Uk Airport Chaos (hand wringing thread) [Archive] - Page 2

scameron77

11th Aug 2006, 01:04

Flying Lawyer,

Please don't patronise it does your education and legal training no credit. If you wish to get into a mud slinging contest lets do it via PM.

I do think parents and family members in many cases have an idea of the extremism of their children, zealots are hard to keep quiet, its not like underage drinking or drug taking, quite often these people proclaim their piety and the downfall of the society they live in for anyone who can hear it. Its not hard to recognise and to bring to the attention of others.

If there was some form of reaction as a result of their actions to the people closest I am sure some of them (however not all for the reasons you outlined), but some would think twice knowing that. Draconian yes but you fight fire with fire. I haven't seen any decent alternatives. At the moment the government seem to propogate is community chats and coffee mornings about how we need to understand each other better.

I agree with your assessment of UK foreign policy too, we are no longer a world player, despite Trident and our permament seat at the UN, we lost our oomph after WWII, then again when we followed George to Gulf II. We now have no credability because of one man and our alignment with him.

Things might be different if instead of diluting forces when Osama was cornered in 2002/03 to the Gulf we got him, however things would definetly be different if we finished the job in 1991 when we had a world force and popular support for the Kurds and Shia's in Iraq.

Hindsight is a great thing.

I get confused now if our Army is fighting in the UN colours (Sierra Leone), European Union Force (proposed for Lebanon), NATO (Afganistan) or some other organisation (Iraq).

deathcruzer

11th Aug 2006, 01:10

[QUOTE=Phileas Fogg]I think the airline crew should understand that the fare paying passengers pay their wages, if passengers are to be denied any level of what the passengers consider to be adequate then they're likely to source another method of transport, how about acknowledging some basic requirements of what your wage payers require.

It’s got Sod all to do with the crews Phileas Fogg

We just do as we are told by the security people….ever tried to argue with one of them?:hmm:

deathcruzer

11th Aug 2006, 01:23

[QUOTE=scameron77] there are a signifcant number of idealistic youths who want to get their 40 virgins in Heaven.

Oh they have run out apparently...no wonder they are bloody hard enough to find down here...:uhoh:

[QUOTE=scameron77]However somewhere like the Falklands or some Island off the West coast of Scotland could be provided :)

The north pole perhaps?:E

anartificialhorizon

11th Aug 2006, 03:42

Well the no hand luggage is a fabulous idea - once people get the message security will speed up significantly and not only that loading of planes will be much quicker too - no more waiting while people try to squeeze blatantly oversized bags into the overhead lockers.
LDMAX - the reason for not allowing coke or water is that you would then be delayed even more while every single person with any sort of bottle had to open it and drink some. And if your laptop is so precious perhaps you should leave it at home... i've travelled every week with mine shoved in the middle of my suitcase no problem.
Frankly its quite unbelievable that people are complaining about these measures - the threat may not yet have been fully averted hence why you should be happy these measures are in place.

Discokid ,

You really need to look at the big picture.....

Draconian measures like this will mean shorter queues at security, smaller lines at check in and quicker boarding but not because of the lack of hand baggage BUT because people will vote with their feet by not travelling by air and seeking alternatives ie conference calls, video conferencing, holidays by car in UK / Europe...........before long the post 911 days will be back and YOU ( and me ) will be out of a job matey !!

The reason your lap top was in your case is because you probably don't need it for your work and therefore it's ok for it to be in your case....I would guess that 90% of business travellers would require or want access to their laptop and /or phone either in the lounge prior or on the flight itself............

Drinks are different , we COULD stop them being transported airside and then allow pax to purchase them airside just as we allow them to buy just about anything else airside EXCEPT the prohibited items which might well now include beverages.....

Following an incident in China where a guy set fire to the aircraft using a flammable liquid NO bottled drinks allowed on board pax carry on unless can be proven not to be flammable.......

Moral of the story , never lose sight of who is paying your wages at the end of the day :ok:

ExSimGuy

11th Aug 2006, 05:42

"Knee-Jerk Reaction" - We are hearing that there are 5 more "suspects" that police are seeking. These 5 could have been in posession of (or easily able to take possession of) the intended explosive materials. Our "masters" were IMHO justified in taking immediate and blanket steps to avoid a possible disaster. (better than to have first formed a committee to look at what precautions should be taken!)

Now it's time (and now there is time) for a more careful look at the options, and we will hopefully see a more moderate, yet more effective solution appearing.

Liquids brought on-board - There's not many people who need to bring liquids from their home for a flight (baby-food and medicine excepted) so sales of (reasonably well-secured) water, Pepsi, etc in the departure area after security will probably be considered acceptable.

Perhaps thought will now be given to (as posted by myself and many others over the years) the universality of "arrivals duty-free". This will avoid the opportunity for "Mohammed" (apologies to Mohammeds who are members here,but you get the point) suddenly standing up in-flight having doused several seats with inflammable liquid and armed with a couple of "Glasgow knives"!

Lap-tops, Mobiles, PDAs - I don't think most pax really need their lappy from the time they check in to the time they leave their arrival airport; Mine stays inthe bag and the only reason that I don't want to "check" it is security and damage concerns. I would happily pack the lap-top bag in my suitcase (with layers of clothing around,above and below, as I do with my "portable" printer when on a long trip!) if I could be certain that, wherever I was in the world,it would still be there when I arrived.

The lap-top bag also serves as my brief-case - containing other items that I will need during the flight; a good book, maybe an MP3 player and spare batteries, toothbrush, on a long-haul red-eye.

As for the phone - slightly different. When I am just about to board, I redirect the phone to my office; often somebody is trying to reach me during the 2-hour check-in period. On arrival, it is very convenient to be able to call whoever is meeting you to letthemknow that you are off the aircraft and will be landside in half, one or two hours (depending on your arrival airport!)

Although I virtually never use my "mobile office" when flying, the nature of my job means that I have to carry a lot of stuff even when I go on holiday, in case (as always happens) I need to do my work during my "holiday". I need my "office" there when I leave the airport, in one ppiece!

Good luck to those whose job it is to sort out how to inconvenience travellers as little as possible, while protecting them (and those under the flight path!) to the maximum.

bjcc

11th Aug 2006, 06:39

The reactions of the UK Goverment, or more correctly the DfT can be seen as over the top, if looked at in isolation and only in connection with whats been reported.

Of course the Security Service, Police and therefore the Goverment, obviously have a great deal more information than has been reported in the papers. Given that, they are in a better position to assess the required security mesures than we are on here.

For instance, is this a shutting the door after a non event? Possibly it is. Then again, is it because there is inteligence that are other cells working on the same project as those arrested yesterday?

Even if there isn't inteligence, could it be that this is intended as a deterent, in case there are others intending to try?

Dealing with FL's point, inplying that it could be the UK's policies abroad and relationship with the US that makes us a traget. There may be some justification in that question being asked, if one only looks at it superficially. I would sugest that it may be a factor, but not the whole story.

The spread of Islamic fundamentalism is more likley to be the cause. The UK has a large number of Muslims, a number of who feel disillutioned with their lot. Some of those are ideal candidates for recruitment to the cause of those who would like to see Islamic fundamentalism spead throughout the world.

A further factor is, we may no longer have the influance we used to over the world, but when something happens in the UK, it is still world news, publicity, of course being the life blood of terrorism.

Bali, Madrid. 2 places where there was no simliar relationship with the US, yet were tragets of terror attacks. Why? Similar reasons, there is a diseffected Muslim population able to be recruited.

fyrefli

11th Aug 2006, 06:51

And if your laptop is so precious perhaps you should leave it at home... i've travelled every week with mine shoved in the middle of my suitcase no problem.

And what of those of us whose machines contain such data that we become criminally negligent and civilly liable the moment we let them out of our sight? If I can't keep my laptop well in my sight, I can't travel with it. If I can't travel with it, I can't work. Looks like I'm on the Eurostar.

I'm far from the only one in this position and, as one who travels a couple of times a month, one who is far from the most affected. Multiply it all up and that's a lot of money gone from an industry that has only just recovered from 9/11 and a lot of your jobs gone west.

This one is going to be revised very quickly, I believe.

Cheers,

Rich.

SXB

11th Aug 2006, 06:58

Bjcc
Bali, Madrid. 2 places where there was no simliar relationship with the US, yet were tragets of terror attacks. Why? Similar reasons, there is a diseffected Muslim population able to be recruited.

Those comments are not correct, the Spanish Government, at that time, was a strong supporter of US action in Iraq. In fact it could be said that what happened in Madrid also had a direct result on the general elction in Spain shortly after.

What happened in Bali was, primaryly, aimed at Australian citizens. Australia also being a strong supporter of action in Iraq and elsewhere.

Final 3 Greens

11th Aug 2006, 06:59

As a very frequent traveller on business "80/100 sectors per year", I would like to say that anartificialhorizon makes a very good point in saying The reason your lap top was in your case is because you probably don't need it for your work and therefore it's ok for it to be in your case....I would guess that 90% of business travellers would require or want access to their laptop and /or phone either in the lounge prior or on the flight itself............

This year, I reckon I will spend about 7-9 days (as in the whole 24 hours) airborne and another 7-9 days waiting in lounges. I work for at least 50% of that time and that is big bucks when translated into billing days.

Therefore anartificialhorizon expresses a concern that would focus my attention, were I in a career that depended on business travellers, as they are very conscious of the opportunity cost of everything that they do.

BTW Loose Rivets, although I think your post is excellent in most respects, the people I mix with are not confused about the screening of air crew.

There is a strong feeling that you guys should undergo the same screening as us, since we don't know who you are and neither do the security guys.

No one likes these procedures, but there should be one rule for all (including officials and police too)

bjcc

11th Aug 2006, 07:13

SXB

I'd agree, the Spanish Goverment was a Supproter (I wouldn't use the word strong) of the US.

However, even after the election, the attempts at attacks continued, even through the new Spannish Goverment was not as supportive of the US.

Bali. Yes, Australians were killed/injured. But were they the target? or was it just that hit the tourist areas, and you will cause death/injury to Austrailians, they being the majority of tourists there?

The fact remains that there is the ability to recruit in both Bali and Spain. Other Countries have a similar level of support for the US as Australia and Spain, but have not been attacked. Why? Is it because the world doesn't care that much? If no Aussies were killed in Barli, do you think it would have rated more than 2 lines in your morning paper for example?

Biggles' Apprentice

11th Aug 2006, 07:38

Air travel is a luxory and we shouldn't moan about having security checks.

Luxury? Horse****. No, it's a commercial transaction between two parties, one who provides a service and one who can pay for it. Luxury my arse. What an arcahic victorian view.

And we have every right to moan about security checks as if the braindead puppet that presides over the aptly named US (abley aided and abetted by the penis that runs Whitehall) had not spent his entire term of office stirring up every factious state in the Middle East then we'd not be in this postion.

So, luxury no. You need to get your head out of your arse and realise that it is a two way commercial transaction, and whilst SLF might piss you off at times they have every right to, if the service is not acceptable, which at the moment, for WHATEVER reason, it is not.

El Grifo

11th Aug 2006, 07:42

The bombing by muslims of the Atocha rail station in Madrid was also said to be connected with the islamic claims on Andalucia.

Remember this is the islamic tide we are dealing with here, as was Kosovo and as is Chechnya.

:mad:

Few Cloudy

11th Aug 2006, 07:43

tony draper

11th Aug 2006, 07:55

In my opinion Islam has been given way to much air time in the UK since 9/11,and it continues,breakfast news progs full of Islamic talking heads mouthing the usual bollix we should change our foreign policy,we want Sharia law ect ect,since whe does just over 1% percent of the population just under 2 million relativly new arrivals dictate to the other 59 million.
There are many in the UK that do not agree with domestic and foreign policy,they are free to change it at elections.
As someone has already stated if they do not like the way we have arrived at doing things here after a history that stretches back before their prophet ever walked the earth they can buggah off to somewhere more to their liking.
:suspect:

ORAC

11th Aug 2006, 08:16

FINANCIAL SANCTIONS: TERRORIST FINANCING
This news release is issued in respect of the financial measures taken against terrorism. The Bank of England, as agent for Her Majesty’s Treasury, has today directed that any funds held for or on behalf of the individuals named in the Annex to this News Release must be frozen, and that no funds should be made available, directly or indirectly to any person, except under the authority of a licence...............

Individuals

1. ALI, Abdula, Ahmed, DOB: 10/10/1980
Address: Walthamstow, London, United Kingdom

2. ALI, Cossor, DOB: 04/12/1982
Address: London, United Kingdom, E17

3. ALI, Shazad, Khuram, DOB: 11/06/1979
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom

4. HUSSAIN, Nabeel, DOB: 10/03/1984
Address: London, United Kingdom, E4

5. HUSSAIN, Tanvir, DOB: 21/02/1981
Address: Leyton, London, United Kingdom, E10

6. HUSSAIN, Umair, DOB: 09/10/1981
Address: London, United Kingdom, E14

7. ISLAM, Umar, DOB: 23/04/1978
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom

8. KAYANI, Waseem, DOB: 28/04/1977
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom

9. KHAN, Assan, Abdullah, DOB: 24/10/1984
Address: London, United Kingdom, E17

10. KHAN, Waheed, Arafat, DOB: 18/05/1981
Address: London, United Kingdom, E17

11. KHATIB, Osman, Adam, DOB: 07/12/1986
Address: London, United Kingdom, E17

12. PATEL, Abdul, Muneem, DOB: 17/04/1989
Address: London, United Kingdom, E5

13. RAUF, Tayib, DOB: 26/04/1984
Address: Birmingham, United Kingdom

14. SADDIQUE, Muhammed, Usman, DOB: 23/04/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, United Kingdom, E17

15. SARWAR, Assad, DOB: 24/05/1980
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom

16. SAVANT, Ibrahim, DOB: 19/12/1980
Address: London, United Kingdom, E17

17. TARIQ, Amin, Asmin, DOB: 07/06/1983
Address: Walthamstow, London, United Kingdom, E17

18. UDDIN, Shamin, Mohammed, DOB: 22/11/1970
Address: Stoke Newington, London, United Kingdom

19. ZAMAN, Waheed, DOB: 27/05/1984
Address: London, United Kingdom, E17

EI896

11th Aug 2006, 08:16

What should be introduced is a new machine that could sniff out liquad explosives are somethis like that, a sniffer dog wouldn't be a half bad idea either but in the long term the machine would save money.

But the terrorists were very well planned if the Police weren't following this group either today are tomorrow there could have been a mass terror attack apparently a tape was found in one of the houses of a terrorist, I heard someone say on sky news that this had the prospect to be bigger then 9/11 and I can still remember that day as it casts a dark shadow in my mind I can still remember watching the news and then a planecrashing into the second tower.

issi noho

11th Aug 2006, 08:17

Wise words Cloudy. I echo them.

For anybody who intends to desert air travel for the Euro star or other surface transport; if you think that way then it is most likely that criminal elements do too. I think these groups have shown they can turn anything into a 'spectacular' if they get the scale large enough.

This plot was stopped, there are others being planned and rehearsed. the only way to guarantee safety is keep security for all as tight as it can be and change procedures regularly and randomly to keep everybody on their toes.

Personally, if I were running a terrorist group now I would engineer a few false alarms, have a few houses raided where police will find nothing. That would be a sure way of causing the public to lose faith with security and intelligence and bring about a lowering of security standards. We need to be strong and put more thought into stopping these events than criminal do in perpetrating them.

Choxolate

11th Aug 2006, 08:17

I would just like to add my support to the police and security services for stopping these people. Well done folks!!
You can add my support to that - they are in an impossible situation damned if they do and damned if they don't. When all the hoo-ha has died down and all the supects have been through the mill I wonder what the reaction will be if there are no convictions because of "lack of evidence". Good intelligence leading to knowledge that there is a plot and who is behind it is different from being able to prove it in a court of law with its strict rules of evidence. Doesn't mean that they weren't involved it just means that it cannot be legally proven - not the same thing.

A330ismylittlebaby

11th Aug 2006, 08:18

Why is it a bank that names the suspects rather than the police? is this to do with legalities?

STANDTO

11th Aug 2006, 08:21

I am a copper, and get trusted with fast cars and guns. Wherever possible I sit in an aisle seat in rows one and two - just in case.

It is about time there was a huge rethink about air travel security, as the way it has just had bits hung on it since 9/11 has made it unwieldy, unfriendly, expensive and in some respects unworkable

Rwy in Sight

11th Aug 2006, 08:24

It's funny you did mention Kosovo (and may I add Bosnia) where the west fought to help muslims only to run into difficulties with muslims in Madrid and London.

