logo
After years of tough rules on liquids and footwear, US air travel may be on the cusp of a new era

After years of tough rules on liquids and footwear, US air travel may be on the cusp of a new era

Independent17-07-2025
When limits on liquids were introduced at TSA checkpoints across the country in 2006, bins overflowed with bottled water, toothpaste, shaving cream and so much more. Nearly two decades later, travelers are much more accustomed to the '3-1-1' 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 Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sent ripples through the traveling public when she said earlier this 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 travelers 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 travelers could keep their shoes on at TSA checkpoints, it seems a much different security experience for American air travelers might be emerging.
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 Henry Harteveldt, an airline industry analyst with Atmosphere Research Group. Travelers 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 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, 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. That ban lasted about six weeks, but strained airlines' baggage systems as more and more travelers turned to checked bags to pack toiletries.
At the time the 3.4-ounce limit 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 was also adopted in many countries around the world starting later that year.
Keith Jeffries, a former TSA director at Los Angeles International Airport and now vice president of K2 Security Screening Group, says whatever comes next needs to be clear for passengers. And he knows whereof he speaks.
Jeffries was working for TSA in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when the liquids rules came down overnight. Signage had to be changed to let passengers know of the new regulations. Barrels overflowing with toothpaste, shaving cream and shampoo had to be emptied every half hour. Jeffries remembers seeing a pair of shoes sitting in one of the barrels.
When he asked why, a TSA staffer said there was gel in the soles. 'I said, 'Please tell me I don't have a passenger back there walking in the sterile area barefoot. And he says, 'No, sir, they still have their socks on,'' he said. 'That's how chaotic it was.'
It's about more than convenience
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 traveler'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 U.S. 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 travelers 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 travelers 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 traveler then gets some benefits not available to other travelers — 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 U.S. travelers, 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 in an email Thursday.
___
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Having one common drink on holiday could make you sick, expert warns
Having one common drink on holiday could make you sick, expert warns

Daily Mirror

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Having one common drink on holiday could make you sick, expert warns

Ahead of the fast-approaching summer holidays, travel experts have warned that a popular beverage loved by Brits could lead to a slew of nasty side-effects including bloating, cramps and nausea Brits have been warned about one popular beverage that could make them ill when abroad - and it's not tap water. With the summer holidays just around the corner, swathes of UK households will be packing their bags for a week or two in the sun. Despite the cost-of-living crisis continuing to hit cash-strapped Brits hard, research from found that more than half (55 per cent) of us are planning an overseas holiday this year. ‌ If you have children that are still in school, you'll have little choice but to jet off during the summer months - despite travel agents ramping up their prices. ‌ ‌ The upside to this is that you're almost guaranteed constant sunshine and scorching temperatures. But, whether you're flocking to the party-mad hotspot of Benidorm - or the tropical delights of Thailand - falling ill can completely ruin your holiday. While most Brits are extra cautious about tap water or ice when abroad, many don't think twice about consuming milk. In a statement sent to the Mirror, Jessie Chambers from Global Work & Travel warns that unlike the fresh dairy milk that is abundant in the UK, many popular tourist destinations use UHT (Ultra-High Temperature) milk instead. This beverage is made by processing milk at 135C for several seconds, killing bacteria but also altering the milk's structure. It's designed to give the quickly-expiring product a long shelf life that can survive in hot climates. But adding it to your tea or coffee could lead to some nasty side-effects. ‌ "We get so many travellers saying they felt 'off' after a coffee or hotel breakfast, assuming it was the food," the travel expert said. "But in reality, they've just had a strong dose of UHT milk, which can trigger digestive issues, especially if you've got a sensitive stomach." While many Brits will be absolutely fine with drinking UHT milk, especially in such small quantities, Global Work & Travel says it could lead to symptoms such as bloating, cramps and nausea if you have IBS or gut sensitivities. Often, this is mistaken for food poisoning. ‌ Jessie therefore advises Brits to ask hotel or restaurant staff whether they have fresh milk, or only use UHT. If you're staying in self-catering accommodation, it's worth looking for labels such as 'UHT' or 'Ultra-Heat Treated' when picking up a bottle of milk from the supermarket. Even if it is stored in the fridge, you still might be accidentally picking up UHT milk instead of its fresh counterpart. If you're extremely sensitive to lactose or have a dodgy stomach, it could be worth skipping the milk altogether. The pro also warns against drinking unlabelled or room-temperature milk unless you're sure it's safe and pasteurised. "A strange-tasting brew might not be bad beans – it could just be shelf-stable milk messing with your gut," Jessie added. "Know what you're drinking – especially in hot climates where milk storage works differently to the UK."

