Liquids in airplanes

victor

victor

Antediluvian as Feck
Orderite
Why has it become prohibited to bring more than a certain amount of liquid in airplanes? I think some guard or something told me once, but I've forgotten. Seems like a very silly rule. For instance, how will I bring alcohol if I only carry hand luggage?
 
Because there was some big hullaballoo about liquid explosives being smuggled in via sports drink bottles or some nonsense like that.

So now you have to buy liquids at the airport or bring small amounts in a clear plastic baggie.

So now you know why I never fly anywhere...

Well, that and my crippling fear of heights.
 
The next step in airplane security: No Passengers! What you'll do is buy your ticket, go to the airport, give them your luggage, then back to your car and drive to your destination.
 
It's very stupid. I can think of a dozen much less far-fetched ways to hijack or blow up an airplane than liquid explosives. It's probably more accessible to get ahold of a damn fucking anti-tank rocket and blow up the plane on the runway.

Airport security is a fucking joke, anyway. You can smuggle an endangered whale through there, nobody would notice. I thought security would be ultra-high in the US, but try flying LA-NYC early morning. I barely had to show my passport.
 
not sure where the link is at the moment...

but i saw this instructional video of how to make some really good explosive paste out of just 2 commonly found ingredients (one was salt peter i think)

in the video the guy makes it and puts it on the end on a little stick so it looks like a match (1 drop of the explosive) and lets it dry
then conceals it in an ordinary ink pen and adds a fuse which cant see except at the last second... unless u make it really long, then he tapes it on top of a large watermelon on top of a pole and lights and runs

even with a high speed camera it is difficult to see the watermelon explode and it is freakin vaporised

a drop or 2 could seriously fuck up a plane and u can put that shit anywhere
 
Liquid explosives are very accessible and dangerous.

Its very reasonable to ban liquids on planes for that reason.
 
Ok. But what if there are dozens of other ways to blow up a plane or hijack it? Like Goweigus said, plastic explosives? Why don't we ban people from airplanes altogether then?
 
that's why they've started to use sniffers.

machines that pretty much vacuum clean the air around you and see if there are any particles around you that could be used in explosives.

ofc, incredibly expensive stuff. i doubt it's worth the cost.
 
most highspeed trains are pretty good in central europe. TGV, Thalys, german ICE, etc.
 
Trains aren't so bad in the states either, though not as conventional as airplanes. An airplane will go to any city, a train, not so much.

Anyways, I hate flying. I'd rather take a bus than an airplane. Unless you stick me in a WW2-era fighter plane. Now that's flying.
 
Not up here in the north though. In contrast, taking the train instead of the airplane takes about 15 hours instead of 1, and the price is the same for students.
 
Obviously planes have any form of travel beat when it comes to time, unless you're traveling short distances and the plane is delayed or something. If it's time your pressed about, then yes, take a plane.

Then again, I never traveled by train in Europe, so maybe I'm wrong. But an LA-NYC train that's going to get you there faster than a plane? No.
 
The Overseer said:
I can think of a dozen much less far-fetched ways to hijack or blow up an airplane than liquid explosives.
Click to expand...
Ok mr, you better take a step back. It's because of people (like you) who thinks we have terrorists you know. We are currently looking for a solution to this problem.

Flying is kind of convenient when going the long distances. Wouldn't want to take a long distance train through asia just to get where I am now. That would take ages. Not to mention the banana boats.

I don't think it's the actual flying that's bad, it's the way we have chosen to handle it (note that I'm not going into any environmental debate about this because I know nothing about that). If they could come up with better ways of "making it safe" it's the cats pyjamas of travelling (fast)
 
They could make it a lot better, though. Or at least make airports a more fun place to hang out in, with 5 hour delays and such.
 
The Overseer said:
Or at least make airports a more fun place to hang out in, with 5 hour delays and such.
Click to expand...
Yes, that still amaze me. Who came up with the whole airport concept and why are they sticking to it?

It must be very effectice thoughl, the controlled waiting. Because people are actually waiting.
 
Paladin Solo said:
Obviously planes have any form of travel beat when it comes to time, unless you're traveling short distances and the plane is delayed or something. If it's time your pressed about, then yes, take a plane.

Then again, I never traveled by train in Europe, so maybe I'm wrong. But an LA-NYC train that's going to get you there faster than a plane? No.
Click to expand...
well, there's different things to take into account in Europe:
- price: very often Ryan Air, Virgin, etc will fly you cheaper than lets say, a german ICE or an Eurostar. still, gotta watch out for hidden costs though.
- luggage rules: trains allow for a lot more cargo and i dont think they charge extra if you exceed your load.
- security: nobody gives a fuck if you got a 2 liter of whatever in your handluggage on a train. dont expect any hassles for checking in... except perhaps the Eurostar, but i'm not sure.
- location: sure, planes are fast etc, but in Europe, nearly all airports are outside the cities (with good reason), but most train stations are right smack in the middle of the cities. this means it'll likely be easier to reach your destination by train. take Heathrow "London Airport". London my ass, still gotta take a train to get to London from Heathrow. Or "Brussels South". Brussels? haha, my ass. it's like 30-40km from the city.
- check in: checking into planes takes a lot of time, which isnt so for a train.
 
In Europe, sure, but not in the states. Passenger trains stop only at select few cities. More-than-likely, if you travel by train, you're going to have to drive or get a ride to the station, which is probably out of the way and in the middle of nowhere, then, your train will almost definitely make multiple stops, then when you finally get to your last stop, chances are, it's a long way from you final destination, so you're going to have to drive, get a ride, or take a bus eventually. Unless, of course, your final destination just happens to be a major hub. In the end, it'll be a few days before you get to where you want (the U.S. is farking big). It's just more conveniant to take a plane in the states, especially if you're traveling from one ocean to the other. Preferable? Not for me, I'll stick with my train which I have to drive to, and make those great stops in the heartland, then take a scenic bus trip to my intended destination. But meh, I like some good travel, especially if it's by train.

Also, even a bus station beats an airport, any day. Man, I remember being in a Turkish airport once, with a bunch of unibrowed security gangsters trying to cop a feel on my mom.
 
I love the train, its fun to ride, I get to watch the scenery fly by, my ears dont pop, I can go wander around the train and down to the cafe if it has one, .

that aside, plane is much more convenient.
 
It's a time thing really. The trains here suck, they're old 70s trains imported from Slovakia or something, with prison beds. So it takes 15 hours, when taking the plane takes 1 hour. It's having to sleep on those trains that sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top