Rwy in Sight

fyrefli

11th Aug 2006, 08:33

Wise words Cloudy. I echo them.
For anybody who intends to desert air travel for the Euro star or other surface transport; if you think that way then it is most likely that criminal elements do too.

You've missed the point:

1. I'm not scared
2. I'm in business
3. I have legal obligations of care
4. Time is money
5. There are quite a few million of me, many of whom fly far more often
6. This will cost airlines money and aviation professionals their jobs

Cheers,

Rich.

brownstar

11th Aug 2006, 08:36

so you can go through security ,buy duty free booze, electronic goods in duty free and then get on a flight from the uk airports taking these items into the cabin.
i have read through the government guidance and don't see any wording to prevent this. The gov't statement refers only to hand baggage going through security, not duty free goods purchased airside.
Perhaps an extra five minutes thought by ministers may have cleared up this confussion - can anyone shed any light on the above statement. Please!!

spork

11th Aug 2006, 09:30

“Personally, if I were running a terrorist group now I would engineer a few false alarms, have a few houses raided where police will find nothing. That would be a sure way of causing the public to lose faith with security and intelligence and bring about a lowering of security standards.” Thanks Issi Noho for some great lateral thinking! All this talk about war, who is suspect and who should be profiled is irrelevant. If you’re in aviation, your biggest worry has to be that these numbskulls will slowly but surely destroy the aviation business. I don’t fly as much as I used to, but when I do I’m not the least bit worried about terrorist action. Statistically it’s highly unlikely to be me. If it is me, then so be it.

My biggest worry, which has been the case for years now, is that statistically EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT I TAKE will be affected by these fools at the airport, who consistently fail to act in the correct manner. Does anybody feel safer that pax are to be deprived of a book to read, and that granny’s Oil of Olay is safely in the hold? You guys want to get organised and publicly protest the headless chicken activity that currently pervades UK airports. Typing away on pPrune won’t get the job done. In all my many years with many causes, it’s been NVDA that worked in the end, not prose.

Davaar

11th Aug 2006, 09:43

As someone has already stated if they do not like the way we have arrived at doing things here after a history that stretches back before their prophet ever walked the earth they can buggah off to somewhere more to their liking.
:suspect:

Yes, and several did write exactly that here a couple of years or so back. I wrote that there was a snag with that theory. The snag is that the multiculturally enriching newcomers may refuse to, as you put it, buggah off. They would rather stay here and destroy the culture that we built over two thousand years. Great was the abuse heaped on me (from the UK, France, Australia, and no doubt elsewhere). "Racist" was the least of it. Well, I lost that debate, and now the multicultural paradise has arrived. Congratulations Guys! You have achieved what you set out to achieve. Your children and mine can live with it.

BenThere

11th Aug 2006, 09:50

I can't really argue that UK's close alliance with the United States puts you on the wrong foot with Jihad. No doubt about that.

But the theory that it explains the violence doesn't apply to the many other cases of terror against civilians such as India, Egypt, Thailand, Chechnya, Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, the Philippines, Jordan, just to name a few off the top of my head.

No, the reason for the violence is that there is contact with them. And they have no tolerance for people who come in contact with them, yet do not accept their dogma and join them.

They achieve power by intimidation and violence.

A330ismylittlebaby

11th Aug 2006, 09:52

NO mobie.
NO iPod.
NO Sun.
NO bottle of water.
NO trashie novel.
NO camera.
NO laptop.

HOW did airline passengers remain sane before the onset of the above 'essentials'?
And people who have the sun well i dont want to get on a plane with them anyways:p

Rollingthunder

11th Aug 2006, 09:58

Wow, from R&N to Prop Wash and back to R&N.

That's got to be a first.

RoyHudd

11th Aug 2006, 09:59

Slim Shady, Jews fought on our side in WW2, notably as pilots and engineers. Arabs were fully on the Nazi side. Read factual history, inform yourself and shut up with your childish anti-Jew/anti-Israel diatribes. We are not interested.

As for Jews not "fighting back", and Jewish "suicide bombers", this stuff is close to illegal. Watch out.

Skipness One Echo

11th Aug 2006, 10:13

The most disturbing thing for me is the elephant in the room.
WE are taught to respect all people regardless of their culture.
Certain muslims, ( a possible majority in certain parts of that community ), have been, and continue to be utterly racist jew hating bigots. NOT ALL by any means but way too many.
There are many often young muslims in the UK who call for the utter destruction of Israel and blame the jews for all their own woes. It never seems to be the fault of an inward looking and patriarchal, conservative Islamic intolerant community.
And yet they scream like angry children every time they are offended by the secular west and don't stop stamping their feet until the politicians give in.
We don't have nearly this bother with the rest of the world. It seems islam is a very poor fit for the culture of modern Britain. I should know, I am gay and I frequently read about what they want to do to me.
It is time that the muslims in the UK stopped thinking the world revolves around them and their 8th century lifestyle. I have a right to live my life in the country I love, if they don't like it here, they really do need to get out.

andydd

11th Aug 2006, 10:16

"it's been a long time coming; the passenger security at UK airports is pathetic and once again we have to rely on our transatlantic cousins to show us how to do it"

You must be joking!!!!! US as usual try and close the door after the horse has run away. UK security stoped this attack... how did the yanks get on with 9/11???
:=

derekl

11th Aug 2006, 10:27

As a frequent transtlantic business traveller, I need my laptop. Fact of modern life. When I travel alone, I don't have checked baggage, just the laptop and a small briefcase -- for my small briefs :}

So now I may be required to check my laptop.

I note that there is significant concern about theft from checked baggage.

Can anyone please explain to me how dishonest people get employed airside, can steal stuff, and walk out of the airport with it? And given that they are criminals, what's to stop them putting stuff into the bag "I packed myself"?

deathcruzer

11th Aug 2006, 10:27

Well I don’t think we have any politicians with the balls to get involved with this problem…its hard enough in this country to say really what you think without falling foul of our legislation…:mad: .Still if someone did get to grips with this…they have my vote.:ok:

NWT

11th Aug 2006, 10:44

Its not particuly difficult to get a job airside as long as you haven't got a criminal record. If you see the way luggage is treated by the baggage handlers you would understand why so many bags go missing. I see several bags everyday just lying on the airside roads where they have fallen off poorly loaded trolleys, driven buy staff that to be honest couldn't give a stuff whether a bag falls off and gets run over or not...then the airline will just conviniently loose it rather than pay out. As to theft, not difficult and no real checks on staff leaving airport secure areas...security more concerned about whats coming in....as with all security there is always weak points though, and anyone who works at th airports will know where they are.
Some reports that one of thoses arrested was employed at LHR wih an airside pass....interesting to know what job...

spikeair

11th Aug 2006, 10:52

I'd like to know whats going to be doen for those of use that travel with Film cameras. (Not digital).
As everyone is probably aware, film checked into the hold will be x-rayed and becasue this is stronger than the types used for hand baggage, it will be ruined.
What happens then , rules out taking film on planes. (An you can't always buty the film you require abroad. )

spikeair

11th Aug 2006, 10:56

Whast happening for those of use that need to take film abroad.(Yes not everyone uses digital camers!)
Film put in teh hold will be ruined.
Leaving your expensive cameras in your hold baggage, tehre's always a chance it going to get nicked.
If film cannot be carried on as hold baggage, then that immedialty means a photographer cannot travel by plane . Not all places you visit will have the film you are after whether than be transparaency or print or be able to process it properly before you return.
I have no objections to camera gear being examined, in the past that has frequently happened .

Atcham Tower

11th Aug 2006, 11:03

Well said, Skip One Echo! The sole benefit from the govenment's much-vaunted multi-culturism seems to be a nice chicken balti ...

Man-on-the-fence

11th Aug 2006, 11:08

I too am concerned about putting my camera equipment in the hold, I fly in a month and a lot can change between now and then.

gravity victim

11th Aug 2006, 11:08

As a pax who was in the thick of it yesterday I will put up with any security, however tedious, for which I can see some logic. I cannot however respect a system that treats my flight crew, who will sit at the controls of my aircraft, as potential killers. It's ridiculous - you might as well ban police from carrying loaded weapons in the terminal. (Some of them have criminal records after all!) And as for having my newpaper tuttingly removed at security, while my asthma inhaler (pressurised metal cylinder, containing who knows what substance) was waved through...but then it all went tits up when I realised my (infra-red) car key was in my pocket...aargh! "It has a battery, sir, you must return and check it in"...well, so does my watch , but that was OK apparently...

Rant over - I'll keep flying, but let's have some common sense.

Rollingthunder

11th Aug 2006, 11:14

spikeair

Consider buying a film safe.

And since you insist on multiple postings of the same question,

Buy a film safe

Buy a film safe.

bacardi walla

11th Aug 2006, 11:17

Am I missing something here or are flights INTO the UK from all over the world subject to this handbaggage ruling ???

spikeair

11th Aug 2006, 11:20

Sorry about that multiple posting, messed up there.
may be just rumpour, but if the filmsafe blcosk x-rays, won't they jsut turn up to juice to see whats inside this negating the benefit?

Rollingthunder

11th Aug 2006, 11:24

It won't get through. Worst that can happen is they will break open your luggage and chuck everything to hell and back. Well, maybe not back.

spikeair

11th Aug 2006, 11:28

fantastic
Well I hope some common sense is implemeneted soon or I'll have to cancel my holiday as I was going out to take photographs Either that or splash out on a digital equipment (which in turn either gets borken or nicked in the hold)
.

SensibleATCO

11th Aug 2006, 11:29

Posted by RoyHudd.....
[As for Jews not "fighting back", and Jewish "suicide bombers", this stuff is close to illegal. Watch out.
A not so veiled threat by somone who clearly believes in free speech BUT ONLY IF HE AGREES WITH IT.
RoyHudd you are a :mad:

ORAC

11th Aug 2006, 11:35

so you can go through security ,buy duty free booze, electronic goods in duty free and then get on a flight from the uk airports taking these items into the cabin.

The point is that that liquid explosives were to be inserted into drink/shaving/toothpaste containers and brought into the airport and onto an aircraft. Common electrical devices, such as ipods, electronic keys, PDAs etc, were to be modified to act as trigger devices. The security precautions are to stop these getting through - not the genuine article.

So, yes, you can buy what you like in duty free and take it from there. If you can whip up some liquid explosives using the items available in the shops and rewire a brand new ipod as a trigger before boarding - I doubt anything could stop you..... :hmm:

LD Max

11th Aug 2006, 11:43

Can't see why you think this is madness? Surely one plane down is one plane too many, and one person injured/killed is one to many. Any measures deemed necessary to stop an attack are fine by me.

This works from the assumption that permitting carry-on baggage is putting people at risk. Idiots carrying explosives is what puts people at risk. Western governments imposing their stupid foreign policies on the middle east is putting people at risk.

Surely madness would be to risk any opportunity for these B*stards to hurt anyone? Surely anything that makes the world safer is good for everyone? Yes it is inconvenient but that is better that being killed surely?

Safety is relative. The mere act of getting on a plane is inherently unsafe without terrorism factored in. The journey to the airport in the car is even less safe. Smoking is unsafe. Drinking is unsafe. Crossing the road is unsafe.

If we accepted all the draconian measures that would be necessary to make our lives entirely risk free, we'd be living in a "nanny state" at best, or all locked up in padded rooms for our own safety at worst.

Therefore we accept certain risks in order to benefit from the services we demand. The best we can do is mitigate the risks, but go too far (as in this case) and the service ceases to be of any value. You want to make flying 100% safe from terrorism? Then ban ALL luggage and make us fly naked after shoving a metal detector up our ar*es at the gate.

As it is, why would the chief executive of Megacorp spend £3000 on a business class ticket to NY if he can't carry on with his business during the flight? Airlines depend on the business and first class pax to make routes pay. Right now, the airlines have just lost a huge chunk of revenue stream. That means Cattle Class tickets will have to subsidise the loss of business class so you and I can expect to be paying £1000 a ticket before long, if the ban on carry ons aren't abolished.

I'm not sure I want to pay even normal prices if I can't take my toys on board, because as far as I'm concerned that's an essential part of the service I'm paying for.

All they needed to do was to stop drinks being taken airside, so all carry on drinks had to be purchased in the departure lounge. They already x-ray my laptop, case, calculator, mobile phone and sniff them for explosives.

...and I'm quite happy with that level of security. At the end of the day, if some B'std does blow me out of the sky, then my time's up anyway. I'm insured. My family will get over it. Death is just another part of life. In the meantime I want the freedom to live it.

Cyrano

11th Aug 2006, 11:46

Am I missing something here or are flights INTO the UK from all over the world subject to this handbaggage ruling ???
From Ireland (for example), normal hand baggage rules apply today, except:

Pax travelling to the UK to take a connecting flight there are told not to carry hand baggage (because of the difficulties they will have with it at the UK airport)
Pax to the US are not allowed to buy duty-free alcohol or perfume (apparently due to new US requirement)

Point-to-point pax from Ireland to the UK have no new restrictions on hand baggage.

Final 3 Greens

11th Aug 2006, 11:50

LD Max

As another FQTV, I totally support your position.

Well said.

A330ismylittlebaby

11th Aug 2006, 12:06

Dear Sir,

I was planning to travel from Manchester, UK, to Chicago on Tuesday. I was planning on taking about 60,000 litres of liquid explosive with me. However, as I can't be trusted with a tube of toothpaste I very much doubt that I'll be allowed to carry Jet A1.:ugh:

I suppose that we could always swim the Atlantic instead!
Which brings another point, shouldn't ships be as stringent as this.

Final 3 Greens

11th Aug 2006, 12:21

El Grifo

11th Aug 2006, 12:27

I earn my crust hopping round the planet with a camera strapped to my face.

Trust me, a film safe was never an option and is even less so now.

Since I progressed to Digi around four years ago, this has never been a problem. As I said earlier, I now bang all my cameras into a resin plastic, highly padded, rolling case and sling it in the hold.

If it gets nicked I am in deep $hit. Although I am fully insured, it would be impossible to replace quickly enough in say the Maldives or similar.

One simply has to take a chance.

Dump film, go digital. It is a quantum leap for photographers.

:mad:

A330ismylittlebaby

11th Aug 2006, 12:41

A330ismy littlebaby

I think that Airships are even more dangerous.

They are ships that go in the air.

Can you imagine how much damage a 600m long ULCC could cause if it dived into the middle of Widnes?
No, i meant cruiseliners, we need a bit of security to keep us safe. I think we should have background checks on people renting flats because that's what these people are doing. They seem to be renting flats.

drichard

11th Aug 2006, 12:45

Which brings another point, shouldn't ships be as stringent as this.

Why stop with planes and boats? - In Madrid and London it was Trains, buses have been targeted in London and India in the past.

Serious question though - what restrictions on hand luggage are being imposed for flights out of non-uk airports? (thinking in particular about europe departures across the pond). I'm seriously considering eurostar to Paris/Brussels or a fast ferry to Holland (for Schipol) etc. and picking up a flight from there.

I do have sympathy for aircrew (drivers and conductors :E ), I do find it ridiculous that you are stripped of sharp objects, water, food and then given the keys to the a/c. You're either trustworthy or you're not. I think seperate security screening for aircrew is eminently sensible.

Others in this thread have mentioned breaking bottles and setting fire to the contents, yes, I thought about that within a day or 2 of 9/11, in the past 5 years, it seems security have never caught on to this "threat". Why why why can you not pay for your duty free at the airport and collect it on landing at your destination. It could even be in a bonded warehouse at your arrival location for common items, meaning it doesn't need to travel with you, for non-common items, it could be packed in the hold. (For my last flight back from USA, you paid for your DF in the shop, and it was taken to the gate for collection as you boarded - surely this could be put in a box in the hold and you collect on arrival instead?)

There are many other ways of getting stuff through security, or using "safe" items in an unsafe manner - I shall not mention or discuss them here, they really are obvious and I don't want to put ideas into anyone's head.

I am disturbed to hear comments that x-ray m/c cannot determine the difference in liquids - I am a little sceptical here. I have done some work on these m/c and having seen their capabilities, I have a lot of faith in what they CAN do. For example, a tub of sugar and a tub of salt look VERY different.

To those who say you can have a 2-part bottle with different substances in the same bottle, the construction of the bottle should be obvious on x-ray - it would need the operator to be even more vigilant though - and heaven knows, they have a difficult enough job as it is.

A spectral analysis x-ray m/c would tell you exactly what is in everything.

As PAX I have no problem with SENSIBLE, PROPORTIONATE, security checks. My gut feelong at the moment is that we are seeing an overreaction, but permanent changes will be made.