Revealed: The worst tourist trap in the world
Revealed: The worst tourist trap in the world

Daily Mail​

time14 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Revealed: The worst tourist trap in the world

In every country, tourists eagerly gather at the most popular and talked-about spots , hoping it lives up to their expectations. Though at times, travellers may find themselves disappointed - charged premium prices and squashed shoulder-to-shoulder with others all aiming to chase the same sought-after attraction. Now, the very worst tourist trap in the world has been revealed, in research by Nomad eSIM. There's not one, but two places that tie as the top spots to avoid when travelling – and both are in the United States. Fisherman's Wharf, located in San Francisco, and Wall Drug, in South Dakota, scored the worst in Nomad's analysis. The company looked at thousands of reviews for attractions in 50 popular destinations around the world and tracked mentions of 'tourist trap'. Both Fisherman's Wharf and Wall Drug have 1,000 reviews labelling them as 'tourist traps'. Wall Drug attracts around 2 million tourists each year and started out as a small pharmacy in 1931. Now, it is known worldwide for being a quirky roadside attraction spreading across 76,000sq feet. Visitors can enjoy coffee for five cents, fresh donuts and an old-timey photo studio, as well as over 300 pieces of Western art. However, not everyone is impressed with its offerings and the attraction has received more than 1,000 reviews labelling it a 'tourist trap,' according to Nomad. One slammed it for being 'very crammed and tacky' while another swiped 'you will be ripped off by every store owner in town'. Fisherman's Wharf ties with Wall Drug as one of the worst tourist traps. The historic waterfront spot brings in around 12 million tourists a year who visit for the seafood restaurants, sea lions and souvenir shops. However, many leave disappointed and underwhelmed. According to Nomad, some visitors described the location as 'dirty, run down and overcrowded' and commented 'only worth it to see the seals.' Spain's Las Ramblas, a promenade that runs for more than a kilometre through central Barcelona, placed second in the 'tourist trap' rankings with 826 reviews. The attraction is packed with shops, eateries, and attractions and while some travellers enjoy its energetic vibe, others find the experience chaotic and overwhelming. Known for pickpocketing, the area is often packed with crowds some visitors find that it's 'one of the most overrated roads in the world', and one even went as far as to say that 'it should be on your DO NOT DO list'. Dublin's Temple Bar was listed third, despite being renowned for its lively nightlife and traditional Irish pub s. The Irish icon saw 'tourist trap' mentioned a whopping 687 times. Complaints about Temple Bar range from how dirty it is to the sky-high prices, with one reviewer describing it as 'overcrowded, overpriced and overrated'. Temple Bar was closely followed by Checkpoint Charlie, in Germany, which had 681 reviews dubbing it a 'tourist trap'. The famous Cold War-era border crossing in Germany features plenty of souvenir stalls and draws in plenty of visitors. But it doesn't always impress and according to Nomad, one traveller said: 'For somewhere with so much historical importance, it has become a cheap and nasty tourist spot'. While the Royal Mile in Edinburgh placed five in the 'tourist trap' rankings with 539 reviews. Stretching 1.81km, the cobbled road links Edinburgh Castle the Palace of Holyroodhouse. However, one visitor to the Scottish capital expressed disappointment: 'Bring back the days when locals could live and work in the area without locusts like plagues of tourists!'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store