100ml liquid restriction set to be scrapped across European airports – but there's a catch
The constraint was due to be scrapped last summer, but a European Commission (EC) ruling kept it in place temporarily.
Now, aviation hubs with advanced scanners will allow passengers to carry wine, olive oil, perfume and other liquids in containers of up to two litres.
Participating airports include travel hotspots such as Berlin, Rome, Amsterdam and Milan, with more expected to follow.
While many major airports already have the advanced scanners, not all do, including London's Heathrow. It would cost the airport £1.04bn to install the equipment.
There will be no mandatory requirement for airports to implement the new technology and it will be the decision of individual facilities to purchase the scanners.
Consequently, the new ruling could cause confusion for passengers departing from an airport with the scanners, but returning home via an airport without them. In this instance, only 100ml would be allowed in the hand luggage on the return flight.
The scanners use computed tomography (CT) to scan luggage with increased accuracy.
Their introduction also means passengers will no longer have to remove other items from cabin baggage, such as laptops and tablets, further streamlining the security process.
The major change was first reported by Italian news outlet Corriere della Sera and confirmed by the European Commission, with the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) set to green light the move imminently.
European Commission spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkonen told The Independent that they were expecting the ruling to be confirmed 'in the next [few] days.'
'Once individual manufacturer's airport equipment passes tests and gets ECAC approval, it can receive the EU Stamp, permitting the screening of liquids of larger than 100ml.
'After receiving this approval, the equipment may be deployed for use at airports.'
The Independent has approached the ECAC for comment.
Birmingham and Edinburgh airports to remove the 100ml liquid restriction, while other UK airports still enforce the limit.
Under existing rules, hand luggage liquids must be packed in containers carrying no more than 100ml, with some exceptions for baby products and medicines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Pushing airport expansion while rail travel languishes – so much for Labour's green agenda
August is peak flying time, and airports are on many minds. The government has signalled its support for colossal expansions, whose extra flights would bust its carbon pledges. The excuse is that supertechnology will magic away the extra CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, though it must know that clean, green flying is still futurology. Here's the pity of it: until now this government has rightly boasted of its green credentials, making massive investments in sustainable energy and retro-insulating cold homes. Expanding air travel is not on any green agenda. Heathrow has just submitted proposals for a £50bn third runway, as approved by Labour in 2009 and the Tories who voted it through parliament in 2018. Covid applied the brakes but now Heathrow is back with gold-plated, 'shovel-ready' plans. Its owners, including Qatar, Singapore and Saudi Arabia, expect the planning bill to prevent newts or judicial reviews blocking the runway. Their pitch to an investment-hungry government is that expanding Europe's busiest airport would create 100,000 new jobs, propelling growth with 750 extra daily flights. Flying gets a green light from the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander: she agreed to double the size of Luton airport, favours Gatwick's second runway for 100,000 more flights and gives Stansted's expansion a fair wind. These allow a 70% increase in flights above 2018 levels, and cancel out all the carbon savings from the government's clean power plan. Rachel Reeves promised to be 'Britain's first green chancellor', but her plans live or die on growth, so billions in private investment is hard to resist. But beyond construction, the growth-potential claims for extra flights look highly dubious. The promised global 'connectivity' imagines business people zipping into Britain with briefcases full of contracts. But that's not who these extra flyers will be. Most will be frequent flyers flying more frequently, not for business but for leisure, according to the New Economics Foundation and Possible, the climate campaign. National Travel and Civil Aviation Authority passenger surveys show only one in 14 UK passengers are business travellers. The pandemic showed that meeting online saves money and time; business travel has already peaked. Would extra flights bring