Canada to US. NO carry on bags allowed

[beamender99]

New security measures, which were added in response to an alleged terrorist attempt on Christmas Day, remain in effect.

In addition to regular luggage inspections, passengers can expect a mandatory pat-down and an additional hand search of their personal property at the boarding gate.

All U.S.-bound guests are also advised that they cannot bring any carry-on baggage, with the following exceptions:

Small purses, diaper bags
Cameras
Coats
Laptop computers
Crutches, canes and walkers
Containers with life-sustaining items
Medication or medical devices
Musical instrumentsWheeled bags are prohibited and existing restrictions for liquids, aerosols and gels are still in effect.

A release from Transport Canada suggests the zero carry-on policy will last for "several days."

Will these restrictions be extended to other routes?

[Say again s l o w l y]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

That's my holiday to the US cancelled then. We were going to stop off on the way back from Canada later on in the year. I don't think I'll bother now.

Do I spy knees a jerkin'?

[Neptunus Rex]

Which security outfit is going to insist on searching underneath the voluminous garb of certain groups of passengers? Or is that not PC?

I think we should be told!

(That's enough PC nonsense: Ed.)

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/adminwatch.gif

[edmundronald]

I have no problem with traveling in a paper bathrobe, with all my stuff checked, and my clothes checked, and my glasses held in escrow by that cabin attendant with the fuzzy face. PROVIDED the airline doesn't tell me on arrival that my Armani and Nikon and Rolex have got thiefrowed.

I don't think checking pro cameras or laptops is really an option anymore, with a 1% "loss" rate on luggage per flight, anyone taking 10 trips a year (20 flights) is basically uninsurable.

The issues with carry-ons are a direct result of the refusal of the airlines to deal with the unreliability of the checked luggage pipeline.

Edmund

[Anansis]

How exactly does a ban on carry on bags stop a bomber who hides explosives on his body? Am I missing something?

Do you have a source for this story?

[WET]

This is on the web site of the CBC, FWIW CBC News - Canada - Carry-on baggage subject to strict new rules (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/28/airports-security.html)

[sTeamTraen]

Neptunus Rex: The guy's underwear has been on TV this evening. Basically, it looks like he stuffed the explosive right down the front. 80 grams isn't even the difference between a large and small "package". Short of having every passenger's crotch sniffed by dogs, or stripping everybody naked, this is not going to be detected by any airport security that people are willing to undergo.

[Dushan]

Do you have a source for this story?

aircanada.com - Baggage Travel Advisory (http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/trav_adv/091226_3.html)


Travel Advisory: Air Canada and Jazz provide the following update for flights from Canada to the United States

MONTREAL December 28, 2009 -- Air Canada and Jazz remind customers that due to new security measures imposed by Canadian and U.S. government authorities on flights from Canada to the U.S., there are strict limits in effect for carry-on articles allowed in the cabin.

Air Canada advises passengers that the new regulations permit only a single carry-on item and recommends customers consult Transport Canada guidelines at Update to Security Measures - Backgrounders - Backgrounders, Reports and Info Sheets - Media Room - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-menu-5781.htm) for details on permissible carry-on items such as a small purse, laptop computer or infant care items.

To accommodate customers travelling to the U.S., Air Canada is waiving excess baggage charges for checked baggage on a temporary basis for U.S.-bound customers travelling from Canada. Customers will be permitted to check up to three items of baggage at no additional charge until further notice.

Customers can continue to expect delays on U.S.-bound flights. Northbound flights from the U.S. to Canada are also being impacted due to late inbound aircraft. Customers can also expect potential delays on domestic and international flights due to airport congestion and delayed aircraft.

Air Canada recommends passengers travelling to the U.S. from Canada check the status of their flight before going to the airport and arrive early for their flight in order to allow adequate time for additional personal searches. Under new rules enacted by Transport Canada and the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, passengers and their carry-on allowance will be strictly limited and subject to full searches at airport screening points.

