There are some pretty strong views on here and I am not saying who is right or wrong but I just want to put this in the perspective from the security side.
The game has changed since our days of dealing with domestic terrorism of the 80's and security on a national and local level has to evolve and it does. Much talk of intelligence lead security and this was an example of it. The measures that were implemented were done so in a short time period and those responsible believe that those measures are comensurate to the threat. Please also remember that they are responsible for the security and safety for those on the ground underneath you. The intelligence, according to the home secretary, suggested that the attacks would consist of liquid explosive (used before against Phillipine Airlines smuggled on in contact lens cleaning solution containers) and in the absence of practical screening for this then it is sensible to prevent individuals taking fluids onto the aircraft and I am afraid that has to apply to crew. I accept the argument that you have control of the aircraft and can do what you like with it anyway but the intelligence was clearly 'liquid explosive'.
Other restrictions on crew items are already being reviewed to make things as practical as possible but this was an exceptional situation with exceptional consequences.
Instead of seeing who is the biggest cheese on the airfield and questioning evrybody elses proffessionalism should we not be trying to defeat the threat together? Crews in my experience, are proffessional crews and I would not dream of telling them how to operate an aircraft. I would not dream of telling a Dr how to operate yet it appears evryone is a security expert that knows how to do the job better.
Security can never be 100% if you want to have an industry. It has to compromise and operate in the most efficient way within that compromise. It does not always get it right but it always acts in the way it sees as best for all. I can tell you that the people who make these decisions (not me) are well aware of the effects on operations and will reduce the requirements when it is safe to do so. Remember that you base your opinions on the media interpretation and the TV 'experts' (ever wondered why they have enough time in their schedule to spend all day on the telly?) the decision makers have far more 'real time' information and yes, even more information than your union's.
The ANO speaks of the 'Priveleges' of the flying licences. To fly is not a right where as the entitlement to life is. This is a strong principle in the decision making process.
At Gatwick today nearly evrybody I saw accepted the situation for what it is and the fact that the publicity was given such a big airing, most arrived with no hand luggage allowing things to run smoother.
I can assure you that evrybody within the security side is working hard to overcome problems whilst maintaining adequate protection for all.
And for Chandlers dad - Arrogance is a two way street!
EDIT: For DutchJock:
Because the intelligence is suggesting a specific method of attack which does not include your axe. The alternative is we move from intelligence lead to total blanket all the time and the short term measures now would be the norm. Hope this helps you understand.
Have a good night
