Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK One Bag Rule To End?  
User currently offlineJamman From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 142 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3566 times:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2204057,00.html

"Willie Walsh is optimistic that the "hassle factor" of the one bag limit may be ended by the government before Christmas."

...and there was much rejoicing.

[Edited 2007-11-02 04:08:59]


Phoning it in from a place with no phones.
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarGoldLHR From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3551 times:

What actually scares me....

is it takes 3 hours to navigate LHR security screening now with 1 bag... whats it going to be like with more ?



So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
User currently offlineAPYu From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 837 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3538 times:

Wont removing the "hassle factor" of the one bag limit result in a new "hassle Factor" of the longer queues at security with more than one bag to screen?

Are we confident UK Airports can cope and meet their 10 minutes to pass through security targets. Although queues have improved greatly they can still be 20 minutes plus even non rush hour.

Ive kind of got used to not having to fight for overhead bin space once on board - let the games recommence!!!!



We'd like to welcome in particular our Executive Club members and those joining us from our Oneworld alliance partners.
User currently offlineStrudders From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

Quoting StarGoldLHR (Reply 1):
What actually scares me....

is it takes 3 hours to navigate LHR security screening now with 1 bag... whats it going to be like with more ?

Wow you must have a huge bag for it to take that long!

It has not taken me three hours to navigate screening, just the usual 50 odd mins, unless of course there is an issue other than security which produces a bottle neck.

However if you do continue to have Three hour screenings, let me know when you are flying so I can avoid the airport at that time!  Smile

Best Regards

Struds


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3420 times:

About time.

That takes care of one of the two reasons that I avoid UK airports whenever possible, especially for transit.

Now all they have to do is rescind the "green tax" on business class tickets and I might consider flying through the UK again.

Until then, I will use AMS/FRA/CDG for my Euro connections, even for UK final destinations.


User currently offlineWunala From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 4):
That takes care of one of the two reasons that I avoid UK airports whenever possible, especially for transit

And the TSA is soooooooooo much better? I think not.

I personally avoid the US except were necessary. Australia to Canada without the American transit shit will be a godsend.

Bring it on.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3363 times:

Quoting Wunala (Reply 5):
And the TSA is soooooooooo much better? I think not.

I personally avoid the US except were necessary. Australia to Canada without the American transit shit will be a godsend.

Bring it on.

OK Mr Snarky,

The points were that:

1. The UK is the only country in the world with a 1 carry-on rule, and I was applauding the abolishion of this stupid rule.

2. The UK has an exhorbitant "Green Tax" (which does nothing to improve the environment) on international long haul business class tickets, which drives me to connect in AMS and FRA instead of a UK airport (even when I can fly direct to my UK destination) (this also acts to actually increase pollution, as I connect to avoid the tax instead of flying the more direct route).

You seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder. Bring on what? What does any of this have to do with TSA in the USA?


User currently offlineCoolGuy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 414 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

Quoting APYu (Reply 2):

is it takes 3 hours to navigate LHR security screening now with 1 bag... whats it going to be like with more ?

That's why they need "Clear"


User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

I agree on one point, the security queues at major Uk airports are a joke. the size of the queue in Manchester terminal 1 nearly gave me a heart attack. Im surprised they manage to get people through in time to reach the gates. More staff and more screening equiupment needed.

User currently offlineNcfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting Orion737 (Reply 8):
I agree on one point, the security queues at major Uk airports are a joke. the size of the queue in Manchester terminal 1 nearly gave me a heart attack. Im surprised they manage to get people through in time to reach the gates. More staff and more screening equiupment needed.

I have never had queues that I felt where very long whilst waiting at any airport in the UK.I have always got through T1 at Man in 20-30mins max, often quicker. As was mentioned above, getting bags into bins has been easy whilst this rule has been in effect.
What do some people need to take onboard that requires more than one bag anyway? We traveled to Australia with 2 children, only 2 carry ons and a handbag????????


