Carrying liquids in your hand baggage: what you need to know

Airport travellers can forget about a let-up from one of the biggest irritations of flying, the ban on liquids, aerosols and gels larger than 100ml in carry-on luggage, after plans to relax the ban in April 2013 have been postponed yet again, this time indefinitely.

Lobby groups began pushing for the ban to be lifted almost as soon as it was introduced in 2006, following a failed plot to detonate liquid explosives on board several aircraft flying from the UK to North America.

But now any change in policy seems very unlikely after the European commission decided earlier this month to keep the ban firmly in place, at least for the foreseeable future.

According to the European commission's spokesperson for transport, Helen Kearns, the danger posed by liquid explosives to civil aviation is still significant.

Although a lot of progress has been made in developing technology that can adequately detect liquid explosives, the sheer size of the project - which involves it being rolled out across thousands of airports - presents considerable risk.

Airport operators in the UK, who lobbied for the liquids ban not to be lifted next year, welcomed the European commission's decision saying they would like to see the ban only relaxed once the technology has matured and a seamless transition of the security processes can be assured.

Some officials, however, aren't convinced that is all there is to it. "This is not a question of security but a matter of airports calling on the government not to implement the changes in a money-saving attempt, despite British airports being given ample time to purchase and install the technology," says Brian Simpson MEP, Chair of the European parliament's transport committee, in an official statement. "I am very disappointed that the UK government has decided not to comply with the planned partial lifting of the airport liquids ban," he says.

One airport industry insider agrees the financial investment is one of the biggest deciding factors in keeping the ban in place. "Of course there is the cost of the screening technology itself," he explains, "but it goes far beyond that."

According to him most airports will have to change their building infrastructure physically to accommodate the new technology, which is quite a bit wider than the current screening machines, and staff will have to be retrained. "Somebody will have to pay for all that, and airports may very well pass the cost of the investment on to airlines, who in turn may pass it on to passengers," he adds.

Whatever the reason for keeping the ban in place, it continues to be passengers who are impacted most. "I am no stranger to the whole airport security process and what I can and can't put in my hand luggage," says Klaus, an executive based in Frankfurt, Germany, who flies regularly.

"But although I have flown hundreds of times even I have been caught out by the ban on more than one occasion. There is nothing nice about having to give up a brand-new bottle of expensive aftershave, just because in the rush to get to the airport it momentarily slipped your mind that it was larger than 100ml!"

Why did the ban first start?
The ban on liquids, aerosols and gels (also known as LAGs for short) was first introduced in 2006 after terrorists tried to exploit the vulnerability of current X-ray screening machines, which are unable to distinguish between liquid explosives and regular liquids.

New screening technology will use a more advanced system of 3D X-rays to scan luggage from more than one angle, which enables security machines to detect different densities of liquids - liquid explosives are denser than liquids like water or juice.

So what do you think? Do you think there is much point in a ban on liquids being taken through the security gates at airports? Take our poll.