<edit for typos>

Final 3 Greens

11th Aug 2006, 13:04

No, i meant cruiseliners

Ohmygod, cruiseliners fly too?????????

Superpilot

11th Aug 2006, 13:09

Well Done LD Max, a very enlightened post. Thought provoking comments such as yours are much needed after reading Bull**** factored articles in papers such as The Standard :Puke:

lexxity

11th Aug 2006, 13:50

FYI - When you book a cruise you are required to give the company your passport details, full name, address, date of birth and home address before your tickets are sent out. I imagine that the lines are not gathering this information for the fun of it.

Unless you meant carry on, in which case we would have lots of nudist ships.:}

Now back to the thread.

paulc

11th Aug 2006, 13:56

I know 100% that my camera and laptop are not a threat to anybody but I cannot prove it to the satisfaction of the airlines so if I wish to fly I have to take the risk of it being stolen or smashed or not take it. I would be quite happy to have laptop battery and camera battery in checked luggage but would not be keen on having expensive lenses etc treated as normal luggage.

If they want to take security seriously then every non food outlet airside should also be shut but that would hurt BAA too much. I can vouch for my camera / laptop but have no idea if anything I buy airside could have been unknowingly tampered with.

LD Max

11th Aug 2006, 14:15

What a huge story this is... but not nearly as big as it would have been if these sad people had not been detected and stopped.
This really is one in the eye for Bin Laden and his merry men - thank God.
And all you can do is complain about increased security? Where is your sense of proportion?
It is WAR gentlemen and in a war some inconveniences have to be accepted. In the last big one, people slept in tube stations and still managed to sing.
What a namby pamby lot we have become - complain immediately and hope for sympathy - it is the modern Western attitude.
Hats off to the organisation which stopped these clowns - and is probably learning enough from them to decide what level of security to keep in force.
FC.

I guess you haven't had the time to read the many posts on here which give well considered arguments against the OTT security reaction at the airports. Consider not the mere inconvenience of it, but the damage it will do to the industry. Make no mistake, the aviation industry is the prime target of these fanatics. Stop people travelling and you stop international commerce in its tracks. You disrupt one of the cornerstones of western civilisation - the freedom to travel, and you're on your way to setting the economy and the infrastructure back 20 years.

The security measures are assisting the terrorists in that objective.

Oh... and as this is a Pilot's forum - don't forget the majority of folks here depend on this industry for their immediate livelihoods. We don't want to see it blown up either.

LD Max

11th Aug 2006, 14:25

AS far as i'm concerned BAD People have murdered 3,000 people when the world trade centres got hit. Al quaeda did it! they said they did it and now we need to stop al queada and whoever else who try to attack us. Why would you think the government are tying to control us, that is crap...

You sure about that? Bin Laden actually told you he did it did he? Or is he on the US payroll perhaps? Anyone ever tell you Princess Diana died in a Car accident? The only thing I'm sure about is she died in a car...

Don't underestimate what our governments are capable of. There's always a hidden agenda. Look at all the things the US and UK government have been able to do since 911 in the name of the "War against Terror". Afghanistan, Iraq. Look at how Israel is able to decimate the Lebenon now with US and UK support because of "Hezbolah" rockets. Who says Hezbolah is behind it? Yeah, blame the Syrians. Right.

Consider if the western governments were to create a terror threat all by themselves, they can then act with impunity in the name of "self defence".

derekvader

11th Aug 2006, 14:27

Indeed, I don't see how they can guarantee the integrity of every single person that works at all the W. H. Smiths, Burger Kings, and much smaller chains that are airside, or the people that put the food trollies on the planes. I am sure the individuals that work in the airside shops etc are security scanned when they arrive for work (well I hope they are) but is every single stock delivery or small parcel in the post that the shops receive opened up and properly checked? It's not at all inconceivable that one of the shop workers, especially in the small shops with short management chains so fairly easy to know who's going to open the incoming stock or mail, could be bent enough to get stuff airside one way or another to give to passengers getting through regular security.

If BAA and other airports are not willing to impose a totally sterile airside environment (which they won't be, for profit reasons) I totally can't see the point of draconian restrictions on passenger baggage. It also seems pointless to do it on flights leaving the UK but leave inbound flights from Europe unaffected.

That said, I would STRONGLY welcome simple enforcement of sensible cabin baggage rules, i.e. keep passengers to a single small bag of just their clearly valuable stuff and what they might reasonably need to entertain themselves or do their work in flight. It's high time something was done about the ridiculous wheeled contraptions that many passengers get away with carrying on and taking five minutes each to cram into the overhead bins.

Flying Lawyer

11th Aug 2006, 20:39

Scamera77
Crossed wires. I wasn’t slinging mud at you, or trying to patronise you. My comment was about a minority in JB (from where this thread was moved) who can’t seem to resist making a certain type of post even in sensible discussions of a serious topic.
Sorry if I caused the misunderstanding.
I’m pleased we're in agreement over several points even if we disagree over your proposal. :)

bjcc
I don’t accept that the question I suggested is only justified “if one only looks at it superficially.”
On the contrary, exploring all factors which might cause terrorist activity must IMHO be an essential element of any thorough assessment of how to reduce the risk of it happening.

I didn't say it was “the whole story.” Scamera invited comments on his proposal and said he was interested in other people’s ideas. I suggested one.

FL

SXB

11th Aug 2006, 21:33

Posted by Flying Lawyer

I don't think of myself as liberal or human rights focussed - I think some of the decisions of the ECHR in the name of 'human rights' are completely absurd. However, I think it would be outrageously unfair to punish decent, law-abiding people for crimes committed by members of their family.

FL, Just to come back to your comment about EHCR (which, for anyone who has not heard of this organisation, is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg) I think it's fair to point out that the Court delivers its judgements within the limitations under which it operates. Like any court it may deliver a judgement which it considers ridiculous but, on occasion, it may not have a choice.

The make up of the judges at EHCR is more political than any court in the UK, said judges are proposed (minimum of three) by each member state (with some exceptions) Countries like the UK can be trusted to 'play the game' and propose experienced and appropriate professionals, who do an excellent job without any political interference. Some countries, however, do not play the game. Our judges here earn about €20,000 per month (plus a lot of other allowences and everyone working here, including me:) , pays no tax) In some countries this is an awful lot of money. Now I am just a humble servant and it is not for me to suggest that some countries propose judges who may be politically sympathetic to their governments in Moscow, Ankara or Kiev.

That said the vast majority of judgements are fair and just, due to the way judgements are arrived at (it's a number of judges and not just one, but there is a degree negotiating between the judges as a case is rarely being heard on the basis of just one just one convention violation so they may agree to one violation while dropping another though this not the way it should work)

It's also worth pointing out that EHCR is wholly funded (via the Council of Europe) by the member governments. Apologies to FL who will be well aware of how the Court works, my explanations are for others to understand how it works.

bjcc

11th Aug 2006, 22:06

FL

The form of terrorist threat we face today has a cause which will not be chaned by having a different PM, or by Bush leaving office. The Policy of the US, or the UK is not relevent, except in that it is probably more publicly alive to the threat.

I go back to the mid 90's, where having sat through a dull lecture on dangerous dogs act (irrelevent to the job I was doing at the time) only to be brought out of the stupour by a Special Branch Officer, who, was either blessed with ESP, or telling us what had been gathered inteligence wise.

What he said, in view of whats happened since was a big wake up call, uncanny in fact.

Now that was all long before GW2, Bush and at the time Blair was, if I recall correctly Shadow Home Sec.

The issues are long term, not caused by either GW2, or the Bush & Blair show. Nor by involvement in Afgannistan. Its purley the desire to spread Islamic Fundimentalism.

I grant you, the events in the ME, the attitude of Bush & Blair may have made life easier for the recruitment of those willing to carry out attacks on the UK, but those attacks were always going to happen.

All that is different is there is a public 'justification' for these acts, which detracts from and hides the real agenda, hence the comment about superficial examination cause.

finfly1

11th Aug 2006, 22:50

I believe I may have a solution which should be relatively easy to implement without a lot of cost.

Simply install locks on the overhead bins. Permit laptops, cameras etc to be brought on board (in modest sized cases) and secure and LOCK them before flight. No extra hold baggage, no lost or stolen irreplaceable items and people will not mind as much having their stuff in sight even if they can't actually get to it. And in the event of an emergency (medical etc) it could be got by a crew member as needed.

Hope someone who matters sees and reads this.

10secondsurvey

12th Aug 2006, 07:29

Found a bit of inconcsistency at T1 LHR yesterday. Guy in front of me was asked to hand over his pens at security, but one of them was rather nice, and he flatly refused. He was then allowed to continue on his way, with the pen. Whilst every one else had theirs 'confiscated'. So, if you want a pen at LHR T1 take a montblanc or similar. I guess all this kind of thing will get sorted when security realise that WHsmith in T! are still selling the things.

Bit of fun on a BA flight when the CC announced, 'can all passengers ensure that mobile phones and electronic items are switched off for takeoff and landing' -pretty much everyone laughed.

Got to say, this hand luggage thing does have an upside, everyone gets off the plane pretty damn quick

El Grifo

12th Aug 2006, 09:33

Can I just add, somewhat belatedly and naively that I thought this security crackdown was taking place in the UK only. Today I am being sent US blogs which are screaming vitriol at the very same things that are taking place over there.

Be honest, did you full understand that to be the case ?

:mad:

clv101

12th Aug 2006, 09:38

This whole situation is a mess.

A case of deja vu here, regarding the latest terror scare:
Terror plan to shoot down plane (February 2003)
The BBC has learnt that security services received information at the start of the week about a missile attack at Heathrow. The following morning, 1,700 police officers and 450 troops were deployed to Heathrow Airport, while armed police patrolled other UK airports. An Algerian network of hardened fighters, linked to al-Qaeda, is believed to be behind the plan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2759157.stmI can't find any trace on the BBC website of a follow up to this. No arrests, no trials, just a big scare, and some new contracts for people making missile countermeasure equipment to be fitted to airliners...

Also note the ricin plot - with no ricin or plot, the Manchester United bombing that didn't happen and all suspect released, the Forest Gate and Stockwell shootings... the only two 'real' attacks (7/7 and the 'shoe bomber') weren't detected at all and statistically they represent no more than the historical level of danger, in fact the last few years have seen below average levels of terrorism.

I don't believe the hype surrounding the recent events for a moment. I don't believe there was any credible threat. Fundamentally I just don't believe there are dozens of prospective terrorists out there trying to blow things up - if there were things would be blowing up left, right and centre.

Flying Lawyer

12th Aug 2006, 09:41

bjcc

I repeat, I offered one idea in response to Scamera77's invitation.
I did not, and do not, claim it identifes the only problem (or would provide a complete solution).

_________

I grant you, the events in the ME, the attitude of Bush & Blair may have made life easier for the recruitment of those willing to carry out attacks on the UK Thank you. At least we've reached common ground on that.
Let's agree to disagree over whether it's worth trying to do something about that aspect of the overall problem. The 'political' exchanges started before the thread was moved and aren't really appropriate in this forum.

FL

Final 3 Greens

12th Aug 2006, 09:55

t's not so much the inconvenience of not being able to use the laptop etc in flight - it's the risk of their loss or damage in hold baggage. Many business travellers also have sensitive commercial documents with them which they are unlikely to wish to lose sight of.

My hold luggage was mislaid for a day last month - the impact would have been that I would not have been able to run a workshop with 12 people present, as all the necessary info was on my laptop.

Last year it happended twice (one one occasion it took over a week for it to be located) and also I've had 2 Rimowa suitcases written off in the past 18 months - anyone who knows Rimowa will know that it takes some considerable force to break one.

What would have happened to the laptop I wonder?

AuthorityStinks

12th Aug 2006, 10:07

[quote=Basil]I am sure that this thread is being closely followed by those planning the next strike.
quote]

If the intelligence would become intelligent they would refuse access to any crew who's conceivably got internet access. :ugh:

An Irish morning program had a securityspecialist on who happily suggested that "daily 32 busses from the 6 counties"(Northern Ireland) enter the republic without Gardai(Irish Police) having resources to search any of them.

As you see there are better sources than a forum like this for information just switch the tv on:D .

I wonder what happens when a G4 or G5 leaves for the USA, captain of industries turned inside out?

crew the screw

12th Aug 2006, 10:08

also I've had 2 Rimowa suitcases written off in the past 18 months - anyone who knows Rimowa will know that it takes some considerable force to break one.

What would have happened to the laptop I wonder?

Never under estimate the AWESOME powers of the Almighty Bag Crushers... I've seen one run over by a baggage cart then just thrown back on the top of the pile...

No consideration for other peoples belongings

brakedwell

12th Aug 2006, 10:48

I think the present restrictions are a typical UK over reaction, considering the weak links remaining in the security chain. I will fly to Munich next month, clutching a clear plastic bag containing my wallet, passport, clean handkerchief and ticket, wondering whether I will be reunited with the camera, sat nav unit and Jaguar keys (electronic key fob) in my insecure suitcase which might or might not have been loaded in the hold. The return journey from Munich, where the authorities have promulgated the following security notice to passengers,will be considerably less stressful.

In compliance with US Homeland Security measures, the Bavarian Ministry of Transport has mandated that passengers on all flights to the United States are forbidden to carry liquids / semi-liquid materials on either their person or in their hand luggage. Passengers should remove all liquid / semi-liquid items from their hand luggage and stow them in their check-in luggage prior to reaching the security check:
Beverages
Beauty and hygiene products such as shampoo, toothpaste, sunscreen and other lotions and creams, hairgel, etc.
Liquids and semi-liquid items such as baby milk / food will be allowed so long as the baby / child is accompanying the adult passenger.
Other liquids such as prescription or OTC medication will also be allowed if the passenger can provide proof that the name on the prescription corresponds with the name on his / her ticket.
Passengers to the United States are also requested, wherever possible, to either reduce the amount of hand luggage they are carrying with them, or else avoid carrying hand luggage altogether, in order to expedite security checks. Passengers should also remove any and all objects from their hand luggage that could pose a security threat and instead stow these items in their check-in luggage prior to reaching the security check.

Passengers are advised to contact their airline directly prior to their flight for further information regarding security restrictions, delays or cancellations or other concerns.

Note - Security for all other destinations is as normal!!!!!

Ranger1

12th Aug 2006, 11:04

I understand precautions must be taken under the current security situation. That said I have to agree with many comments on this thread, the security measures being taken are over the top in the extreme. Seems to me they have been imposed with little explanation, why for example no books? They are easy and quick to check for hidden items, so why? Are these procedures ours or are we yet again following the US lead? Why are our European cousins not going to these extremes?Seems to me some of these security measures are being imposed because they can and little or no explanation for some bizarre checks are being given. All this can only result in damage to the industry or should I say further damage.

I can’t help thinking that this is all very convenient and has taken our focus away from this Governments terrible foreign policy. I am not saying there was/is not a threat but lets be honest the security services do not have a great record of getting their facts right! Iraq and WOMD springs to mind!

We are paying at the end of the day for living in a country that is too politically correct and too liberal! It is perverse that as a result we are now seeing our freedoms restricted. Frankly as a moderate I am rapidly moving to the right and am becoming very intolerant of certain so called minority groups! Profiling will not happen in this country until our Government wakes up to the fact that we can no longer afford to pussy foot around and start targeting those minority groups these terrorists come from for greater security checking. I am sorry if this sounds racist it is not meant to be but at the end of the day we are at war and it is time we woke up to that fact.

