LHR new security dictat
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this the country that recently announced that liquid restrictions are to be LIFTED by the end of the year, with the advent of new machines? What the.......?
I can see it now: by the end of the year all passengers will be allowed take any liquids through in hand luggage. However, the idiots probably won't bother to introduce the new machine to the crew check-points ($$$,you see), so crew will still be subject to these insane restrictions.
I can see it now: by the end of the year all passengers will be allowed take any liquids through in hand luggage. However, the idiots probably won't bother to introduce the new machine to the crew check-points ($$$,you see), so crew will still be subject to these insane restrictions.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Punishment
The only logical reason I can think of for these new instructions is that Crew are going to be 'punished' for not following the procedures i.e. if you do not put your stuff in the clear plastic bag - and security find it - then it will be confiscated. Pressumably the LHR crews have not been playing ball so must be taught a lesson?
Just a thought!
Bizdev
Just a thought!
Bizdev
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Yorkshire
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wizo
Because crew who fly the plane dont check - in with the rest of the punters. They have to take their luggage with them. Also what if their are a/c swaps and your roster changes to operate a different flight and your luggage is on the other plane, can happen has happened.
Because crew who fly the plane dont check - in with the rest of the punters. They have to take their luggage with them. Also what if their are a/c swaps and your roster changes to operate a different flight and your luggage is on the other plane, can happen has happened.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be they are just trying to speed the security process up? On many occasions I have been delayed at security while a long haul flight crew passing through in front of me spends ages transferring items from one bag to another to satisfy the idiotic hold/cabin baggage rules. Maybe they're just trying to encourage(?) crew to have the right sized bottles in the right place BEFORE going through security to save holding up everyone else in the queue while you repack your luggage? I'm not defending the stupid rules - it still pisses me off I have to buy milk and water etc at BAA airside prices - but it could be they are trying to improve the often long and painful security process for the rest of us?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wellingtonbomber
I think everyone has forgotten who the enemy are.
Wrong end of the telescope.........
The DfT is managing to do what HItler and the Gestapo couldn't: cow us all into submission for fear of being non-pc.
Try getting the lady in charge of the DfT to speak to any pilot group, including BALPA, and have a sensible conversation.
She refuses.
Airlines are scared to make representations for fear of repercussions. This whole Security thing has gained a momentum all of its own over the years. It is the only growth industry in aviation (as a %age of GDP).
Oh, for an Ivory Tower of my own.
Wrong end of the telescope.........
The DfT is managing to do what HItler and the Gestapo couldn't: cow us all into submission for fear of being non-pc.
Try getting the lady in charge of the DfT to speak to any pilot group, including BALPA, and have a sensible conversation.
She refuses.
Airlines are scared to make representations for fear of repercussions. This whole Security thing has gained a momentum all of its own over the years. It is the only growth industry in aviation (as a %age of GDP).
Oh, for an Ivory Tower of my own.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
I'm sure someone at LHR has got wind of the fact that crews are by-passing the system: they are claiming their bag is going in the hold on the Manifest whilst actually putting it in the cabin (with an oversize bottle of shampoo etc).
The only way to police this is to have Security check the contents of cabin bags at the aeroplane. I would imagine even the DfT can't justify the extra manpower required for the job. SO, the onus has been placed on the Captains with the implicit threat of loss of (ID) livelihood if someone actually succeeds in by-passing the system.
How are the DfT going to police this unless a Security person physically examines the contents of each cabin bag before boarding? It is not the Captain's responsibility to examine the contents of cabin-crew baggage.
The only way to police this is to have Security check the contents of cabin bags at the aeroplane. I would imagine even the DfT can't justify the extra manpower required for the job. SO, the onus has been placed on the Captains with the implicit threat of loss of (ID) livelihood if someone actually succeeds in by-passing the system.
How are the DfT going to police this unless a Security person physically examines the contents of each cabin bag before boarding? It is not the Captain's responsibility to examine the contents of cabin-crew baggage.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Continental Europe
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In continental Europe, the liquid restrictions are in place for pax, but crew do not need to pull out all their liquids from their cabin and/or hold bags. I feel very sorry for my colleagues that operate out of the UK.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So as someone who lives abroad and goes to the shops in the UK, do I now have to abandon my shopping at the crew check?
Can I put my suitcase through the terminal check-in along with the pax?
Can I put my suitcase through the terminal check-in along with the pax?
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizo
"Why not put all liquids over 100ml in your hold baggage ? End of problem."
Lone_Ranger
"..end of whos problem?, are you suggesting a liquid bomb is safe as long as its in the hold?
With that sort of thinking, theres a job waiting for you at LHR security"
This response has made me giddy on so many levels.
"Why not put all liquids over 100ml in your hold baggage ? End of problem."
Lone_Ranger
"..end of whos problem?, are you suggesting a liquid bomb is safe as long as its in the hold?
With that sort of thinking, theres a job waiting for you at LHR security"
This response has made me giddy on so many levels.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really can't see what people are moaning about.
You have to put your liquid items in a bag, and place them in a tray for scanning, just the same as the passengers.
It's taken longer to moan about it, than to comply.
As to the use of the phrase "voluntarily surrender them", that's quite simple as well, either you volunteer to surrender them, or you are denied access through security, and can't work.
You have to put your liquid items in a bag, and place them in a tray for scanning, just the same as the passengers.
