SECURITY - Revised Uk Rules (14 Aug 2006)

[BEagle]

From the BBC:

Following the decision to downgrade the UK terrorism threat level from "critical" to "severe", the following security measures will apply at all UK airports.

Each passenger is permitted to carry one item of cabin baggage through the airport security search point.

The dimensions of this item must not exceed a maximum length of 45cm, width of 35cm and depth of 16cm (17.7"×13.7"×6.2" approx) including wheels, handles, side pockets etc.

Other bags, such as handbags, may be carried within the single item of cabin baggage. All items carried by passengers will be screened by X-ray.

No liquids of any type are permitted through the airport security search point, other than the following items:


Prescription medicines in liquid form sufficient and essential for the flight (eg diabetic kit), as long as verified as authentic.

Baby milk and liquid baby food (the contents of each bottle or jar must be tasted by the accompanying passenger).
The definition of liquids includes gels, pastes, lotions, liquid/solid mixtures and the contents of pressurised containers, eg toothpaste, hair gel, drinks, soups, syrups, perfume, deodorant, shaving foam, aerosols etc.

To help their progress through search points, passengers are encouraged not to include items capable of containing liquids (eg bottles, flasks, tubes, cans, plastic containers etc) in their cabin baggage.

All laptops and large electrical items (eg large hairdryer) must be removed from the bag and placed in a tray so that such items neither obscure nor are obscured by the bag.

Pushchairs and walking aids are permitted but must be x-ray screened. Wheelchairs are permitted but must be thoroughly searched.

In addition to the above, passengers boarding flights to the US and items they are carrying, including those acquired after the central screening point, will be subjected to secondary search at the gate. Any liquids discovered will be removed from the passenger.

The Department for Transport say they will work closely with operators to introduce these new arrangements, seeking to keep disruption to passengers to a minimum. They say they will keep these measures under review.

If passengers have any questions on their travel arrangements or security in place at airports they should contact the airport or their airline.

Airport operator BAA has asked passengers not to bring hand baggage until the latest changes have been phased in at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

The cabin luggage restriction of 96cm total is smaller than the normal 115cm limit, but is a reasonable limit. Hopefully we will now see less of the Eiger-climber's rucksacks and wheeled wardrobes being brought on board and quite rightly so too!

I hope that this ruling will also make life easier for the unfortunate cabin crew who are often expected to load the ridiculously oversized luggage which some passengers expect to bring on board.

Presumably the BAA's odd request is because they are incapable of quickly briefing all their staff?

[Gouabafla]

I'm with you on this BEagle. Making the carry on limit smaller won't do any harm. I can still get my laptop and a few books in a bag this size. Don't envy the check in staff trying to explain to people that they can't carry their three ton roller bags on to the aircraft though.

[Man-on-the-fence]

I realise its early days, but I'd be interested to see how strictly they impose the size rules as my camera bag fits easily into the "old" rules but doesnt comply with the new ones.

Any idea why the size change? I presume its something to do with what will fit inside scanning machines.

Edited to add that it is no bigger than a small rucksack.

[BEagle]

Out of interest, what are the dimensions of your camera bag, M-o-t-F?

[Man-on-the-fence]

The soft rucksack is 42cm long x 32cm wide(at its max) as 19cm deep, its a lowpro mini trekker and is actually smaller than my laptop bag for work!

I have also bought a hard case should it have to go in the hold, the cloth bag fits inside the hard bag and was purchased specifically because it complied with carry on size rules (as was) just in case the security level changed (looks like i've been out fumbled) It is 48 long 40 wide and 21 deep. I have no problem with checking this into the hold (sans camera of course, probably will fill with clothes). But it would have been nice to keep the two bags togetrher as intended. Thats life I suppose.

The biggest relief is that the laptop can now go in the cabin, would have made the Reno Air Races bloody difficult with only a few CF cards!

[BEagle]

Lufthansa rules are 55 x 40 x 20, in line with most other major airlines and many passengers will have bought luggage which complies. Your mini-rucksack would have complied with that, of course... Can it be squeezed down to 16 cm deep?

It will be very interesting to see how diligently this rule will be applied - but good riddance to the wheelie-bin wardrobes!

The BAA person on TV just now virtually admitted that BAA aren't capable of passing information to their staff before mid-afternoon. This is patently absurd, they need to pull their fingers out and if I was Willie Walsh or Michael O'Leary I would be insisting on that immediately - why should their airlines be obliged to inconvenience passengers because BAA are incapable of quickly applying the revised rules? I would certainly be threatening legal action as BAA are unreasonably restricting the lawful rights of passengers.

[Man-on-the-fence]

Can it be squeezed down to 16 cm deep?


Probably, that was "resting". As you say it all boils down to how the rules are applied. I dont fly until Mid September so lots of time for the world to end before then.

[skydriller]

BBC now reporting the government has eased restrictions on hand luggage to allow it as before but with the exception of liquids. :D

However pax are turning up with this new information from the government with their hand luggage only to be told its still banned by the airport operators!!!:ugh:

[Llademos]

I'm sure there is a reason that the BAA says it will take a day or so to allow people to have hand luggage (sans liquid) ... but I'm blowed if I can understand why. Even the (out of date) website information doesn't tell it's travelling shopper that. :rolleyes:

[EastMids]

The BAA person on TV just now virtually admitted that BAA aren't capable of passing information to their staff before mid-afternoon. This is patently absurd, they need to pull their fingers out...

Isn't it bizarre that they managed to impose a ban on hand baggage more or less immediately (certainly between the early hours on Thursday and when passengers started to travel that day) and yet they can't get this revised policy going so quickly. Typical b***s*** from the BAA.

Andy

[Genghis the Engineer]

BBC now reporting the government has eased restrictions on hand luggage to allow it as before but with the exception of liquids. :D
However pax are turning up with this new information from the government with their hand luggage only to be told its still banned by the airport operators!!!:ugh:

Let's say you were running BAA security, you got a fax from Special Branch saying "okay, let the usual in, just maintain vigilance, but still no liquids except as previously discussed".

With the best will in the world, it'll take half a day at-least to turn that into a company document, fit it in with procedures, get it out to all of the airports, and have local supervisors re-brief their own staff.

Maybe they did it a little faster with the imposition of restrictions (although somehow I suspect that BAA had some reasonable warning), but you do if it's "don't do this now and you may lose aircraft", whereas you take your time a little bit to get it "more right" when it's not so immediately life or death.

G

[ambidextrous]

As a member of the majority law abiding masses in the UK, I have watched the introduction of plainly absurd/draconian rules introduced in order to pander to a religious minority with dismay. Where is the modern equivalent of Wat Tyler, I await his arrival with fervour!
In the meantime, as one of the discriminated against majority I shall in future travel to Brussels and/or Paris by Eurostar and interline from there. I suggest regular travellers do the same which will have an additional +ve benefit of possibly resurrecting my Eurotunnel shares!
Alternatively, for those of us resident in the south-east, travel from Norwich, Manston, Lydd, Southampton or Bournemouth to Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt/Munich for a much more relaxing aviation experience.
Goodbye BAA, you finally blew it.:*
PS: You've known about liquid explosive since 1995 & Ramsi Yousef, why weren't you prepared?

[1DC]

Just measured the new carry on i bought three weeks ago which hasn't been off the ground yet. I realised when i bought it that it was smaller than it's predecessor which was in the "allowed range" but thought smaller would avoid any hassle at check in. Well, the new bag measures 48 x 37 x 17 !!
I haven't seen any wheeled bags smaller than this so i expect that BAA have "measured" most carry ons out of the system. Deliberate, I wonder??

[SXB]

This is good news but I think it will add to the chaos in the short term as security decide on the size of the bag and the time spent extracting articles which may or may not be able to carry liquids.

I hope the size limit is adpoted on a long term basis.

[Man-on-the-fence]

I see that the TSA have banned aerosols

Wonder how this will affect my prescription Inhaler!

[lexxity]

Not being faceatious, but I make all my own baby food and heat it up and transport it in a food thermos. We are flying to the US (if I get my leave) the second week of october will I have any problems? Also I carry a water bottle for the baby too, will I have to get rid of that too because it's not classed as "food or milk?"

[Genghis the Engineer]

Latest from the BBC:

Each passenger will now be permitted to carry one item of cabin baggage through the airport security search point.


However, airport operator BAA is warning there will be delays in implementing the policy at some of its airports.

BAA says the changes will not come into force at Heathrow and Gatwick until 0430 BST on Tuesday.

Stansted is also not due to lift the restrictions until Tuesday, once managers have had the chance to brief all its security staff.

In the meantime at those airports, the restrictions on hand luggage put in place last Thursday will remain.

Passengers are being advised to go prepared and take clear, plastic bags with them.


For those allowed to take hand luggage on board, the dimensions of this item must not exceed a maximum length of 45cm, width of 35cm and depth of 16cm (17.7"x13.7"x6.2" approx) including wheels, handles, side pockets, etc.

Other bags, such as handbags, may be carried within the single item of cabin baggage. All items carried by passengers will be screened by X-ray.

No liquids of any type are permitted through the airport security search point, other than the following items:


Prescription medicines in liquid form sufficient and essential for the flight (eg diabetic kit), as long as verified as authentic.

Baby milk and liquid baby food (the contents of each bottle or jar must be tasted by the accompanying passenger).
The definition of liquids includes gels, pastes, lotions, liquid/solid mixtures and the contents of pressurised containers, eg toothpaste, hair gel, drinks, soups, syrups, perfume, deodorant, shaving foam, aerosols etc.

To help their progress through search points, passengers are encouraged not to include items capable of containing liquids (eg bottles, flasks, tubes, cans, plastic containers etc) in their cabin baggage.

All laptops and large electrical items (eg large hairdryer) must be removed from the bag and placed in a tray so that such items neither obscure nor are obscured by the bag.

Pushchairs and walking aids are permitted but must be x-ray screened. Wheelchairs are permitted but must be thoroughly searched.

In addition to the above, passengers boarding flights to the US and items they are carrying, including those acquired after the central screening point, will be subjected to secondary search at the gate. Any liquids discovered will be removed from the passenger.


The Department for Transport says it will work closely with operators to introduce these new arrangements, seeking to keep disruption to passengers to a minimum. They say they will keep these measures under review.

Some airports not operated by BAA, which is also responsible for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Southampton, have brought in the new measures, including Manchester and Newcastle.


However, a spokeswoman for Newcastle Airport said some passengers were turning up with hand luggage that was too big under the new restrictions.

If passengers have any questions on their travel arrangements or security in place at airports, they should contact the airport or their airline.


One observation, those dimensions are about 2" narrower than a standard pilot briefcase, which is going to be a pain in the neck. (or are those the same max dimensions that SLB have been ignoring for years?)

G

[luoto]

Genghis: Ideal world maybe.. but they managed to get the "new rules" in place within an hour or two after the early morning phone call.

[172driver]

Can someone PLEASE rid us of these pompous idiots that are BAA ?? There cannot be ANY vaild reason to restrict the size of carry-ons by a few centimeters to a non-standard size. It's obviously yet another grandstanding, a:mad: -covering exercise by a few tossers who couldn't run a whelk stall, let alone an airport ! The sooner Ferrovial install their management team and turf out these people who run shopping malls disguised as airports, the better.