We need to stop getting involved with the Americans and we need to invest in new fuel types to remove our reliance on oil. We also need to stop being so politically correct ! Those who have nothing to hide in those minority groups have nothing to fear but they need to look into their own communities. What happens in Iraq or the Lebanon is of course important to all of us and the ballot box is the place to register your views in this country! The young men who killed innocent citizens last year enjoyed a freedom they would not have had in their ancestral countries of origin and how did they show their gratitude! ENOUGH!

brakedwell

12th Aug 2006, 11:12

Crew the Screw
I defer to your greater experience!
To be fair, the checked baggage system is a compromise to deliver a high volume throughput.
Sensible pax buy travel insurance and the occasional breakage is part of the game.
The problem arises when you put laptops into baggage, since the physical machine can be repèlaced, but the temporary lack of access to the data and functionality is the showstopper.
YOU CAN FORGET THE TRAVEL INSURANCE. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:
Britain
The Times August 12, 2006
Terror plot
Insurers refuse to cover iPods and phones in airline luggage
By Valerie Elliott
Companies have decided to take a hard line, fearing that some travellers will try to exploit policies
MILLIONS of British air passengers were told last night that they will be travelling without insurance cover for valuable items such as jewellery, laptops, mobile phones and MP3 players that must now be packed in the aircraft hold.
After the emergency ban on cabin luggage as part of tough new air security controls, most insurance companies said that they would treat passengers sympathetically. But within 24 hours of the terror alert The Times has learnt that companies have decided to harden their position.
Insurance industry insiders say that companies are reluctant to announce blanket payouts for loss of valuables in these special circumstances because they think that passengers will exploit any relaxation of policy and have a field day with claims. Consumer groups predict scores of complaints from passengers about insurance companies failing to meet claims for losses.
The Air Transport Users Council believes that companies will attempt to pass the buck and it expects to be flooded with complaints from passengers about unresolved disputes in the next few weeks.
The problem has arisen because under travel insurance cover there is usually an exclusion for valuables that have to be kept in the personal care of the policyholder. Items generally without cover include: jewellery, antiques, precious metal or stone items, watches, binoculars, telescopes, games consoles, mobile phones, audio, audiovisual and photographic equipment, video cameras, computers and televisions. Many travel insurance companies were adamant yesterday that it will be the responsibility of the airline to cover losses because they have accepted valuables into the hold.
Under international rules an airline is liable to pay up to a maximum £850 in compensation for loss of luggage, a sum agreed as part of the Montreal Convention signed by the European Union two years ago. This replaced the former Warsaw Convention, which compensated losses based on a weight value of £15 a kilogram. The latest £850 figure, however, was calculated on the basis that expensive laptops and video cameras are transported by the passenger in the cabin, not as part of hold luggage. Travel insurance policies generally have an upper limit of £1,500 to cover all losses, and cover for valuables is about £400 to £500.
Passengers therefore stand to lose hundreds of pounds if a video camera or laptop goes missing. Claimants also have to go through an arduous process to prove their loss, with airline companies demanding proof that an item was in luggage.
A British Airways spokeswoman said last night: “We are bound by the Montreal Convention but we have no plans to reimburse for loss of valuables that are held in the hold. This is not something we have introduced but this has been forced on us by the Department for Transport. Anyone booking with BA online may be able, however, to buy cover from our transport insurance company, Preferential Insurance.”
EasyJet said that it expected passengers to have their own travel insurance policy, but that anyone with complaints should contact its customer services.
James Fremantle, the Users Council’s industry relations manager, said: “Passengers with claims can expect to be passed around between the airline and their travel insurance company . . . We are urgently looking into this.”
An spokeswoman for the Association of British Insurers said that many travel insurance companies will have to review their policies for valuables if these emergency arrangements become the norm. She advised passengers not to take valuables that cannot be replaced, adding that those who chose to take the risk should ensure that they had warranties and proofs of purchase. She suggested taking a photograph to prove that the items were in luggage.

El Grifo

12th Aug 2006, 11:12

I think the present restrictions are a typical UK over reaction, considering the weak links remaining in the security chain

brakedwell, I posted this on the "hand" wringing version of this thread to no apparent reaction.

Can I just add, somewhat belatedly and naively that I thought this security crackdown was taking place in the UK only. Today I am being sent US blogs which are screaming vitriol at the very same things that are taking place over there.

Be honest, did you full understand that to be the case ?

Sounds like many of us were under the impression that this clampdown was "local".

I certainly was

One of them started of by saying "Sir, I'm going to have to take this bottle of water away from you since it might be a liquid explosive, and I'm going to have to mix it with all of these other bottles of possibly liquid explosive, and I'm going to have to dump them all in this trash can.......... together".

brakedwell

12th Aug 2006, 11:19

El Grifo
OK, so it's "local" in the UK and USA.

Ranger1

12th Aug 2006, 11:25

Brakedwell
If the current security measures continue then insurance wont be an issue as most business travellers will find other ways of getting to there destinations through Europe! :mad:

bjcc

12th Aug 2006, 11:31

clv101

As with all crime, here are 2 strands to deaing with it.

You can detect it, the meaning of which is self evident

Or

You can prevent it. This means act, although you have no specific evidence that an offence is going to be committed, or because although there is specific inteligence or evidence, it is not suitable, or capable of being put before a Court.

The ideal is to achieve both those objectives, but sometimes that is impossible. So there are times that one of the 2 objectives is used, if that prevents an act of terror, or any other offence, then thats fine.

This is no different to any other form of crime, for example, information being recieved that can't be substantiated about a security van that is going to be attacked, and that attack prevented by the appearence of a police vehicle. Was there ever going to be an attack? Or did the Police presents prevent it? No one will ever know, the same applies with the incidents you mention.

El Grifo

12th Aug 2006, 11:36

Brakedwell

Point is that the whole brewhaha is being presented as if it is mainly occuring in the UK, whereas according to US blogs, exactly the same is happening over there.

I had not read that anywhere, had you ?

Interestingly, the majority of thursday flight arrivals in my location (thursday being the busiest of the week) arrived on time, early or no more than 30 mins late. The media, IMHO have wittingly or unwittingly warped this whole story.

fyrefli

12th Aug 2006, 11:39

Lexx

Whether airlines can or cannot react, BEagle is right in his analysis and it won't be the politicians, mandarins and officials who pay with their jobs.

Time for your industry to apply some very strong pressure on behalf of the pax and employees or it could be a bleak winter season.

I am avoiding connecting via London, so that I can be sure that my laptop, backup files on memory sticks and mobile (which are absolutely essential to my work) will stay safely with me throughout the journey.

When I can carry my laptop on board, I'll start connecting via London once again.

Spot on. Like many others, I'd be liable to prosecution and civil suit if I lost my laptop or memory stick - even if I wiped all personal data off it it still has database connections etc stored. I was going to go to Annecy paragliding (AMS to GVA) at the end of the month. Now I'm changing my monthly outbound AMS to BRS to the end of the month to collect my Bandit from Bristol and bring it back here. Until I can carry my business tools again I'll be riding to Bristol and back - 7 1/2 hours door to door by bike with the Shuttle against typically 5 by air but I have no choice.

This needs sorting very soon.

Cheers,

Rich.

Ranger1

12th Aug 2006, 11:40

El Grifo

It has been on the news all be it in small print and it has been published by the airlines to it's passengers and staff!

Fyrefli

I fear you will not be alone and I can't blame you!

BEagle

12th Aug 2006, 12:01

So, if the insurers won't insure us against damage resulting from this heavy-handed over-the-top security, who will? The airline? The handling company?

If something in your luggage is damaged, I guess the only option is to sue the baggage handling company......

Intelligent profiling is the only way. And sod the civil libertarians!

lexxity

12th Aug 2006, 12:45

fyrefli, F£G, BEagle I agree that things need to be sorted out to allow the high yield business pax to travel with the items they need to carry out their business. But the airlines are at the mercy of the bureaucrats on this one. I hope things are sorted soon regarding hand luggage and the airlines can get through this latest problem and start welcoming passengers, who are taking their business elsewhere, back again.

How long did it take to get new rules up and running after 9/11? I forget.

Final 3 Greens

12th Aug 2006, 12:54

Lexxity

I hope that things get sorted out quickly, too.

There is no sense of Schadenfreude from where I'm sitting.

Brakedwell

Thanks for posting that info, - my comment about insurance refered to claims for suitcases rather than a laptop.

However, I am not surprised that the insurance companies have taken this stand, since the whole risk equation is altered dramatically by the electronic stuff going through a system that was never designed to handle it.

Oh that's super!

12th Aug 2006, 13:38

It's not so much the inconvenience of not being able to use the laptop etc in flight - it's the risk of their loss or damage in hold baggage. Many business travellers also have sensitive commercial documents with them which they are unlikely to wish to lose sight of.

I agree with that.

The only way round this that I can think of is for the important stuff to go on an SD card (or alike) and put that in your wallet, or to upload the file onto a server from which you can download the file at the destination. Then put the laptop on the DHL same-day/next day service (depending on the location) or have one made available there. At least, DHL and the like do offer insurance on loss or damage.

Vizzo

12th Aug 2006, 13:42

Definitely main players so no harm in discussing these things.
Especially as Mr Terrorist seems to like nothing more than screwing around with air travel. When he picks on busses, the thread wll close.

A330ismylittlebaby

12th Aug 2006, 13:42

cruising might be about to come back big time (no jet lag, good food, no baggage allowances to talk of, leg room is not an issue (DVT scares etc). It's about 90hrs by boat to NY - given the way security is changing, it'll soon be quicker to sail than fly:E

Most PAX have a great deal of respect for those who fly for a living and ensure the safety of those flying especially in these troubled times.

Constructive comments please.

I think security should be increased on cruise ships now.
I don't think it's a case of "don't take a drink on board" though at the moment that's the best thing to do i think.

The best thing is to have I.D Cards around your neck, no i don't mean walking the streets with one. I mean like airport passes when you start work. Well we can have them for while we are going through security check points to prove you have had a CRC.

I mean i reallyt don't know what to do because there could be a bad apple without a criminal record, so i guess alot of our safety is on security checks which i'm happy with and our security services who do a very hard job.

Final 3 Greens

12th Aug 2006, 13:52

brakedwell

12th Aug 2006, 13:54

So the security services have been monitoring the suspected terrorists for eighteen months. Instead of waiting until after they were arrested, why were stricter security measures not introduced as soon as the plot to blow up ten transatlanic jets was uncovered? It's all beginning to seem a bit fishy to me.

spork

12th Aug 2006, 14:22

My original post on this, which could be anywhere now due to mods rearranging threads according to unpublished rules, was to clarify that it’s NOT terrorist action causing the current chaos, it’s the numbskull security action. I don’t fly as much as I used to, but when I do, I’m not the least bit worried about terrorist action. Statistically it’s highly unlikely to be me. If it is me, then so be it.
My biggest worry, which has been the case for years now, is that statistically EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT I TAKE is affected by the fools at the airport, who again and again fail to act in the correct manner. With their latest UK action, does anybody feel safer that pax are to be deprived of a book to read, and that granny’s Oil of Olay is safely in the hold? UK security is a ship of fools. I tend to agree with clv101’s post (at #328) that quite possibly nothing anti-terrorist is being achieved at all by all this bogus activity.
Today I am being sent US blogs which are screaming vitriol at the very same things that are taking place over there. Well, my daughter has just arrived (Sat 10:00hrs) from Atlanta via Newark to Gatwick. Her experience of the US internal security was good, in the sense that they didn’t confiscate, they just relied on passenger honesty. Signs were displayed saying “please dump bottles here”. Once on the internal flight, other pax were producing stuff from their bags that they hadn’t dumped. Bags had not been searched after the dump areas, so totally ineffective security going on there! For the flight to the UK, again requests were made to put certain items in hold baggage, but NOT enforced. She asked to take her Ipod on board and they allowed it. So, nothing to be vitriolic about there.
Concerning the insurance companies’ attitude, when did posters last try and claim for anything on any policy? For many years we’ve paid fortunes in premiums, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has ever been covered. There’s always a get out for them somewhere. No change there then!

BEagle

12th Aug 2006, 14:23

I've just been doing some sums concerning a business trip in October.

Home to place of business is about 700 miles, plus the Channel Tunnel. Drive down to Strasbourg, night in an hotel, drive on the next day... Same coming back. Add a bit of a holiday as well as I'll be there for around 10 days.

Or home to BHX, leave car for 10 days, suffer security restrictions, wonder whether essential luggage will arrive.....

If petrol, Eurotunnel and motorway costs and 2 extra nights in a hotel will be less than the £1027 it would cost to drive to the airport, park for 10 days, fly, then I shall probably drive - because of the security of my essential business requirements.

I'm sure many other business travellers are doing the same analysis.

El Grifo

12th Aug 2006, 14:34

Eh, actually its the blogs that are screaming vitriol laddie, not the US security or your daughter.:ugh:

I could post a link but it would not last 10 seconds on this strange forum.

spork

12th Aug 2006, 14:57

Not sure about the "laddie" bit, but my point precisely. Re-read my post carefully. Blogs can be deceiving. But maybe their experience is different? Let's face it, there's obviously a lot of inconsistency within Europe on security. I was just letting you know some info "hot off the press". YMMV!

BEagle

12th Aug 2006, 14:59

I see that BAA are now allowing people to buy things at their duty free shops and take them onto the aircraft (except for liquids to the US).

What bloody hypocrisy. No doubt the loss of revenue has prompted this; I hope people boycott BAA's shops until the current absurd restrictions are eased.

Good to hear Willie Walsh's scathing comment regarding the inadequacy of BAA being unable to provide a sufficiently robust infrastructure to process passengers for ba's flights. He is so right!

Oh that's super!

12th Aug 2006, 15:03

O That's SUper

I was quoting BEagle, but I'll respond to your point.

I don't think that SD cards are allowed, but even if they are I typically need about 15GB of data, so it isn't really feasible.

As to shipping the laptop, not really an option either, as I tend to go from one place to the next quite quixkly and the laptop wouldn't follow fast enough.

Funnily enough, I am sitting here configuring a laptop specifically for the possibility of leaving it in the UK, for those occasions when I work there.

As someone who travels with laptop, I do feel your pain (damn that they might not be allowing SD cards - I thought it might be OK if it's inert like that and fits in a wallet).

I wonder if they would be able to come up with a tamper-proof laptop that will eventually be cleared to be taken as a hand-luggage one day, by a security cleared person.

Final 3 Greens

12th Aug 2006, 15:09

Oh That's Super

As someone who travels with laptop, I do feel your pain ù

Appreciate your comments mate.

Oh that's super!

12th Aug 2006, 15:34

Final 3 Greens,

If they start banning laptops for domestic travel in Australia (we don't have the restriction here yet), I'll have to buy another computer and leave it at the secondary place I spend a lot of time at, because I have a number of peculiar software program that is not widely available (i.e. I can't just borrow someone else's computer to work on). Wonderful to have to get another software licence too - not.

At least, I don't think the baggage handlers would find it so easy to break flash drives, even if they chuck my luggage around (like you, my bags have suffered some unbelievable damage through rough handling - they must have run over them with their trolley to have done that). Having said that, I'll waste a further 30 minutes each way by having to stand around the carousel too. That's going to eat further into my sleeping time that is pretty precious as it is.

I don't really blame the government, airlines etc - I blame the terrorist for this. But it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that I find it frustrating.

I have just read the concerns expressed by musicians on BBC. I feel for them too.

chandlers dad

12th Aug 2006, 16:03

As someone who travels with laptop, I do feel your pain (damn that they might not be allowing SD cards - I thought it might be OK if it's inert like that and fits in a wallet).

I wonder if they would be able to come up with a tamper-proof laptop that will eventually be cleared to be taken as a hand-luggage one day, by a security cleared person.

"Tamper proof" is not possible. If you need to repair the computer, Ipod or Cellphone, then the techie has to be able to get inside. If they can get inside a good "sparks chaser" can modify it. Most techie's modify things to work better or faster but these demented jerks sometimes change them to act as a detonator.

One other point is that if you have to have your laptop with you on a flight, and I do, I am going to remove the hard drive (easy on most newer laptops, just slips out) and put it in one bag, and the computer in another bag.

At least this way the jerks who troll baggage lines stealing anything they can get to will not have a workable computer if they steal mine. Would feel a lot better if the security would allow me to hand carry the hard drive with me but fat chance on that these days. Its small, about the size of a Fisherman Friends box and would go in your shirt pocket.

El Grifo

12th Aug 2006, 16:05

fair do's Spork, fair do's !!

Oh that's super!

12th Aug 2006, 16:12

"Tamper proof" is not possible. If you need to repair the computer, Ipod or Cellphone, then the techie has to be able to get inside. If they can get inside a good "sparks chaser" can modify it. Most techie's modify things to work better or faster but these demented jerks sometimes change them to act as a detonator.
I should have worded my post better. I was really thinking in the line of 'tamper-proof seal' of some sort, rather than the laptop being impossible to get tampered with. Effectively, a security sealed (even if that needs to be checked out by some authority and the seal placed by them) laptop that will show up if anything at all is done/changed - even if one screw has been removed and put back.

I agree about the hard drive. I wish I could hand carry that. Even if it doesn't get stolen, considering the baggage handlers appear to be capable of breaking anything that is capable of being broken, I do not wish to trust anything that is remotely fragile (read: something that will break if dropped from the 5th floor of a building) in the hold.

EastMids

12th Aug 2006, 17:06

To all those who say the current UK rules not allowing any hand-baggage are a reasonable precaution get this...

Hand baggage is only banned on flights departuring FROM THE UK, its not even ebing banned on inbound flights to the UK. Well wooohoooo! We all get to leave the UK safely, but we'll get blown up on the way back to the UK. I'm sure that makes you sleep better!