"We appreciate the cooperation and understanding of our customers during this challenging time and ask them to assist us in getting them to their destination faster by bringing as little carry-on as possible," said Duncan Dee, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. "Air Canada is doing everything it can to maintain its schedule, despite the delays caused by security screening issues outside its control. However, our number one priority remains the safety and security of our customers and staff."

Due to heavy volumes customers may find response times are longer than normal at call centres. Customers should check the status of their flight at Air Canada: Flights, Airline Tickets / Vols, Billets d'avion (http://www.aircanada.com).

[beamender99]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansis http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/400316-canada-us-no-carry-bags-allowed.html#post5409557)
Do you have a source for this story?


CTV British Columbia- RCMP aiding in airport security, carry-on ban continues - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television (http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091229/bc_airport_rcmp_091229/20091229/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome)

[BillS]

Not implemented for the TSA:

The purpose of this is to alleviate the immediate pressures at the security checkpoint resulting directly from the temporary emergency measures...

Source (http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-menu-5781.htm)

[remoak]

That's my holiday to the US cancelled then. We were going to stop off on the way back from Canada later on in the year. I don't think I'll bother now.

Do I spy knees a jerkin'?

You'd cancel a holiday because you have to put your hand bags in the hold for one sector?

That's a "knee a jerkin'" if ever I saw one!!! :ugh:

[Say again s l o w l y]

Nope, just cancel a stop off on the way home. I cannot be bothered with stupid and unnecessary security hassles. You get enough of them when you are at work.

Getting into the US is an utter pain in the proverbial anyway, this just makes it worse.

[Roger Dixon]

Here is some insight into the truth.......

Detroit jet terrorist attack was staged - journalist - RT (http://rt.com/Politics/2009-12-29/detroit-terror-act-fake.html#)

[Say again s l o w l y]

http://www.jessicadunton.com/blog/TinfoilHat.jpg

[p51guy]

One extra aggravation is all it takes to just not bother. We boated to the Bahamas every year and went through all the crap to clear when arriving there. 15 years ago US customs refused to mail us a customs sticker to reenter the US because they didn't want to pay 37 cents for the postage even though the silly sticker would cost me 50.00. Would have to spend most of a day driving there, waiting in line and returning if we went so haven't been back since. They saved 37 cents and we saved thousands. I hope a lot of passengers cancel air travel until this nonsense stops. If they want to step up gate security, fine, but can you imagine what is going to happen when the captain says in 20 minutes everyone needs to be seated until we reach the gate? Even if you don't have to go you will be in a very long line for the lav. When the one hr call happens are the FA's going to make the ten people at the back of the line return to their seats? A lot of soiled seats is my prediction.

[Vino Collapso]

Sorry but the only answer to this, as un-politically correct as it, is profiling.

It will have to happen.

[beamender99]

When the one hr call happens are the FA's going to make the ten people at the back of the line return to their seats? A lot of soiled seats is my prediction.

You will be relieved to know, as reported in Passengers and SLF

US overturns last-hour air seat restriction | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/us-overturns-last-hour-air-seat-restriction/story-e6frg6nf-1225814546240)

[nicolai]

The American Airlines announcement (http://www.aa.com/viewPromotionDetails.do?fN=001_travelNotices.xml&_locale=en_US) about this is slightly different:

Important Information Regarding Carry-On Baggage From Canada To The U.S.

The Canadian government is limiting carry-on baggage to one per passenger for all departures from Canada to the U.S. Examples include but are not limited to: one purse or one laptop bag or one briefcase or one backpack. The Canadian government is not allowing any roller board bags, therefore laptops must be placed in the "personal item" not in a roller board bag. There is no baggage charge for bags that were originally intended for carry-on while this policy is in place.