in tourist income? No, 70% of flights are British tourists off abroad to spend vastly more than foreigners spend here. Of extra flights in 20 years, 83% were taken by already frequent flyers, mostly for leisure. Growth will not be from more families taking an annual holiday: half the population doesn't fly in any year, while just 15% consume 70% of flights. Nearly a third are 'ultra-frequent flyers' taking six or more journeys a year. Instead of these heaviest users paying more for their pollution, airlines reward frequent flyers. The Flying Fair report from the New Economics Foundation suggests imposing a high levy on those flying six or more times a year, not added to ticket prices but raised in tax returns. That makes the cost of their excessive air travel highly visible, and could raise £6bn a year, while cutting aviation CO2 by 28%. Newly nationalised trains would gain from disincentivising flight. But UK prices are a bizarre deterrent. I'm planning to go to Edinburgh next week – a train journey I love. Checking prices, I found a £29.99 flight each way, while LNER costs £181.69 return. France has banned domestic flights where trains can do the journey in less than two and a half hours and so should we: start by banning airlines charging less than rail. Switch the 39m domestic journeys being made annually by plane to train. The good news is the extra potential capacity in the Channel tunnel, which could be realised with a little investment. Twelve trains an hour run each way, but the tunnel could run 2.5 times more, and prices would fall. That's where investment should go, instead of to airports, as new European routes open up. Yes, it takes longer. It means adding train time to the concept of a holiday. But if it were cheaper, what luxury it would be compared with the hell of holiday airports and flights that don't land you in city centres. Climate damage is the real cost of avoidable flying. The chancellor says: 'Expansion must be delivered in line with UK's legal, environmental and climate obligations.' But the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the government's statutory adviser, warns that airport expansion would breach UK carbon budgets for net zero emissions by 2050. The aviation industry and government claim that wonder technology will deliver carbon-free flying with electric planes, sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) and carbon capture. None is anywhere near available, says the CCC, which expects 17% SAFs by 2040. It advises no extra flying before 2030, and only 2% more by 2035, to allow time for new technology to be developed. Let's hope clean flight arrives soon, but it's not here yet: currently, suppliers must only guarantee that SAFs comprises 2% of the total. Here's the honesty test for those claiming carbon-neutral flight is imminent: agree to no extra flying until it arrives. The government's mood music is all pro-flying, not urging climate-conscious travel. To change habits and attitudes, it should start by banning frequent flyer bonuses. Why allow private jets? Seat for seat they are 30 times more polluting, paying less tax as a proportion of ticket price, as was exposed by Possible's Jetting away with it report. The government's airport policy will reveal its seriousness on the climate crisis. Politically, it shows whether Labour is sufficiently alarmed by serious threats from the left, from Greens, Liberal Democrats and Jeremy Corbyn revivalists pledged to invest in trains, not airports. But refusing airport expansion allows Tories and Faragistes to add those lost foreign billions to their dishonest tally of net zero costs. A YouGov poll found that 61% of people regard airport expansion as the wrong priority, alongside mayors Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan. But the Treasury's dilemma is obvious: climate or cash? Its answer should also be clear: just call a moratorium until green flying arrives. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Infineon slightly raises outlook for operating profitability after strong Q3
BERLIN, Aug 5 (Reuters) - German chipmaker Infineon's ( opens new tab slightly raised its full-year guidance for its segment result margin on Tuesday after its quarterly figure beat a company-provided forecast. Infineon reported a segment result margin - management's preferred measure of operating profitability - of 18% for its fiscal third quarter from April to June, beating the forecast for 15.8%. Infineon slightly raised its full-year guidance to high-teens percentage gain in its segment result, which is adjusted for special items, up from the mid-teens range it previously projected.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Why will Heathrow's third runway be such a long haul?
