Air Carriage Rule On Liquid Display Enforced Today

[george]

Air carriage rule on liquid display enforced June 1

BANGKOK: -- Airports throughout Thailand on June 1 began enforcing a requirement that passengers display liquids, gels and sprays in transparent containers in line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulations.

Journalists early Friday were led by a senior Thai Airways International (THAI) executive to inspect how airline officials apply the newly-imposed regulation setting limits for passengers to carry liquids, gels and sprays aboard their flights at Suvarnabhumi airport.

The new regulation was enforced from 00.01 am (one minute after midnight) Friday after several international carriers, especially those operating European and US routes, followed Britain's lead in adopting the measure after terrorists planned to sabotage commercial airlines departing London's Heathrow and other airports with liquid bombs aboard aircraft.

Under the terms of the regulation, passengers can carry liquid substances in containers not exceeding 100 millilitres with a total combined volume of not over one litre. Each passenger is allowed to carry only one bag of such substance.

However, passengers who purchased goods at duty free shops operated by King Power (contracted for duty free sales and other business at Suvarnabhumi), will be given a clear plastic bag for keeping both the goods they bought and the sales receipt indicating the goods they have purchased.

--TNA 2007-06-01

[jm49er1]

this is a little confusing - does this apply only to carry-on's? i wear contact lens and the bottles of solution are over 100 ml - also it would appear that i can no longer bring back a bottle of wine or spirits unless i buy it at King Power

[manutoo]

this is a little confusing - does this apply only to carry-on's? i wear contact lens and the bottles of solution are over 100 ml - also it would appear that i can no longer bring back a bottle of wine or spirits unless i buy it at King Power

u'll have to buy a small bottle for ur lens, and put ur wine in the main suitcase that will go to the bottom of the plane.

[Regyai]

Or they can do it Heathrow style....

1.5 hours of queues

Liquids etc under scrutiny

Shoes off

Only one carry one bag

etc etc etc

Then the final arbiter of who takes what on board................

A pat down by a muslim !!!!!!!!!!!

Rater akin to employing Zulus to hand out the ammunition at Rorkes Drift.

Un-freakin-believable!

.

[chinadarling]

Or they can do it Heathrow style....

1.5 hours of queues

Liquids etc under scrutiny

Shoes off

Only one carry one bag

etc etc etc

Then the final arbiter of who takes what on board................

A pat down by a muslim !!!!!!!!!!!

Rater akin to employing Zulus to hand out the ammunition at Rorkes Drift.

Un-freakin-believable!

.

lol! - A pat down by a muslim !!!!!!!!!!!

Zulu Power!

This is now common but ######ed up. you cannot make a bomb out of water or anything you could actually drink. This nonsense just lets the terrorists win by screwing up economy, travel etc...Not sure the terrorists aren't bush and his family but either way this who air security crap is nonsense. I remember traveling from Taiwan to HK right after 911 and being handed steel cutlery by British airways to eat my meal. (including steel knife) (ps- British airways sucks) IF they really want to do it again it will be counter intelligence that prevents it not refusing water to tourists.

[colino]

There are more muslims at heathrow than any where else it is a joke britians last line of defence are muslims , im not racest it s just a crazy thing

[ercorn]

If 10 terrorist get on the same plane each carrying 100 ml bottles in a clear plastic bag max 1 litre each terrorist that means altogether they could make a bomb from 100 X 100 ml bottles which is 10 litres of whatever you make a bomb from

So it could still be done.

[CbrLad]

this is a little confusing - does this apply only to carry-on's? i wear contact lens and the bottles of solution are over 100 ml - also it would appear that i can no longer bring back a bottle of wine or spirits unless i buy it at King Power

Its not really that confusing. Firstly it is just for carry-on. For checked in stuff you need to confirm with the safety rules that have been around for a long time.

With you contact lense fluid, yes 100ml is all you can take WITH YOU INSIDE THE CABIN, unless of course you would use more than 100ml for the FLIGHT, yes the flight not the trip, in which case you need the persciption to prove it. I know you wouldn't use that much, but for example if you had some other medicine and you had to take 200ml during the course of the flight you would be ok provided you had the letter to say so.

