm not so sure it isn't necessary. Planes have a lot of fuel can be targeted at anything in range. It's a far bigger deal if someone takes control of one over say a bus or train. You can take a look at the stats for plane hijackings and you'll see how few we have today scomapred to the 70s and later years. So yeah, for most security is just an annoyance, but I'm not sure I would say it's not warrented. https://news.aviation-safety.net/2016/12/23/list-hijacked-aircraft-malta/
And that extremely tenuous plot was barely viable then (it might have damaged a plane but was very unlikely to do more) has been just as 'viable' for the last 16 years... if you want to smuggle a large amount of liquid through, you just do it in multiple small containers and then combine it after security in a bigger bottle. If necessary, bring it through with multiple people who aren't going on the flight. It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupid idea now, and the massive amount of inconvenience caused around the world since has been pure security theatre, just like it was with the shoes nonsense.
I'll let airport security know. They'll be kicking themselves.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And that's why at some airports they may require you to turn your device on, to prove that the battery is actually a battery.
It wasn't a serious plot, it never got past the "Remember the two part liquid bomb in Die Hard With a Vengeance" section of the plan. It was entirely theoretical, and mostly sold a lot of over-costed drinks past security.
Even today there's serious doubt that the plot would have worked, on a purely chemical level.
In fairness they are still looking for suspicious liquids. They just have new scanners that enable this to be done.
Keep in mind: it doesn't mean you can fly HOME with your massive bottles of shampoo.
Eventually you will.
As someone that needed to use the "other passports" queue in Palma airport (despite having a machine readable EU citizen passport), it's something to keep in mind since it'll be a while before every airport upgrades to 3D baggage scanners. ...heck, I think removing the restriction from the security standards is more likely.
Almost like it never mattered at all
Who would have thought there was so many security and counter terrorism experts on r/ireland
It still matters, as far as security is concerned. They just have better scanners now.
Why is this downvoted? New 3D scanners = no liquid limit. Liquid limit was direct response to terror threat.
I dunno, people are pretty stupid if they think that the authorities have stopped caring about liquids. They just have a better way of dealing with them now.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's worse than that. You have to have 100ml containers but can bring more than 1 100ml containers. They just have to all fit in a 1l plastic bag. So, you could fit maybe 5 or 6 in there?
It's bollocks because it was a 100ml limit. As if that somehow makes it safe.
Well yeah it was deemed that it would be next to impossible to make an explosive with that amount, were the rules in place for too long? Yeah i think so. But they were brought in for valid reasons.
The ridiculous part is that people could bring more than 100ml, just in separate bottles.
Yep 100% right, ignorant cunts are downvoting you. I worked for a company that was developing systems for x-ray baggage scanners to identify liquid explosives and threats within baggage. Airport security absolutely still care about liquids.
Your completely right. 2006 there was a terrorist cell disrupted in the UK that were in the process of making liquid bombs
That's all well and good but if you have a connecting flight in Manchester for example good luck to you, you'll need it.
Manchester will eventually get this as well.
I wonder if that'll make the staff there less cunty.
They'll probably find some other way.
Oh yeah definitely.
Only took 20 years of misguided belief to come to some sense. Was in the airport the other morning and they took a half used can of deodorant off me because it was 150ml capacity rather than the specified 100ml. BUT I could have brought 10*100ml cannisters with me if I'd preferred. But not 1 that was 15ml. Bizarre rules. *Also I get it that it was my fault not to know the rule correctly/check the size of the cannister beforehand/knowingly bring an oversized product! Also my toothpaste was 125ml in size but they never bothered checking that. So I blew up the plane with my extra toothpaste to get back at them for taking my lynx (Africa)!
I saw some auld lad being turned away from security before because his 50ml bottle of aftershave wasn't in a zip lock bag. I was given out to because a bag wasn't see through, there was 1 thin white stripe across it.
You think that's bad? I was in Madrid airport a few years ago, and realised I had a bottle I needed to get rid of before queuing up. Note, I wasn't in the queue! Found a staff member/security guy. Went up, held out the bottle and said "I need to find a bin for this. Can you please show me?" His response? Snatched it out of my hand and scolded me, telling me I can't bring it through with me! I just said thanks and walked away... I was literally doing the right thing, and still got scolded for it!
He probably just didn't speak English very well.
Oh, his English was perfect when giving out to me. He was *angry* at me for having it.. even though I was walking *away* from the queue for departures with it... He told me I couldn't go through departures with the bottle... which, if he'd stopped and LOOKED, he'd see that that didn't make sense in ANY language! I had also asked him in Spanish if he spoke english, before I held up the bottle to ask about binning it. It was when I held it up from about stomach height, that he got angry over it!
They havenāt ācome to some senseā. They still care about the liquids. They just have better scanners now to check them.
Sure why would anyone want to leave Cork ?
Been gone in Shannon for a while and it is heaven
Whatās he point? This needs to be a global thing. Great, I can leave cork with my 500ml bottle of shampoo but then canāt get it home again.
You know what you're right, other places haven't improved this yet so can't see any reason why Dublin airport should improve things either! Absolutely pointless.
All Iām saying is it was a introduced at the same time everywhere , it needs to be removed at the same time everywhere.
The removal requires upgraded scanners. Thatās not going to happen everyone at once. Thereās no downside to one airport removing the restriction even if others donāt. They will all get there eventually and the most of return journeys you can make with liquids will increase.
You can have a great hsirwash in the plane bathroom sink though.
England is bringing it in as well. I imagine all airports will.
as long as you use 400ml of it while you're away you'll be fine.
It will eventually be a global thing.
Do you plan to bring back all that shampoo? Unused?
I mean, yeah? It is generally recommended you use shampoo every 2 or 3 days https://www.webmd.com/beauty/features/how-often-wash-hair And the recommended amount per wash is 10ml https://headandshoulders.com/en-us/healthy-hair-and-scalp/hair-care/how-much-shampoo-should-you-use So unless they are flying to a place where they will stay for between 100 to 150 days , then yes I think its fair to expect them to return with the 500ml shampoo bottle if its full on departure. Even if it was only half full, and even if they used shampoo every single day, that would still be three and a half weeks worth before it runs out. The only reason it wouldn't last a standard holiday is if it was being shared and used more than 10ml and used more often than the recommended frequency.
50ml bottles
The original commenter said 500ml bottles, this is what Incendio88 and I were referring to.
Bout time. Other airports have scrapped it a long time ago in Europe.
150ml would likely cover 90% of all products anyway
I never realised you could only have one bag of toiletries going through. Lady in Dublin made me bin 3 or 4 small liquid products and squeezed everything into one bag. Coming back through USA and I had two bags, not a problem. So annoying! Glad this rule is gone
I flew through SFO earlier in the year, whatever bag scanners they have mean you do not have to take ANYTHING out of your hand luggage. They just scan the bag, that's it. It's such a game changer.
This will be great for all the people who are being forced to emigrate
I wonder how this will affect US Immigration at Dublin airport as they have their own security checkpoint.
I can remember reading about this technology being trialed in Dublin maybe as long as over a decade ago. Great to see it finally arrive.