We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Liquids on aircraft

This news story, if it turns out to be accurate, should cheer up the retailers of booze at airports.

5 comments to Liquids on aircraft

  • It’s not the retailers of booze at the airports that are the issue. At the moment, they get to charge inflated prices once you have gone through security. The people who will benefit from this are those poor people who travel a lot and like to buy a bottle or two of the local vino in a wine shop or supermarket or even a winery to bring back from wherever they have travelled to. WeThey have been suffering grievously in recent years.

  • Andrew Duffin

    The ban was always absurd anyway. Any chemist would have told you that the chances of the beards producing a genuine explosive liquid in their bath (or whatever the movie-plot was) are practically zero. Simply, they would blow themselves up first – and a good thing too.

    I suppose it’s been kept in force this long because the ruling classes didn’t want to appear stupid.

    Note the linked article says “The threat from Liquid…explosives became apparent in August 2006 following discovery of a plot to use such devices aboard multiple transatlantic flights.” (my emphasis). A plot there may have been, a significant risk there never was.

  • RAB

    Well I got a flight from Crete about a month ago and picked up a 6 pack of Mythos beer in the Duty Free shop and got on the plane with no trouble at all.

    The hassle I got was when the Steward noticed me drinking it and told me off for drinking “unauthorised alcohol” That is, not the gnats piss they sell at £3.50 for a tiny can. Bastards!

  • manuel II paleologos

    Andrew – what about the attack on Philippines flight 434 in 1994? The only reason that “only” killed one person is because the bomb was accidentally two rows in front of the main fuel tank instead of right over it, and was simply pointed in a direction which somehow didn’t rupture the fuselage. Simply turned around 90 degrees it would have torn the plane apart. And even then it destroyed the plane’s control cables and they had to land basically by steering the plane with throttles.

    That was liquid in a contact lens solution bottle cooked up by a beard, so your optimism seems extremely misplaced.

  • Richard Thomas

    Andrew Duffin, I think this brings up the possibility of planting evidence of a plot to blow up aircraft using crying babies.