As for grog, you can buy before you get to the airport but it needs to go into check-in luggage. You cannot take it with you, unless it meets the 100ml rule. Other than that only goods you buy at the aiport are allowed as carry on. What (duty free shops) now have to do is seal your purhcase in a clear bag with the receipt clearly inside. If it is like that then you will be able to transit other airports without a problem. For example if you flew Bangkok-London-Paris it would be ok in London, but if you break the bag open then you would not get through London with it.

I have heard there have been problems on flights to Australia, who seem to have taken a different view and are more worried about bringing stuff in then out as is the case elsewhere. For example I heard of someone flying THROUGH Auckland and also Singapore having duty-free grog confiscated in Auckland/Singapore because it wasn't brought in that airport. I am not sure how true it is, I cannot see why they would be going against ICAO procedures which seem simple. Ie so long as it was brought in a controlled space at the airport and is in a sealed bag it is ok.

Hope that clears it and doesn't make it anymore confusing.

[dude007]

I was refused in February during a stop over in Zurich on my way to Brussels to carry a bottle of whisky bought at the tax-free shop in Bangkok as hand luggage. To avoid confiscating this expensive whisky, I had to exit the airport, re-enter and re-check in (although I had a valid boarding pass already) at the counter, handing over this bottle of whisky to be separately boarded as checked-in luggage in a special bottle container. I had to pay 3 Swiss Francs but the counter refused Euro or US$. Go to the bank, exchange Euro in Swiss Francs (I only had a 5 Euro bank note), lose petty money, pay and then board the plane whilst on my way to the gate I passed a number of duty free shops in Zurich airport selling exactly the same brand of whisky as I had been refused to board.

Switzerland is not member of the EU. But when it fits their interest they adhere to EU regulations. How can their taxfree products be accepted (as safe) on board a plane to Europe whilst the same identical articles, procured in Thailand, cannot! And how will the EU now consider these tax-free products procured in Thai airport tax free shops as "safe", whilst in February they were not?

It starts to be a game for obsessed small-minded lunatics where all common sense is getting lost and only stubborn applications of un-realistic safety rules are rigorously implied. Isn't it time that all these security regulations get accepted and enforced world-wide and that the security officers in charge of the security law enforcement receive a thorough trainig in "common sense" by which also their brains from time to time have to be used?

Flying business is getting crazy and safety paranoid! I admit safety is aboslutely needed but, gentlemen in uniform with hat and braids and stripes, use common sense and see the forest in the trees! I have never seen a plane hijacked with a nail-cutter... (which you have to leave behind when security officers find it). But steel knives which are given to the passengers on bord Thai Airways for your meals are no problem!

[pepi2005]

This is one of the most stupid regulations I've ever came upon.

Thank you, U.S.A.!! For inventing it, and bringing it to the world.

Edited June 1, 2007 by pepi2005

[Kerryd]

this is a little confusing - does this apply only to carry-on's? i wear contact lens and the bottles of solution are over 100 ml - also it would appear that i can no longer bring back a bottle of wine or spirits unless i buy it at King Power

u'll have to buy a small bottle for ur lens, and put ur wine in the main suitcase that will go to the bottom of the plane.

Problem with that is, by the time you get to the Duty Free to buy the booze, you've already checked your suitcase in !

As for lense cleaner, I keep a large bottle (250ml) in my luggage along with my toiletry kit, and carry a small (20ml) bottle in my carry on. I also carry a small kit with some of those "hotel-size" tooth-paste tubes, mouth-wash, aftershave and shampoo. Together they might be 200mls total. Guess I'll have to pack those in a clear bag.

But then what ? Once customs/immigration/security sees my little bag of tubes, and I enter the Duty Free zone, can I put the bag back in my carry-on ?

I got a little P.O'd last time I was in the Toronto airport. Right next to the departure gate was a snack stand. Bought a (clear) bottle of Apple Juice. Walked maybe 20' to the counter at the departure gate. "Sorry sir, you can't bring any liquids on the plane ! Oh, but if I showed up with a paper cup that had a lid on it (i.e. a cup of coffee), that they couldn't see the contents of, no problem, have a nice flight.