User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2897 times:

On the subject of UK airports I flew LGW-AMS Thursday and AMS-LGW Friday and can positvely say it was one of the easiest airport experiences of my life. 5 minutes wait for LGW security, walked straight up to passport control in AMS, had bag in hand 5 minutes later. Coming back, straight to check-in, straight through passport control, 5 minutes waiting for security. Landed at LGW and we were through with bags in hand in 10 minutes, home 20 minutes after chocks. Wow if only it was like that all the time!

I personally can't wait until they drop the rediculous 1 bag rule which stands to no credibility in global terms,

Sam



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineKellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 9):
What do some people need to take onboard that requires more than one bag anyway? We traveled to Australia with 2 children, only 2 carry ons and a handbag????????

I guess that those of you that don't have to check bags THROUGH London in a connection have never experienced the joy of lost baggage. Note this last summer's debacle with thousands of lost bags sitting out on the tarmac in the rain. THAT is why it is necessary to take 2 bags on board.

It is absolutely ridiculous to watch women in a UK airport trying to stuff their purses into another bag or a businessman trying to fit his laptop bag into another bag, that was perfectly ok to carry when they traveled TO the UK. Also, as soon as they clear security, they take them right out again before they board as it is not an airline restriction at all but the UK BAA. It is simply a pure exercise in frustration with a bureaucratic rule that does absolutely nothing for the traveling public.

The rest of the world does just fine with two bags. It is just the UK BAA which is the problem. And they lose a lot of business as a result, as many people are avoiding the UK like the plague.

It is long past time for this silly rule to go.


User currently offlineNcfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2841 times:

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 11):
I guess that those of you that don't have to check bags THROUGH London in a connection have never experienced the joy of lost baggage

On the way to Australia, we checked our bags all the way to SYD, via LHR & HKG, however I have never lost a bag. How does losing a bag justify more carry on luggage?


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2841 times:

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 9):
What do some people need to take onboard that requires more than one bag anyway? We traveled to Australia with 2 children, only 2 carry ons and a handbag????????

I travel as a part of business, and have an aversion to being forced into to checking either my laptop computer with my business paperwork, or $20,000 worth of electronic components that I need for sales demonstrations.

Before my last trip that included the UK (6 weeks ago) I was forced by this stupid rule to buy an oversized wheeled carry-on brief case that barely fits into an overhead and weighs too much to comfortably maneuver in the plane aisle.

Does that answer your question?


User currently offlineIflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Wow, I wasn't aware of this rule and I'm traveling to the UK towards the end of the month. I'm connecting-ATL-CDG-LHR, so I'm guessing I can't take my bag and backpack on-just my backpack. And we were trying to avoid checking our bags to LHR. This won't bode well for some of my companions.  crazy 


Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
User currently offlineKellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 693 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 12):
On the way to Australia, we checked our bags all the way to SYD, via LHR & HKG, however I have never lost a bag. How does losing a bag justify more carry on luggage?

Well, if you haven't ever lost a bag, then you wouldn't understand and you are incredibly lucky. But I know plenty of people who have lost bags in LHR especially. Some never got them back. Others got them back three weeks later with the contents totally ruined by rain.

When you have to travel with expensive equipment that you don't want to lose or have damaged or stolen, you have no choice but to carry it on. as noted below:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 13):
I travel as a part of business, and have an aversion to being forced into to checking either my laptop computer with my business paperwork, or $20,000 worth of electronic components that I need for sales demonstrations.

I also often travel with expensive camera equipment and a laptop, plus just enough essentials to keep me going for a few days. And when some fool of a bureaucrat makes it impossible for someone to do that, then you have to find another way or location to travel through.

Quoting Iflyatldl (Reply 14):
Wow, I wasn't aware of this rule and I'm traveling to the UK towards the end of the month. I'm connecting-ATL-CDG-LHR, so I'm guessing I can't take my bag and backpack on-just my backpack. And we were trying to avoid checking our bags to LHR. This won't bode well for some of my companions.   