[SXB]

Not being faceatious, but I make all my own baby food and heat it up and transport it in a food thermos. We are flying to the US (if I get my leave) the second week of october will I have any problems? Also I carry a water bottle for the baby too, will I have to get rid of that too because it's not classed as "food or milk?"

Interesting point about the water bottle, if the answer is no they can't really confiscate a baby's bottle can they ? In the end it may come down to whether the indidvidual security officer has kids himself, people with kids always being more understanding of other people with kids.

Probably an idea to take a spare, empty bottle that can filled on the aircraft, if necessary.

[Haven't a clue]

The dimensions of this item must not exceed a maximum length of 45cm, width of 35cm and depth of 16cm (17.7"×13.7"×6.2" approx) including wheels, handles, side pockets etc.[/B]

This looks like the size of the suspiciously small BAA provided luggage guages which I saw positioned at the head of the security queues at Gatwick last week (before Thursday, thank goodness).

IIRC there was a thread running on the horrendous queues for T4 security a while back, which BAA tried to blame on the volume of cabin baggage, attempted to restrict pax to one bag totally ignored the individual airline allowances, and had to back down.

Then BA raised the stakes by raising the cabin baggage allowance for all. Perhaps we are seeing BAA try to get its original plan in by the back door?

[BABizFlyer]

Typical hyper over-reaction by that home of the jobsworth - BAA. If any organisation can organise an inefficient service, these guys are the real pros.
Just notice the arm-folded jobsworths standing around the 'security area' when you next pass through an airport, despite their being a huge q of people lining up to get to their gates.
I agree, it is time for Ferovial to shake up the 'shopping mall operator' very soon.
Notice the signs in the 'secure area' warning us not to abuse the BAA staff, what about the trivial and woefull service that BAA provide to the passangers. It should be their duty to get us to our gates in a swift and efficient manner - simple really - not to bombard us with petty regulations about laser pointers and nail clippers as well as bottled water or anything else.

Also well done to W Walsh for having the **lls to stand up and slam them on TV, for being so disorganised.

My plight is simple - I want to carry enough stuff for a one or two night stay in Europe. I travel with BA every week to either Brussels, FKFT, Spain or Greece. I do not want to check anything in, I pay to fly with BA because they allow me to carry my 'wheeled wardrobe' into the cabin. It fits through the xray machine and in the overhead locker without problem. It also allows me to pack a couple of shirts and pants as well as my computer and work stuff. I bought a new one last month - to comply with the 'new' regulations. That is now obselete because of the new rules announced today.

Grow up BAA and smell the roses before you destroy what should be a pleasant experience.

[RevMan2]

Article here (http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71584-0.html?tw=wn_index_8) from Wired magazine

[derekvader]

With the best will in the world, it'll take half a day at-least to turn that into a company document, fit it in with procedures, get it out to all of the airports, and have local supervisors re-brief their own staff.

They're in the business of running a major public building ... they should have procedures in place for diseminating information very quickly, especially when they are (presumably) already operating in crisis mode.

It's just general incompetence and further disregard for their customers.

[derekvader]

From the BBC:
(the contents of each bottle or jar must be tasted by the accompanying passenger).

Do they make you transfer the baby food to an approved container? Because I don't see what difference tasting it makes if the container were to have a false compartment.

I also wouldn't have thought sipping/eating a tiny bit of an explosive chemical would be that much of a deterrant to someone who plans to blow themselves up a few hours later, unless the stuff is so bad it makes you throw up immediately, and they can't train themselves to take it.

[Globaliser]

Can someone PLEASE rid us of these pompous idiots that are BAA ?? There cannot be ANY vaild reason to restrict the size of carry-ons by a few centimeters to a non-standard size.I thought the new maximum size has been dictated by DfT, not BAA? I agree with the ire, but it may just be being misdirected.

[EastMids]

Yes, by the Dft, but I'd be willing to bet they've consulted before imposing those rules. And who do they consult - each airline, or the bad old BAA? I think I can guess which.

The rules are very precise - specifically including wheels and handles etc - which led me to presume that they'd have some luggage guages set up to make sure nothing oversize gets through. Without the guages, there'd always be room for argument. I thought it'd probably take some time for them to get new guages made up, then I read "Haven't a clue"'s comments and indeed it makes me wonder whether the BAA have effectively just managed to achieve through the back door what they failed to achieve some time back - i.e. overriding guidelines on hand baggage sizes that are way more onerous than the airline's own rules. I can just imagine it now:

Dft "What size do you think we should allow, Mr. BAA"
Mr. BAA: "Well, we have these guages already made up, so to make things easy..."

Perhaps there was no terrorist threat - perhaps it was all a scam that allowed the BAA to get its way with hand baggage ;)

I'd also be willing to bet the "one piece only" bit gets abandoned at the boarding gate - perrish the thought if our reduced sized carry ons didn't have enough room in them to accommodate all the duty free and other items they want us to spend money on.

Still, all things considered its a lot better than before. I'd be quite happy to carry the lap top and/or camera in the ubiquitous clear plastic bag if it made the difference between taking it with me and checking it in.

Andy

[chandlers dad]

I'd also be willing to bet the "one piece only" bit gets abandoned at the boarding gate - perrish the thought if our reduced sized carry ons didn't have enough room in them to accommodate all the duty free and other items they want us to spend money on.
Still, all things considered its a lot better than before. I'd be quite happy to carry the lap top and/or camera in the ubiquitous clear plastic bag if it made the difference between taking it with me and checking it in.
Andy

The "one piece" rule is already gone as its one piece AND a handbag for ladies. Glad to see it opening up for a change as it just could not have continued this way for long.

At least now we can hand carry a laptop, camera, paperwork and the expensive stuff that the baggage staff seem to enjoy stealing.

[172driver]

EastMids, my thinking entirely. I would suggest BA (and others) start playing hardball with these guys, e.g. withholding landing fees etc until they sort themselves out. BAA are a disgrace to a civilized country.

Perhaps the government could also wake up to the fact that these tossers are actually inflicting serious economic harm on the UK. Image the next discussion in a boardroom somewhere, along the lines of 'where should we site our new EMEA HQ'? I bet the debate will rather quickly be accompanied by moans and groans about LHR. Certainly in itself not a factor, but there's always the last straw.....

[flyjohn]

Wonderful story which may or may not be true of a 12 year old boy coming down from Cumbria on the train to LGW and then walking through central search down to a gate and almost getting on an aircraft without a ticket and begin discovered as he boarded the aircraft gate 35 at LGW, but at least he did not have a bottle of water on him

[IB4138]

Perhaps if the airside retail operators were forced to charge normal high street/supermarket prices, people would not want to bring so much with them for their flights.

If you are not a UK resident, your final memory of the Old Country is being ripped off!

Perhaps Willie Walsh could now ask the DfT and BAA, just how they arrived at the hand baggage size ?

[Cahlibahn]

Chandler's dad. Doesn't the handbag have to be packed within the permitted 1 piece of hand baggage? That's how the DfT website is reporting things....

Each passenger is permitted to carry ONE item of cabin baggage through the airport security search point. The dimensions of this item must not exceed: a maximum length of 45 cm, width of 35 cm and depth of 16 cm (17.7"×13.7"×6.2" approx) (including wheels, handles, side pockets etc.). Other bags, such as handbags, may be carried within the single item of cabin baggage. All items carried by passengers will be x-ray screened.

[172driver]

Btw, if anyone here wants to give the DfT a piece of their mind, the email address to write to (I just have) is:

[email protected]

[Shanwickman]

From listening to phone in programmes on various radio stations it seems that the new security procedures have been a god sent to thieves.
Checked in laptops, mobile phones etc. have not been arriving at their destinations. In many instances the carrying case of the laptop is all that arrives. Security my hat!

[BEagle]

172driver, I am somewhat perplexed by your arguments. For far too long passengers have abused the carry-on luggage rules and I, for one, will be very glad to see the 'briefcase' ruling continue. Those damned wheelie-bin wardrobes should go in the hold.

BAA will soon start squealing when no-one buys their expensive duty-free perfumes and spirits, so I imagine things will change again soon.

[172driver]

BEagle, I don't really get yours. Can you explain what difference it makes to take a normal size carry-on or the DfT/BAA invented size? While I'd agree that the rules were abused in the past, the good ol' 115cm rule made and makes perfect sense - not every bag can be squeezed down to 16cm high! And please don't start any 'security' argument - we all know that 'security' is used to cover all and any abuse of power these days.

BAA singularily fail to provide what they get paid for - a service. Yes, that's right: their job is to provide a service !! Both to the airlines and the pax. This is something they seem to have missed a long time ago, but only now can they really let rip under the guise of 'security'. Let's just hope Ferrovial change the entire management team asap.

[A2QFI]

Btw, if anyone here wants to give the DfT a piece of their mind, the email address to write to (I just have) is:
[email protected]
My ISP says that this address is more than 16 symbols symbols long and can't be used. I have composed a delightful Grumpogram and I can't send it! Any ideas please. The idea that lopping an inch or two off the size of carry-on luggage is going to improve anything, least of all security, is ludicrous!

[Airbubba]

Checked in laptops, mobile phones etc. have not been arriving at their destinations. In many instances the carrying case of the laptop is all that arrives.

There are calls to ban cellphones and computers with lithium batteries from passenger planes permanently. Perhaps they would be shipped by a courier service? Sounds wacky but so does banning lip gloss.

Here is an article typical of the 'rising crescendo' in the media:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33671

[172driver]

My ISP says that this address is more than 16 symbols symbols long and can't be used. I have composed a delightful Grumpogram and I can't send it! Any ideas please. The idea that lopping an inch or two off the size of carry-on luggage is going to improve anything, least of all security, is ludicrous!

So even your ISP thinks this is bu:mad: it ? Love that one! Don't know how to get around it, though. Mail went from my account w/o trouble (at least no error msg). Perhaps just try snail mail....:eek:

[chandlers dad]

There are calls to ban cellphones and computers with lithium batteries from passenger planes permanently. Perhaps they would be shipped by a courier service? Sounds wacky but so does banning lip gloss.
Here is an article typical of the 'rising crescendo' in the media:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33671

Remember the UPS DC-8 cargo bird that caught fire recently? Believe that they have narrowed it down to a shipment of Lithium batteries that caught fire and brought the entire airplane down.

This is well worth keeping an eye on these days. If I even think I have smelled smoke, the mask is coming on and we are descending. If we are "feet wet" then we are heading to our diversion airport immediately.

[Man-on-the-fence]

Can it be squeezed down to 16 cm deep?

It can be pushed flat to 16cms deep, basically this is with the top pocket empty and all the air pushed out of it. If its left to its own devices it sits between 18 and 19cms.I'm sure it will fit into one of those size check cages. I guess I will have to see how strictly they interpret the rules.

I still cant see what was wrong with the old size limits of properly enforced.

[Loose rivets]

Mmm...before 9/11 I was asked if I thought that the small amount of lithium in a battery constituted dangerous goods. I asked the appropriate man in ops...delegating is handy sometimes...and he said no go.

The dangerous substance was in the battery of a life-jacket.:bored:

[SXB]

172driver
BEagle, I don't really get yours. Can you explain what difference it makes to take a normal size carry-on or the DfT/BAA invented size? While I'd agree that the rules were abused in the past, the good ol' 115cm rule made and makes perfect sense - not every bag can be squeezed down to 16cm high! And please don't start any 'security' argument - we all know that 'security' is used to cover all and any abuse of power these days.