It's taken longer to moan about it, than to comply.
As to the use of the phrase "voluntarily surrender them", that's quite simple as well, either you volunteer to surrender them, or you are denied access through security, and can't work.
Where's the fire? Why is this suddenly "news"? I thought, obviously incorrectly, that those of us operating out of LHR (certainly those of us working through T5 and before that Compass Centre 
)had been subject to this ******, including confiscation, for a few years now.
It has caused a lot of grief amongst the Short Haul Community because for lots of good reasons they generally don't check-in baggage.. and those of us Long Haul types who do use a suitcase stick the bigger stuff inside that ( e.g. Greecian 2000, monster tubes of Toothpaste and the odd bottle of Bolly for the room party
) without any probs ( apart from the risk of breaking the Bolly of course 
).
)had been subject to this ******, including confiscation, for a few years now. It has caused a lot of grief amongst the Short Haul Community because for lots of good reasons they generally don't check-in baggage.. and those of us Long Haul types who do use a suitcase stick the bigger stuff inside that ( e.g. Greecian 2000, monster tubes of Toothpaste and the odd bottle of Bolly for the room party
) without any probs ( apart from the risk of breaking the Bolly of course ).
Last edited by wiggy; 22nd Apr 2009 at 15:22.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhh HA!!
I can still buy my 1 litre bottle of overproof, flamable booze in Duty Free and take it on board..........that would make a great old fire if I poured it all over something (or someone) and lit it!!!
I can still buy my 1 litre bottle of overproof, flamable booze in Duty Free and take it on board..........that would make a great old fire if I poured it all over something (or someone) and lit it!!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to couch this in very vague terms or it will be deleted, again.
I think I want to blow up some innocent bystanders in an aviation environment.
I know, I will take my bomb with me to the airport and get in the crowded queue for security.
Need I say more?
For some reason this post is deemed unsuitable for pprune and will be deleted asap.
Like, I am the first and only person to think of this?
Sheep protected by wolves springs to mind.
Idiocy follows close behind the wolf.
I think I want to blow up some innocent bystanders in an aviation environment.
I know, I will take my bomb with me to the airport and get in the crowded queue for security.
Need I say more?
For some reason this post is deemed unsuitable for pprune and will be deleted asap.
Like, I am the first and only person to think of this?
Sheep protected by wolves springs to mind.
Idiocy follows close behind the wolf.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wiggy
Can someone tell me why the Captain (short or long-haul) should have his ID - and livelihood - removed by Security because a cabin-crew member circumvents the system and manages to smuggle a 150 ml bottle of shampoo into the cabin?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure someone at LHR has got wind of the fact that crews are by-passing the system: they are claiming their bag is going in the hold on the Manifest whilst actually putting it in the cabin (with an oversize bottle of shampoo etc).
Quite typical.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this has something to do with the recent bomb threat incident at Heathrow & the fact that a cabin crew member was detained. Crew are probably now considered as much of a threat as anyone else (if they weren't already) & perhaps even more so, given their regular access to aircraft.
Happily I don't operate to/from LHR but the crews have all my sympathies.
The lunatics are definitely running the asylum in Britain now (notice the lack of the word Great).
As I predicted the 12 that were recently arrested in the Manchester area under the guise of "terrorists" have now been released without charge.
Until we have a revolution in the UK I fear things will only get worse - we only have ourselves to blame.
The lunatics are definitely running the asylum in Britain now (notice the lack of the word Great).
As I predicted the 12 that were recently arrested in the Manchester area under the guise of "terrorists" have now been released without charge.
Until we have a revolution in the UK I fear things will only get worse - we only have ourselves to blame.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
Well, yes.
BUT why should you lose your driving licence because your 18-year old daughter is convicted for drink-driving?
The only way Security could enforce this rule is by having spot-checks on cabin baggage in the aircraft: labour intensive and expensive ie almost unworkable. I expect the logic (if there is any) is that the Captain will do their job for them.
Mr 411A ,would you be happy to lose your livelihood because a young, cabin-crew member decides to smuggle that special 150ml bottle of expensive shampoo in his/her cabin bag?
BUT why should you lose your driving licence because your 18-year old daughter is convicted for drink-driving?
The only way Security could enforce this rule is by having spot-checks on cabin baggage in the aircraft: labour intensive and expensive ie almost unworkable. I expect the logic (if there is any) is that the Captain will do their job for them.
Mr 411A ,would you be happy to lose your livelihood because a young, cabin-crew member decides to smuggle that special 150ml bottle of expensive shampoo in his/her cabin bag?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in the hills
Age: 68
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that the Captain has any legal right to search the bags of his cabin crew. If they refuse, is he obliged to offload them and then suffer the inevitable delays while finding a replacement!
Why not enter the airport by the freight side, there the crews don't even have to get out of the bus! The sucurity staff are obviously much better equipped there because they can scan all bags etc whilst they stay on the bus as well! Why is it considered Ok for one set of crew and not another? They are either not following the correct DoT regulations or are interpreting them in a much more sensible way!
Why not enter the airport by the freight side, there the crews don't even have to get out of the bus! The sucurity staff are obviously much better equipped there because they can scan all bags etc whilst they stay on the bus as well! Why is it considered Ok for one set of crew and not another? They are either not following the correct DoT regulations or are interpreting them in a much more sensible way!