The beauty and silliness of this rule is that you can take TWO carryon bags to the UK, but only ONE bag leaving.


User currently offlineIflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 15):
Quoting Iflyatldl (Reply 14):
Wow, I wasn't aware of this rule and I'm traveling to the UK towards the end of the month. I'm connecting-ATL-CDG-LHR, so I'm guessing I can't take my bag and backpack on-just my backpack. And we were trying to avoid checking our bags to LHR. This won't bode well for some of my companions.

The beauty and silliness of this rule is that you can take TWO carryon bags to the UK, but only ONE bag leaving.

Thank you for carifying that! We can deal with that!  Wink



Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
User currently offlineKdm From New Zealand, joined Feb 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 6):
You seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder.

I have the same chip on my shoulder. I am lucky that I have not had to go through the US for 3 years now. I need to fly to New York at the end of the month, I am trying very hard to get out of it as I will only be there for 2 days and I can't be bothered with the rude and arrogant immigration and security people. I love the US once I am inside but hate the arriving and leaving bit.

That said Sydney is really annoying, but the worse of the worse is New Zealand. It has taken my and my wife with two children 3 hours from touch down to exiting the airport. 45 minutes of that was looking for the stroller/buggy that Qantas forgot to put on the airplane at the gate. No doubt bad timing as far as the arrival goes, but amazingly all my family were traveling on NZ passports, hate to think how long it took true visitors to New Zealand. Again a nice Country once you are in but the arrival process needs some work.


User currently offlineStrudders From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2662 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 6):
2. The UK has an exhorbitant "Green Tax" (which does nothing to improve the environment) on international long haul business class tickets, which drives me to connect in AMS and FRA instead of a UK airport (even when I can fly direct to my UK destination) (this also acts to actually increase pollution, as I connect to avoid the tax instead of flying the more direct route).

Not that I agree with the tax, however the UK is not the only country to charge passengers what relates to a tax for visiting or leaving. Do your tickets via AMS or FRA cost more? if no then economics would push you to these locations as well. If the answer is yes then I would question your motives?

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 11):
It is absolutely ridiculous to watch women in a UK airport trying to stuff their purses into another bag or a businessman trying to fit his laptop bag into another bag, that was perfectly ok to carry when they traveled TO the UK. Also, as soon as they clear security, they take them right out again before they board as it is not an airline restriction at all but the UK BAA. It is simply a pure exercise in frustration with a bureaucratic rule that does absolutely nothing for the traveling public

No it was as a result of a clear and highly publicised threat to UK and overseas passengers. The UK is currently installing new scanners that detect liquid explosives to ease the current restrictions. As far as we are concerned we will continue to protect all our passengers and staff from any threat. Please do not bitch and moan about security. The US after all is not the easiest place to visit at the moment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7066944.stm

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 15):
The beauty and silliness of this rule is that you can take TWO carryon bags to the UK, but only ONE bag leaving.

We trust other countries sending passengers to the UK have checked the bags and taken the correct necessary steps. However I ask this. If when getting on the plane to the UK knowing very well you can only have one carry-on, Why bring two??? Everybody should be aware that they will be required to check one in


Best regards

Struds


User currently offlineNcfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 13):
travel as a part of business, and have an aversion to being forced into to checking either my laptop computer with my business paperwork, or $20,000 worth of electronic components that I need for sales demonstrations.

I understand taking expensive equipment onboard, I never check my camera bag and that is only about £1200 worth. However if it is to big or heavy, it needs to be checked regardless of cost. It just needs to be adequately insured.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 13):
Before my last trip that included the UK (6 weeks ago) I was forced by this stupid rule to buy an oversized wheeled carry-on brief case that barely fits into an overhead and weighs too much to comfortably maneuver in the plane aisle

But if it is that heavy, surely it should be checked?