These restrictions will totally **** up the UK airline industry if they carry on. They have the potential to cause mysery to hundreds or even thousands who will lose their jobs as a result, without making anything safer - see previous point about this being a one-way problem. If anyone thinks these rediculous restrictions and their ramifications are better than putting in place more rigourous security inspections (as has been done in a number of other countries) then hold your hand up now. NOT ME!

The UK government has only put these rules in place this because, as usual, it is using a kneejerk reaction to solve an immediate problem rather than taking a balanced and sensible approach that considers reality and longer term ramifications.

Andy

bjcc

12th Aug 2006, 19:33

EastMids

I seem to recall the Goverment saying it would not carry on. It is therefore a short term mesure.

To be honest, yes, much of it is a pain, nothing more, and now we know the situation, and what we can and cannot take on an aircraft, it shouldn't be anything more than a minor inconvience, provided people are sensible.

So instead of taking a book to the airport, buy it airside. The queues at the search areas should deminish, given that much of the problems there are caused by seraching hand baggage.

Drinks on the way to US? I understand there is no restriction on the sale, or provision of drinks on aircraft due to the regulations. In fact, I understand that many airlines provide drinks free still.

Pax confidence? Yes, there is some merit in the claims this will cause some people not to fly. But then showers of tin over the atlantic would have a worse effect.
That would almost certainly have led to your doomsday prediction of job losses.

The inequality of security when arriving in the UK, yes, I see your point, but the UK has no sway over other airlines operating into the UK in that respect.

Oh and on the subject of Insurance, check the small print. All insurance companies are different. A friend of mine had her camera nicked from her hold luggage a few years ago. Her Insurance company paid out. Thats not to say that I don't understand the incovience of things being nicked from hold bags. I certainly wouldn't put my camera gear in there, not so much from any ability or otherwise to claim for it being nicked, more the inconvience.

EastMids

12th Aug 2006, 19:57

bjcc, you miss the point. The restrictions are not logical...

Firstly, do you HONESTLY believe the changes with respect to carry on items (with the exception of liquids) make things safer, because if you do there's no point in you flying anwhere anyway as you won't find the same "reassuring" restrictions in place in any other country, meaning your return trip is going to be more dangerous and cause you much more anxiety than your outbound. There's no such thing as solving half a problem here - if you think its going to happen, it does the same damage whether the plane explodes eastbound or westbound! You either believe we've got it right and everyone else has got it wrong, or you believe what we alone have is a gross over-reaction.

Secondly, whatever you think about the restrictions, there are other forms of travel (e.g. rail for domestic travel) and other air routes (Eurostar to Paris and then fly) available that avoid the issues created here. Many people, business travellers in particular, are already starting to do these things because they cannot reliably perform their business function with the current rules. Whilst our new security regime might give you warm fuzzy feelings about your outbound flight, many many other people are going to be doing the other without being concerned it carries any more risk, and the only result is severe damage the airline industry here.

Andy

bjcc

12th Aug 2006, 20:21

EastMids

I do not miss the point. I agree they seem to have a certain lack of logic, on the surface.

Look first at why the baggage restrictions are there. To prevent the anyone taking liquid and electrics.

By banning all hand bagagge they are preventing confusion and further delay, it's very simple just comply with it.

The reason why everything is banned is because there were previously many items which were prohibited, it didn't stop people thinking that prohibition applied to everyone except for them. This way, its easy, no one takes anything, end. No potential to take things through, less aggro for security staff, and everyone stays safe (ish). If everyone plays by the rules, the delays will ease. If they don't they wont.

The restrictions on day one, did cause delay, yes, because the first anyone knew was when they arrived at airports. Now, the same restrictions are in place, and the delays are reducing, greatly.

Now, as you and others rightly point out, its a pain. I agree, but its nothing more than that. So you can't take a lap top. Big deal, it may suprise you, but 20 or so years ago, no one took a laptop. Some people may have to be surgicaly removed from their mobile. Good! They are a blood pain, and the world would be better off with out them. Again, suprise to some, they didn't exisit some 20 years ago. And guess what, we all managed!

Yes, there are other ways of getting Europe, and I'm sure for a while, Eurotunnel will welcome the extra money. These restrictions will ease at some point though. In the meantime, just go with it. I'd rather this than the alternative.

I grant you, the return trip may not have the same protection. Well, thats life. There's sod all the UK Goverment can do about it, in respect of nion UK airlines.

spork

12th Aug 2006, 20:32

By banning all hand bagagge they are preventing confusion and further delay, it's very simple just comply with it.Simplicity itself. How naive can one get? Just about that naive I suppose.

How about engaging the brain before acting? No, no, no. It's much simpler the other way. Just comply with it.Just comply with it. Just comply with it. Just comply with it. Just comply with it. Just comply with it. Just comply with it.

bjcc

12th Aug 2006, 20:35

spork

I presume thats the best counter argument you can supply?

Ok, you may not agree, try putting some reasons down, rather than childish drival.

spork

12th Aug 2006, 20:46

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! I'm sick of seeing it explained a million times to those who will not see.

Thats not to say that I don't understand the incovience (sic) of things being nicked from hold bags. I certainly wouldn't put my camera gear in there, not so much from any ability or otherwise to claim for it being nicked, more the inconvience (sic).You said just comply with it!

PS:Thanks for the insult, one knows when one's winning that way!:ok:
PPS: It is drivEL! :ok:

bjcc

12th Aug 2006, 20:46

Mike Jenvey

Cobblers? What were the delays on day one? A great deal more, ergo, delays have reduced greatly.

20 years ago there were very few laptops. Correct Sherlock. Thats why very few people carried them and fewer still took them by air. And Guess what, the World kept spinning. Lesson? The world does not depend on lap tops.

I said, yes, in parts of this policy there does seems to be a lack of logic. That applies to things like newspapers, magazines & books. Although, I can see the point in say nothing to be taken to the search areas apart from the items listed by the DfT. It saves them having to be gone though. Yes, the apparent lack of logic appears to be compounded by being able to buy items airside, but in reality its just an issue of trying to reduce delay. The fact is, no it doesn't work, but would it work any better if you were allowed to take hand baggage in? No, with the extra searching required, it would make delays longer.

bjcc

12th Aug 2006, 20:49

spork

No one's insisting you take part in the discussion are they?

So, if you are sick of explaining, go and do something else.

Yes, I did say comply with it. I also said I wouldn't put my camera gear in hold luggage. Which means, I wouldn't take it by air at the moment. I can live without it, and the world will keep spinning.....

Thanks for your spell check. Always appriciate it from those of greater intelect.

spork

12th Aug 2006, 21:13

There are none so blind as those who will not see…

Airport checks 'not sustainable'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4787161.stm
He (Tony Douglas, BAA's chief executive officer for Heathrow) added: "Quite simply I don't know how long it's likely to go on, but it's clearly a set of measures that are unprecedented and by virtue of what they've come in to enforce, they're not sustainable measures." We all know what he really means…

“How about engaging the brain before acting?” (I wasn’t talking about YOU bjcc, it’s the awforrities) Oh hang on, no, no, no, it's much simpler the other way. Just comply with it. It’s easier.

Correct Sherlock. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Sorry if I’ve upset you here inadvertently, but I won’t disappear just because you wish it. No one's insisting YOU take part in the discussion are they? Do you seriously believe these measures ARE sustainable for non-Luddite travellers?

And it’s intellect…

Final 3 Greens

12th Aug 2006, 21:17

Chandlers Dad

Its small, about the size of a Fisherman Friends box and would go in your shirt pocket.

The data is many more times valuable than the PC for a lot of business people.

Thinking laterally, a Ghost DVD (a self booting disk image) carried in the cabin would be at least some insurance against loss of PC - but I guess that we can't take DVDs either.

bjcc

12th Aug 2006, 21:20

spork

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Your dog really is good at spelling.

Did I say these restrictions are sustainable? Erm, no.

Actually though some are. The restrictions on hand baggage are, very sustainable. It would save the BAA a fortune, not to mention a great deal of waisted Police time and a few people who really shouldn't be being arrested.

That does not mean I think they will stay, I don't.

As to comlying with it? Well, there's really no option, if you want to fly is there. So why moan about something you can't change, and wont stop the world.

Now what was it you said about insults and winning??????

Final 3 Greens

12th Aug 2006, 21:31

BJCC

And Guess what, the World kept spinning. Lesson? The world does not depend on lap tops.

You really do take the art of myopic philosophy to a level of competency that few can master.

Did you know that at one stage people thought that the Earth was flat and in recent history others fought a court case to denounce Darwin's theories?

Given your comments about laptops and mobiles, I can only think that globalization passed you by without catching your attention.

The world does not depend on latops, but the business community does.

As to comlying with it? Well, there's really no option

I don't really wish to make a jet blast type of post here, but the UK government brought in a number of regulations that I did not think were compatible with running a micro business and also told a large number of self employed people that we were not paying the "right amount of tax."

The net result is that I redomiciled my business away from the UK and now live outside the UK. Many others did too.

The UK government lost a significant amount of taxation as a result.

So there is a choice in this global village and the business community will make it.

People of limited vision like yourself will at least find the queues shorter at the airport.

View From The Ground

12th Aug 2006, 21:35

At 2000 tonight the BAA advised that all airlines who operated more than three flights (in a day) would have to cancel 30% of their schedule on Sunday 13 August. Airlines were required to submit a revised schedule to show this reduction by 2300. Three hours to revise schedules completely! Clearly the hand baggage situation is unsustainable how long before total gridlock ensues? What is going to happen to the 30% of passengers affected? Someone in Government must take a clear and decisive lead to save our industry.

Cahlibahn

12th Aug 2006, 21:40

Is there any legal basis fir this

bjcc

12th Aug 2006, 21:41

Final 3 Greens

No, the Globalisation bit didn't pass me by. My Brother in law is in the IT buisness, and has the same restrictions as you, and other businessmen have. He's over the moon. It means he can sit at home and do his job. Something he's been advocating for years, in otherwords exactly what the internet and global communications was supposed to achieve.

No one is preventing you from taking your laptop with you, all that is being done is you are being made to take it in the hold. Yes, I agree thats a risk, it may not be there when you pick up your baggage. Thats a different point, and one where I'd agree something should have been done a long time ago to prevent thefts from baggage. In spite of well publisised operations against baggage thefts they still happen. There are ways of stopping it, but that would be seen as oppresive and contravening human rights, and probably lead to more delays as the baggage handlers would go on strike.

Cahibahn

Yes, As I recall the DfT can make regulations regardiing baggage and passenger searches. Even if they couldn't, the airline has the right to refuse you travel, and the airport authority the right to refuse you entry airside. The result of which is that even if there were no regulation, just DfT edict, then if you did not comply with the rules, you wouldn't be able to fly.

Final 3 Greens

12th Aug 2006, 21:51

No one is preventing you from taking your laptop with you

Damn right they are not, since I shall not use the UK to connect until a more reasonable balance is found.

You just aren't getting it, are you?

Globalization is about the impact of market and other forces and the subsequent competition driving how things are done.

Water will find it's own level, by the easiest means and governments who do not take this message on board are playing with fire, as far as their wealth creation capabilities and by extension their ability to provide the required social environment are concerned.

Bumz_Rush

12th Aug 2006, 22:01

or 1 in 3 BAA airports......

It would be a good start, to get the attention of those who are designated / elected to look after our interests...

Bumz

spork

12th Aug 2006, 22:04

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" Your dog really is good at spelling.Actually I am partially sighted, but no, I don’t have a dog. I like to read a good book while travelling, but I do need drops for my eyes. Neither of those is currently available to me on a flight from the UK.

Actually though some are. The restrictions on hand baggage are, very sustainable. No, they are not. Read all posts above.

waisted Police time… … a few people who really shouldn't be being arrested.Umm… What?

As to comlying with it? Well, there's really no option, if you want to fly is there. Oh yes there is. If you go back and read the posts above (not just mine) you will see that there is.

Now what was it you said about insults and winning?????? You seem to be the only one who has to throw insults, rather than work on your logic.

From your delight at these current draconic (one way) regulations, I can only assume that your livelihood does not depend on aviation.

tristar500

12th Aug 2006, 22:11

Cant wait for the schedule restrictions for Monday morning :eek:

Bronx

12th Aug 2006, 23:57

spork From your delight at these current draconic (one way) regulations, I can only assume that your livelihood does not depend on aviation. bjcc is or was a patrol cop.
Rules are rules, don't question them, just comply, simple.
You're banging your head against the barn wall here and all you'll have at the end is a sore head.

spork

13th Aug 2006, 00:06

Rules are rules, don't question them, just comply, simple.Crikey, now I see the light. Of course this security over-reaction (which hugely jeopardises European aviation jobs) all makes sense to me now. Thanks for that.

Count von Altibar

13th Aug 2006, 00:23

Heathrow is a total joke at the moment. The airlines are losing millions due to a total overeaction by the authorities...

TheSailor

13th Aug 2006, 02:55

Hello,

Reading the press..many forums...and just tinking five minutes....I still wondering :confused: why such a group of terrorists...choice a country like UK (where security is at high level from years) for prepare such plot.:rolleyes:
The third world countries seem's to me a better choice...and AFAIK..US airliners are also going in those countries (if the flag of planes victims is important matter for the terror perpetrators)..for prepare their actions.
Or ...the terrorists are stupids...and so I must feel comfortable with this idea......:p
All this stink from the beginning....:(

xetroV

13th Aug 2006, 03:18

As long as there are people like bjcc supporting this kind of overreaction, the terrorists (whoever they are) will win. This makes bjcc an accomplice, but I doubt he'll ever grasp that himself. The terrorist's weapons of choice are not bombs, but simple-minded and fearful people: scare them enough and you'll accomplish your goals.

Ron & Edna Johns

13th Aug 2006, 05:14

You really have to compare and wonder about these two situations:

(1) "The authorities" intercept and prevent an alleged plot to blow up planes and despite nothing actually transpiring in comes this new draconian security regime; whilst,

(2) Last year four ACTUAL terrorist attacks occurred on London trains and buses, yet despite the hand-wringing, I haven't heard of equivalent draconian security being implemented on all who ride those vehicles. Correct me if I'm wrong, someone? I am down-under afterall....

I'll bet the London bus driver is still allowed to take his sandwiches on the bus with him....

:yuk:

johno617tonka

13th Aug 2006, 06:26

We had friends coming 'up north' for the weekend from Brighton. Only he came up in the end on Friday as they had booked BA from LGW and didn't want it to wreck the weekend completely...
We checked last night for his return flight, everything seemed ok, first two cancelled but later two appeared ok!
Checked one last time before I went to bed and ALL four have been cancelled..

Now we have to see whether we can get him home via rail, which we don't think we will have a problem but like you say not only is it a bit of a mess at the moment, but i bet there is a few modes of transport who are making very good business from it all...

Harrier46

13th Aug 2006, 06:40

It just shows that either previous security screening was totally inadequate and unsafe or that now we are suffering from gross overreaction! Either way the situation is a total mess. I just hope this time the security services have found some real bad guys, and are not just using their usual sources of information (overheard discussions in local bars!)

sky9

13th Aug 2006, 07:05

I am not a great reader of the News of the World, however Lord Stevens the retired CC of the Met wrote this.

It is a must read.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/lordstevens.shtml

10secondsurvey

13th Aug 2006, 07:25

According to bjcc, pax with mobile phones are a 'bloody pain'.

What a truly stupid, ignorant comment. No further analysis required.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 08:34

10secondsurvey

If you read whats writen, rather than jumping to conclutions, you'd see, I said mobile phones are a pain, not pax with them. Different point.

Bronx

Whats a 'Patrol Cop'?

Spork

Yes, I'm afraid a total ban on hand baggage is sustanable. It's very easy to do, and much simpler for airport authorities. The ban it's self is not the cause of delay, the delay is the additional search proccedure. If the additional search requirement remains, and hand baggage is permitted, it will increase delay, if for no other reason than the staffing at search areas is not suffiecent to to do both quickly.

As I said, I doubt that it will be sustained, thats not to say that airport authorities would not prefer to have a permanant ban on hand baggage, it is certainly something they often talked about in the mid 90's.

"Quote:
waisted Police time… … a few people who really shouldn't be being arrested.

Umm… What?"

As I said in the full post from which you quote, a large number of items are banned from being taken on aircraft, and have been for a long time. Some of those are illegal to possess, eg knives, firearms, pepper/cs/mace sprays. That is, illegal to possess in the UK. But maybe legal in the pax country of residence. They are often found at search areas, and that can and has led to the pax arrest, missing thier flight and thier flight being delayed while thier hold luggage is found and removed.