Note: All international passengers traveling to the U.S. should check in 3 hours prior to departure.
This makes it sound like a briefcase, backpack, laptop-and-accessories bag, etc, is OK. One has to bear in mind that some people, many of them in the USA, travel with very much larger bags that they still hope to carry on, easily up to 45L size roller bag. Europeans just don't travel with such large bags on a widespread basis, not least because they will run into some airport or airline staff who just won't accept them often enough to discourage the idea.

[Rush2112]

Don't they need to address the question of how someone apparently on watch-lists was able to fly to the US in the first place? Or am I being naive?

[EGMA]

Don't they need to address the question of how someone apparently on watch-lists was able to fly to the US in the first place? Or am I being naive?Obama is talking of 'systemic failures' ... aka the bleedin' obvious!

Obama: 'Systemic Failure' In Airliner Attack - Video - KMGH Denver (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/video/22083860/index.html)

.. if the brakes fail on my truck I get them fixed. I don't bolt a land anchor to the back as well, that would be OTT!

God save us from politicians ...

[Carrier]

Quote: "I have no problem with traveling in a paper bathrobe, with all my stuff checked, and my clothes checked, and my glasses held in escrow by that cabin attendant with the fuzzy face. PROVIDED the airline doesn't tell me on arrival that my Armani and Nikon and Rolex have got thiefrowed.
I don't think checking pro cameras or laptops is really an option anymore, with a 1% "loss" rate on luggage per flight, anyone taking 10 trips a year (20 flights) is basically uninsurable.
The issues with carry-ons are a direct result of the refusal of the airlines to deal with the unreliability of the checked luggage pipeline.
Edmund"

Checked bags should be tracked by bar code and signed for by responsible persons from check in at the departure airport through all transfers and stages to final collection by the rightful owner at the destination airport. The owner/pax would have to provide ID to ensure that the bags are not taken by someone else. There might be objections to this from those who profit from or are part of a baggage theft ring!

[Loose rivets]

You'd cancel a holiday because you have to put your hand bags in the hold for one sector?

Emphatically, YES! I trusted AA to carry stuff in the hold. I then found myself watching my entire baggage take off without me because I couldn't cross DFW in 8 mins. An assured connection.

They, the staff on duty, then told me it was impossible for my bags to fly without me. L:mad:ars.

Remember, I've landed from the trans-Atlantic, and had possession of my hold baggage for more than a few minutes.

There were my bags, 20 hours into the journey, sitting at destination - where they'd been for several hours. Unattended, and in public place. They had in them the total collection of old photos, that I couldn't get in the cabin. I'd just given in on the difficulties, and trusted someone - just that one time.

[evyjet]

This career is just getting to be a pain the the rear. We as crew deal with this on a constant basis.

I wish someone with a commonsense practical approach would get hold of the helm in the decision making process in security :ugh:

Short of everyone being checked naked, there will always be an element of risk. Just as there is a risk driving to work. It cannot be eliminated completely.

Time to work on my Resume, with a bit of BS so I can do a different job! :}

Evy

[taupo2tahoe]

Time to work on my Resume, with a bit of BS so I can do a different job! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Yeah, such as work for airport security, or would that require more than just a BIT of BS!
As a deterent to these terrorists maybe the "West" should look to the Chinese for answers. The recent public outcry from Western liberal politicians and celebrities about the drug smuggler who was executed in China has suddenly died down. Case closed!
Compare that to the treatment the "alleged" hijacker recieved on landing in Detroit. He was rushed off to a public hospital where he was treated for his injuries and given medical care that millions of Americans are denied because of their health system. Now he is being "looked after" by the govt and the US taxpayer will pay a lot of money to lawyers and a legal process that will drag on for years in order to make sure he is given a fair trial. He and all the other would-be terrorists are just like that drug smuggler in China. They intend to kill and ruin the lives of many innocent people and should be dealt with accordingly.
In the meantime a message to airport security people worldwide.
Profiling WORKS!!