Q On Heathrow: why will it take 10 years to build what is basically a small road? Aaron M A Heathrow airport has just published its long-awaited plans for a third runway. They are basically the same as those recommended by the Davies Commission a decade ago after years of consultation: a 3,500m runway to the northwest of the present airport. In one sense, this is a road a couple of miles long. So why indeed should it take 10 years to build and cost £21bn (plus an additional £12bn for terminal capacity)? First, because even after years of discussion that have led to these 'shovel-ready' proposals, the planning process will drag on for several more years. The Department for Transport is now considering Heathrow's proposals as well as cheaper competing options. When the choice is made, the next process involves work on a Development Consent Order (DCO). That will involve yet another public consultation on Heathrow's expansion and is likely to take around 18 months. The Planning Inspectorate will consider the application and make a recommendation to the transport secretary, who will decide whether to grant the DCO. Assuming the scheme is approved, in line with Labour's commitment to growth, opponents of expansion are certain to launch legal challenges to the minister's decision. Heathrow cannot begin construction until that process is completed. At present, the best hope among proponents of the third runway is that work will begin by July 2029, ie within the lifetime of the present parliament. That leaves six years before the 2035 vow for planes to be taking off and landing. It still looks like a long time for this strip of concrete. But it is rather more complicated than the average road. Hundreds of homes must be demolished first. The third runway is intended to stretch across the current route of the M25, which will be relocated into a tunnel. Vast amounts of work will need to be carried out to connect the new facility to the existing airport, which itself will be extensively remodelled – all the while remaining open to air traffic for 19 hours a day. Accordingly, 2035 begins to look optimistic. Ryanair's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, says the new runway will not open until 2040 at the earliest – not that he has any intention of using the expanded Heathrow, unlike rival easyJet. Q Have you ever been to a destination that you'd never go back to? Lou Gray A Plenty. In almost every case, though, I will not return even though I greatly enjoyed the place on one or more previous visits. It's just because there are so many more places to see. For example, I regard Orkney and Shetland, the Northern Isles of Scotland, as among the most beautiful, intriguing and rewarding destinations in the world. But I have visited each archipelago twice, explored thoroughly, met some lovely people and enjoyed some superb food. With other Scottish islands unvisited, such as Jura and Colonsay in the west, I have no plans to return to the north. The same applies to many other destinations I have been fortunate enough to visit: I thoroughly enjoyed a week in Missouri last year, but don't feel the US state has many secrets left to reveal. And just last week I was in the Greek island of Paros; I don't expect ever to return to its simplicity and beauty since there are dozens of other islands in the Aegean I want to see. If, though, you meant where have I found underwhelming, thankfully, there are very few. On a cruise taking in Greenland and Arctic Canada, I found the ports of call mostly sad places, reflecting the deep social problems faced by these locations – though my view may have been coloured by the shambolic running of the operation by the Canadian travel firm. Conversely, there are some locations to which I will return repeatedly. They are mainly 'world cities' with many dimensions and are constantly reinventing themselves. These include Paris, Istanbul, Mumbai, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Chicago and New York. (In different times, I would add Moscow and St Petersburg to that list.) And also great mountain ranges: the Alps, Pyrenees and Himalayas have so many facets and endless beauty. Q I am travelling to New Zealand in December with my partner. We have an eight-hour stop at Hong Kong. Is it straightforward to leave the airport and see the place for a few hours before returning for our next flight? Degsy M A Yes. Your baggage will be checked through to New Zealand, allowing you to explore unencumbered, and you will have your boarding pass for the onward flight. Thankfully, immigration into Hong Kong is invariably swift, and the Airport Express train takes only 24 minutes to reach Hong Kong Island, for a fare of HK$130 (about £10) each way. The final stop locates you perfectly for exploring Hong Kong Central – probably the most exciting part of this hyperactive territory. Head for Man Mo Temple, a Taoist place of worship dedicated to the gods of literature (Man) and war (Mo). Wander through the interior as colourful as it is reverential, with smouldering coils of incense providing a heavenly aroma. A short walk away, explore PMQ: the 'Police Married Quarters' dormitory complex built in 1951. The police officers and their spouses have moved out to cosier accommodation. Bright young sparks have moved in, filling the mid-century architectural masterpiece with workshops, galleries and boutiques. And along at Tai Kwun, you find evidence of the British colonial one-stop shop of crime prevention, comprising Central Police Station, the Central Magistracy (now a restaurant) and Victoria Prison – where, once upon a time, Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh was on trial. Today, the complex is a venue for enlightenment. Begin your journey back to the airport by taking the iconic Star Ferry across the harbour to Kowloon, on the mainland. Make your way to West Kowloon Cultural District, a creative hub appropriately created on reclaimed land. The key attraction: M+, a vast new museum that celebrates Hong Kong's visual culture of the 20th and 21st centuries. Like Tate Modern in London and the Guggenheim in Bilbao, the structure itself is as compelling as the contents. Kowloon station is a five-minute walk away – and in just 22 minutes the Airport Express will whisk you back to the space-age terminal for your onward flight. Security is swift, so plan to be back at the airport just an hour or so before departure.
