When limits on liquids were introduced at airport checkpoints across North America in 2006, bins overflowed with bottled water, toothpaste, shaving cream and so much more. Nearly two decades later, travellers are much more accustomed to the regulations governing the size of the liquids they’re flying with, but scenes of passengers guzzling a beverage before putting their bags through the screening machines are still common.
That’s why U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sent ripples through the travelling public when she said last week that changes might be afoot when it comes to the TSA’s current liquid limits.
“The liquids, I’m questioning. So that may be the next big announcement, is what size your liquids need to be,” Noem told a conference in Washington.
Will travellers flying in the U.S. be able to carry bigger bottles? Multiple 1-quart bags of liquids? Those details haven’t been rolled out. But coming on top of her announcement earlier this month that travellers could keep their shoes on at TSA checkpoints, it seems a much different security experience for air travellers might be emerging.
(Canada has tended to quickly harmonize its security regulations with those in the U.S., including the recent relaxation of shoe restrictions).
9/11 and its aftermath changed much
Airline travel changed dramatically after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Before that, airlines were responsible for security and would often contract it out to private firms, said airline industry analyst Henry Harteveldt. Travellers often didn’t need to show their ID at security checkpoints – and people without boarding passes, such as family members or friends, could go to the gate in some locations.
“It was much more casual. And clearly it was ineffective, because 9/11 occurred,” Hartevelt said.
That’s when, in the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration were born, with the mandate of preventing more terrorist attacks.
The liquid limits, however, didn’t kick in until 2006 (Canada followed suit), after authorities foiled a plot that used liquid explosives smuggled aboard carry-on luggage. The TSA then very briefly banned all liquids in carry-on luggage – a ban that lasted about six weeks, but strained airlines’ baggage systems as more and more travellers turned to checked bags to pack toiletries.
At the time the 3.4-ounce limit (100 mg in Canada) was implemented, the FBI and other laboratories had found that tiny amounts of substances small enough to fit into a quart-size bag couldn’t blow up an airliner.
When the ban was eventually lifted in September 2006, consumers and businesses alike had to learn how to adapt to the “3-1-1” rule – leading to more demand for smaller, travel size bottles of anything from shampoo to toothpaste, as well as clear, “TSA approved” toiletry bags that are still seen on store shelves today.
The rule (not always named as such) was also adopted in many countries around the world starting later that year (including Canada, which continued to harmonize its regulations with the U.S.)
Any move to simplify the screening process and cut down on the time it takes for passengers to navigate checkpoints would be a welcome change for everyone, Harteveldt says. Because it isn’t just about convenience; those lines before the security checkpoints are the most at risk to a potential threat.
The fact that the TSA felt confident enough to change its shoe policy earlier this month may not save too much time from an individual traveller’s perspective, Harteveldt notes – but marks a “big step forward” toward cutting down the average length of the security process when you think about the number of people going through airports each day. Relaxing current liquid restrictions could aid that effort.
Still, questions remain. “What we don’t know is what the secretary is going to announce about liquids,” Harteveldt said. “Will they remove the liquid ban altogether – and can we go back to bringing full-sized of toiletries and other items with us? Will they allow people to bring more than one bag of toiletries and liquids? And importantly, will they relax the limit on (the) quart-size bag itself?’”
It’s also possible that the changes the TSA makes, whatever they are, only start at a handful of airports that have the technology to do so. Over the years, airports worldwide have adopted some aspects of security screenings faster or differently than others.
But travellers could be confused if they’re able to bring a full-size bottle of shampoo or lotion when flying out of one airport, for example, but not on their return trip home.
“The devil is going to be in the details,” Harteveldt said. “That’s why the rollout plan will be absolutely critical.”
Harveldt says a more streamlined process could make travellers less stressed, but others –including flight attendants and pilots who are in the skies more frequently — may object and question whether airport security is being compromised. Still, Harveldt says he doesn’t believe the TSA would make this change if the agency “didn’t feel it was authentically, truly safe.”
What of expedited security lines?
If shoe regulations disappear and liquid restrictions are eased, the effects could ripple into the TSA PreCheck program, in which passengers submit information like their fingerprints and the agency prescreens them for any red flags. By giving the agency this information, the traveller then gets some benefits not available to other travellers – a special line to go through and the ability to keep their computers in their bags and their shoes on, for example.
But if those benefits become more widely available to all passengers, will fewer people sign up for PreCheck?
“What is the impact on now both shoes and liquids going to have on TSA PreCheck enrollment? That is the million-dollar question,” Jeffries said. “And if I was still with TSA, I would be watching that closely over the next 12 to 18 months.”
While the prospect of increasing the current liquid limit could be a welcome change for many travellers, some experts say that the tech isn’t available in enough airports yet. Current X-ray machines used at most airports today have a difficult time distinguishing between different types of liquids, says Jeffrey Price, a professor of aviation at Metropolitan State University of Denver.
That’s key, he explains, in determining whether something is harmless or potentially explosive.
While newer computed tomography scanners are better and have begun making their way to airports, Price said in commentary published last week that it could take “another decade or more” before the newer machines are deployed at all U.S. airports.
“This is an issue that needs to be studied much more carefully than the policy to leave your shoes on,” he said.
If this article was shared with you by a friend or colleague, you may enjoy receiving your own copy of Travel Industry Today with the latest travel news and reviews each weekday morning. It’s absolutely free – just CLICK HERE.