[bigjames]

can anyone please explain rationally and seriously why banning Airshow (moving map) enhances security. I honestly wish to understand.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Then the crew will not know they are landing in Frankfurt, and the passengers are landing in London.

whatever.

glf

[oleary]

Just so everyone gets it right, these dumba$$ rules were insisted upon by the good folks in Bubbaland's NHS; and we, spineless as ever in matters a la Bubba, acquiesced immediately.:D

[Airbubba]

we, spineless as ever in matters a la Bubba, acquiesced immediately.

Yep, we're finally closing that gaping security hole in the Great White North.:ok:

Looks like we need to restrict travel from London as well:

NYT: Nigerian ?influenced? by time in London? - The New York Times- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34628317/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/)

[Roger Dixon]

It was a CIA/Mossad/NWO set-up. Get it? The global terror index was dropping too low. Time to inject more fear. Listen to Alex Jones at Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com), and hear the real-live witnesses not mentioned in the MSM. (Main-stream-media.)

[Load Toad]

'They' can't enforce the rules and regulations they currently have - so the answer; have more rules and regulations.

Useless.

[Roger Dixon]

What crap you utter. Profiling works?? Tell that to the authorities at Schifol.

[oleary]

Yep, we're finally closing that gaping security hole in the Great White North.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Praise Jesus, we're gonna start another war!

[Roger Dixon]

Evyjet, - I certainly sympathize with you (I assume you are cabin crew.) What chance do you stand in enforcing these ludicrous "regulations?" NON. All that is going to happen is that passengers are going to get so pissed off, - and you are going to have to take the brunt of it. Totally absurd. I wish you and your colleagues well in this increasingly insane world of air-travel.

[oleary]

One more thing.

Your head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, still thinks the 9/11 bombers came from Canada.

She really needs to stop listening to Glen Beck, and Russ Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter, and, ...

... ah hell, forget it, it's hopeless.:ugh:

[Yobbo]

It is time to profile Muslim passengers (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18395)

I suspect a lot of the people here may agree with this.

[korrol]

Total flight denial is the answer. If they wanna fly they better build their own airliners. Oh - wait a minute, they aren't able to do that are they?

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ yobbo- nice link, and I sadly have to agree with the basic principles involved.

I have sympathy for the millions of perfectly decent Muslims of many nationalities who may be affected, but we need to remember that it's not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are running a terror campaign.

[taupo2tahoe]

"Crap" Mr Dixon?? Then you obviously agree with the decade old,time wasting practise of targeting wheel-chair bound Anglo-Saxon grandmothers and their 2 year old great grandchildren but not 20-35 year old males of Middle Eastern origin. Perhaps the staff at Stifhol CAN be convinced.

[ab33t]

This seems like the season to stay home .

[EastMids]

You'd cancel a holiday because you have to put your hand bags in the hold for one sector? That's a "knee a jerkin'" if ever I saw one!!!

Yeah well, I guess if you don't travel regularly with [for example] well upwards of 10k worth of camera gear, its less of an issue. But if the trip is related to using that camera gear, it becomes a huge issue. Honestly, this nonsense is going to cost airlines - I'll be cancelling planned travel, no question about it, if this carries on. Until airlines are prepared to guarantee that valuables in checked bags won't get stolen, that they won't get damaged, and they won't go missing (or at least be prepared to pay immediate realistic compensation if those things do happen), some folks are not going to travel. No knee jerk, just a realistic evaluation that travelling isn't worth the risk to expensive equipment.

Andy

[Gentleman Jim]

Roger D

What crap you utter. Profiling works?? Tell that to the authorities at Schifol.

What a very rude chap you are. Profiling is a proven method for assisting in the detection of public transport terrorists. Do you mean Schiphol Airport by any chance? The only robust method of security for airports is profiling, combined with gate security staff trained in body language. I imagine that little gem is worth six squillion dollars in consultancy fees.