Now, if some pax are stupid enough to take items like those mentioned above on a flight, in hand baggage, then you can see why the DfT wanted to make the regulations as simple as possible when it comes to banning liquids. Which they have. Ban everything, then there is no doubt involved.

Of course, those like you didn't know the above, and just assume there is no logic to these restrictions.

Final 3 Greens

13th Aug 2006, 08:49

Yes, I'm afraid a total ban on hand baggage is sustanable. It's very easy to do, and much simpler for airport authorities.

No it is not. If you were capable of deductive reasoning, you would realize that the impact of this action will be politically unacceptable due to loss of tax revenues and extremely strong lobbying from the airlines and business.

This action is placing UK plc at a competitive disadvantage.

Therefore it is not sustainable.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 09:20

Final 3 Greens

Politically unacceptable is not the same as unstainable.

There are 2 causes of this issue, one you, and no one else have mentioned, which is the additional search requirements. The second is the ban on hand baggage.

The hand baggage ban reduces the time taken for searches, along with the staffing needs. BUT, the additional search of people requirement increases that staffing need again, to beyond the previous situation. That, is where the delays are being caused, not through a ban on hand baggage!

At some point, one, or both of these requirements will be relaxed. I think it will be the search of people one. The ban on liquids will probably remain for a lot longer, look, for example at the ban on sissors resulting from 9/11. That to the BAA is sustainable, It's not something that will bother airlines, and as no one is being prevented from taking items such as laptops etc, buisness leaders arn't in a position to lobby against it either.

Final 3 Greens

13th Aug 2006, 11:01

BJCC

Once again your limited intellect and UK centric view makes you look foolish.

Politically unacceptable directly = unsustainable.

You need to think top down, not bottom up.

When a few multinationals let it be know that they are considering transferring 10,000 jobs elsewhere and when the airlines (and support industries) add their voice, measued in terms of large scale redundancies, the change will come.

You seem blissfully unaware that the UK is acting in a vacuum (at least in Europe), for instance I have just checked in for an intra European flight and am sitting in the lounge typing this on my laptop using wifi.

Its the first time I've flown Lufthansa for over a year, but its going to become a regular happening unless things change in the UK.

Of course, you and your compatriats may choose to commit commercial suicide, if you wish.

Bronx

13th Aug 2006, 11:13

bjcc Whats a 'Patrol Cop'? We use 'cop' for police officer. I always thought we got it from the British 'copper'.
'Patrol' cops are the lowest rank guys who ride around on 'patrol'.
Now put the two words together and American 'patrol cop' = British 'police constable'.
Simple, huh?
I should have said you were a police constable but thought cop was used most places.

Let's try another one.
Fact - Yo Blair is doing real bad in the public opinion stakes and a lot of his own party think he was wrong for going with GWB over Lebanon. Sure, they could be right and the rest of the world leaders wrong -- maybe.
Fact - GWB isn't doing so bad as Blair but more and more Americans think the war on Iraq is a big mess we shouldn't have gotten into, think it's wrong America's taking sides over Lebanon and are very unhappy he blocked the ceasefire resolution when so many innocent men, women and children were being killed.
Now try and think outside the box.
Did you read all that Blair thanks Bush and Bush thanks Blair stuff after the terrorist plots got announced? Sure, thank each other all day if they want but they both thought they'd do it in the press and media.
In his weekly radio address the President just linked terrorist plots to bring down airplanes full of "innocent men, women, and children" with, guess who - Hezbolla. He didn't say there's any evidence at all of any link with Hezbolla, just a hint to try and make folks think he's right over Lebanon.
Maybe the timing of these plots was just good luck but GWB and Yo Blair are sure as hell are gonna milk it all they can and keep folks scared for as long as they can.
Sure you can say 'the government knows more than we do so we shouldn't question their decisions', but some folks think it's healthy to be skeptical about polititians motives.

You're always real quick to say folks that don't accept what you say don't understand. Big mistake. Bad habit. There's lotsa guys on Prune who are a whole lot cleverer than you and me.

B.

ElNino

13th Aug 2006, 12:04

Lord Stevens....It is a must read.

I second that. That's the most sensible analysis of the problem I've read for a while.
I'm sure the bleeding heart do-gooders and other lobotomised individuals such as George Galloway will dismiss it as rascism. However, these people need to learn that pinpointing the problem does not constitute rascism.

BusyB

13th Aug 2006, 12:28

bjcc,
I'm not sure if you're aware that a large proportion of the flight delays now are because more hold baggage has to be checked because the scanners are detecting laptops, ipods etc. It was quicker to check them with a handbaggage check.

I don't know why you defend the indefensible. This plot was apparently known of for some time, preparations for a/c security should have been pre-planned thoroughly, not this half-baked, last-minute c**k-up.:ugh:

derekl

13th Aug 2006, 12:39

This plot was apparently known of for some time, preparations for a/c security should have been pre-planned thoroughly, not this half-baked, last-minute c**k-up.:ugh:

Oh, I don't know, seems they had plenty of plastic bags ready at the last minute . . .

10secondsurvey

13th Aug 2006, 12:50

bjcc,

Thought I'd quote what's written:

"Some people may have to be surgicaly removed from their mobile. Good! They are a blood pain, and the world would be better off with out them."

What a stupid ignorant comment. No further analysis required.

brakedwell

13th Aug 2006, 12:52

bjcc,
This plot was apparently known of for some time, preparations for a/c security should have been pre-planned thoroughly, not this half-baked, last-minute c**k-up.:ugh:
Isn't everything this "government" does a half baked, last minute cock-up?
The plastic bags are a rare example of efficiency.
:D :D :D

PilotsPal

13th Aug 2006, 13:11

I understand that no liquids may be carried through security and onto aircraft but, despite searching, I can find no reference to the wearing of bras with gel-filled pockets which are widely used these days. Are these subject to removal and security check?

Also, is there any policy applicable to stoma patients (ileostomy, colostomy, etc)? Are they subject to any kind of additional security examination?

el !

13th Aug 2006, 13:14

This works from the assumption that permitting carry-on baggage is putting people at risk. Idiots carrying explosives is what puts people at risk. Western governments imposing their stupid foreign policies on the middle east is putting people at risk....

I couldn't agree more with you LD. I think the reason things are so messed up is that there is so much hipocracy and struggle for power. Sensible security does not exist, why they are trying to hide such a simple fact ?

Still, by baggage gets lost/stolen everyday. My passenger rights are often ignored by some unscrupolous airline or their employee. There are many aspects to be addressed in Aviation safety (not security).
Not many decision makers care about these thing, why? Because getting visibility and being the mouthpiece of terror thinking is much easier. Hard, tedious work of everyday too difficult and brings no reward.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 13:29

Bronx

Oh, a Police Constable. I see, so the fact that every member of the British Police Service is a Police Constable (with the exception of some senior members of the Met Police)makes them all Patrol Cops then?

As for questioning Yo and the Bush, I'm in favour, but it wasn't thier decision, that was made elsewhere. Just as you advocate questioning them, why should one not question some of the dafter theories, and doomsday statements being made here.

I very much doubt that scaring the population is a way of increasing popularity. Then again, we are a bit more used to terrorism here than the USA is.

It may come as a suprise that there are people in the press here (BBC News this morning) suggesting excatly what I said, that a permanant ban on hand baggage is actually a good thing.

Ok, so some think this is a cock up, and badly planned (On the last point I would agree) but no one has yet suggested a workable alternative. Inteligence based profilling is labour intensive, not to mention extreamly difficult to introduce and would take a considerable amount of time to train the staff needed. It would increase check in times considerably, and is unreliable.

So what else do you do? Ignore a possible threat? Good idea, that really could cause the doomsday therory put foreward by Final 3 Greens.

el !

13th Aug 2006, 13:45

bjcc,

You've been already been told that attitudes like your are myopic, detrimental to economy, and in final analysis, just senseless. I will not repeat what others had said better than me.

I want to remember you why we do want to bring hand baggage on airplanes, including nail cutters and liquids.

It is because is part of 'our' western lifestyle (and other parts of the world, I'm using western as an oversimplification).
We want to bring our things with us, be it sex toys, cameras, laptops or what we like better. This because it is the form of freedom we are able to appreciate best, there be may other forms of freedom but hassle-free travel is appreciated by most people.
If you don't appreciate that, and want to propagand hassle-ridden travel, go ahead, but it will be you only as the discussion here has showed already.

brakedwell

13th Aug 2006, 14:01

It may come as a suprise that there are people in the press here (BBC News this morning) suggesting excatly what I said, that a permanant ban on hand baggage is actually a good thing.

So valuable and fragile items such as cameras, laptops and musical instruments will be banished to the holds with the resulting risk of being damaged or stolen. I for one will use ground transport (car/train/eurotunnel) if possible or video conferencing when appropriate. The airlines are going suffer a massive loss of revenue if this stupid restriction is allowed to carry on for much longer.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 14:04

el !

I keep reading this detriment to the econamy argument. It really doesn't hold water.

There is no restriction on taking a laptop, or sex toy if that floats your boat. The only restriction is it goes in the hold at the moment. It may be that becomes a permanant thing, it may not. It's not my choice, it's the way it is!

Sitting behind a computer whinging about how inconvientent it is doesn't change it, in any event, thats all it is inconvienent!

The fact is that the DfT has decided that no liquids will be taken airside. Yes, its draconian, and yes it's harsh. They have also decided that there will be 100% passenger searches, and everything will be xrayed.

That decision has been made in response to a specific plot to cause death. Do you suggest that is ignored? I doubt it.

Do you know that there were not other cells planning the same thing, and in fact the threat was much bigger? No, you don't, and nor probably do the Security Service, nor The Police.

So given something has to be done, and given the nature of this form of attack, the DfT has done something. I would suggest the first idea was the 100% pax searches, but that has implications, as I outlined before, think what the queues would be like, and therefore delays caused by that AND having to deal with hand baggage too. Consider for a moment the time taken either asking the Pax to taste every liquid or having it analysed.

Again, as I said before, pax have a habit of ignoring lists of what they can't take in hand baggage, even when it should be obvious, knives, guns, mace/cs/pepper sprays. 30 tpo 50 times a day we as Police were called to exactly that, and you think pax are going to be sensible and remove liquids?

So, yes, I can see the logic of whats been done. In spite of claims to that it is stupid, there is thought behind it.

brakedwell

13th Aug 2006, 14:23

bjcc
Get your head out of the sand and think. Laptops are an indispensible tool for the majority of business travellers who cannot afford to lose the sensitive data they contain. It the computer is stolen or damaged their hellish journeys will have been a waste of time. I for one will stop flying until sanity returns and sensible measures such as passenger profiling are adopted at UK airports.

BEagle

13th Aug 2006, 14:28

Ignoring the stupidly woodentop comments of some, I have just been listening to a very sensible and measured response from Michael o'Leary. He has the situation summed up perfectly - the system simply isn't designed to cope with the current requirements and the blunt instrument of checking 100% of all passengers will not work for more than 3 or 4 days or the whole system will collapse and the terrorists will have won.

Yes, there certainly will be commercial damage to the airlines if this pig-ignorance continues. Business travellers will not risk loss or damage of expensive, essential business tools containing sensitive commercial information by consigning them to the hold.

30W

13th Aug 2006, 14:33

172driver

13th Aug 2006, 14:39

Business travellers will not risk loss or damage of expensive, essential business tools containing sensitive commercial information by consigning them to the hold.

Unless, of course, the baggage handlers take an interest in them :}

EastMids

13th Aug 2006, 14:39

I keep reading this detriment to the econamy argument. It really doesn't hold water.
Yes it does hold water. Willie Walsh realises it, Michael O'leary realises it. Tim Jeans of Monarch was on 5Live this morning - he realises it, he said it. Even the BAA recognise it. In fact, I think it would be fairly accurate to say that the entire aviation industry recognises it. At present, it seems that the luddites don't. Sooner or later DFT will be forced by commercial pressure to acknowledge the damage too, and ultimately will have do something about it, and maybe even do something on the basis of the damage current rules will cause alone. If that means that the casual traveller suddenly has to appreciate that there is a minor risk to air travel (something regular air travellers have been aware of for years) or that flying has to cost more, then even that will cause less damage than the ongoing situation will cause.

People like bjcc only see things in black and white. That's why doing 30mph is always legal on a road that has a 30mph limit, when on some occasions 30mph may be way to fast and on others it may be totally safe to do 40mph. Shades of grey are what we're talking here - that there has to be a state between total anarchy and total security that still allows people to do what they need to do. The current imposition does not achieve that goal.

Andy

el !

13th Aug 2006, 14:49

bjcc, the you really have a Police attitude, luckly of the civilized kind.

That is, you are willing to discuss things as long these are in line with the instructions you have been given and their limited logic. When your interlocutor poses valid challenges to your arguments, you go back to the autorithative way and refuse to move. And you like to always have the last word, as it is typical of those in your position.

Since we are debating in a forum and not at the Airport, I will take the time once more to show you how flawed is your reasoning. Lucky others are doing that, you should take this as a great opportunity to open your mind.

el !
I keep reading this detriment to the econamy argument. It really doesn't hold water.

Doesn't ? Why ? Cetrainly we won't know from you as you skipped to the next item below.

There is no restriction on taking a laptop, or sex toy if that floats your boat. The only restriction is it goes in the hold at the moment.

I want my toys on board because they make my fly comfortable, and in a mere minuscole way, make my short life worth to be lived, because this Western civilization that the terrors hate so much, gave me airplanes, ipods, books and freedon of opinion, and money to buy these things and why not, sex toys to be used in restrooms in flight. And I want nail clippers because nobody can be harm by them, expecially pilots behind a locked (blinded) door in 2006 after we learnt.

It may be that becomes a permanant thing, it may not. It's not my choice, it's the way it is!

Here again the cursory recall to authority. bjcc please remember, I'm not 8 years old, and we are not at the airport. If you don't have arguments of your own, let the official ones to be trumped by whoever decided them.

Sitting behind a computer whinging about how inconvientent it is doesn't change it, in any event, thats all it is inconvienent!
The fact is that the DfT has decided that no liquids will be taken airside. Yes, its draconian, and yes it's harsh. They have also decided that there will be 100% passenger searches, and everything will be xrayed.
That decision has been made in response to a specific plot to cause death. Do you suggest that is ignored? I doubt it.

This is a cheap argeumenting tecnique that I suggest you take with less intelligent people, to who you can exert your autority better than here. In order to augment your reasoning, you imply the fact that by not agreeing with you, one actually takes the side of a bigger evil. Banal.

Do you know that there were not other cells planning the same thing, and in fact the threat was much bigger? No, you don't, and nor probably do the Security Service, nor The Police.

So while we don't know what bad people are wanting, we don't go on with our lives ? Anyway, let me be blunt now, I think that making all these prohibition is absolutely useless, because no terrorist now would try the trick that the Service or whoever had just found (exactly how they found, this is another matter).
Terrorists don't want to be arrested. They are stupid but not stupid enough to do things at the wrong time. And now is a wrong time. Even Bush said so, they are patient. And when a better time will come, if they are still around and willing to die for we don't know what, they will hit.
Actually, by disrupting the way we live, you gave them a partial success. The difference is just that nobody died, no material destructions, but the practical effect on everyday life is the same.

So given something has to be done, and given the nature of this form of attack, the DfT has done something. I would suggest the first idea was the 100% pax searches, but that has implications, as I outlined before, think what the queues would be like, and therefore delays caused by that AND having to deal with hand baggage too.

Here you revelad another piece of the hipocracy - "something has to be done". I explained above exactly why nothing had to be done, and I will add another point - there are so many ways of bringing on board dangerous items, that short of 100% body and cavity search, no pax will be ever secure. But it seem that what really matters to you, is to make your work "sustenaible" - so yhe shortcut is OK with you, even if you know in your mind that you are not screening anything, because they are not coming.

Consider for a moment the time taken either asking the Pax to taste every liquid or having it analysed. Again, as I said before, pax have a habit of ignoring lists of what they can't take in hand baggage, even when it should be obvious, knives, guns, mace/cs/pepper sprays. 30 tpo 50 times a day we as Police were called to exactly that, and you think pax are going to be sensible and remove liquids?
So, yes, I can see the logic of whats been done. In spite of claims to that it is stupid, there is thought behind it.

Why you come back so often mentioning the forbidden items , all meant to harm a person. The Police is there to seize them and arrest or cite the person carrying them. So what.
Because some individual misbehave, you cannot attach the same attitute to everyone. In fact, the percentage of seized items (30 to 50 in a busy airport) is even less than the prison population of a Western country.

EDIT: few lines above I said "nothing has to be done". This is technically incorrect, I should have said "nothing has to be done now in screening", instead many many things must be done in the area of non-invasive technology and intelligent searches that can in a future minimize the possibility that explosives in whatever form are brought on board.
The "intelligent" approach to security that you hastly dismissed because unsustainable in your line of work, is exactly what should be done.
Instead of thinking about how to get security in the most practical way, why don't you think, in a sensible, foreseeing, concerted way.

eidah

13th Aug 2006, 15:05

Just why are the scheduled airlines struggling so much? All UK charter flights have operated, and in most cases with minimal delay. This blanket cancelling of services form low cost carriers for example seems more based on accepting responsibility for the passengers than actual security measures!

It seems as though the schedule airlines are strugling so much is that the are told by the Airport Authorities to cancel flights. I know some airlines are cancelling the outbound flight and the aircraft is flying out there empty and bringing back the passengers on schedule.

microlight AV8R

13th Aug 2006, 15:28

el! Spot on, totally in agreement.

When fighting a monster you must avoid becoming one yourself.

We are in danger of losing the very freedoms we seek to defend.

I have lived with the threat of terrorism for a significant part of my life. As a six year old in Aden my parents drilled it into me that I should not pick up anything outside as our arab friends had a nasty habit of booby-trapping things. I accepted the advice and I'm alive to share this snippet with the likes of bjcc. Take note: I was allowed to have my own toys whilst playing outside.

Then we had 30 years of IRA terror threatening mainland UK. The threat we face now is no worse.

Blowing up airliners whether empty or full is nothing new. Remember the airfield in Jordan and our VC-10's ?

bjcc... With respect,I have served in uniform and recognise that in such walks of life you can be somewhat biased towards the authoritarian view. Whatever solutions are put in place should reflect that the majority of us pax respect the rules and are simply going about our lawful business.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 15:34

el !

My attitude has nothing to do with a previous occupation, but everything to do with the real world.

Sadly, the real world doesn't run to the form of logic some who post here would like it too.

Your point about now being safer to fly, because someone got arrested doesn't work. How many times have there been arrests for terrorist offences and a further offence happen within hours? A lot.

While you point out one point of view, there is another, which is that the Seucrity Forces are busy patting each other on the back, and wont be expecting anything further.

Again, you are right is saying there is no 100% security. The idea is to make things as secure as possible, while maintaining as much freedom as possible. You are entitled to believe the balance is wrong at present, those on the other side, ie who impliment or are responsible for security may have an opposing view.

Even if you are on your side of the argument, do you NEED your lap top in the cabin? No, you don't. Do you NEED a mobile? again, no, as far as I know, you can't use it anyway. I take your point about your toys and comfort, but does your comfort outweigh everyone elses security?

Which leads onto the issue of searches when going airside. You don't address the issue, it matters not whether I agree with 100% pax checks or not, they are happening (No, not an authoritive statement, a statement of fact) and given they are happening, which in themsleves lead to extra delays, then removing the handbaggage issue doesn't make the situation worse.

You can make all the comment about me siding with the 'rules' all you like, possibly I do. Possibly I don't. I have expressed no opinion on the pax searches or the reasons behind them, what I have done is try to explain what from a different point of view are very sensible porcesses.

Finally, the issue of crime prevention and expensive items in hold luggage, that is a different issue, and one where I will express an opinion. The situation where the contents of your bag can be stolen is unacceptable. There are things that can, and should have been done in the past, and haven't. For that though, you need to blame the airlines themselves, they are the ones who prevent investigation of offences and refuse to impliment arrangements to stamp it out. Oddly, the best one of which is the very thing there is so much hand wringing over on this thread, 100% search of the contents of baggage handlers property when exiting work.

Edit re your edited comment:

I do not believe that profiling is a very reliable way of arranging security. It relies on well trained and motivated staff, something there is a shortage of. The profiling that people like AA and AI run at LHR I never found very reliable, and they were wrong far more often than they were right.(albeit this was in connection with dodgy passports) That form of security costs, and that means it costs Pax, it may be it will be introduced, but I can't see that in the short term.

Lucifer

13th Aug 2006, 15:40

Interesting comment on the following link as to the reasons behind the baby bottle taste tests.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20115941-2,00.html

brakedwell

13th Aug 2006, 15:42

Your point about now being safer to fly, because someone got arrested doesn't work. How many times have there been arrests for terrorist offences and a further offence happen within hours? A lot.

bjcc
Can you give me any examples in England which were related to aviation?

Flying Lawyer

13th Aug 2006, 15:45

bjcc Oh, a Police Constable. I see, so the fact that every member of the British Police Service is a Police Constable (with the exception of some senior members of the Met Police)makes them all Patrol Cops then?
That is a wholly illogical extrapolation of what was said.
Although police officers are sworn to the office of constable, it is also a rank and that's the sense in which it is most commonly used by both police and public - and the sense in which it was clearly being used here.

You were a Police Constable until you retired from the police. You've said so on various 'police' threads in Jetblast. Why try to play silly games?

You might want to consider what responses such as the one I've quoted do to your credibility. There's a danger people might think you create diversions rather than concede, and fixate on points because you have difficulty with logical argument.

cavortingcheetah

13th Aug 2006, 15:52

:hmm:

The possibilities for future travel for experienced and dedicated voyagers are becoming brighter by the minute.

The restrictions placed on carry on baggage will enforce a no fly policy on many families with small children who will feel unable to cope with any flight without their mountain of portable garbage, needed as a life support system for their midnight screaming banshees.

The restrictions placed on carry on computers and other items of brain draining moronity will seriously impede the business traveller. Business lounges, those nests of over fat, over weening and overly self important corporate failures will empty. No more will the quite traveller voyaging on his own account have to listen to the constant self- preening that the businessman or woman constantly needs to apply to themselves by means of prattling on and on on a mobile telephone.

Cabin crew will have the opportunity to relax in a hand baggage free environment unabused by either business traveller or unkempt parent. No more the constant human yo yo up and down to the luggage containers.
Those who still fly regularily will take Valium or some such little tablet to ensure that, with nothing to amuse their minds, they can at least sleep.

Peace and tranquility will reign in the air.

There is much to look forward to in the flights of the future.:p ;)

finfly1

13th Aug 2006, 15:56

I have not seen a single response to my suggestion of merely locking the overhead bins during flight. Too simple?

MerchantVenturer

13th Aug 2006, 16:00

It's a pity that this thread seems to be slipping into an attack on bjcc's intelligence, or lack of it, with the implication that his is a typical unimaginative, unintelligent approach of the average police officer.

During my fairly long life I have had quite a lot of close contact with police officers in a professional situation. I can assure those that talk about stupidly woodentop comments and and you like to always have the last word, as it is typical of those in your position, just to cite two random examples of apparent generalisations, that I have encountered many police officers who are highly intelligent, open-minded and possessed of a knowledge of the world and its citizens far greater than the average person.

I have read many of bjcc's posts on other topics and he clearly has a first rate knowledge of the criminal law and its application.

Having said that, I don't agree with bjcc that the economy argument doesn't hold water. Others have already accurately put the counter argument so there is no need for me to expound further.

The Home Secretary has said the current security measures are time-limited, but that is a vague concept.

There will always be risk in life and the current battle against terrorism will always be a balance between reasonable precautions and allowing everyone to get on with their lives.

As many people are killed on the roads in the UK each year as were murdered on 11 September 2001, but we don't stop people driving cars. We try to limit road casualties by taking reasonable measures, knowing we shall never be completely successful. The same applies to aviation security.

To comment on FL's point about the rank of constable, it is somewhat anomalous in that every police officer is sworn in as a constable and exercises his/her powers as a constable, but that some Acts of Parliament give additional powers only to police officers of a certain rank, eg the Police and Criminal Evidence Act gives inspectors and superintendents powers to authorise searches under various scenarios.

For many years police ranks were primarily for internal discipline and administration, but we seem have gone far beyond that in 21st Century Britain.

zed3

13th Aug 2006, 16:01

bjcc..... rules are for the GUIDANCE of wise men and the INSTRUCTION of fools . Common sense has to return to life and politics .

BEagle

13th Aug 2006, 16:04

Locked bins seem eminently sensible to me! But modifications to achieve this will be costly and will take a long time to fit.

Whilst we're at it, restrict all passengers to only one piece of cabin luggage per adult, max dimensions to total not more than 115 cm and no heavier than 8 kg.

The mounting climbers' backpacks and those damned wheeled trolley things belong in the hold.

chandlers dad

13th Aug 2006, 16:09

:hmm:
Cabin crew will have the opportunity to relax in a hand baggage free environment unabused by either business traveller or unkempt parent.

Peace and tranquility will reign in the air.

There is much to look forward to in the flights of the future.:p ;)

In your world, yes. Look back at what you are saying and you are correct. It will be quiet and peaceful in the cabin because it will be mostly empty on the few surviving flights in the air. The passengers will take another mode of travel to get where they need to go.

The cabin crew will be able to relax, in the ever growing unemployment line. Their services, along with the pilots, engineers, ticket and counter staff, baggage handlers and most of the airport employees will not be needed. The majority of the passengers these days are the rank and file public, and they do not have to go on vacation.

Please engage brain before typing people!! When the business traveler is kept from working before, during and after the landing, and his/her laptop/pda/phone is stolen from the checked baggage, they will do something else.

When the parents with several kids cannot carry toys to entertain kids on a 10 hour flight or when the rank and file cannot carry a Ipod to listen to music, carry a computer to catch up on email, or have a book to read, they will find another way to travel.

This is a solution but only for those who have other options. Our option is to fix this mess or lose our job/career and I for one do not like the second option.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 16:20

finfly1

Yes, it is a good answer, in every way except as Beagle points out.

The same applies to profiling, it can't be implimented in the short term.

Leaving aside, for now, the nothing needs to be done, there have been no better ideas suggested that would work and could be implimented litteraly overnight.

Now moving to the nothing needs to be done argument, I covered that previously, it's un provable, and a big risk to take.Great, if nothing does happen, but very expensive in terms of lives if it does.

el !

13th Aug 2006, 16:23

Almost an intelligent, insult-free discussion. Few more points. I apologize for not have been able to correctly spell authority and variations in my previous posts. I hope that doesn't form a prejudice toward what I said.
el !
...
While you point out one point of view, there is another, which is that the Seucrity Forces are busy patting each other on the back, and wont be expecting anything further.

Is this really happening? If it is, haven't "you" - as in Security learnt anything?

Again, you are right is saying there is no 100% security. The idea is to make things as secure as possible, while maintaining as much freedom as possible. You are entitled to believe the balance is wrong at present, those on the other side, ie who impliment or are responsible for security may have an opposing view.

I understand that a Security Officer having dissenting views on the instruction received is probably unsuited for the job. At the same time, I reclaim the right for anyone to use his own thinking as dictated by experience and continuous proactive approach to the matter. Remember, we are not polemizing with the executors of Security measures, but with the measures themselves.

Even if you are on your side of the argument, do you NEED your lap top in the cabin? No, you don't.

Yes I do. When travelling for the company, I was often sent to training and customer support within hours notice. I used my laptop on board to familiarize with the issues and not make a fool of myself when I arrive and have to go straight to the meeting. At the time I traveled coach without being any kind of manager. As other have said, having the laptop stolen or broken by baggage handlers would have been unacceptable from a corporate point of view.

Do you NEED a mobile? Again, no, as far as I know, you can't use it anyway.

Yes I need a mobile, to be used on the plane on ground (when allowed) or immediately upon leaving the airplane. I need it to arrange pick-up, inform colleageus about delay or changed situation, or other important business.

I take your point about your toys and comfort, but does your comfort outweigh everyone elses security?

But the thing is that I do not compromise anyone security, and it is at me that you have to look first, then if you don't like my passport and stamps, travelling profile, occupation, race or religion then go ahead and search me and my baggage, plus do it randomly as we are used to accept nowadays.

Which leads onto the issue of searches when going airside. You don't address the issue, it matters not whether I agree with 100% pax checks or not, they are happening (No, not an authoritive statement, a statement of fact) and given they are happening, which in themsleves lead to extra delays, then removing the handbaggage issue doesn't make the situation worse.
You can make all the comment about me siding with the 'rules' all you like, possibly I do. Possibly I don't. I have expressed no opinion on the pax searches or the reasons behind them, what I have done is try to explain what from a different point of view are very sensible porcesses.

So we agree to disagree.

Finally, the issue of crime prevention and expensive items in hold luggage, that is a different issue, and one where I will express an opinion. The situation where the contents of your bag can be stolen is unacceptable. There are things that can, and should have been done in the past, and haven't. For that though, you need to blame the airlines themselves, they are the ones who prevent investigation of offences and refuse to impliment arrangements to stamp it out. Oddly, the best one of which is the very thing there is so much hand wringing over on this thread, 100% search of the contents of baggage handlers property when exiting work.

I do agree up to a certain point. When Police, Judges or whoever is in power really wants something, they get it. The present situation shows exactly that. To me, it is a comfortable excuse for you to say the Airlines don't allow you to do that, exactly like when the Airline says the Securty doesn't allow us to do that. Typical Aviation fingerpointing. As a collective society, we should stop it now.
Beside, I wouldn't be happy anyway leaving anything of value in the baggage, even if we were to sanitize 100% the staff in Europe and other Western countries, what about when one arrives in a third world country where I and my belongings are always seen as a prey.

Edit re your edited comment:
I do not believe that profiling is a very reliable way of arranging security. It relies on well trained and motivated staff, something there is a shortage of. The profiling that people like AA and AI run at LHR I never found very reliable, and they were wrong far more often than they were right.(albeit this was in connection with dodgy passports) That form of security costs, and that means it costs Pax, it may be it will be introduced, but I can't see that in the short term.

Ridiculous. Someone is trying to do the right thing and you blame them because in your opinion, the short and brutal way is more effective. I will never agree.
If you have a problem with how the screening is done by these 'colleagues', albeit civilians, you should build up a fat website denouncing their mistakes and then use your inside information for the benefit of everyone. If you are afraid of loosing your job, do it anonymously, this is 2006 and the Blog rules, if it has valuable information, someone will look at it.

cavortingcheetah

13th Aug 2006, 16:32

:hmm:

It all sounds good for the rebirth of the British ship building industry, investment in The Clyde and the re-emergence of Liverpool as a major transport hub.
There'll be plenty of jobs on the new liners which will be built to accomodate those in search of a relaxing holiday. Sea bourne Butlins sounds about right!
Business travellers, whose salary is mostly paid by the poor investor who has to travel in steerage in order to subsidise this hireling in business class, can take advantage of satellite conferencing and create new investment in telecommunications.
Heavens, some daddies might even have more time to spend with their families!:cool:

brakedwell

13th Aug 2006, 16:40

What a wonderful brave new world, unless the new ships happen to be nuclear powered.

el !

13th Aug 2006, 16:51

cavort, finly, bjcc,

So do you advocate hand-baggage free fly travel. Either because you're so disturbed by business travelers, kids looking for their magazines, or you want an easier, more ordered screening at the airport in the name of Security.

Many others, like me, think exactly the opposite. Perhaps that should be decided in an Universal Travel Choice Poll:

Do you accept that:
a) others may do things that you don't like typing or leaving the seat momentarly.
b) you won't be hassled excessively, but there is a risk that someone is bad enough to find a new way to blow you up.

I vote "yes" to the above. In my opinion, is the rest of people that should "find another way to travel". Others, will think just the opposite.
Divide et impera in any case they won.

MechantVenturer: Generalization is always a mistake and one should avoid it as much as possible. But in reality, certain categories, being Police or unrepented Liberals, show a pattern of habits, some are "good", some are "bad", so when these emerges and are remarked in a conversation, there is nothing to get stiff about.

fyrefli

13th Aug 2006, 16:55

Please engage brain before typing people!! When the business traveler is kept from working before, during and after the landing, and his/her laptop/pda/phone is stolen from the checked baggage, they will do something else.

Just to extend that point slightly, when you're on the return leg, or even an outbound with no deadline at the other end, one of the advantages of travelling with a mobile, laptop, papers etc. is when you hear, "PITA Airways are sorry to announce a delay of XX minutes to flight AB1234 to...", and people start tutting and fretting, many business people just shrug, because they can work anyway.

They won't be shrugging at the moment - they'll be losing 50+ quid an hour, and even, for example, with ludicrously priced UK rail fares it doesn't take long for the risk calculations to look very simple.

Cheers,

Rich.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 17:02

El!

On your first point, regarding security patting each other on the back. You ask, "Is that really happening"

Apparently not no. Which is why we have the current situation.

Your second point. If you had ever had dealings with for example BAA security, you would be aware, they are expressly forbiden to use thier own thinking. They are entirely process driven. Thought is not permitted.

Do you need your laptop? My computer has a button marked 'Print'

Mobiles? You have to wait for your hold baggage anyway, and while doing so, you could use a pay phone. If you really must use your mobile, then wait for it to come out of the baggage shute.

Random searches miss things. Something that stands to reason. 100% searches miss far less.

Baggage thefts. It has nothing to do with Judges or Police. An airport is private property, not a public area. That to an extent limits Police Powers. In any event, it is for the airline to arrange for action such a restriction of what a baggage handler can and cannot take with him airside, and the conditions of search when he goes landside. Most requests from Police to take that sort of action are met with a blanket No. That is then the end of it.

I have no need to use blogs or anything else to denouce a non working method of screening. It doesn't work because there is little training given. Its straight foreward. There is no requirement for that screening, just the policey of the airlines concerned.

The so called inteligent profiling, even if it does work, which I doubt, is reliant on training and experience, something there is a great shortage of. It certainly couldn't be put in place overnight, and probably not for months.

Lastly.

Quote:

"Ridiculous. Someone is trying to do the right thing and you blame them because in your opinion"

Or to put it another way, exactly what you are doing!

el !

13th Aug 2006, 17:55

bjcc, I said before that you like to have the last word, I got criticized because it is "generalizing", but it is true isn't?
You repeating over and over what you said already, and are defending points that not only in my opinion, are undefendable.

Beside the fact that is a bit pretentious for you to teach how professional should use their laptops and cellphone, I really have a problem accepting your explaination on the issue of fighting crime in Airports. In my country, the fact that an Airport is a private property is of little relevance, as the concession to operate public transport facilities come from the Gov.nt in first place. In fact, Police conducted a major sting against baggage thiefs using hidden cameras. This happened at Malpensa circa 2003. I hope the workers now have learnerd the lesson (wouldn't swear on that).

We learn from a link posted above that the UK Secret Service has secretely wiretapped the homes of the alleged plotters. So when it is about terrorism the Law has special prerogatives and is untouchable, can use suppresive methods (think of the killing of a Brazilian citizen in the Metro). When it is about illegal immigrant the Law has the power to detain indefinitely, when is about drug repression they can conduct impromptu searches.

But for what they see as "petty crimes", under pressure from large companies they can't do anything, does that sound right ?

Then you come again with your opinion that intelligent searches would be ineffective for "lack of training", and you take a swab to Airline employees being able, at most, to spot Passport issues only. That must be a very unimporant thing to your eyes.
The constant whining that comes fro Security forcs in unbelivable and someone is not telling the truth. ASAIK Police get what they need 99% of the times, because they always ask for 200% first.

The 'right' measures should have been put in place since 5 years now, then we find now that these are not working because of the system, in fact you defend the "non-thinking" method in favour of the brute force method. I do not see an inch of critical or constructive approach in what you say. In your words, things are as they are, no plan to change are needed, so everyone stick with the discomfort as long it is imposed, when it will go away we will go back to a bigger risk _plus_ the current hassle. Very smart, thank you.

Well, let me tell you that, as long the Civil Society and their Servants, as long we all as individuals are not thinking, the terrorist will use their sick thinking.

Now to you to take your imprescindible last word. Enjoy it.

BEagle

13th Aug 2006, 18:01

"Do you need your laptop? My computer has a button marked 'Print'

Mobiles? You have to wait for your hold baggage anyway, and while doing so, you could use a pay phone. If you really must use your mobile, then wait for it to come out of the baggage shute"

God, but you're an utter woodentop arse.

I need my laptop for bespoke software, commercial information, e-mail contacts and for a whole lot more. I need my organiser for a variety of reasons - and I need my car keys. Use a 'pay phone' whilst waiting for my luggage to come out (hopefully) of the 'baggage shute'(sic) - so how does anyone contact me, you idiot?

Get back to pinching kids for riding bikes without lights, or something else your mononeuronic, amoebe-like brain can cope with!

brakedwell

13th Aug 2006, 18:15

[iGet back to pinching kids for riding bikes without lights, or something else your mononeuronic, amoebe-like brain can cope with!
How about harrassing motorists or is a speed camera too complicated?

Golf Charlie Charlie

13th Aug 2006, 18:25

Mobiles? You have to wait for your hold baggage anyway, and while doing so, you could use a pay phone. If you really must use your mobile, then wait for it to come out of the baggage shute.

Have you ever actually tried using a Payphone in the US ?

chandlers dad

13th Aug 2006, 18:35

Do you need your laptop? My computer has a button marked 'Print'

Mobiles? You have to wait for your hold baggage anyway, and while doing so, you could use a pay phone.

If you really must use your mobile, then wait for it to come out of the baggage shute.

Baggage thefts. It has nothing to do with Judges or Police. An airport is private property, not a public area. That to an extent limits Police Powers. In any event, it is for the airline to arrange for action such a restriction of what a baggage handler can and cannot take with him airside, and the conditions of search when he goes landside. Most requests from Police to take that sort of action are met with a blanket No. That is then the end of it.

The so called inteligent profiling, even if it does work, which I doubt, is reliant on training and experience, something there is a great shortage of. It certainly couldn't be put in place overnight, and probably not for months.

Well now, we know what we are dealing with after this comment.

Laptop? Yes, I need it as my company says that I cannot travel without the operation's manual, not to mention data on the operation of the plane, which is contained in the laptop or on a CD that they give me every so often. Even if I could print it out I am not allowed to take it on the plane, not to mention the cockpit at this time.

Use my mobil after it comes down the chute? What do we all do when it does not come "down the chute?" Bag is missing or delayed and so are we. As well I cannot call anyone as my telephone list is not allowed to come on board the plane with me, as a pax or pilot, so once my bag or bags are missing I am standing there with my thumb up my rear?! Also, how are we supposed to use the pay phone even if we had the number to call? We are now not allowed to carry any coins or phone cards with us!? As well, flying from one country to another, even if we could carry coin's or phone cards on our person in the plane, you expect us to carry funds from how many countries just to use the pay phone after landing?

Baggage thefts are EVERYONE'S issue and will become more so in the very near future. One of my flight attendent was not allowed to carry a bag in the cabin recently (heading home, not working) and when she arrived a $5000 watch had been stolen from the bag. Airline is not paying for it, security is not paying for it and she is out for blood or balls, does not care which. Wait until they steal my cell, blackberry and laptop and I will be in the hunt with her.

Which world are you living in? Let me tell you about something in our world. There is a country called Israel and they have an airline called El Al. For some silly reason they have a lot of people (it seems at times just about every Moslem in the world) who want to kill them. Their security people have used profiling for years and are known around the industry as the BEST IN THE WORLD. Please, this is our field of expertise and many of us have lived and worked in this area for decades (almost 4 in my case) and have a pretty good handle on things.

Please stop using your years of experience to find ways to defeat us in our trying to return to as close a normal life as possible. We are flight crew and not your enemy, the terrorists are the enemy. Take your focus off of us and concentrate on them. We would all very much like to see you using your experience in finding ways to make everything work smoother AND safer for everyone involved.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 18:51

BEagle

Funny isn't it that you go for the same tired insults when you can't put over a reasoned point. They arn't my rules, like everyone else, I have to put up with them, or find ways round. Or didn't they teach that at Cranwell?

Now, El!

Therein lays the problem, you are in the USA, I am in the UK. The 2 places work under different legislation, and rules. In the case of LHR, it is private property. As such, in many areas although Police have a right of entry, they do not have a right to plant cameras etc without the permission of the airport authority, or if the area is leesed by an airline, that airline.

So, yes, in that case, as with theft on any private property the ability to investigate is limited. Its not pressure from airlines, its the way the Police Service in the Uk are set up.

You mention 'the right mesures', and that they should have been in place years ago. Fine, they were not and obviously are not. That being the case, what do you suggest? You still have not answered that.

Chandlers Dad.

El Al do profile yes, they also use 100% pax search, after the airport authority search. Thats why it takes a great deal longer to check in with them. Also thier staff are trained to profile, and a great deal better at searches than, BAA staff for example. Do you seriously expect the TSA, who most crew on this forum spend so much time telling us are undeducated morons, to do that?

I can understand your desire to return to 'normal' as soon as possible. I wouldn't hold your breath it will happen in the near future though.

spork

13th Aug 2006, 19:13

Bronx, post #396, well said!

*********
Also, is there any policy applicable to stoma patients (ileostomy, colostomy, etc)? Are they subject to any kind of additional security examination? OMG – what an awful thought, but maybe there’s a loophole there…

bjcc…
Yes, I'm afraid a total ban on hand baggage is sustanable. It's very easy to do… …if for no other reason than the staffing at search areas is not suffiecent to to do both quickly. I think we are at odds over the definition of sustainable. You seem to be inferring it means possible – not the way I interpret it. I’m not saying you are wrong, as meanings and understandings often vary. Maybe http://www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/definitions.htm will assist in seeing how the understandings differ. My use and understanding would be along the lines of “the high house prices in the SE of England are not sustainable in the long term in view of current salary levels”. hth

thats not to say that airport authorities would not prefer to have a permanant ban on hand baggage, it is certainly something they often talked about in the mid 90's. I do not think pax (the money supply) are remotely interested in what “authorities would not prefer”. It’s what air travellers would tolerate (and prefer) that matters here. Hence, what will turn out, in the end, to be sustainable.

Concerning what is illegal to possess in whatever jurisdiction, I don’t think this has been questioned by any posters, certainly not by me. I am definitely not in favour of items such as firearms, pepper/cs/mace sprays being on board a plane, and I can’t see posts by anyone suggesting that they are acceptable.

…the DfT wanted to make the regulations as simple as possible… …Ban everything, then there is no doubt involvedI can’t believe you are seriously saying this is the way forward. Perhaps you could clarify.

Of course, those like you didn't know the above, and just assume there is no logic to these restrictions.Could I politely request that the inflammatory remarks cease? Presumably you are trying to provoke a response in like manner, but you won’t achieve that.

I’m just wondering who wrote post #416.

Please don’t interpret this as a personal attack, it is not. I just find your statements and logic perverse, and from many other posts here I see I am not the only one to find this.

BEagle

13th Aug 2006, 19:18

bjcc, whilst your ex-job as PC Plod was to enforce the rules, it was never to challenge their justification or legitimacy.

Nor do you now seem capable of understanding that the current UK rules are totally unsustainable and will lead to severe commercial injury to the airlines. But hey, 'Befehl ist befehl' and you obviously can't see beyond that.

It's almost dark now, so get out there and pinch those kids for riding their bikes without lights.

Mind how you go.....

DCS99

13th Aug 2006, 19:28

This message is hidden because bjcc is on your ignore list.

And a prediction: hand-baggage restrictions relaxed and "only" a liquids ban by the time 1.BLAIR/A MR departs BGI.

Good luck to everyone tomorrow.
Over and out.

bjcc

13th Aug 2006, 19:35

BEagle

Have you anything inteligent to add?

spork

The question regarding previously prohibited items was asked by EL!.

It's a sad fact that pax do and have always taken(albeit not always intentionally) things that they should not. Like you, I am not in favour of guns, knives etc being on a plane I am on. No, no one has suggested they are acceptable. The point is that without handbaggage none of those can be taken into the cabin.

Sustainable/possible. That depends on which part of this policy you refer too.

I would say that if 100% pax searches remain, then the ban on hand baggage must do so. For no other reason than there are neither the staff, nor the room to be able to cope with checks on hand baggage along with the additional people searches.

It would not suprise me if the ban on hand baggage remains in force, or modified to a minor extent, and the person searches are reduced.

Is that acceptable? To some it would be, to others, it wouldn't. Obviously its not something we will know unless it happens. I would suggest the desire to fly will outweigh the disadvantages.

BEagle

13th Aug 2006, 19:47

"Have you anything inteligent to add?"

Says it all really.

Quick, bjcc, there's another one! He's wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area!

spork

13th Aug 2006, 19:56

Thanks bjcc for your polite response. It's unfortunate that this thread has taken the turn that it has.

I think you should answer the point re “unsustainable”. You seem to be advocating just about anything that will make life easier for airport staff and security staff. Is that really the case? You’re certainly fairly Luddite about us having anything post “hoop and stick” with us.

Maybe we should all be anaesthetised on check in, stripped naked and trussed up on hooks to be slid into place on a shiny stainless steel rail on the plane? How far does your zeal for efficiency go?

Hope M.O’Leary isn’t reading this…

SXB

13th Aug 2006, 20:01

I think bjcc has been unfairly criticised, some of it fairly personal and I think he should be congratulated for not doing the same in return. He's expressing his opinion as are some of you but to sling such personal criticisms at both him and his profession (whether former or present) is not really acceptable for such a forum. This isn't Jet Blast.

Flying Lawyer

13th Aug 2006, 20:21

bjccMy attitude has nothing to do with a previous occupation .....Your attitude is typical of a certain type of police officer.
Surely the jobs we do, or did for a long time, must have some influence on us?
People often ask if I’m a lawyer. Mostly neutrally, but it has on occasions been preceded by a word beginning with f.

Merchant Adventurer
I agree it’s a pity, but it's happened for years and bjcc almost always brings it upon himself.

I too have encountered many police officers who are "highly intelligent, open-minded" - in every rank from Police Constable up to Chief Constable/Commissioner. I have also encountered many who fall into the other category you mentioned in your first sentence. Mindful of your urging to avoid personal attacks, I resist the almost overwhelming temptation to go further.

I have read many of bjcc's posts on other topics and he clearly has a first rate knowledge of the criminal law and its application. So have I.
bjcc most certainly does not have a first rate knowledge of either the criminal law or its application. If you'd said motoring and 'street offences' I'd agree.

‘Somewhat anomalous’
In such instances, the more serious the consequences or potential consequences of a police action, the more senior the rank required to authorise it. IMHO, that’s reasonable and sensible. I'd be happy to debate it with you, but we'd be going way off topic.

FL

fyrefli

13th Aug 2006, 20:22

Sustainable/possible. That depends on which part of this policy you refer too.
I would say that if 100% pax searches remain, then the ban on hand baggage must do so. For no other reason than there are neither the staff, nor the room to be able to cope with checks on hand baggage along with the additional people searches.
It would not suprise me if the ban on hand baggage remains in force, or modified to a minor extent, and the person searches are reduced.
Is that acceptable? To some it would be, to others, it wouldn't. Obviously its not something we will know unless it happens. I would suggest the desire to fly will outweigh the disadvantages.

To many business travellers/companies it would not. The main issues are with computers, memory devices and mobile phones (see also separate thread). You don't even have to factor any inconvenience issues in here because they're irrelevant alongside the this. To recap the points made in this and elsewhere:

1. These devices are likely uninsured for hold travel
2. DPA and other considerations mean it is at best unwise and at worst illegal to surrender these items out of personal control for many
3. The opportunity to work and earn is removed during the trip
4. This includes the benefit of still being able to work during any delay occasioned
5. The risk of loss of equipment even for those legally able to hand it over into the hold far outweighs any benefit of speed of travel, should anything go wrong.

I was working out earlier on my daily cycle hour that (even though I actually have no choice due 2. above in particular), whilst on average the duration of each leg of my monthly commute to the UK is five hours and it would take me probably eight if I were to ride and use the Hoek - Harwich - Hoek ferry, I'd actually gain well over 100 pounds each way from the trade off in earnings vs cost due to the ability to work on the boat for three hours or more. This is comparing with the currently inconveniently timed EasyJet AMS >> BRS >> AMS route - but KLM costs typically another couple of hours work in fares difference, so the point is moot.

Then add in the fact that I'd pass within 30 mins detour of 1... 2, 3... 4, 5... 6 of my long-term clients on the ride to Harwich to Bristol and back and I start wondering why I fly in the first place! :) (Okay, I do know, but it's to do with the relative running costs of my UK bike and the one I'm just ordering here and that's a bit beyond the discussion ;) )

We know already from evidence in threads here that, for example, large companies have already effectively banned internal UK air travel in the current climate (yes, some of them would reinstate it in a limited way if the restrictions remained) and that other European and US residents are already rebooking flights to avoid the UK (bringing even greater problems in that the UK is currently hamstringing itself in an open market).

In short, companies and individuals cannot work without their computers or the data on them so they will not fly. And many of these people (not cheapskates like me) are paying premium fares and subsidising the rest, so the effect is multiplied.

Cheers,

Rich.