Did the UK "over react" regarding the threat of very loud bangs inside aircraft? Was it a case of either
1) Need to protect my pension so better make a safe decision?
2) As each committee reviewed the advice, they doubled the safety margin?
My suspicions are aroused about the likelihood of loud noise threat from recent flying experiences. Passed a couple of times out of Tel Aviv last month and they didn't seem bothered by liquids in the way that the UK are But the dates did invite an explanation....
Flew recently on domestic flights within Columbia and they weren't either.
However, you couldn't fault the x-raying of baggage and the scanning of the passengers in both countries. Very polite (yes, even Tel) but thorough. So do they know exactly what were they looking for and had they made a practical decision on what constitutes a risk?
Am a frequent passenger through LGW and can't claim they seem polite in the same way. Seems in the UK, the effort is directed at enforcing the letter of the law (and perhaps a bit of lording it over the very people who are "paying their wages"). Sad really.