Gentleman Jim

[Dairyground]

In all the reports I have seen, the new checks and restrictions apply only to international flights into the US. Why? For example, BA are permitting only one item of hand baggage on fligts to the US, but more than one on flights from the US. Posts earlier in this thread suggest that checking is more stringent and time-consuming in Canada than in the US.

The 9/11 flights were all US domestics, the perpetrators legitimately in the US. :confused:

[Gentleman Jim]

The 9/11 flights were all US domestics, the perpetrators legitimately in the US.

Now repeat that little gem over and over again on every site associated with this subject. So the question is 'what is going on'?

Gentleman jim

[A2QFI]

Just buy a multi-pocket cargo vest. It is an item of clothing, removed and scanned at security, and can contain everything one needs and could not be checked in.

[radeng]

I can't help feeling some sympathy for Obama. He relied on the security people doing their job, and they failed, pretty miserably, both in the US and the Netherlands - one way ticket, no luggage and on a watch list, and they missed him.

So if done right, there ought to be a number of vacancies coming up in the security business and an increase in the US jobless total! At the very least, some hard ass kicking and demotions.

Some years back, Colin Powell told the Senate that the hassles caused by increased security since 9/11 had led to a drop in visitors and students to the US, such that there had been a loss to the US economy of $35 billion. That must be much higher by now.

If you did a cost/benefit analysis, you would probably come to the conclusion that removing all security from all airports would overall save so much money that the occasional terrorist action would be cheaper overall. Not that I'm advocating it.

As people have been saying on Pprune for years, profiling is what is needed. If the country was run by Ppruners, maybe we would have more sense shown all round......

[DIA74]

Obviously the Americans want to feel safe from bombers, but ever increasing restrictions on ordinary travelers are handing a VICTORY to the terrorists, and discouraging people from traveling, which will impact the US economy.

I have not had the joy of the welcome at JFK for a few years, but the restrictions are not restricted to air travelers.

I was recently on a ship into HNL ex Auckland, and had completed the wonderful new pre entry e-Visa thing before leaving UK. (This is a farce when one hears the suspected bomber was a subject of concern but not stopped from traveling.

On docking in Honolulu, the entire SHIP, including passengers and crew who did not wish to go ashore, had to queue up to be interviewed in person. With thousands of people on board and only five staff assigned, you may imagine how long that took! My day in Hawaii turned out to be five short hours, a lot of it stuck in traffic. Bearing in mind most of the pax were elderly, and many wheelchair bound, it seemed ridiculously over the top to treat everyone as potential agents of Osama the Awful.

Not the kind of thing that will encourage these thousands of passengers to visit the USA again soon. Actually, I could well be on one of their "lists" now because I mentioned that to the immigration officer.

[DIA74]

Sorry - a P.S. to my posting a minute ago!

My ship mates - thousands of elderly and infirm folk - were highly unlikely to be terrorists. Think of the overwhelming mass of visa processing and time spent interviewing these people? What an expensive waste of resources it was.

With all respects to the vast majority of muslims, who I know are decent law abiding people, bombers have tended (so far) to be youngish and muslim. I would think that makes profiling a very sensible idea. Target extra resources on the small group of travelers who fit the likely profile. It is nonsense to call it discrimination or racist, because it is driven by crime intelligence, not by xenophobia. They have been using profiling for years in Customs, and it seems to have a good record of catching villains.

[racedo]

If you did a cost/benefit analysis, you would probably come to the conclusion that removing all security from all airports would overall save so much money that the occasional terrorist action would be cheaper overall. Not that I'm advocating it.


Noting your comments on Collin Powell if they made all jets unbombable, for $35 billion it would be easy. Ditch all carry ons into hold luggage with everything sealed in individual lockers before loading on aircraft unopenable until done so by passenger at other end, aside from verified medical requirements then loading would be quicker and unloading even quicker as wouldn't need the overhead bins. Free books, internet, newspapers on board and hey presto it becomes much easier.

I reckon within 5 years it is probable on TA flights that no carryons will be allowed aside from tiny allowance used up by a book.