That's easy to explain. Smaller bags mean shorter search times for security, larger bags mean longer search times. At the moment longer search times would mean BAA would have to provide more staff which will cost them money.

You can just imagine the phone conversation between man from DfT and the exec at BAA.
Man from DfT says to BAA exec "we have to start letting people bring on hand luggage, can you handle it ?
BAA exec says "only if the bags are small, very small. We suggest 45 by 35 by 16"
Man from DfT says "thanks"

Exec puts down the phone, lights another cuban cigar and goes back to reading the latest Mercedes brochure

[BABizFlyer]

172driver, I am somewhat perplexed by your arguments. For far too long passengers have abused the carry-on luggage rules and I, for one, will be very glad to see the 'briefcase' ruling continue. Those damned wheelie-bin wardrobes should go in the hold.

BAA will soon start squealing when no-one buys their expensive duty-free perfumes and spirits, so I imagine things will change again soon.

How have we abused the carry on rules????
There has always been regulations on the size of cabin baggage - in effect the size was regulated by the maximum size permitted by the xray machine!! If the passenger has two of these, I agree - but I see no issue with roll alongs per se. They give the one or two night traveller at least one hour per flight of time saving, and I for one would rather avoid dealing with baggage handlers in any country.

BAA are bound to have had a say in the new sizes - it has all of their hallmarks - a non-standard size, an over zealous inefficient response - as usual.

[BEagle]

If only the 115cm limit was observed (with or without wheels), then I would agree that 115cm would be fine.

Since 4 Jul 06, I have flown some 18 sectors. All have been in rows 1 or 2, so I have been able to watch a procession of bags which would be more appropriate for mountaineers than short sector airline passengers being dragged down the aisle. Quite ridiculous.

It is true indeed that many airlines have a very generous limit for C- and D- class passengers. But I regret to say that many break the rules, from what I have seen, as do countless Economy Class passengers.

Time for a sensible revision of the rules. Due to the scale of theft and damage to hold luggage, I concede that the DfT 96cm limit is unreasonably restrictive. So why not something simple such as:

"You may take one item of hand baggage of maximum dimensions of 55x40x20cm and weighing no more than 10kg on board the aircraft with you. You should be able to lift this yourself into overhead storage compartments."

(Modified from bmi baby's website)

[172driver]

BEagle's found religion, hallelujah :p ! Again, I agree re the Mt. Everest packs some pax schlep on board (and then are too daft to get them into the bins :yuk: ), but I really think the recent BA policy change was a step in the right direction. 115cms and 'if you can lift it you can bring it'. Enforce this strictly and peace shall reign in the air (ok, wishful thinking here, but still.....). This leaves scope for the two-night road warriors and/or guys like myself who have to bring all sort of fancy (and expensive/fragile/sensitive) electronics to do their job.

Coming to think of the recet BA policy change: doesn't this whole BAA waffle start to sound a bit like an anti-BA effort? I'm not very prone to conspiracy theories, but a couple of weeks after BA announce a major shift in carry-on policy, BAA trot out 16 cms :E ....makes you wonder......

[liquid sunshine]

This whole thread is starting to sound a bit like a BAA bashing thread by those with an interest in seeing the demise of BAA?

It does make me wonder what the staff at check-in and customer service departments are advising pax. I can understand that intially there would be delays as regulations about carry on were changed at short notice. But following the initial changes why shouild there still be huge queues at security? Is it that pax are still trying to carry on restricted items and have not been advised at check-in or on contact with their carrier that these items are restricted. If pax had been advised accordingly we would find much shorter queues at security as everyone would be prepared and could repacked luggage accordingly BEFORE reaching security.

As for the reduction in the size of carry on luggage...bring it on. The amount of carry on luggage going on a/c prior to recent events is ridculous and the vast majority of it not required during the flight. The carriers who are actively encouraging increased weights/amounts of carry are on dangerous ground as it will only take one person to suffer life changing injuries from falling carry on luggage in the event of an accident/incident to see that policy swiftly reverse following a hefty court settlement.:=

[nervousflyer]

Hi all

I have a few issues that you professionals may be able to solve. Despite surfing and browsing I cannot find any definitive information on what I can or cannot do about a couple of things.

firstly, I am an extremely nervous flyer, but I do not want to be spaced out on valium. So, I use rescue remedy as a kind of placebo to get me through the stresses and strains of flying. Am I right to assume that I won't be able to take this through? I suppose if I was chilled out on a prescribed, addictive tablet that would be OK?(!:rolleyes: )

Secondly, given the fact that my rescue remedy is likely to be confiscated what do I do with the 40 fags that I am likely to consume before departure? I presume they (along with the liquid filled lighter) are a no no?

Thirdly, what IS the ruling on aerosols? Can they be packed in my suitcase?

And finally (for now!) does anyone now what the restrictions are coming INTO the UK from Tunisia?

Thanks a lot, hope someone can help ....

:confused:

[chandlers dad]

This whole thread is starting to sound a bit like a BAA bashing thread by those with an interest in seeing the demise of BAA?
It does make me wonder what the staff at check-in and customer service departments are advising pax. I can understand that intially there would be delays as regulations about carry on were changed at short notice. But following the initial changes why shouild there still be huge queues at security? Is it that pax are still trying to carry on restricted items and have not been advised at check-in or on contact with their carrier that these items are restricted. If pax had been advised accordingly we would find much shorter queues at security as everyone would be prepared and could repacked luggage accordingly BEFORE reaching security.
As for the reduction in the size of carry on luggage...bring it on. The amount of carry on luggage going on a/c prior to recent events is ridculous and the vast majority of it not required during the flight. The carriers who are actively encouraging increased weights/amounts of carry are on dangerous ground as it will only take one person to suffer life changing injuries from falling carry on luggage in the event of an accident/incident to see that policy swiftly reverse following a hefty court settlement.:=

Cannot disagree with much you say however have a problem with the last part. Many cases the reason people are bringing so much onboard is that they are fed up with the massive theft issue with checked bags.

I have gotten hit by it, as have the rest of my crew and flight attendents. I always pack all my flight kit and at least one uniform in my carryon bag, so that in case my main bag, which is always checked when deadheading to pick up my flight, is lost enroute. Sorry but when everyone cleans up their mess, and makes it safe to check bags, then you will find people not lugging so many things up the jetway.

Other than this aspect I totally agree and these idiots carrying a massive backpack or full sized roll aboard suitcases need to be given the heave ho.

CD

[rhovsquared]

Now there saying on the news that some of the crazy bastard were gonna use their own childeren and wive to perpatrate this crime....absolutely unspeakable:( :( :(
more delay 'cuz there checking kids and babies now... I definitely want my OWN plane someday soon for one reason or another :\

rhov :(

[geezajob]

I'm sorry I couldn't be arsed reading the whole thing but my Dad just flew back from France and brought up something....

Why can you not bring stuff through security that you can still quite blatantly buy in departures?!

If its been brought up before I'm sorry but it seems ridiculous to assume that screenig processes for pilots and CC are not sufficient while letting folk sell whatever they want over (potentially under) the counter in duty free.

I'm genuinely glad that nothing serious happened as I'm sure everyone else is but I think the security measures should be more sensible/relevant. It sometimes seems like its just an elaborate PR exercise when such glaring gaps occur. I hope not.

Geezajob

[flybhx]

Chandlers Dad, you seem to be one of the few crew members who do check ANY
bags.
Most of the deadheading crews I have come across, particularly in the US I have to say, take about 3 large bags on board dump them in the front luggage bins and happily disappear down the back so that passengers who turn up with their single cabin bag end up having to check it. American and ExpressJet crews appear to be the worst.
The gate agents appear unwilling to apply the rules to anyone which has always been the problem. If they were to stop the people with huge rucksacks etc or 2 rollaboards at the gate lounge everyone would be happy.

[chandlers dad]

Chandlers Dad, you seem to be one of the few crew members who do check ANY
bags.

Most of the deadheading crews I have come across, particularly in the US I have to say, take about 3 large bags on board dump them in the front luggage bins and happily disappear down the back so that passengers who turn up with their single cabin bag end up having to check it. American and ExpressJet crews appear to be the worst.

The gate agents appear unwilling to apply the rules to anyone which has always been the problem. If they were to stop the people with huge rucksacks etc or 2 rollaboards at the gate lounge everyone would be happy.

I know my schedule fairly far in advance and usually travel on a business class overseas ticket, so just check one, or even two bags if needed, and enjoy the flight upstairs. If I am going out for more than a week at a time or its winter, I usually need more clothes and just not going to hassle with lugging that around in the cabin.

Next trip is in a week, on the 22nd to Heathrow, then to Luton to pick up the jet. I stay out until the 5th of Sept then return home. Do not have much choice in checking or not considering the current security situation.

I will just be happy to be able to take my laptop, professional paperwork (passport and licenses), keys and phone with me to keep it safe.

Agree with you regarding the excess or large items. They need to be controlled and hopefully now will be.

[Jet II]

I have to say that the BAA are coming out of this looking dumber by the minute.

Now that they have allowed carry-on bags back on the aircraft, but not normal size ones the situation is just getting bonkers.

The sight on the news yesterday of the Senior BAA Manager of Heathrow holding up a bag and saying that that would be the largest allowed on the aircraft! - why? - do terrorists only use large bags?

Paddy O'Leary was rightly fuming - holding up in one hand one of the BAA's new 'allowable' bag and in the other a normal, 'banned', carry-on that has been in use, and is still in use, around the world for years.

Bizarre:uhoh:

[fyrefli]

Remember the UPS DC-8 cargo bird that caught fire recently? Believe that they have narrowed it down to a shipment of Lithium batteries that caught fire and brought the entire airplane down.

One of the top stories on the Beeb this morning is related:

"The world's largest manufacturer of personal computers, Dell, is to recall 4.1 million of its notebook computer batteries because of a fire risk."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/4793143.stm

Cheers,

Rich.

(Edited to say that http://www.theregister.co.uk is a good place to go if you want to find out more about these or other technology issues. Just make sure you also take your sense of humour - with an obligatory 'u' - with you.)

[derekvader]

I have to say that the BAA are coming out of this looking dumber by the minute.
Now that they have allowed carry-on bags back on the aircraft, but not normal size ones the situation is just getting bonkers.
The sight on the news yesterday of the Senior BAA Manager of Heathrow holding up a bag and saying that that would be the largest allowed on the aircraft! - why? - do terrorists only use large bags?
Paddy O'Leary was rightly fuming - holding up in one hand one of the BAA's new 'allowable' bag and in the other a normal, 'banned', carry-on that has been in use, and is still in use, around the world for years.
Bizarre:uhoh:

Presumably the smaller bag allows quicker and more thorough searches/scans of the contents.

This is one of the few things I support BAA on. Although in fact I think these are actually the DFT's rules, not BAA?

[IB4138]

A friend of ours flew LGW-AGP on Exel yesterday and along with 27 other people was a bag missing on arrival at Malaga. The bag contained all her childrens clothes

Servisair advised this morning that most flights are leaving without all passengers bags, as a result of the extra number of hold bags that they have had to process at LGW. There is a large backlog and it is not expected that the missing bags from that AGP flight, will get flown today. They are blaiming BAA.
What a surprise!:mad:

[Two_Squirrels]

A friend of ours flew LGW-AGP on Exel yesterday and along with 27 other people was a bag missing on arrival at Malaga. The bag contained all her childrens clothes

Why not do what we are doing. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. There are three of us flying on Thursday to the US, and we are distributing enough clothes, toiletries etc between 3 bags.