[ServeUncutUncle]

This is one of the most stupid regulations I've ever came upon.

Thank you, U.S.A.!! For inventing it, and bringing it to the world.

In this occasion the Liquids Ban was first impemented by the British.

[kevio252]

Hi

Does anyone know what the limit is for bringing back redbull and sangsom from Thailand to England

cheers

[paul-s]

Air carriage rule on liquid display enforced June 1

BANGKOK: -- Airports throughout Thailand on June 1 began enforcing a requirement that passengers display liquids, gels and sprays in transparent containers in line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulations.

--TNA 2007-06-01

I don't know what all the fuss is about - Why do people want to carry so much liquid in their hand luguage anyway.

I leave from Heathrow in the UK - Clear plastic bage for my toothpaste - Water etc I buy in Duty Free.

The check for carrying liquids is between Passport Control and Duty Free - Some of the other checks are bit of pain. So long as the plane dosn't blow up I am happy.

Chin up! you guys in Thailand its peeing hard and cold here in the UK

Edited June 1, 2007 by paul-s

[CbrLad]

I was refused in February during a stop over in Zurich on my way to Brussels to carry a bottle of whisky bought at the tax-free shop in Bangkok as hand luggage. To avoid confiscating this expensive whisky, I had to exit the airport, re-enter and re-check in (although I had a valid boarding pass already) at the counter, handing over this bottle of whisky to be separately boarded as checked-in luggage in a special bottle container. I had to pay 3 Swiss Francs but the counter refused Euro or US$. Go to the bank, exchange Euro in Swiss Francs (I only had a 5 Euro bank note), lose petty money, pay and then board the plane whilst on my way to the gate I passed a number of duty free shops in Zurich airport selling exactly the same brand of whisky as I had been refused to board.

Switzerland is not member of the EU. But when it fits their interest they adhere to EU regulations. How can their taxfree products be accepted (as safe) on board a plane to Europe whilst the same identical articles, procured in Thailand, cannot! And how will the EU now consider these tax-free products procured in Thai airport tax free shops as "safe", whilst in February they were not?

This problem has nothing at all to do with Switzerland not being part of the EU, money issues aside nor is it an issue with the tax free nature. The problem would have been your bottle of whisky brought in Thailand wouldn't have been sealed so the 'security' state of it couldn't be assured. If you had flown say London, Zurich, Brussels and had brought the whisky in London it wouldn't have been a problem. As of today you should not have the same problem as your Bangkok purchased whisky should be sealed.. Provided you don't open it.

See the whole point (and I don't agree BTW as I can see 1,000,000 loop holes) is anything you bring through security can be considered tampered with. So for example you bottle of whisky may have a compartment inside where you have put some explosives which you are going to take out mid flight and blow the plane up. But if you make the purchase in a controlled area then it is ok. See one problem I have is anyone who wants to do something now only needs someone on the inside to get around it. For me I would be happy to take the small risk, walking down the street is still more dangerous.

Problem with that is, by the time you get to the Duty Free to buy the booze, you've already checked your suitcase in !

As for lense cleaner, I keep a large bottle (250ml) in my luggage along with my toiletry kit, and carry a small (20ml) bottle in my carry on. I also carry a small kit with some of those "hotel-size" tooth-paste tubes, mouth-wash, aftershave and shampoo. Together they might be 200mls total. Guess I'll have to pack those in a clear bag.

But then what ? Once customs/immigration/security sees my little bag of tubes, and I enter the Duty Free zone, can I put the bag back in my carry-on ?

That is the whole point, what ever duty free booze you buy AT THE AIRPORT is ok because you are already in the controlled zone, ie after security.

As for you little plastic bag once through security yes it can go back in your carry bag, you only have to bring it out again if you then pass through another airport security zone, ie in transit.

You are also right with your hotel sized ammenities. Provided each is less than 100ml, are no more than 100ml in total AND fit into the maximum allowed bag size then you are ok. I haven't tried it but I guess if you get an amenities kit on a flight and then have to make a transit the liquids and gels in that kit will also then have to be put into a clear bag and shown on transit.

