-2

Restrictions on bringing liquids on planes were introduced in 2006 citing security concerns about liquid explosives. See e.g. 1.

I am skeptical security reasons are the true motivation. Shortly after the "liquid explosives" had been in the news several years ago, I investigated a little on myself. As I remember it, I read that such explosives would look like unsolved sugar, and it would have distinctive smell. Anyway at that time you were not allowed to bring your water with you, even when the bottle was sealed, and you could buy the very same at the gates (at a higher price) again.

In the meantime, most European airlines stopped to provide any water during flights for free (not to talk about other beverages or food).

Having read that there are automatic tests available for some time, I wonder whether the ban for water is really because of security, or because of the extra income. For example, if I buy mineral water at the local super market, I play like 15 Euro-Cent for half a liter, but when I buy such after the gate they want 2.90€ for the bottle, and on the plane they want 3.80€ for a bottle. I would think 1€ would be expensive enough!

TimRias
  • 3,859
  • 2
  • 14
  • 17
U. Windl
  • 105
  • 2
  • 1
    Hello ! Do you have a reference to any source that claims that commercial reasons, and not security reasons, are motivating this policy ? In case this is just a personnal reflexion, I am afraid it won't be considered as a good question on Skeptics.SE, but it might fit nicely on Travel.SE. – Evargalo Oct 02 '23 at 12:59
  • What is the notable claim being questioned here? – Joe W Oct 02 '23 at 13:40
  • Welcome to skeptics.SE! This site is about challenging unreferenced notable claims (see also the help). I'm closing for now, but please feel free to add a source showing that this is a notable claim (it doesn't have to be a reliable source, but it does have to show that a significant number of people actually believe this) & flag for reopening. – tim Oct 02 '23 at 15:16
  • I think you are very familiar with the cost per minute of phone calls. Well, it was an "invention" due to the oil crisis of the 70s. Gone the crisis, the price increase stays ... – EarlGrey Oct 02 '23 at 15:31
  • 2
    The OP is clearly challenging the claim that the ban on liquids on flights is due to security reasons. This clearly is notable claim. As a new contributor his framing is a bit off, but there is currently no reason to close this. – TimRias Oct 02 '23 at 17:37
  • 1
    @TimRias When the site rules talk about "notable claims", they are talking about who is making the claim, or where it has been published. There is currently no "claim" in that sense in the question - it doesn't quote or reference anyone, it just talks broadly about remembered facts and discussions. Or to put it differently, the framing of the question is the reason to close it, and if you think you can frame it better with a notable claim, you're welcome to try editing it and asking for it to be reopened. – IMSoP Oct 02 '23 at 18:44
  • 4
    I have flown hundreds of times across the EU but I have never encountered an airport that wouldn't let me bring a water bottle in my carry-on (I always do). The ban is for liquids specifically, not bottles. Bringing an empty bottle through and refilling it after security is perfectly legal (AMS even advertises this and provides dedicates "empty your bottle here" sinks just before security). – TooTea Oct 02 '23 at 19:12
  • @TooTea I'm not sure how this is relevant. The question is not about bringing in an empty container but if a container (sealed or not) should be able to pass reasonable security scans. – doneal24 Oct 02 '23 at 20:36
  • 2
    @doneal24 The question in the title talks about "water bottles" being disallowed. I'm commenting on that, because as such the premise is false. I have never had to pay to refill with water,so as long as we're talking about water in particular, there's little potential commercial motivation. Perhaps the question should be edited to "is bringing your own drinks through security disallowed for security or commercial reasons". – TooTea Oct 02 '23 at 20:58
  • 1
    @TooTea The phrase in the title was "water bottles" but the text of the question includes "restrictions on bring liquids", "bring your own water with you", and "the ban on water". I'm not seeing the phrase "water bottle" anywhere in the text and I would consider the multiple paragraphs of text as more descriptive of the information the OP wants then the short title. – doneal24 Oct 03 '23 at 15:09
  • @Evargalo When you are forced to buy goods a for more than 15 times the market price, why should those vendors not have a commercial interest in doing so? Also it's unlikely they'd admit that they like the high profit. – U. Windl Oct 04 '23 at 07:36
  • @TooTea Of course "water bottles" meant "bottles filled with water"; otherwise I'd call them "bottles" or "empty bottles". After all you could fill a "water bottle" with anything. – U. Windl Oct 04 '23 at 07:40
  • On closing the question: In question https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/56080/49869 the OP also just had to cite the (false?) claim, but did not provide any evidence for the opposite. I provided the (undoubted) claim for ban of liquids (such as water), and I provided a reference to advanced technology that could make that obsolete, but still airports claiming to have the new technology disallow bringing water with you. See https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article237082349/flughafen-flugzeug-fluessigkeit-getraenke-regeln-handgepaeck.html (German). – U. Windl Oct 04 '23 at 08:29
  • @U.Windl : I was not contesting your reasonning, I was just stressing out the standards of this site. If you edit the question to pinpoint a notable claim that you are skeptical about, you will improve your chances of this question getting re-opened and of receiving a good answer. – Evargalo Oct 04 '23 at 08:42
  • Some airports, where security has been upgraded and regulations allow, are now allowing large bottles of water through security - notably London City Airport has the following restriction "Only liquids and gels in containers of up to 2 litres are allowed in your hand luggage." - for anyone unfamiliar, 2 litres is the size of a regular grocery store coke bottle. (source: https://www.londoncityairport.com/security-and-baggage).

    So abandoning your water bottle is not a universal requirement anymore.

     – Neil Tarrant Oct 05 '23 at 13:19

1 Answers1

9

This policy was put in place in response to the 2006 terrorist plot, which involved injecting chemicals into seemingly sealed drink bottles. So, a sort of real world movie-plot threat.

The discussion of this policy change is documented in GAO-07-634.

Brian
  • 930
  • 7
  • 8
  • 2
    This does not seem to answer the question as the claim seems to be that it being a security reason isn't actually correct. – Joe W Oct 02 '23 at 13:42
  • 11
    @JoeW: The GAO document is an official government response to congressional requests for information on why the policy is in place. Not sure what more you'd want. – Brian Oct 02 '23 at 13:46
  • Something that addresses the part of the question suggesting it was for commercial purposes? – Joe W Oct 02 '23 at 15:21
  • Initially it might have been purely for security reasons, but almost 20 years later security technology has advanced, so the question is, when the rule is still effective, is it for the original security reason still, or for the "nice to have" side effect to boost sales (and profit) pre-flight (gate area) or in-flight (on plane)? – U. Windl Oct 04 '23 at 08:16
  • @U.Windl Once a policy is in place it is never removed because if it is removed someone can easily reproduce the 2006 attack – slebetman Oct 04 '23 at 09:28
  • @slebetman Did you read https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2022/10/06/feature-article-next-generation-explosives-trace-detection-here? – U. Windl Oct 04 '23 at 09:30
  • @U.Windl The electric car is here. Do you drive an electric car? Just because something exists does not mean everyone can have it – slebetman Oct 04 '23 at 09:32
  • At least the technology is around twelve years old now (not "rather new"): https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/new-liquid-explosives-screening-technology-deployed – U. Windl Oct 04 '23 at 09:40
  • @JoeW I think the issue with your answer is that it requires a leap of faith to read through all of the links you provided, since you didn't actually summarize the answer to the question "Were water bottles disallowed from flights due to security concerns?" that you claim is answered therein. – David Rivers Oct 04 '23 at 21:48
  • @DavidRivers My concern is it does not directly address the claim that it was done for commercial purposes. – Joe W Oct 04 '23 at 22:07
  • The GAO document you link explains the claim. But it does not explain why it considers the claim technically feasible. A proper answer should include a credible explanation of why it should be possible to inject an explosive in water and retrieve it while working in a crammed plane toilet. In alternative it should explain why they think that an explosive resembling the look of water would work. Nitroglycerin the only one I know resembling water would not be usable. – FluidCode Oct 05 '23 at 10:15
  • @JoeW I stand corrected. At least that was my reason that I think your response doesn't answer the question. – David Rivers Oct 11 '23 at 17:39