Hacker News Reader

Comment by camillomiller | Hacker News Reader

In Berlin at BER I had someone from security straight up tell me that water being sold at a premium after security, with a profit for the airport shops that pay hefty rents, is the only reason for keeping up the 100ml liquids rule. That was a heated discussion point for a while, since the airport had to stop people from drinking tap water inside because of an e.coli infestation in the water system of the airport.

We're talking about the worst joke of an airport in the world, after all.

View on HN

I really don't get the BER hate. It's not only a huge improvement over SXF and TXL (minus T1 at TXL, RIP turning up 10 minutes before boarding), but it's a perfectly good airport in its own right.

The building of it and the budget overrun was a disaster, and demonstrated the worst of infrastructure building in this country, but will happily die on the hill that the result is good, actually. (If we want to get into contenders for "worst in the world", my opening bid is ATL.)

Fair, not the worst in the world, that was hyperbole. Yet, it’s absolutely not an airport that’s fit for the capital of one of the most powerful countries in the world. It’s still too small and can’t handle capacity properly, meaning that a lot of routes that existed before have never been reinstated. A lot has to do with Lufthansa refusing to invest in any direct route from there, which is clearly some political issue, not a design issue but still. Take this little detail: it’s the only major EU capital airport where no lounge has any deal whatsoever with Priority Pass. Sounds like a first world problem, I know, but it clearly indicates how they can’t manage even the most basic deals with aviation partners, more than two year after opening…

Brussels has no priority pass lounge, nor one of the large Heathrow terminals.

Terrible or not in the past it's absolutely fine now IMO. Certainly for short hops.

American airports are in their own class. I think ORD is the worst but ATL isn't good.

"In Berlin at BER I had someone from security straight up tell me that water being sold at a premium after security, with a profit for the airport shops that pay hefty rents, is the only reason for keeping up the 100ml liquids rule."

This logic kind of falls apart when you think about it for a minute and:

1. Most airports have water fountains

2. Food and snacks are allowed through security. If it's all a conspiracy to make a few $$$, why aren't snacks banned under similar pretences

3. Many airports are now scrapping the rules with new machines

4. It would imply some sort of agreement between the stores and the security operations at thousands of airport worldwide - all individual agreements or a mass agreement, quite the scheme!

> 1. Most airports have water fountains

Not in Germany

Munich airport T2 has water fountains for at least the last 2 years

Yeah, I mean, the thing is borderline conspiracy theory. Yet, like with many conspiracy theories, I believe there's a fundament of truth in the backward process. Meaning that the liquids policy doesn't derive from an actual conspiracy, but that interest groups within the airport would now still be kinda lobbing to have this element as a point of discussion as a weight on a future investment decision (in new machines).

Full knowledge of the threat from liquids probably requires a high level of security clearance. I wouldn't expect security at the airport to be aware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com