Yep it is all BS in my opinon. Proves the crazies don't have to blow up and aircraft or what every, by having us go through the and other BS they have already won. And yes as someone pointed out cannot blame the yanks for this one, the poms were first.

PS Question for those in Thailand are they now limiting the amount of carry on bags taken through security to 1 like they do in the UK, or is it still up to what every policy is in force with each airline?

[jpw]

How about creams, mosquito repellent, etc.?

For 99% of my trips I only have a single carry-on bag, no check-in luggages. Does it mean from now on I have to check in my small bag simply because there are sunblocks and toothpaste and I have to be forced to buy expensive drinks on the plane if I travel with a budget airline???

[peridot]

These rules have been in place in the USA for a while now. But a month ago I came back to Bangkok from the USA. At check in security, they asked me if I had any liquids, and I said "no". They didn't check, but took my word for it. Only later did I realize I had a half-liter bottle of water on the outside of my backpack, in plain view. Nobody said anything about it. In this case I am glad they don't follow such silly regulations to the letter. It seems they realize the futility of it, too.

It is just as silly to me to have them shine a flashlight into my backpack at every subway entrance and shopping mall here in Bangkok. I am pretty sure I read that the bombs last New Year's Eve were 3 inches by 5 inches by 1 inch, about the size of a cell phone. They wouldn't be noticed at a check point.

It is so comforting to live in a time of fear, isn't it?

[buddyholly1]

This is one of the most stupid regulations I've ever came upon.

Thank you, U.S.A.!! For inventing it, and bringing it to the world.

You did not say why it was stupid. It began after Britain discovered a plot to blow up 5 planes over the Atlantic with liquid explosives. Maybe you do not read newspapers. I, for one, am happy to have a bad hair day on the flight if it means nobody has gels in the cabin. You may have other priorities.

Edited June 1, 2007 by buddyholly1

[Bill]

Air carriage rule on liquid display enforced June 1

BANGKOK: -- Airports throughout Thailand on June 1 began enforcing a requirement that passengers display liquids, gels and sprays in transparent containers in line with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulations.

--TNA 2007-06-01

I don't know what all the fuss is about - Why do people want to carry so much liquid in their hand luguage anyway.

[...]

The fuss? I'll tell you what the fuss is about!

On the surface of things, all these new regulations seem to make sense. Theoretically, it is possible to make liquid-based explosives which could be brought on board a plane and used by suicidal maniacs. Theoretically, it is possible to hijack a plane with nail-clippers if the passengers have been taught not to fight back by their governments, "for their own good," or even face to criminal charges if they do wind up hurting a criminal/suicidal maniac. Theoretically, it is possible to put explosives in your shoe which might damage a plane if they were detonated in a critical area by a suicidal maniac. Despite the fact that all of these theories have never actually succeeded in bringing down a plane or otherwise shown by unbiased experts to be a genuine threat, people around the world accept them as fact and allow new rules and regulations to be enforced depriving them of their dignity and freedoms.

The fact is that no matter what activity it is you enjoy, from stamp collecting to playing golf, there is bound to be some way that someone could misuse the tools of your trade to do another harm. While we all sit back and acquiesce to these and other idiotic regulations pushed down our throats by the US and its many poodles, we give up more and more of our humanity in the vain hope that we are gaining more security. The same security that our governments have learned to prey on in order to have their ways with an unruly population that used to demand more freedom.

In ancient times, men captured in war were made into slaves. As part of this process, their testicles were removed to make them more docile and less likely to revolt. It seems that technology has provided the means where this is no longer necessary. I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to the specifics of why this is so.

Of what good is security without freedom, anyway?

P.S. Has anyone even considered why there seem to be so many "suicidal maniacs" running around anyway? I mean, is this a genetic aberration or is there another more likely explanation for this?

[jellykookabanj]

This is one of the most stupid regulations I've ever came upon.

Thank you, U.S.A.!! For inventing it, and bringing it to the world.

You did not say why it was stupid. It began after Britain discovered a plot to blow up 5 planes over the Atlantic with liquid explosives. Maybe you do not read newspapers. I, for one, am happy to have a bad hair day on the flight if it means nobody has gels in the cabin. You may have other priorities.

