3 ms·

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/liquids-ban-on-flights-10th-anniversary-do-we-still-need-it-a7181216.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tra

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/liquids-ban-on-flights-10th-anniversary-do-we-still-need-it-a7181216.html https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/liquids... A pretty good summary and a bonus foreshadowing of this article. I have had a pretty good experience with the new scanners. I have global entry/Precheck and one remaining headache with the old scanners was remembering to take my double walked flask out and show the TSA that it was empty by removing the cap. The new scanners can see that it’s empty from inside my bag, which is very handy.

admax88q 8y ago
I'm still fairly certain that the purpose of the liquid ban is purely to boost sales of toiletries, especially in small "travel size" containers. An entire new line of single use toiletry products was invented to meet this regulation.
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  And some airports require that your liquids fit in a 1L bag. Which they’ll gladly sell to you.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    At least every airport I've been to (Europe, Dubai and India) have provided the 1L baggies for free. I usually get 4-5 uses out of them before they start tearing.
    - dingaling 8y ago
      'baggies' is an interesting development in the English language, a colloquialism that is longer than its base word.
      - KozmoNau7 8y ago
        It's just a diminutive form of "bag", ie. "small bags"? Just like you have for instance "telefonino" as the diminutive of "telefono" in Italian, literally "small telephone". And in German you add -chen or -lein to words to create the diminutive, so "Hund" becomes "Hündchen" (adding an umlaut as well, if applicable). Generally I think it's very common for a lot of languages to add a cutesy suffix to the base word, in order to create the diminutive.
- whamlastxmas 8y ago
  This is a pretty silly conspiracy. Do you think the manufacturers of those products have some sort of lobbying arm to convince politicians to make draconian TSA regulations? The much more likely scenario is that the politcians, who sometimes have ownership interest in the companies that get government contracts, want to be able to sell new equipment. This is also supported by the constant equipment updates we see at TSA lines.
  - admax88q 8y ago
    They could have just banned liquids all together, but they picked some magic 15 mL limit (or whatever it is) that no existing containers at the time fit under. > The much more likely scenario is... Why do you phrase this as an either or situation? "My conspiracy is more likely than your conspiracy" as if there can't be more than one conspiracy.

admax88q 8y ago

I'm still fairly certain that the purpose of the liquid ban is purely to boost sales of toiletries, especially in small "travel size" containers. An entire new line of single use toiletry products was invented to meet this regulation.

Scoundreller 8y ago
And some airports require that your liquids fit in a 1L bag. Which they’ll gladly sell to you.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  At least every airport I've been to (Europe, Dubai and India) have provided the 1L baggies for free. I usually get 4-5 uses out of them before they start tearing.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    'baggies' is an interesting development in the English language, a colloquialism that is longer than its base word.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      It's just a diminutive form of "bag", ie. "small bags"? Just like you have for instance "telefonino" as the diminutive of "telefono" in Italian, literally "small telephone". And in German you add -chen or -lein to words to create the diminutive, so "Hund" becomes "Hündchen" (adding an umlaut as well, if applicable). Generally I think it's very common for a lot of languages to add a cutesy suffix to the base word, in order to create the diminutive.
whamlastxmas 8y ago
This is a pretty silly conspiracy. Do you think the manufacturers of those products have some sort of lobbying arm to convince politicians to make draconian TSA regulations? The much more likely scenario is that the politcians, who sometimes have ownership interest in the companies that get government contracts, want to be able to sell new equipment. This is also supported by the constant equipment updates we see at TSA lines.
- admax88q 8y ago
  They could have just banned liquids all together, but they picked some magic 15 mL limit (or whatever it is) that no existing containers at the time fit under. > The much more likely scenario is... Why do you phrase this as an either or situation? "My conspiracy is more likely than your conspiracy" as if there can't be more than one conspiracy.