SECURITY - Revised Uk Rules (14 Aug 2006)
Originally Posted by radeng
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lunatics ARE running the asylum....
From today's TIMES:
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 
PS: link to full article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...316665,00.html
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.
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.
PS: link to full article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...316665,00.html
Last edited by 172driver; 17th Aug 2006 at 09:33. Reason: added link to article
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Luggage Size
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Summer
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carry on Luggage
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!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?
>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?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair Carry on Rules
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?
Last edited by A2QFI; 17th Aug 2006 at 21:57.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A2QFI
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?
Ryanair likes excess baggage, because it generates extra revenue! 
Andy
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Summer
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Summer
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's an interesting/worrying article in The Register 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:
Meanwhile I've got hundreds of plods down the road from me searching the woods for something or other. Who is kidding whom?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: N51:37:39 W1:19:16 Feel free to use as a waypoint.
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of Schoenfeld Yesterday
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!
Paxing All Over The World
Orignally from radeng
So - why will reprimand HAL? Who has regulatory control over HAL??
Don't tell me ... the CAA???
(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.
... 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.
Don't tell me ... the CAA???
(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.
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
May be temporary as there are rumours of another change in carry-on regs coming shortly. But staff laid off.
"Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers."
Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...t_terror_labs/
JAS
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...t_terror_labs/
JAS
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.