Well said...buddyholly1....At the time when it all started it was BIG news in all UK and US newspapers that a plot to bomb United Airlines planes had been discovered.

After discussions between the two countrys' security forces in conjunction with th FAA and CAA it was decided to upgrade the security checks in the UK to come into line with US methods.

Maybe they did go over the top a bit, but that was surely a much better thing than being blown out of the sky by a terrorist using a "liquid" bomb.

The knee-jerk screening procedures which caused untold delays has been downgraded somewhat and I am not altogether sure if BKK procedures are following the 1st or revised instructions.

We, as Poms, may have introduced some of these measures...BUT it was due to the fact that we were told by US authorities that UK planes would not be allowed to land on US soil if these regulations were not enforced.

We, like most of the rest of the world are lead by the nose when America speaks.

Cheers to Tony B'Liar for getting so far up Georges rear end he couldn't smell the roses any more.

[jellykookabanj]

There are more muslims at heathrow than any where else it is a joke britians last line of defence are muslims , im not racest it s just a crazy thing

Britain is a multi-cultural country. It opened it's doors to immigration in a big way after the end of WW2. The airport in London is staffed by people of many races/cultures and religions. The refusal of many european countries to extend refugees the right to request asylum has resulted in many many refugees trying to opt for UK as their place to stay even though it was not their first port of call,

Saying that. I have flown to and from Heathrow on at least 30 occasions over the past 7 years and it is very annoying to be checked through immigration by a non-UK person on most of those occasions.

Sign of the times....eh

[flifsh1]

Does anyone know if this applies to both international and domestic flights.

As in are the smaller airports in Thailand enforcing this measure on domestic flights to BKK? Security is going to have their hands full explaing this rule to the grandmothers loaded down with special food and drink from Isan to take the the kids in BKK!

[dai ru55]

There are more muslims at heathrow than any where else it is a joke britians last line of defence are muslims , im not racest it s just a crazy thing

Britain is a multi-cultural country. It opened it's doors to immigration in a big way after the end of WW2. The airport in London is staffed by people of many races/cultures and religions. The refusal of many european countries to extend refugees the right to request asylum has resulted in many many refugees trying to opt for UK as their place to stay even though it was not their first port of call,

Saying that. I have flown to and from Heathrow on at least 30 occasions over the past 7 years and it is very annoying to be checked through immigration by a non-UK person on most of those occasions.

Sign of the times....eh

Just because your a traveller doesn't mean you don't have rights, at Heathrow or any British airport, you can simply refuse ... and ask for a British person to check you or your belongings ( and by British I mean Celtic or Anglo-Saxon)... I would never let a muslim check me unless I travelled to a muslim country... It's a bit racest I guess but it works for me

[Arandora]

There are more muslims at heathrow than any where else it is a joke britians last line of defence are muslims , im not racest it s just a crazy thing

Britain is a multi-cultural country. It opened it's doors to immigration in a big way after the end of WW2. The airport in London is staffed by people of many races/cultures and religions. The refusal of many european countries to extend refugees the right to request asylum has resulted in many many refugees trying to opt for UK as their place to stay even though it was not their first port of call,

Saying that. I have flown to and from Heathrow on at least 30 occasions over the past 7 years and it is very annoying to be checked through immigration by a non-UK person on most of those occasions.

Sign of the times....eh

Just because your a traveller doesn't mean you don't have rights, at Heathrow or any British airport, you can simply refuse ... and ask for a British person to check you or your belongings ( and by British I mean Celtic or Anglo-Saxon)... I would never let a muslim check me unless I travelled to a muslim country... It's a bit racest I guess but it works for me

Many, many Muslims are as British as I am (a white, Anglo Saxon, Church Of England male) and no wonder they and other Brits of non-Celtic or Anglo Saxon origin) feel alienated! The fact that some white Celtic, Anglo Saxons regard working at an airport as somehow beneath them, shows dai ru55's post for what it is - not "a bit racist" in fact entirely racist and offensive!

He is quite happy to check in at any other country of the world by their employees, irrespective of their race creed or colour, as firstly he wouldn't know it and, secondly, daren't question it - unless he fancied a few weeks "free but not very good accommodation".

As for some other posters who have neither lived in the US or the UK (or anywhere else for that matter) that has experienced severe, persistent and ACTUAL terrorist threats, I am sure your expert opinions on how to avoid and avert terrorist threats and how useless these internationally adopted measures are will be most welcome to secxurity experts worldwide!

[Eureka]

There are more muslims at heathrow than any where else it is a joke britians last line of defence are muslims , im not racest it s just a crazy thing

Britain is a multi-cultural country. It opened it's doors to immigration in a big way after the end of WW2. The airport in London is staffed by people of many races/cultures and religions. The refusal of many european countries to extend refugees the right to request asylum has resulted in many many refugees trying to opt for UK as their place to stay even though it was not their first port of call,

Saying that. I have flown to and from Heathrow on at least 30 occasions over the past 7 years and it is very annoying to be checked through immigration by a non-UK person on most of those occasions.

Sign of the times....eh

Just because your a traveller doesn't mean you don't have rights, at Heathrow or any British airport, you can simply refuse ... and ask for a British person to check you or your belongings ( and by British I mean Celtic or Anglo-Saxon)... I would never let a muslim check me unless I travelled to a muslim country... It's a bit racest I guess but it works for me

I would have thought that it would have been possible for you to have excluded so many British nationals with such an uneducated and racist remark.

Check the history of the British Isles before venturing further comment. A few hints for your research would include all history after the Norman conquest in 1066 and the Germanic and Greek genes prevalent in the British Royal Family.

Lastly, it is highly doubtful that you could demand to be searched by a particular official on the basis that your Racist pride would be hurt.

[MaiChai]

There seems to be some racism against Muslim here. I have quite a few 'modern' Muslim friends; they are like you and me, but follow their faith. People who blow up planes are maniacs, and saying they do it in the name of religion is twisting their religion. I am not a Muslim, but I respect my friends enough to understand they are entitled to follow whichever religion they wish.

[rwhoov]

This is one of the most stupid regulations I've ever came upon.

Thank you, U.S.A.!! For inventing it, and bringing it to the world.

Sorry, but I do believe it was the BRITISH who started this security excess about the liquids last year.

Oh, and, by the way, have you convicted anyone charged with trying to bring the liquid bomb on British Air that started this?

[CbrLad]

There seems to be some racism against Muslim here. I have quite a few 'modern' Muslim friends; they are like you and me, but follow their faith. People who blow up planes are maniacs, and saying they do it in the name of religion is twisting their religion. I am not a Muslim, but I respect my friends enough to understand they are entitled to follow whichever religion they wish.

Very well put my friend. We don't need ant racism around this board of all places, I would have thought most of us would be more tolorent.

[NamSod]

Heck, just 21 months ago, Thai Air employees took my rounded child-safe scissors and then, like British Air, gave us all wood handled metal steak knives for our meal. I was tempted to keep it for taking my scissors but I didnt.

I am flying again to Thailand this month. I will try to give you a new report of how things go.

Quoted:

"..right after 911 and being handed steel cutlery by British airways to eat my meal. (including steel knife)"

[Arandora]

This is one of the most stupid regulations I've ever came upon.

Thank you, U.S.A.!! For inventing it, and bringing it to the world.

Sorry, but I do believe it was the BRITISH who started this security excess about the liquids last year.

Oh, and, by the way, have you convicted anyone charged with trying to bring the liquid bomb on British Air that started this?

Not yet! Those charged have still to go through the due process of actually being found Guilty before being convicted!!

But in these times of heightened threats, if information is received of a plot to bring down aircraft by using "liquid bombs" do you expect the authorities not to take preventative measures? Does anyone now complain about having to remove their shoes through US airports after explosive was found in the trainer of a passenger! Some people are only convinced after a tragedy occurs not before. I would have thought the lessons of officialdom debating whether to issue warnings BEFORE the Tsunami struck until, sadly for 5000+ poor souls it was too late, would have been a salutory lesson for all in Thailand - prevention is better than cure!