[blackbox]

Quote: - Mr Walsh said the resulting queues resembled a "bad dream at Disneyland". :D

Maybe the BAA could install "average waiting time displays" i.e.: "you have 10hours til you get to the front of the queue then find the flight was cancelled 11 hours ago!".:E

[IB4138]

I knew some clever ***** would post that reply! :rolleyes:

Totally misses the point, which is:.............what the hell are BAA up to......these delays are unacceptable, even with this hair brained increased security directive.

[BABizFlyer]

No One has answered how exactly roller bags have been breaking the rules!!! If they can not fit through the xray machine - they could not be brought on board - simple.

If some pax consider that 2 such roller bags are acceptable then it should be pointed out to them, at check in, that they are not!!!

It seems that a lot of peiple who disagree with roller bags are just jealous because they do not own one or are non business pax to whom the wait, and risks, of dealing with baggage handlers, is not critical.

I choose to fly with BA because of their more relaxed carry on policy, I stopped flying with BMI - Luftwaffa etc because of that policy.

Lets get back to a reasonable limit on size - allowing most of the current roll on bags in the overhead lockers.

[A2QFI]

I think the problem is now, and may have been in the past, that they don't fit the "Gauge" at check-in. They also may exceed the weight limit, which seems to depend on the airline. I think that anything which encourages people to travel hand luggage only is a good idea. I don't know if Easy have changed their rules but they used to let you on board with anything up to 20Kg, so long as you could lift into the overhead locker yourself.

[Nov71]

Looks like we got the laptops out of the hold just in time -

BBC News - "The world's largest manufacturer of personal computers, Dell, is to recall 4.1 million of its notebook computer batteries because of a fire risk. "
(Sony Li-ion batteries)

Wonder what the reaction would be if a Dell started smoking at Security?

[BEagle]

And the incompetence of BAA carries on....

From Ryanair's website:

"As a result of BAA's failure to adequately staff the Stansted Airport security points on Tuesday the 15th August (at 0400hrs, one hour after check-in desks had opened, BAA Stansted had opened just 4 out of 14 security points at the airport. At 0500hrs, just one hour before our first flights are scheduled to depart, BAA Stansted had opened just 7 out of 14 security points at the airport), Ryanair have been forced to cancel a further 8 flights on the 15th of August."

Although I'm no great fan of Ryanair, I certainly agree with all that Michael O'Leary has been saying about this farce recently.

[Man-on-the-fence]

BBC News - "The world's largest manufacturer of personal computers, Dell, is to recall 4.1 million of its notebook computer batteries because of a fire risk. "
(Sony Li-ion batteries)
I work in IT and had to make a service call for one of these today, the Bod on the end of the phone says it is suspected that this may happen while charging. So unlikely to happen at Security.

[Haven't a clue]

I can't help thinking that the new hand baggage size limit, although determined by DfT, has been heaviliy influenced by BAA's inability to screen pax and baggage at the speed needed to allow the volume passing through Heathrow to catch their planes.

As previously posted the size does not reflect any of the previous standards applied by the airlines (except perhaps for puddle jump operators).

It seems though that even with this restriction BAA can't handle the pax numbers involved. Slap another fiver on the ticket price to pay for extra facilities if you must, but let's see some committment by BAA to get things back to relative normality (albeit with no liquids).

If I am right then it is wrong that those seasoned pax who avoid LHR like the plague suffer because of BAA's shortcomings.

[PAXboy]

BA 'mulls Heathrow compensation' Tuesday, 15 August 2006, 13:12 GMT 14:12 UK BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4793281.stm)

BA is to consider seeking compensation from airports operator BAA after security measures forced it to cancel hundreds of flights from Heathrow.

BA boss Willie Walsh has attacked BAA's management, saying it had "no adequate plan" to deal with the emergency.

FANTASTIC That is one of the best bits of news that I have heard in a long time, I hope they get on with it, rather than just mulling.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

I work in IT and had to make a service call for one of these today, the Bod on the end of the phone says it is suspected that this may happen while charging. So unlikely to happen at Security.

But I thought there had been some cases of Dell computers burning when on the move, eg. at a conference in Japan, in an SUV in Nevada (truck burned to a cinder) and on a Lufthansa plane at Chicago. I am following this since my laptop is one of the affected....

[Man-on-the-fence]

GCC

Possibly, I'm just saying what the telephone monkey told me.
There is also a recall for Compaq/HP laptop batteries, however that is due to charging problems.

[Man-on-the-fence]

Just to confirm that we are dealing with two different carry on allowances. One from the UK and one to the UK with the latter being larger than the former.

Crazy

What happens to transit passengers?

[Airbubba]

This year is as we all know is the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and yet passenger profiling is nowhere nearer being introduced.

Well, maybe they are trying:

Profiling plan angers UK Muslims

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 Posted: 1356 GMT

The British government says it is working on new security procedures at airports.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government is considering a system of passenger profiling that includes checks on travelers' ethnic or religious background, according to media reports.

The planned system of tougher airport checks would create a new offense of "traveling whilst Asian," according to one of Britain's most senior Muslim police officers...

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/15/passenger.profiling/

[paulc]

The revised hand baggage is ok for laptops but what about photographic equipment. Mine is worth about 3K and would not want it in the hold. Bag is borderline with the new sizes and have had no problems with it in the past.

[Final 3 Greens]

The planned system of tougher airport checks would create a new offense of "traveling whilst Asian," according to one of Britain's most senior Muslim police officers...

Rather than just "travelling" :confused:

[Man-on-the-fence]

Paul

Lowepro Mini Trekker will fit, you have to take the lens of whatever camera you have and then lay the camera flat on its back.I have 1 body a big lens and two small ones in there, it all meets the new size limitations.

I intend to attach the lens back onto the camera when I am on the plane.

[chandlers dad]

Or carry the body and one lens on a strap on your shoulder as well as your carry-on bag in your hand. Women are allowed one purse and one carry-on, so we could carry a camera. As well have a very expensive camera and no way that its going to be checked.

[EastMids]

The revised hand baggage is ok for laptops but what about photographic equipment. Mine is worth about 3K and would not want it in the hold. Bag is borderline with the new sizes and have had no problems with it in the past.

You're allowed one piece of hand baggage within the size limitations - period (no women's handbags unless they're inside the single piece, and laptops and cameras have to fit within the bag too). I think Paul you're going to have to live with this for now and if ncessary buy a smaller camera bag - what we have now is a lot better than was in place at the weekend, and as a last resort I for one would put all my camera gear in the ubiquitous clear plastic bag and checkin my empty camera bag if it were necessary to ensure I could actually take the camera gear on board.

Andy

[172driver]

Well, maybe they are trying:
Profiling plan angers UK Muslims
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 Posted: 1356 GMT
The British government says it is working on new security procedures at airports.
LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government is considering a system of passenger profiling that includes checks on travelers' ethnic or religious background, according to media reports.
The planned system of tougher airport checks would create a new offense of "traveling whilst Asian," according to one of Britain's most senior Muslim police officers...
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/15/passenger.profiling/


That's the first sensible thing I've heard from this government in a LONG time :ok:

[derekvader]

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government is considering a system of passenger profiling that includes checks on travelers' ethnic or religious background, according to media reports.
The planned system of tougher airport checks would create a new offense of "traveling whilst Asian," according to one of Britain's most senior Muslim police officers...

Oh dear, what a shame. Unfortunately the whole world is currently being inconvenienced by a minority of nutcases, who do in the main fit a particular, easily identifiable, profile. You know, there comes a point when being PC needs to be left behind, it may not be right or fair, but it's for the greater good. And as a muslim caller said on LBC radio this morning, if the head-firmly-buried-in-the-sand muslim community leaders would actually do something about the minority of nutcases hiding in their ranks then the need for this profiling would end.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Bruce Schneier (for my money, the world's greatest expert on analysing security threats) has written in his blog (http://www.schneier.com/blog/):
Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes.

This cartoon says it all:
http://www.wondermark.com/comics/220.gif

[derekl]

Pax Vobiscum beat me to it.

Let me also heartily recommend that those interested in this subject please follow the link in PV's post to Schneier's analysis.

[el !]

PV,

The real issue is that collectively, in a sociological way, we are unable to accept what Bruce Schneier´s demonstrates way better that a pprune discussion.

Globally, you, me, a bunch of other people are willing to accept and support his opinion. We have no problem in calling the measures stupid and useless. Perhaps, is because "we", let´s call us the the "criticists", culturally have little respect for the Authority, not just because "we" understand the technicalities better than others.

Of course, not everyone is sharing the same indipendence of thinking, and even less people is willing to put in discussion decisions that are made in the name of safety.

Not being this an issue that can put a Gov.mnt at risk of loosing next elections, nor a change in heading of the Securty Forces, decisions will be always taken in total hipocracy where the only objective is to transmit to the general public (that is everyone excpet the criticists) a sense of security, that something is being done, and you won´t die just because you are going to see you aunt in Birmmingham. Plus all the under the desk compormises and exchange of favours or revenges taken beween the various actors.

It would be unreasonable to expect a change in the way the measures are takenn, and honesty I hope the terrorist will not change the target from being Air Travel mainly, as apparently it summarizes the Freedom and the spine of the business of the Western World. There, something can be done, more or less sustentably, more or less disruptively. Other areas of our everyday life, as we have tragically seen, are much more idfficult or simply impossible to protect.

[positionand hold]

WHAT THE MEDIA TELLS ME, COMPARED WITH MY EXPERIENCE YESTERDAY

I can't say I have ever subscribed to Conspiracy Theories, but there are some very odd contradictions between what I read and watch on the media, compared with what I actually experienced at Terminal 1 yesterday on a day-trip to Malaga with GB Airways!

There most certainly are some very impressive delays and good photographic scenes outside the building - a very large tent filled with an assortment of bent and broken chairs, plenty of rubbish, loads of heavily armed police and an army of BA staff in yellow jackets (plus several hundred passengers....).

The plan is you wait outside until a very nice sounding BA man on a very effective PA tells you which zone is now checking-in your flight. This is the cause of most delays, because plenty of people are arriving too early and then have to wait for their flight to open and they cannot go inside. Each flight was opening for check-in about 1 hour 30 minutes before its departure time.

I had checked-in online (this facility was restored on Sunday evening) and I had printed the boarding passes. Additionally I had no carry-on or checked baggage at all. I managed to enter the terminal because I had no bags (though there was no restriction at all on people entering on the arrivals level and simply going upstairs...........).

Inside, the check-in desks (both BA and the other carriers) were less busy than 06.00 on a normal Monday morning (as most of you will know, normally a most frenetic time of the day).

All of the self-service check-in machines (and the associated Fast Bag Drop desks) were open and working (with no waiting), so you did not actually have to queue at all. However, the normal check-in desks did all have queues (though not exceptionally long).

As I already had boarding passes, I went directly to the Security area. THIS WAS A REVELATION!. About 3 or 4 positions were open, but there was no queue at any one. I simply walked through the empty zigzag of queue lines right to the x-ray machines and was through (including a pat-down) in moments.

Once in the departure lounge, everything was eerily quiet - not at all busy, in fact almost deserted.

My experience conflicts absolutely with all the press stories about "delays at Security", because there were none! All the delays were outside and very visible, but they were not resulting from delays with Security. Hence my comment about Conspiracy Theories!

However, the big story I have yet to read about anywhere, is the very significant disruption to baggage handling (well, with BA anyway). On the bus out to the aircraft ona remote stand, I saw mountains of bags (I often go this way, but the piles were on a profoundly larger scale than normal!).

Our aircraft was late boarding (blamed on the crew being delayed at Security) and then we were advised of a 30 minute ATC delay (the implication being we had missed our slot). However, they did not even start loading the baggage into the hold until this 30 minute delay was announced, so I really do doubt it was caused by ATC!

On my return to T1 the same evening, almost every spare space in the baggage reclaim hall was occupied by a multitude of trolleys, each piled high with bags which had clearly not been reunited with the passengers.

With this obvious risk of delayed baggage and, as the new carry-on rules still prohibit such handy things as shaving kit, toothpaste, deodorant, etc., a short trip with an overnight stay will continue to be a challenge!

Perhaps significantly, the flight disruption pages of the BA website now have a "convenient" link to a lost baggage claim form........................

Question 1: How did they manage to source so many thousands of clear plastic bags instantly - and they have still not run out!

Question 2: How is it the BAA were able to initiate the new rules within a couple of hours of the Government's instruction very very early last Thursday morning and yet they could start the new revised rules until very late Monday evening "because they have to brief all their security staff"?

[SXB]

Originally Posted by Airbubba
Well, maybe they are trying:
Profiling plan angers UK Muslims
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 Posted: 1356 GMT
The British government says it is working on new security procedures at airports.
LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government is considering a system of passenger profiling that includes checks on travelers' ethnic or religious background, according to media reports.
The planned system of tougher airport checks would create a new offense of "traveling whilst Asian," according to one of Britain's most senior Muslim police officers...


The article itself doesn't really say anything of detail, nor do the DfT so I imagine the journalists have just made it up. It does sound sensible to profile passengers though, the people who try to commit such atrocities do seem to be of a certain profile.

I see there are a couple of acidic comments from people in the muslim community and while I don't think such figures are representative I think it is worrying that a good number of British muslims are in a state of denial as to whether there is a problem within their community. There quite clearly is a problem.

It will be quite interesting to see what action the government take, it's clear that they've prevented a few terrorist operations of epic proportions (probably) but eventually one will succeed and when that happens the government will be blamed for not doing enough.

But what can they do ? Though the people recently arrested have all been British it's clear that there is some foreign infuence. Here are few options, most of which I don't advocate

(i) Complete withdrawal of visas for people from suspect countries. All those in the UK on such a visa are deported immediately. No exceptions.

(ii) Registration and monitoring systems for all mosques. Records kept of all people visting such establisments. Permanent surveillence.

(iii) Law passed making it illegal for British citizens to spend money in suspect countries (similar to the US system for Cuba)

(iv) Passenger profiling. Not possible to buy an airline ticket less than three days in advance

(v) Airport security passed from airport authorities to the Police Service

(vi) Compulsory ID cards introduced with a legal obligation to carry them at all times.

(vii) The last and most extreme action, normally only taken in times of war, Internment.

[el !]

Which ones do you advocate, SXB ?

[BEagle]

Personally I fancy a little moustache, funny walk, natty black uniform and a camp or two....























NOT!!

Identify and interrogate. Seems fair, so long as it's done by ticket ident/check rather than by some dimwit thinking "Hullo - he am suspiciously dark of hue. Ho-yus - him might be a terrorist. Especially since him smells of curry".....

The alternative forms of transport do seem rather attractive right now!

[AcroChik]

A few nights ago at dinner, a career military officer who's profession is "security related," said to me, "The moment we start looking for objects and not people at airport gates the system's totally ineffective."

He and another professional in this field spoke about software that can analyze video images for body and eye movements that indicate specific types of stress related to threat, and software that analyzes speech for similar indicators. They also spoke of lessons learned at failed security checkpoints in places like Iraq and also at places like the Capitol building in Washington DC. The discussion became far more technical than I was able to fully grasp.

Despite all the technology talk, though, they were both strongly in favor of highly trained people capable of making rational decisions under pressure being the key ingredient in all security plans.

The upshot was that two people at the table who have made careers out of studying and implementing security proceedures agreed that the current airline security process is ludicrous and is "designed to face the previous threat, not the future one, the one we already know about, not the one we haven't thought of yet."

The military officer in question currently teaches at West Point and the other fellow he was speaking with about this is the director of security for a Fortune 50 company (former military).

[SXB]

El!
Which ones do you advocate, SXB ?

Just points iv (but without the 3 day limit) and vi.

In such circumstances it's also worth looking at El Al's security setup. Their staff are trained in specific aspects of security. Anyone ever travelled on El Al ? You appear to be asked the same questions over and over again but by different staff members and there is obviously a reason for that. El Al, probably the most vulnerable airline in the world to terrorism, have an outstanding record of stopping such people getting on board. Of course checking in and boarding an El Al flight takes a lot longer than a normal flight so we come back to the question of inconvenience. Also, if BA were to implement such a policy that would have to completely retrain all their customer facing staff, some might not be capable of performing their new responsibilities, after all, it becomes a security job first and foremost and would have to be moved, it would cost a fortune. I'm not a 100% certain but I think the Isreali govt meets most of the costs of security on El Al.

[Haven't a clue]

I was wrong about the BAA handbaggage gauges at Gatwick - here is a BBC article which includes a photo of the new gauge:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4794489.stm

Note the clever use of medium grade mdf, I would guess that BAA must have had to wait for almost 24 hours to get these babies made and delivered??? Plenty of time to brief the staff then.

[SXB]

Acrochik
I don't think those types of technology are the answer in an airport but I'd agree with you about 'highly trained people able to make rational decisions under pressure' It should be remembered that the airport security itself is the last line of defence and extra resources are probably better spent on security procedures before a passenger arrives for travel.

That said it's also worth looking at airport security from a different perspective. Both checkin and BAA security focus on items and not people, these staff members don't really have security expertise nor do they have a remit or the training to profile people or their behaviour (going back to the El Al comments) When in an airport the only person you are likely to encounter with any behavioural expertise is at Passport Control, and he's focused on an entirely different aspect of security.

[AcroChik]

It should be remembered that the airport security itself is the last line of defence and extra resources are probably better spent on security procedures before a passenger arrives for travel.

You're dead on.

And for your further pre-flight entertainment... the expert deployment of sophisticated technological assets for the common good...

Report: X-ray machines don't detect explosives in shoes
Tuesday, August 15, 2006; Posted: 8:25 a.m. EDT (12:25 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government's new order that all airline passengers put their shoes through X-ray machines won't help screeners find a liquid or gel that can be used as a bomb.

The machines are unable to detect explosives, according to a Homeland Security report on aviation screening recently obtained by The Associated Press.

The Transportation Security Administration ordered the shoe-scanning requirement as it fine-tunes new security procedures.

Link to text of full article:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/15/Ter....ap/index.html

PS: The opinions in my previous post aren't mine, but things said by career experts in the field. I'm far from expert in these matters.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Sorry SXB, I have to disagree about the utility of ID cards (your point vi above).

This is a bureaucrat's wet dream - it would cost at least £20 billion (which could buy us much more cost-effective security measures, see below), HMG have repeatedly demonstrated that they could never get the necessary computer systems to work and, more signifcantly, it would do almost nothing to improve security. The perpetrators of 9/11, 7/7 and the Madrid bombings all had perfectly valid ID, the problem was that the authorities had insufficient grasp of what they were up to. What is needed is better intelligence, of which (I fervently hope) recent arrests in the UK are the first signs.

Spend the money on recruiting lots of Muslims into MI5!

[SXB]

Pax Vobiscum

I see your point. I'm not suggesting that ID cards in themselves would deter terrorists but it's another aide for the police in the UK, who, at the moment don't really have any way of confirming someones identity when they stop them in the street or in the car (id not being compulsory in the UK, nor is carrying a drivers license, proof of ownership or certificate of insurance while driving a vehicle) Identity cards are only as good as the system for verifying them, most countries don't have such a system like computer terminals in police cars. Verification can, at least, establish whether a card is genuine.

Your point about the £20 billion ,for implemenation of ID cards, being better spent on other aspects of security is a very strong argument. I didn't realise that was the cost of implementing such a system.

[SXB]

Acrochik

It seems that technology can never replace an agile human mind...

[BOAC]

May I draw your attention to the Poll at the top of this forum?

[rhovsquared]

nervous flyer valium has been around about 50 years now 2-4mg is better than the hassle to go through with "your remedy'
rhov ;)

[172driver]

Just another article showing up the idiocy of the current rules:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2314994,00.html

[Haven't a clue]

On 1 August the new threat level definitions were introduced. The level was then set at "Severe". (= Attack highly likely but not imminent)

(See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5233562.stm)

On 10 August the level was raised to "Critical" (attack imminent and based on the arrests etc reasonably so)

On 13/14 August it was lowered to "Severe".

And this bizarre sized handbaggage limit was introduced. One wonders why not earlier?

[SXB]

Originally Posted by IB4138
Dr Reid, the UK's Scottish Home Secretary, is to attempt to have other EU States adopt the draconian security measures that the UK has, at a meeting he is to chair in London.

They won't agree to anything of substance, they'll use words like "increased co-operation" and "working together"

In areas of such as criminal justice each state still holds a veto, the Commission has long wanted this particular veto removed as they say it would help in the fight against terrorism.

[radeng]

Let's face it, BAA'a ability to organise security checking has been zero for months. Especially at T4. I've been through there 9 times this year, there has always been a queue of at least 10 minutes on the so-called 'fast track', and there's always been at least two of the machines not in use.
In 'slow track' , I've never seen all the machines in use.
I hope Willy Walsh and BA manage to bankrupt BAA! The sooner that gang of useless incompetents are out, the better. Incidentally, in the August AAIB Bulletin, there's a report on the collison between a A340 and B777 on the taxiway at LHR. The report refers to a similar collison in 1997, where HAL undertook to set up a working party to consider runway holding areas. It also says that no record of the working party can be found - which suggests HAL did nothing. Says a lot for them, and their attitude to safety.

[AcroChik]

It seems that technology can never replace an agile human mind...

Apparently the security apparatus is functoning with the agility of an Olympic gymnast...

Boy, 12, evades security clampdown
Wednesday, August 16, 2006; Posted: 12:25 p.m. EDT (16:25 GMT)
SPECIAL REPORT

LONDON, England -- Despite a high level of alert at British airports, a 12-year-old boy managed to board a plane at Gatwick without a passport, ticket or boarding pass.

..."The boy had passed through a full security screening process and we are confident there was no threat to passengers, staff or the aircraft at any time," said Stewart McDonald, a spokesman for BAA, which operates Gatwick, Heathrow and five other major UK airports...

...His mother, who cannot be named because her son is in care, said she was stunned he evaded the security checks.

Here's the link to the full article:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/16/uk.terror.boy/index.html

"The moment we start looking for objects and not people at airport gates the system's totally ineffective."

[WHBM]

Incidentally, in the August AAIB Bulletin, there's a report on the collison between a A340 and B777 on the taxiway at LHR. The report refers to a similar collison in 1997, where HAL undertook to set up a working party to consider runway holding areas. It also says that no record of the working party can be found - which suggests HAL did nothing. Says a lot for them, and their attitude to safety.
BAA doubtless considered the working party wouldn't produce any revenue and therefore didn't meet their Return on Investment criteria for expenditure.

[172driver]

From today's TIMES:

John Reid, the Home Secretary, said after the meeting that he wanted greater uniformity in security measures taken at airports throughout the EU and said that discussions next week would look at extending the new measures in operation at British airports to those throughout the EU. He emphasised the importance of adopting measures across Europe so that “we don’t have a position where terrorists feel if it is difficult to get through security checks in London, they might be able to go to Paris or Frankfurt or Berlin”.
A Home Office spokeswoman said that extending British-style security measures to EU airports had been discussed during the meeting and would be on the agenda at the meeting of transport ministers next week, which would focus on aviation security.
Signor Frattini said that they were also looking at the “positive profiling” of passengers, carried out well in advance of their flights, based on biometric identifiers, such as iris scans or fingerprints. It would mean that immigration officials would be able to check that a person arriving in Britain with a passport containing a visa is the same person who applied for the visa.
He and Mr Reid emphasised, however, that there was no plan for profiling based on passengers’ ethnic origins.

So the bona-fide innocent traveller will be penalised, while any wild-eyed preacher of hate will be waved through security.... looks like the terrorists have won :yuk:

PS: link to full article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2316665,00.html

[A2QFI]

Apologies if these is being discussed elsewhere - I can't locate it!

1. How is security enhanced or improved by reducing the size of carry on luggage?

2. Is this a BAA rule or an airline one and, if the former, were any airlines consulted?

3. Easy seemed to want people to travel handluggage only and were allowing anything on board, which met the old dimesion rules, so long as one could lift it into the overhead stowage.

The size reduction doesn't look to me as though it improves anything and isn't wanted by many people either.

[el !]

A2QFI,

I can give you the official version and and the alternative interpretation.

The official theory is that less hand baggage there is, the faster people will be able to clear security, because the more indepth searches will be conducted on passengers and they carry-on. So given that fractional units of hand baggage cannot be introduced, they come up with the bright idea of shrinking a size that has been standard for years.

The alternative interpretation is that this is something the airlines, airport and security wanted for a long times and for different reasons. As you know, basically, the low cost passenger is seen as an inconvenience to everyone, and evermore his baggage, cabin or hold that it is.
Security wants to have less handbaggage to have less stuff to screen, save on machines and operators.
The Airline wants to have less confusion at boarding when people brings all that stuff and some may even ask (God forbids) a CC to place a 10 Kg roller in an holder. Before someone jumps on me, I never asked for anything in my life excpet the time maybe. And less weight is less fuel, of course.
There are even some passengers that are bothered by everybody else baggage and this give the theory another supporting view.

Now for the Easyjet story. They are somewhat smarter than the rest of the other. They understood that posing strict limits on the weight of carry-on baggage will only generate countless discussions at the check-in counters and at the gates, while the bigger part of labour and weight comes from the shipped baggage anyway. So they were trying to streamline operations by shifting at least a portion of the weight from hold to cabin, where is the passenger that does the work. Less hold baggage, faster turnaround,less weight, less claims, more profit.

Unfortunately this smart Easyjet policy is going against the mainstream now, while the traditional line of airline thinking get an advantage by the new measures.

[A2QFI]

El - many thanks for your clear and lucid reply! In the end a bag is a bag and has to bex X-rayed and/or handchecked, knocking 2 ins of each permitted dimension of a bit of luggage isn't going to do much IMHO. I understand what you are saying but I don't really follow the 'reasoning' behind this bit of petty bureaucracy!

[EastMids]

Whilst the new rules were apparently set by the DfT, I strongly suspect that the DfT consulted on this - why else this wacky out-of-standard size - and that the easiest organisation to consult with (especially given which airport[s] all the difficulties were arising at) was the BAA.

It is well known to those of us who travel through BAA airports that it is very rare, even during peak periods, for all of the scanners at the security checkpoints to be open and staffed. This I regard as being a result of the BAA placing cost saving above customer service - even Tesco usually does its best to open more tills when there's queues these days! Good customer service would dictate that the BAA open and staff all of the scanners in peak periods and at this time of crisis - something which recent annecdotal evidence suggests that they are not doing.

Thus, based on the premise that cost saving (or at least cost control) in all likelihood has a higher priority within the BAA than customer service, the new hand baggage size rules that I strongly suspect the BAA had an input to could be interpreted as being motivated by the following:

1. Smaller size bags = less stuff inside. Less stuff = less to manually check at checkpoints. Less to check = higher throughput using a given set of resources. Higher throughput = less justification for extra staff and scanning equipment. Objective - cost saving - achieved!

2. Most carry on bags are bigger than the new rules allow. Working on the assumption that not everyone will buy a new carry on bag even if their current one exceeds the size now allowed, some travellers will be forced to check a bag that they previously would have carried on. More checked bags = fewer carried on bags. See point one above for the rest of this line of reasoning.

Andy

[radeng]

A2QFI
>I don't really follow the 'reasoning' behind this bit of petty bureaucracy!<
How about you can't follow it because there is NO logical reasoning?

[A2QFI]

Thank you all for your replies above. I have just been to the Ryanair website and the rules there seem to be that if you don't check something in and it is then rejected by security as too big for the cabin you can't go back to check it in. So, do you ditch it or what? It's Ryanair so it won't be logical! Same with the thing of 2 people travelling together not being allowed to pool their 20kg allowance. Madness! I've got 18kg, my wife has 22kg = we have to repack! How does that make things easier or more efficient? It doesn't! In the end they are shifting our 40kg - why do they care how it is distributed?

[EastMids]

Same with the thing of 2 people travelliong together not being allowed to pool their 20kg allowance. Madness! I've got 18kg, my wife has 22kg = we have to repack! How does that make things easier or more efficient? It doesn't! In the they are shifting our 40kg - why do they care how it is distributed?

Because with one bag over the limit, Ryanair can charge excess baggage on it! :rolleyes: Ryanair likes excess baggage, because it generates extra revenue! :\

Andy

[el !]

EastMids, your point 2. is absolutely sound and credible, I had missed it.
It seems this has become a game of being smart and smarter to seize the opportunity. Nobody tells the truth and the passengers are kept confused and disorganized enough to never voice a collective opinion or protest.

[172driver]

Unfortunately this smart Easyjet policy is going against the mainstream now, while the traditional line of airline thinking get an advantage by the new measures.

Not really - just weeks ago BA introduced the same policy. I'm not normally given to conspracy theories, but something smells very, very fishy here...:suspect:

[el !]

A2QFI, ryanair is know to be inflexible about shipped baggage. I think they will let you check-in what is refused by security, if you pay for it. No pooling + not informed people = some excess weight collecting. Everything adds up.

[L'aviateur]

I've always wondered why standardised baggage hasn't yet been introduced with a coded security seal like that on containers, then every bag handled is scanned (like fedex/parcelforce) by each handler as it makes its journey.

Seems like a way of making life simpler, and standardised baggage would be a more efficient use of space.

eg. http://www.securityseal.com/international/steady.html

[Pax Vobiscum]

There's an interesting/worrying article in The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/) that suggests that the whole idea of a 'binary liquid explosive' (particularly one based on TATP) is just a movie-plot device and could never work in practice.

I ran this past a relative who has a PhD in chemstry and he confirms:
That's a very well written article, I like it. We used to mix peroxide and sulfuric acid in the lab. It was called Pirhana solution because it ate everything but excellent for cleaning. If things were really tough I would add some acetone - which was mildly fun - lots of foam and froth.

Meanwhile I've got hundreds of plods down the road from me searching the woods for something or other. Who is kidding whom?

[Man-on-the-fence]

I have a camera bag which holds my camera and three lenses. Length and width it fits easily into the new size limits however, if my camera is attached to the Lens it measures 19cm at one end. If I move things around a bit and lay the camera flat (not attached to the lens) it will fit easily into the 16cm slot. (this is not ideal but I can live with it)

By doing this, how am I going to stop a terrorist attack, and will all my good work be in vain if I attach the camera back to the lens when I am through the security check (or on the plane).

Time for a bit of common sense methinks.

[cattleclass]

After a blissful and information free couple of weeks sailing and camping in the Adriatic, I came back to GTW from Berlin with easyjet yesterday,(Wed 16th), only becoming aware of the situation as my partner and I arrived at Split Airport in the morning. I collected my 3 different computers,2 PC's and 1 Mac, from home and headed out to go back to work. 1 pc in the check in samsonite, with all the psu's and the mac and the other pc in backpack and comp. bag respectively,but full of concern about the checkin. my partner stayed with me till check in in case she had to take stuff back to the flat and FedEx it here to Brighton, but the staff,security,ground staff and FA's were totally all over it. Excellent behaviour, and a good example of how we, as business oriented but budget minded commuter travellers can deal with this new work-related position. We need to carry our data and communication equipment in a secure but transparent environment, and we need to be able to trust the baggage handlers, ground staff and the whole spectrum of staff that facilitate the operation of the airline on the ground. Only then can the airlines offer a secure and obvious response to the assault on all of us, red,black,white,yellow,man or woman,followers of a god or totally unconvinced, as fellow travellers and human beings,that is threatened by ANY of the attacks on our human rights at the moment.And I do mean from all points of the moral compass. Whew... thanks for chance to say well done to those at ALL the ports and ramps cocked up by the last few days of insanity. Glad I was away really!:ok:

[PAXboy]

Orignally from radeng... where HAL undertook to set up a working party to consider runway holding areas. It also says that no record of the working party can be found - which suggests HAL did nothing. So - why will reprimand HAL? Who has regulatory control over HAL??



Don't tell me ... the CAA??? :zzz:
(I sit to be corrected)

__________________
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different."
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[Rollingthunder]

About half the duty-free shops at YVR are now closed and about 75% in YYZ.
May be temporary as there are rumours of another change in carry-on regs coming shortly. But staff laid off.

[Just a spotter]

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

:hmm:

JAS

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Despite all the talk about new security procedures and doubled-up queues for screening/document checks etc., am I right that the real elephant in the room is that flights ex-UK to the US now have to receive US Department of Homeland Security clearance before taking off ? This can take anything from 20 minutes to 2 hours, after the doors are closed. Any comment on how this is affecting schedules/operations...?

I understand also that the real concern in the US today is increasingly becoming the visa waiver countries (predominantly the big Western Europe countries providing the bulk of passengers), whose inhabitants require almost no scrutiny prior to turning up in the US (provided they're below the watch-list radar screen). Whether or not you consider these conspirators capable of actually carrying out this plot, the Americans are realizing, with dismay, that basically there is a bunch of young Brits in Britain who are planning to kill them. Paradoxically, arriving flights from the Middle East pose less concern, because travellers have visas and have been subject to at least some prior screening by the Americans.

[IB4138]

My wife had her handbaggage refused at Blackpool yesterday at security, because of the medication she was carrying, in tablet form. Firstly, the two boxes of tablets she had did not have a UK pharmacists label stuck on the side of it, as it would have if dispensed in the UK from a UK doctor's prescription. Being a Spanish resident, the required label does not exist on her medication. Here labels are not slapped on the side of medications by chemists, ( another waste of money by the NHS) as they are dispensed in the original box, in quantities as supplied by the drug manufacturer, complete with their instructions. Secondly, because she requires a smaller dose of one medication than is available in these tablets in Spain, she carries a small bottle with a few of these tablets cut into fours, for immediate use, when required. It is not sealed and the contents can be inspected, which they were.That was a total no no, baggage had to be checked in. The medication could have been required on the journey, but that cut no ice, and one medication comes, with a price printed on the box of €101.

These muppets at Blackpool need to wake up. Every country does not have the same draconian rules and labelling requirements for drugs on prescription as the UK. I did not think there was a ban on taking medications in your hand baggage in tablet form. Clearly at Blackpool there is.

Is this how Blackpool wants to attract more passengers? :mad:

[ShedsRus]

This may not be the right forum for this but I'm sure Mr Moderator will put me right.

I'm a GA pilot and very frequent SLF. Ref the two 'Arab' wallahs slung off a holiday flight 'cause the pax didn't like the look of them.
Surely the pilot is in charge of the flight. Once the pilot had satisfied himself that the two had passed security and did not pose a threat then he could have allowed them to travel. Those bucket and spade merchants (probably related to those who beat up a paediatrition (excuse the spelling) 'cause they couldn't tell the difference between her and a peadofile (again exthespell)) should then have been told that the 'arabs' were travelling and if they didn't like it they could make their own way home.

I just feel that because the Govt have gone OTT, nobody trusts them and the measures - as has been mentioned here are so inconsistent) everybody is s****t**ng bricks every time they see a Moslem.

Thanks for reading. Hope I haven't offended anybody and that I can have a reasoned answer

[Bangkokeasy]

I had the unpleasant experience of boarding a flight from LHR T3 on Saturday. I will go out of my way to avoid such an experience again.

I have absolutely nothing good to say about BAA. It took nearly an hour to get through the procedures - and I was travelling A class. The poor cattle at the back were taking hours. And of course, finally reaching the security checkpoint, one machine is not in use! :*

I have passed through about 50 airports since 9/11 and there is nowhere which is more of a shambles than LHR (OK, possibly LAX comes close).

If it is really necessary to impose these restrictions (and I beginning to severely doubt that), then suficient resources MUST be allocated to the job. It remains a national disgrace that SLF are subjected to the infuriating mess that is LHR. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!!!

[DON T]

RYANAIR NEW CHECK IN PROCEDURES

Visit: http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/notices.php?notice=060822-ASP-EN

[Globaliser]

RYANAIR NEW CHECK IN PROCEDURESAnd see existing thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=240298).

[BellEndBob]

My view, and I don't care who I offend, is that the real reason it is a shambles at UK airports (especially LHR) comes down to the simple fact that the individuals who are checking your bags, unable to think on their feet, unable to make sensible decisions are doing that job because they are unable to get gainful employment elsewhere.
If you are going to have security, then do it properly. Policemen and other security 'specialists'. Sensible profiling is also a part of that process and, whether you like it or not, that means stopping far more Middle Eastern gentlemen than little old ladies and kids.
We are, however, a very liberal society and so it is probably only a matter of time before we are treated to yet another 'News Flash'.

[TightSlot]

My view, and I don't care who I offend... It's never wise, in my experience, not to care who you offend :O

Would those same individuals, if properly trained, paid and given a degree of empowerment perform their tasks better and more efficiently? I don't know the answer to this, but it seems a reasonable question to ask.

[BellEndBob]

Yes, I believe they would. At the moment however, they are a cheap labour force that helps BAA create the illusion that security is tight and 'grown up'.

[Man-on-the-fence]

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5281896.stm)

So it seems the hand luggage rules may be realxed in the near future (hopefully in the next two weeks for me) but still no liquids. I can probably live with that I suppose.

Two questions though. I have checked the BAA Website and that of my carrier (United) and I cannot see anything that specifically forbids them, but can somebody let me know if cameras are allowed on board in hand luggage (subject to the size restrictions of the day).

Also, I have to keep a Salbutamol inhaler with me for Asthma. I have just had a new prescription made up and I now have the prescipton labels attached directly to the inhaler (usually attached to the box). Is this likely to be enough or will it cause problems if I have them at all (to not have them will cause me problems).

Any help much appreciated.

[Bangkokeasy]

I know it is tempting to have a go at the security screeners for supposed unqualified ineffectiveness, especially after having queued for hours for your couple of minutes of scrutiny. However, I have to say that I have not seen anything at LHR to suggest that these people are inadequately trained or not doing their jobs; actually being screened doesn't seem to take much longer than anywhere else and the screeners are not letting their standards slip. For instance, a few in front of me, a toddler walked through the scanner while still holding his rattle, which was spotted, carefully removed from his fist and x-rayed (rather well handled, I thought, avoiding the expected tantrum).

The issue is that of inadequate resources applied to the task. Compare this to other airports where there are no queues and you will see what I mean.

I am therefore, polite with the screeners, performing their job under tough circumstances. On the other hand, for the crime of needlessly infuriating millions of travellers, the responsible management should be shot, poisoned, hung, drawn, quartered, buried in excrement and made to re-live the experience for all eternity.

[BellEndBob]

They took a rattle off a toddler and X-Rayed it.

I rest my case. :ugh:

[Bangkokeasy]

With hindsight, perhaps not the best example.

However, he was brandishing it in an extremely intimidating manner...

[radeng]

I came through T4 a week ago. Security people were more than a bit fed up -comment "I'll be glad when we get back to normal'" I asked why there weren't more people and he said they can't get them. So I asked if they could if BAA would pay better. ' Ah' he says, 'Now you've the hit the nub of the question. But they can afford lots of managers!'
I think my advice is 'Don't fly unless you really have to. Avoid flying to the UK or the US unless you REALLY REALLY have to. If possible, avoid carrying a computer'.
All of which advice is totally useless if you travel as much as I do on business!
But if people stop flying and BAA profits go down, they may get some backsides kicked enough to realise this travellers misery can't go on. meanwhile, BAA appear to be trying to wreck the UK airline business.

[10secondsurvey]

for the crime of needlessly infuriating millions of travellers, the responsible management should be shot, poisoned, hung, drawn, quartered, buried in excrement and made to re-live the experience for all eternity.

Bangkok, you are so correct with this view. The main issue is a failure on the part of BAA management to fully invest in the required number of personnel, with the correct training.

In light of events over the last five years or so, every Airport security operation should be set up with the capacity, management and skill set to handle crisis periods such as this, without introducing massive delays into the system. BAA can't say they were not warned.

Here's a question for the geniuses at BAA - 'do you think something similar may happen again within the next five years? If so, what plans are you making to avoid the fiasco we have just seen?' More shops?

I really think BAA management needs a good kicking, and if they fail to improve, then we could adopt your proposal. There would probably be a long queue of FF's keen to assist you.

Never forget, every time we fly, we actually pay for these BAA management clowns.

[Final 3 Greens]

10secondsurvey

I strongly object to your comparison of BAA management to clowns.

Clowns are highly skilled professionals who create a superb illusion of stupidityand incompetence.

[PAXboy]

F3g Thanks, that cheered me up. :}

When I went through LHR 8 days ago (Hhmm, did it feel like Eight Days A Week???) most of the extra people security people that I met were office staff pulled in to help and were smart, polite and intelligent. Most security people are not, for the same reason that the hapless soul sitting in the security office on night duty at a factory or other location - people will not pay good money for the job. They consider it a non-job that anyone can do and pay a pittance. The human desire to save (and therefore make) money will always prevail.

[Haven't a clue]

Isn't the next stage to create a suitable vocational qualification for airport security personnel requiring attendance at an approved course for an approved period (such course to include not only security screening practice and technique but also customer service and queuing theory) followed by a suitable practical test and written examination. Security staff at UK airports will need to be so qualified within say the next three months. Sounds like a smart move a beaurocrat at DfT might think up, but such an approach would lift the standards and thus pay for the job and improve the process no end.

Of course it would cost money, but that would be passed on to the fare paying public as the government continues to refuse to accept any financial responsibility for their actions.

It would also give BAA an excuse for their poor performance over the next few months - "All our staff are on training courses.."

On a more serious note I passed through IOM, LPL, LCY and LGW over the last two weeks. Everyone was polite, the queues were perfectly acceptable and I had no cause to complain. Thank you all.

[ShedsRus]

Having left those two 'Arabs' (who turned out to be Indians talking hindi, or Pakistanis talking Urdu, depending on which journalist is reporting the "facts" (ha ha) I would like to move on to the restrictions being placed on my human rights. I have a camera bag which meets the dimensions in all but one vital aspect - it's not tall and slim, it's squat and wide. THat was is just handy for the extra shirt and pants required for a weekend away. Poked it at BA BHX the other day and was told to try it in the MD (it was blatantly obvious it wasn't going to fit). Told in no uncertain terms that was not acceptable and, if I tried to get it through, it was in the hold. Not with 3Ks worth of cameras, a 12.50 shirt and 3.50 knickers in it it's not!!
I, therefore, informed them that - until commonsense prevailed my modest 5 - 6K per annum I spend with them (Plus the money spent with other carriers) would be spent on driving, or entraining, to the Continent to fly with those same carriers probably at much cheaper fares even allowing for the extra travelling.
You will not be surprised to hear that their concern was underwhelming.
Before air transport, in the UK, goes the way of the dinosaur will somebody tell me how we can get some commonsense into this.
Terrorists, by their very mindset, will not be diverted from their path (See Olympics Munich, Underground Tokyo etc) so the best we will ever do is minimise their effect. By inconveniencing everybody on the planet we are doing their work for them.:eek:

[1DC]

Doesn't seem as if the lesson has been learned yet.
Young daughter came home from Oz yesterday, no problem MEL to LHR.
She then missed her flight from LHR to MAN because of long queues at the T4 to T1/T2 transit security point.
She would have been ok if all the x ray machines were being used, but no, only one in operation.
The customer will only be messed with for so long and then they find an alternative....

[derekl]

I dread the arrival of the bomber who plans to use explosive underpants. Then we'll all REALLY be in trouble.

[graphitestick]

ok so the babies rattle wasn't the best of examples but the point is everything where possible HAS to go through the xray. It's the DfT ruling not a choice. Don't screen the rattle, oh or the teddy bear, oh or kids altogether. Where would terrorists start planting explosives and detonaters......err rattles, bears and kids because a stupid passenger that DOESN'T have xray vision thinks it's ok.
Two weeks ago everyone survived their journeys with bare essentials but moaned about not having their lap-top or mobile phone. Now they are they are allowed both these items they moan about not having a something else. Give security a break for once will you guys. PLEASE.

[172driver]

Give security a break for once will you guys. PLEASE.

Not so, graphitestick - I suggest the screeners and their moronic masters give US, THE PAYING PASSENGERS (yes - us who pay their wages and, in the DfT case, their perks) a break. They are there to provide a service.

[Skyflier]

Not so, graphitestick - I suggest the screeners and their moronic masters give US, THE PAYING PASSENGERS (yes - us who pay their wages and, in the DfT case, their perks) a break. They are there to provide a service.

I'll second this, it's well past time that the current security nonsense ceased, I have no sympathy with the staff implementing something which is causing me major inconvenience day after day. How about them showing me and other pax some courtesy and respect in exchange for the exorbitant airport charges I pay which in turn pay their wages?

[PAXboy]

How safe is Heathrow?

Channel 4
Monday 4th September
20:00 (I think but might be 21:00)
Over the past decade, Heathrow has become a magnet for criminal activity, with the number of vehicle hijackings and armed attacks related to the airport becoming an international embarrassment. One member of the police's flying squad admits, "There have been very vicious violent armed robberies and we have been lucky along the way that no-one has been seriously maimed".

This appears to be more about EGLL itself, rather than whether they make it safe for us on aircraft. Could be interesting/amusing/irrelevant. [delete as appropriate]

[10secondsurvey]

Apparently, there are no real problems at LHR..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5300798.stm



In interview by the BBC on Radio 4 regarding calls for the break up of BAA in light of recent criticism, Mr Stephen Nelson, BAA chief executive, said "I believe we have a very strong record of running the airports going into this review.

"It is a debate of national importance, about capacity over 25 years. If the OFT does what the airlines are asking there will be less investment in airports, and gridlock."

You mean it could actually get worse????

[PAXboy]

So ... if the BAA loses control of all three London area locations - the companies that replace them will not compete with each other. If there are three separate companies then the ones running STN will say, 'Actually, we can't invest any more money in [say] new baggage handling facilities to handle the increase in traffic, because the money is needed for T5.'

Likewise, the separate company running LHR will say, 'We can't hire more staff for security and screening, because we have to balance the expenditure with what is happening at LGW.'

Truly, it will be a disaster. :rolleyes:

[gberry]

Been reading the trail on the new baggage rules....interesting stuff but thought I give you the tail of two Mondays ago when I took my 15 year old daughter to Nice, and flew back the same day !!! was that ever interesting! Luton, yep to electrical items, no Liquids, no make up (Daughters, not mine before you all start) flying with easy jet, we were asked re the above before betting to the check in desk, they checked again at the check in desk. We were checked again at the bottom of a set of stairs that take you up to security at departures. Security...... well checked everything and did a thorough job, shoes off belts off etc.

OK got to Nice, :ok: dropped my daughter off turned round walked into departures at check in....wait for it....... no electrical’s at all, phone, blackberry, ....CAR KEYS.... glasses case, you could take your wallet, a book, glasses (no case) and that was about. then they spotted a pen I had with me...... dithered for a moment and then said that was OK.

so just a thought, check the rules at the other end too.

Oh and finally as we were boarding one poor guy got caught with his car keys. :\ The only set he had, "sorry you can't take those on board" he eventually dismantled the whole key assembly to prove there was nothing untoward in them !!! what next? The liquid in my body !!!:ooh: rather that than lax security I say :D , but I wish we could get some consistency here.

[SLF3]

Went through LHR T3 on Monday. Security screening through Fast Track took close to 1.5 hours. Economy class passengers were queueing outside the terminal - hundreds of them.

BAA have had years to contingency plan and three weeks to get their act together. They are breathtakingly incompetent.

Please make sure every time you go through Heathrow you get a BAA feedback form from the nice man at the BAA desk after screening, and write to Tony Douglas, Managing Director of BAA, and tell him what you think of his company and how you would like to see his career progress.

Please do not spend any money at any BAA airport - if no-one used the shops, they wouldn't be their, and BAA could then concentrate on running an airport rather than a shopping mall.

[ExSimGuy]

Hit them on fags & Booze!

Here is an area where BAA makes stinking great profits!

A carton of 200 cigarettes cost just over 5 UK Pounds in the local supermarket. How much of this do we save by buying "duty free"? Maybe 40% (I've not been home to UK for a while so forgive if this is not spot-on)

So how much profit does BAA make on a carton? 10%?, 20%?, - No! I live in an area where there is little or no tax on smokes and I can buy a pack of brand-name cigaretes for around 80 pence! (corner-shop price) That's a whole carton of 200 for 8 pounds, against 50 pounds in the UK shops, around 30 pounds in BAA "duty free".

So, real price 8 pounds a carton, BAA price around 30 pounds a carton. Where's the difference? BAA Profit! 250%!

Much the same applies to booze - I remember somewhere that the "real" (tax-free) price of a bottle of Scotch (gin, vodka) is around a pound, but BAA sells these for several times that price - not far below the price in a good bottle-store or supermarket in UK (or most other countries).

So wherever possible, why not consider avoiding BAA's shopping mall, especially for the items where BAA are bleeding the consumer almost as much as Bliar's government. (save hassle and pay a quid more to buy your Scotch at Roberts, or buy your "duty-free" on arrival if there's an "arrivals duty-free at your destination airport)

[ZFT]

I’m constantly amazed anyone buys anything from BAA duty free or tax free shops or whatever they call them. Just about the whole of Asia and IIRC NZ have real duty free upon arrival anyway.
As ExSimGuy so rightly states BAA are ripping customers off and local supermarket prices are cheaper just about everywhere. Here in LOS I (used to) pay ₤1 for pack of B&H and (still) pay ₤4 for a litre of gin.
Probably the only item I can’t get cheaper in my local supermarket is a 45 X 35 X 16 briefcase as they don’t sell them!!!!

[lexxity]

Even if you are going somewhere not Asia or NZ, everytime I have flown out of LHR I have found duty free to be cheaper onboard. Failing that it is usually cheaper anyway, at your destination, from local stores.

[Robertkc]

Went through LHR T3 on Monday. Security screening through Fast Track took close to 1.5 hours. Economy class passengers were queueing outside the terminal - hundreds of them.

What!? Are you serious? What time of the day was it? I'm going through T3 (AC) next thursday morning!

[/quote]write to Tony Douglas, Managing Director of BAA, and tell him what you think of his company and how you would like to see his career progress.[/quote]

He's actually quite a nice guy - and switched on. However, he's an engineer and is very good at building things, not necessarily running them.

[/quote] Please do not spend any money at any BAA airport - if no-one used the shops, they wouldn't be their, and BAA could then concentrate on running an airport rather than a shopping mall.[/quote]

Sadly this isn't true. If BAA's profits from retail/car parks went to zero then there would be a huge increase in landing fees (this is mandated through Civil Aviation Authorities rules). So we'd all end up paying through higher ticket prices.

BAA are actually quite good at running the retail business (Stephen Nelson, the new CEO of BAA, has a distinguished background in retail including Sainsbury & Diageo). They're rubbish at running airports though, and their civil servant mentality dating from when they were government owned up until the 1980s is the root of their problems. Now that they're owned by Ferrovial, hopefully that culture will be purged. :ok:

[SLF3]

T4, mid afternoon (15.00 - 16.30). Other people from my company who travelled through T4 in the morning (11.00) said it took them over an hour, and there were prople queueing outside the terminal then as well.

Bear in mind the durations quoted are through fast track, and I did not queue to get into the terminal.

Most BA flights seemed to be running around an hour late. I arrived an hour earlier than usual, the flight was an hour late and I then waited half an hour for a bag I would normally carry on. So my journey took 2.5 hours longer than normal.

Am also hearing horror stories from people transiting through Heathrow, and my company (despite having volume based global agreements with BA) is now routinely routeing passengers who would normally transit Heathrow through Frankfurt and Amsterdam. It is hard to imagine we are alone. This must be costing BA a fortune, and as the word spreads will cost them still more.

[10secondsurvey]

Hit them on fags & Booze!

..So wherever possible, why not consider avoiding BAA's shopping mall, especially for the items where BAA are bleeding the consumer...


Doing this will get the relevant management to wake up, when they face the board of directors with a huge reduction in turnover and profits.

I agree that ultimately BAA may try to force higher fees (hence reflected in tickets), but I doubt the total reduction in sales could be recouped that way very quickly, so BAA would take a short term financial 'hit'.

Like others I cannot understand anyone buying the above goods in a UK airport, as they are almost certainly available in your local supermarket or destination at a much lower price.

[BRUpax]

At times like these I'm grateful I fly out of Terminal 2 at BHX. This morning (09:00) : Check-in wait 3 minutes; Security check wait 1 minute; off blocks 3 mins ahead of schedule! More or less exactly the same 2 weeks ago. I feel really sorry for those of you who have to use any of the London airports.

[BEagle]

Sssshh - don't tell everyone!

I stopped using Thiefrow 2 years ago - it was bad then and must be an utter shambles now.

How much longer is this lunacy going on for?

[A2QFI]

It will go on for as the lunatics are running the country and its infrastructrue! Ie don't hold your breath.

[daz211]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/09/11/1825250.html

very bad though Im very shocked that this has not
been tried by british press

[WHBM]

In my experience the time actually taken to security check me is no different now than before the recent scare, that is about 30 seconds.

The whole of the rest of the huge amount of wasted time nowadays is spent standing in a queue, not being checked and doing nothing to aid security whatsoever. If the security was adequately staffed it would take just this 30 seconds to get through.

It is NOT necessary to queue for one hour, doing nothing, to improve security.

The income at security is fixed, so much a passenger, and guaranteed whether the service is performed well or badly. In contrast at the BAA shops, which continue to be notably well staffed airside by those with security clearance (while at security half the checking stations are usually closed and unstaffed), the turnover depends on how well the job is done. So all effort into the shops, and none into the security queues.

I suggest the government makes it a condition of BAA's operations that all airside retail staff are dual trained, in retail and security. If the queue at security is less than 5 minutes, they can open the shops ....

[IB4138]

More stupidity from security at Manchester today.

The bars in Terminal 1 are short of draught beer supplies, infact the Voyageurs bar only has draught Grolsch available........the reason:

Security are refusing them deliveries of barrels, until they have all been tasted.....I kid ye not!!!! :mad:

[James 1077]

More stupidity from security at Manchester today.

The bars in Terminal 1 are short of draught beer supplies, infact the Voyageurs bar only has draught Grolsch available........the reason:

Security are refusing them deliveries of barrels, until they have all been tasted.....I kid ye not!!!! :mad:

So how do I go about getting a job at MAN security then? :)

[Seloco]

Just a slightly different take on the situation for a change....

Last Monday (11th) I flew as pax out of UK for first time since advent of new security. I decided to leave lots of time in view of both the measures, the date and the evening rush. So, I am doing LHR-PRG out of T2, and decide to time the process to see just how bad things are. I started the stopwatch as I paid off the taxi outside the terminal, kept it going all through check-in (not pre-checked, and with luggage for the hold) and security, finally stopping when I retrieved my bag, PC and shoes at the end of security.

Total time? 7 minutes and 30 seconds. Start to finish. I have never done T2 that quickly before.

Oh, and the security staff with whom I had contact were all pleasant, efficient and tolerant (anyone really know how to explain "just one bag" in Japanese?) in spite of being at the end of a long day.

So, it can be done!

[PAXboy]

This letter is published in The Independent (UK national newspaper) Thursday 14th September;

Banjo on board
Sir: Recent discussions regarding carrying musical instruments on airlines reminds me of the time I was taking my five-string banjo with me on a flight to Gibraltar. The check-in clerk asked what was in the soft bag on my back. When I told her it was a banjo, she said, "Oh, that's OK then. If it had been a tennis racket, it would have been classified as an offensive weapon and you would have had to check it in." Of course, she hadn't heard me play the banjo ...

IAN QUAYLE
FOWNHOPE, HEREFORDSHIRE
:p :D

[BusyB]

Well it took 40mins in the BA check in queue and 1hr 5mins in the security queue at T4 Heathrow yesterday.

That was bad enough but watching the security staff sit there whilst a women was having some sort of fit was appalling. A friend was helping to support the woman, a BA staff member called for a medic but the security staff with the only seats in the area sat watching!:ugh: