Free water on a plane- here's how (not frozen!)

WiseInvestor_2

It would be impossible to carry more than 100ml of liquid in a container less than 100ml, so the restriction is on the CONTAINER not the LIQUID.

Empty containers are not permitted.

Voyager2002

anonymousie wrote: »

Easy when you think about it, but a family went through security at Gatwick with us with empty drinks bottles for the kids, to be filled up "airside". I guess as they were just empty bottles there was no way they could stop them, but don't try to put a dash of ribena in the bottom, oh no- that would have to be in the bag in a 100 ml container:rotfl:

They are obviously getting slack with the warm weather. I tried this at Gatwick in February, and they were very strict about confiscating my (totally empty) water bottle.

Voyager2002

WiseInvestor wrote: »

Wasn't Pan Am 103 destroyed by a man who'd packed a bomb in his wife's suitcase?!

You are thinking of a notorious attack back in the 1980s. A gentleman called Hindawi met and married a British woman. When she was pregnant with his child they arranged a trip to the Middle East for her to meet his family. For some reason they had to travel on separate flights...

Her flight from London was on El Al, so security was more thorough than usual. Her luggage (carefully packed by him) contained a bomb, designed to blow the 'plane (with her, of course) right out of the sky. Interrogation established that she had not known anything about the bomb, and was an entirely innocent victim. For some reason her husband did not spend any time with her after that...

WiseInvestor_2

You're right, thank you. Of course Megrahi is still serving his life sentance in Greenock Prison for destroying PA103.

Sadly, women and children are frequently used as decoys and human shields in regions many would consider 'hostile' - from where such terrorist attacks may originate.

Throwing away your 2-year-old's Ribena may be infuriating but it really is in everyone's best interests.

bouquiniste

WiseInvestor wrote: »

Sadly, women and children are frequently used as decoys and human shields

Not new, unfortunately. Customs officers back in the 60s knew that the stuff they were after was often in the kiddie's little handbag. Or sewn into their teddy.

No of course you're not a terrorist, but that doesn't mean everyone else is cute and fluffy.

Can't quite understand this outpouring of energy into circumventing a well-known and clear rule - a rule put in place, God forbid, to make you safer. Repetition but: if you can afford a plane ticket, you can afford (less than) a quid for a bottle of water.

lisyloo

I'm being absolutely serious here, but I reckon I could kill someone with the underwire in my bra if I had it designed into a weapon i.e. sharpened on the ends and could certainly do a lot of damage with a boned corset.

I guess that putting restrictions on underwear might be a step too far for the travelling public but I think there still some gaps in the security measures.

bouquiniste

100% safety can never exist.

But is it not better that they try to at least prevent known risks?

Or do we go with the "I could poke someone's eye out with a sharpened finger-nail" thinking, ergo all security is pointless?

anonymousie

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm being absolutely serious here, but I reckon I could kill someone with the underwire in my bra if I had it designed into a weapon i.e. sharpened on the ends and could certainly do a lot of damage with a boned corset.

I guess that putting restrictions on underwear might be a step too far for the travelling public but I think there still some gaps in the security measures.

How much boning do you need in a corset to set a metal detector off:rotfl: 2 bra wires isn't enough I can confirm!!

Saw a guy with a spinal corset (oropaedic not fetishistic!!) he wore it outside his clothes and took it off tobe xrayed- serious amound of metal work in that though. Mind you, american flight out of the US, you'd be shot by the sky marshalls before you could unthread the blades:rolleyes: "guess the skymarshall" was a boring game- the airstewards were either caricature camp or so muscle bound they couldn't get down the aisles:rotfl:

budgetflyer

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm being absolutely serious here, but I reckon I could kill someone with the underwire in my bra if I had it designed into a weapon i.e. sharpened on the ends and could certainly do a lot of damage with a boned corset.

I guess that putting restrictions on underwear might be a step too far for the travelling public but I think there still some gaps in the security measures.

Im all for that- no womens undies on the flight. makes the mile high club so much easier;)

ukdoctor

budgetflyer wrote: »

Im all for that- no womens undies on the flight. makes the mile high club so much easier;)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: