Seems they have finally understood the nonsense they've created:
http://tinyurl.com/37x6yt
(there's a language change on top of the site)
EU-Parliament asks EU-Commission to drop 100 ml fluids limit
Moderator: Latest news team
-
Ducatibiker
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 01 Apr 2006, 00:00
Was faced with a similar situation when coming back from Moscow with a connecting flight in Frankfurt to Brussels. Vodka allowed in place A (leaving the plane) and in place B (tax-free zone), just not through the door between A and B, even though the goods were in a sealed and transparent bag.
Pretty frustrating I must say.
Pretty frustrating I must say.
-
Ducatibiker
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 01 Apr 2006, 00:00
Yes, you got a valid point - how do they check the Vodka in place B (tax free zone) since they do not allow it to go through the door if carried by a passenger.
There must be a solution similar to the one used in the US for Agricultural inspections of baggage of passengers from Hawaii to the Mainland.
There must be a solution similar to the one used in the US for Agricultural inspections of baggage of passengers from Hawaii to the Mainland.
-
airazurxtror
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 00:00
-
Ducatibiker
- Posts: 236
- Joined: 01 Apr 2006, 00:00
-
Air Key West
- Posts: 1107
- Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 20:51
- Location: BRU
Re: EU-Parliament asks EU-Commission to drop 100 ml fluids l
[quote="LX-LGX"]Seems they have finally understood the nonsense they've created:
http://tinyurl.com/37x6yt
(there's a language change on top of the site)[/quote]
The EU regulation on liquids was adopted by the EU ministers (governments) on request by the British government after the London terrorist attacks.
This week, the European Parliament (not the EU ministers) asked the European Commission to revise or cancel the regulation (this would need another decision by the EU ministers).
I think there is not much hope things will change
http://tinyurl.com/37x6yt
(there's a language change on top of the site)[/quote]
The EU regulation on liquids was adopted by the EU ministers (governments) on request by the British government after the London terrorist attacks.
This week, the European Parliament (not the EU ministers) asked the European Commission to revise or cancel the regulation (this would need another decision by the EU ministers).
I think there is not much hope things will change
In favor of quality air travel.
Re: EU-Parliament asks EU-Commission to drop 100 ml fluids l
Air Key West, please inform yourself before correcting posts:Air Key West wrote:The EU regulation on liquids was adopted by the EU ministers (governments) on request by the British government after the London terrorist attacks.LX-LGX wrote:Seems they have finally understood the nonsense they've created:
http://tinyurl.com/37x6yt
(there's a language change on top of the site)
This week, the European Parliament (not the EU ministers) asked the European Commission to revise or cancel the regulation (this would need another decision by the EU ministers).
I think there is not much hope things will change
1. there are no ministers within the European Union;
2. the decision was taken by the EU-Commission: 27 Commissioners, 1 for each EU-member (for Belgium, it's Louis Michel who has hit the jackpot);
3. contrary to what you think, the EU-Commission will follow this Resolution (20070823IPR09766) from the EU-Parliament and will soon adapt or cancel EU-Regulation 1546/2006. Thus allowing pax to take their normal toothpaste again onboard.
4. You're saying that the Regulation was adopted on request by the British government. No sir, it was a joint decision from the EU and the US: Since the adoption of Regulation 2320/2002 establishing common rules in the field of aviation security, the Commission cooperates with countries such as the United States in order to have, to the extent possible, harmonised security standards when addressing terrorist threats. Furthermore, at the international level the Commission participates in the work of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on worldwide minimum standards for aviation security. As regards stakeholders, the Commission always consults, extensively the associations representing airports, airlines and other relevant actors prior to decisions on new rules for aviation security, Turning to the new regulation that came into force on 6 November 2006, Commission Regulation 1546/2006 laying down rules on liquids has been developed on the basis of the aforementioned coordination and cooperation mechanisms. This has contributed to establishing largely identical rules for travels between the EU and North America. Immediately after the adoption of Regulation 1546/2006, ICAO was informed by the Commission about these rules in order for them to inform all ICAO Contracting states.
5. so both the title and the content of my post was correct.
-
Air Key West
- Posts: 1107
- Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 20:51
- Location: BRU
Dear LX-LGX :
1. sorry for the shortcut : if you want to put the dots on the i's : there are, of course, no EU ministers, but there is an EU Council of Ministers.
2. You were right and I was wrong : it is a Commission regulation and not a Council of Ministers and European Parliament regulation
3. On point 3 : Commissioner Barrot said in a press release that "the regulation cannot be repealed so long as the threat of liquid explosives remains and we have not developed other methods of effectively controlling it " (see European Parliament web site).
So, I was wrong on one point (2) and you on another (3). No need to get aggressive. Everybody makes mistakes.
1. sorry for the shortcut : if you want to put the dots on the i's : there are, of course, no EU ministers, but there is an EU Council of Ministers.
2. You were right and I was wrong : it is a Commission regulation and not a Council of Ministers and European Parliament regulation
3. On point 3 : Commissioner Barrot said in a press release that "the regulation cannot be repealed so long as the threat of liquid explosives remains and we have not developed other methods of effectively controlling it " (see European Parliament web site).
So, I was wrong on one point (2) and you on another (3). No need to get aggressive. Everybody makes mistakes.
In favor of quality air travel.
Ai ai ai. There is also no EU Council of Ministers. Seems you're mixing up two different organisations: the EU = European Union (28 member states) and the Council of Europe (47 member states and 5 observers, including Japan and the US). We're only talking about the EU here (outside Belgium, the EU is usually called "Brussels").Air Key West wrote:If you want to put the dots on the i's : there are, of course, no EU ministers, but there is an EU Council of Ministers.
I'm not a security specialist, so I don't know if his arguments stands. But the Resolution has been voted, so he will have to live with that: we'll see what he will do when it's brought onto the agenda. Or how he will react when his cabinet recieves a request from the other side of the Atlantic to discuss about this stupid rule.Air Key West wrote:Commissioner Barrot said in a press release that "the regulation cannot be repealed so long as the threat of liquid explosives remains and we have not developed other methods of effectively controlling it" (see European Parliament website).
-
Air Key West
- Posts: 1107
- Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 20:51
- Location: BRU
to LX-LGX : if I wanted to quote you, I would say ; please inform yourself before correcting posts.
This is off topic, but mistakes should be pointed out and there is something to learn for everybody on another (complicated) topic :
1. There are 27 (not twenty-eight) member States of the European Union. There is a Council of the European Union made up of the ministers of the EU member states. If you google "EU ministerraad", you will find : Raad van de Europese Unie (of ministerraad). There is, for instance, an EU Transport Council bringing together the minsters of Transport of the EU member states. The EU Council is often referred to as the Council of Ministers. The seat of the Council of the European Union is in Brussels.
(www.consilium.europa.eu)
Then, to make thinks complicated, there is the European Council bringing together the heads of States and governments of the 27 member States of the EU + the president of the European Commission.
And to make things worse, there is also the Council of Europe with (not 27) but 47 member States going from Portugal to Armenia (through Liechtenstein and Monaco). The Council of Europe whose seat is in Strasbourg has a Committee of Ministers made up of the ministers of Foreign Affairs of the 47 member States. The Council of Europe deals (not exclusively) bu mainly with matters related to human rights and democracy. (www.coe.int)
2. The resolution which the European Parliament adopted last Wednesday asking the EU Commission to revise (or repeal) its regulation on the ban of liquids in passengers hand luggage has no binding force. It is only, as far as I know, a (strong) request sent by the European Parliament to the European Commission to revise (o repeal) the Commission regulation. The Commission cannot ignore the European Parliament resolution, but is in no way obliged to modify its current regulation.
To get "on topic" again : There is a point on which you and I, and most everybody, agree : this ban was a stupid thing to enforce. I am still convinced that in spite of US pressure, the ban would not have been adopted in its current form in Europe (in the Autumn of 2006) if there had not been the attacks in London (on 7 July 2006, if my memory serves me right). But this is a personal view. All the rest are verifiable facts.
This is off topic, but mistakes should be pointed out and there is something to learn for everybody on another (complicated) topic :
1. There are 27 (not twenty-eight) member States of the European Union. There is a Council of the European Union made up of the ministers of the EU member states. If you google "EU ministerraad", you will find : Raad van de Europese Unie (of ministerraad). There is, for instance, an EU Transport Council bringing together the minsters of Transport of the EU member states. The EU Council is often referred to as the Council of Ministers. The seat of the Council of the European Union is in Brussels.
(www.consilium.europa.eu)
Then, to make thinks complicated, there is the European Council bringing together the heads of States and governments of the 27 member States of the EU + the president of the European Commission.
And to make things worse, there is also the Council of Europe with (not 27) but 47 member States going from Portugal to Armenia (through Liechtenstein and Monaco). The Council of Europe whose seat is in Strasbourg has a Committee of Ministers made up of the ministers of Foreign Affairs of the 47 member States. The Council of Europe deals (not exclusively) bu mainly with matters related to human rights and democracy. (www.coe.int)
2. The resolution which the European Parliament adopted last Wednesday asking the EU Commission to revise (or repeal) its regulation on the ban of liquids in passengers hand luggage has no binding force. It is only, as far as I know, a (strong) request sent by the European Parliament to the European Commission to revise (o repeal) the Commission regulation. The Commission cannot ignore the European Parliament resolution, but is in no way obliged to modify its current regulation.
To get "on topic" again : There is a point on which you and I, and most everybody, agree : this ban was a stupid thing to enforce. I am still convinced that in spite of US pressure, the ban would not have been adopted in its current form in Europe (in the Autumn of 2006) if there had not been the attacks in London (on 7 July 2006, if my memory serves me right). But this is a personal view. All the rest are verifiable facts.
In favor of quality air travel.
What is clear is that the european institutions need to get closer to citizens and to streamline its organization. In general it is like a Gordian knot to its citizens, with councils, commissions, commitologies, pillars...; and all kind of new word inventions to 'explain' its barroque organisation... but do not take my complaints to it as anti-European, on the contrary I want to have something that is clear and understandable by ALL EU citizens.
For me bottom line is that the formality of who took the decission is not the relevant fact, also who knows more about the EU intitutions is not the point (you guys sure know a lot about it). What matters is that non sense decissions do not help to build trust of citizens on the EU, and the thing on the liquids on airports is, in my views, quite stupid. My reasons are:
- If all these liquids that are not allowed through the security control are so dangerous, and even potential bombs, why are they left just there and not treated and disposed according to its potential danger. Everytime I fly I walk at less than 1 m than 1 cubic meter of potential explosive liquids!!!, and everyone seems to be so relaxed about this... it seems that everyone (even the security personnel!) seems to assume that the procedure is just bullshit and all these liquids are not of any danger. Otherwise can you imagine a explosion on the security check at rush hour!!!! The present handling of the liquids do not protect from this happening.
- If I am limited to 1 l in the amouont of liquid to take on board, it would take just a small coordination between say 10 people to get in a sufficient amount required for preparing a bomb in the airport, even before boarding. The way to circunvent this regulation is so trivial ... it makes it completely stupid.
In addition the regulation places constraints on the small size containers (100ml), as trivial to work around as the one before.
Cause of these reasons people sees the regulation as a stupid thing as it does not protect them. It is just as annoyance. When people sees the meaning of a security measure they accept the inconveniences in the understanding that it is for everyone's security but with the liquids normative as imposed today...... it's just bullshit.
On the contrary view if all this is just not bullshit it really scares me jsut getting to the airport as we have no serious security controls with this regulations. We are completely exposed to the risks the regulation pretend to protect from.
What we need is serious regulations that really protect us from real theats; and the present one does not protect against the theat it was created.
Well maybe they all just needed a bad excuse to increase security taxes. (I prefer to think that rather than realising we all can have our asses blown up as easy as before the regulation)
The regulations on liquids is to be withdrawn; and something meaningful to be put in place as required.
For me bottom line is that the formality of who took the decission is not the relevant fact, also who knows more about the EU intitutions is not the point (you guys sure know a lot about it). What matters is that non sense decissions do not help to build trust of citizens on the EU, and the thing on the liquids on airports is, in my views, quite stupid. My reasons are:
- If all these liquids that are not allowed through the security control are so dangerous, and even potential bombs, why are they left just there and not treated and disposed according to its potential danger. Everytime I fly I walk at less than 1 m than 1 cubic meter of potential explosive liquids!!!, and everyone seems to be so relaxed about this... it seems that everyone (even the security personnel!) seems to assume that the procedure is just bullshit and all these liquids are not of any danger. Otherwise can you imagine a explosion on the security check at rush hour!!!! The present handling of the liquids do not protect from this happening.
- If I am limited to 1 l in the amouont of liquid to take on board, it would take just a small coordination between say 10 people to get in a sufficient amount required for preparing a bomb in the airport, even before boarding. The way to circunvent this regulation is so trivial ... it makes it completely stupid.
In addition the regulation places constraints on the small size containers (100ml), as trivial to work around as the one before.
Cause of these reasons people sees the regulation as a stupid thing as it does not protect them. It is just as annoyance. When people sees the meaning of a security measure they accept the inconveniences in the understanding that it is for everyone's security but with the liquids normative as imposed today...... it's just bullshit.
On the contrary view if all this is just not bullshit it really scares me jsut getting to the airport as we have no serious security controls with this regulations. We are completely exposed to the risks the regulation pretend to protect from.
What we need is serious regulations that really protect us from real theats; and the present one does not protect against the theat it was created.
Well maybe they all just needed a bad excuse to increase security taxes. (I prefer to think that rather than realising we all can have our asses blown up as easy as before the regulation)
The regulations on liquids is to be withdrawn; and something meaningful to be put in place as required.
-
Air Key West
- Posts: 1107
- Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 20:51
- Location: BRU
The Commission experts (and the national experts who helped the Commission prepare this legislation) will probably not be willing to admit they were wrong (very few people admit they made a mistake, although it makes live so much easier when one admits his mistakes ; eveybody makes mistakes ; there is nothing wrong with it ; it's part of life ; it only becomes a problem when the same people repeatedly make mistakes...).
However, practically everybody now recognizes this legislation is complete nonsense. Apparently, the machines at security cannot make the distinction between dangerous and non dangerous liquids. We all know that, for instance, ten terrorists could individually go through security carrying each 100 ml of a liquid explosive. After security, they would get together, buy a bottle of water or whisky (?) and empty it the toilets, then fill it up with 10 x 100 ml and they would have one liter of liquid explosive.
How is it possible Commission and national experts together have not thought of this. So, the European Parliament's resolution asking the Commission to modify and possibly repeal the regulation is totally justified.
However, practically everybody now recognizes this legislation is complete nonsense. Apparently, the machines at security cannot make the distinction between dangerous and non dangerous liquids. We all know that, for instance, ten terrorists could individually go through security carrying each 100 ml of a liquid explosive. After security, they would get together, buy a bottle of water or whisky (?) and empty it the toilets, then fill it up with 10 x 100 ml and they would have one liter of liquid explosive.
How is it possible Commission and national experts together have not thought of this. So, the European Parliament's resolution asking the Commission to modify and possibly repeal the regulation is totally justified.
In favor of quality air travel.