User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

Quoting Strudders (Reply 18):

No it was as a result of a clear and highly publicised threat to UK and overseas passengers. The UK is currently installing new scanners that detect liquid explosives to ease the current restrictions. As far as we are concerned we will continue to protect all our passengers and staff from any threat. Please do not bitch and moan about security. The US after all is not the easiest place to visit at the moment.

How does forcing a woman to put her purse into her other carryon bag or a forcing a business traveler to put his/her laptop bag into a rollaboard make things more secure?

The idea of protecting "all [your] passengers and staff from any threat" is absurd. You can do a good job protecting against the worst threats, but any manager that thinks it's practical to protect everyone from any threat needs to learn about risk management.

Long security delays and high costs are a threat to peoples' lives and well-being. If you make 60 million people wait 31 minutes more in line (average LHR security wait), you're taking away about 3630 man-years, or about 48 complete lifetimes. The money spent on screening, etc. could also extend many lives if it were put into health care or medical research.

Security should be able to justify its taking of peoples' lives by being able to demonstrate a net gain in lives. If a screening change adds 15 minutes wait at LHR, BAA (or whoever) should be able to demonstrate that it will likely save more than 25 lives a year. Failure to do this kind of analysis would indicate that security is not about saving & improving lives, but about something else.

(BTW: My numbers may be off by a factor of two or so, but I'm emphasizing the principle, not the specifics of the numerical risk analysis.)


User currently offlineStrudders From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting Analog (Reply 20):
How does forcing a woman to put her purse into her other carryon bag or a forcing a business traveler to put his/her laptop bag into a rollaboard make things more secure?

When me and colleagues travel from LHR we check in our bags and carry on the essentials. I dont think I wait any longer at LHR than anywhere else. SYD, BKK, SIN, MAN, I have experienced longer queue times at all these airports. What was required and still is for all passengers LEAVING the UK is to have one carry on bag due to the increased screening times and time spent in the scanners. Clear liquids and creams in Clear bags. It is that simple. That was what was decided by the UK Government,

Quoting Analog (Reply 20):
Long security delays and high costs are a threat to people's lives and well-being. If you make 60 million people wait 31 minutes more in line (average LHR security wait), you're taking away about 3630 man-years, or about 48 complete lifetimes. The money spent on screening, etc. could also extend many lives if it were put into health care or medical research.

Now times that by an extra bag and you increased the time further. New scanning equipment better able to detect the threat, as I have stated, is being installed. (48 scanners at LHR if my memory is correct)

Quoting Analog (Reply 20):
Security should be able to justify its taking of peoples' lives by being able to demonstrate a net gain in lives. If a screening change adds 15 minutes wait at LHR, BAA (or whoever) should be able to demonstrate that it will likely save more than 25 lives a year. Failure to do this kind of analysis would indicate that security is not about saving & improving lives, but about something else.

Why should the Government/BAA justify why it is taken an extra 15 mins at security?? I believe the demonstration of net security gain over the past 6 years is more aligned to how many attacks have been prevented NOT who has been caught at the gate and how long the screeners take. I for one do not mind 15 mins here, 15 mins there in queues knowing it MAY prevent or catch something. Lets face it why the rush?

Best Regards


Struds


User currently offlineMaddog888 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Quoting Kdm (Reply 17):
I love the US once I am inside but hate the arriving and leaving bit.

To be fair to the Immigration people, it seem to me that the airlines have to shoulder their share of the blame for the delays. I only know BOS well but there you have 4 european flights all landing at approximately the same 1300hrs then nothing until early evening. AA & BA both have flights from LHR leaving at the same time. I am sure the airlines have their own good internal reasons for doing this but just a little bit of spreading the flights would make the passenger experience at BOS soooo much better.

Quoting Strudders (Reply 18):
f when getting on the plane to the UK knowing very well you can only have one carry-on, Why bring two??? Everybody should be aware that they will be required to check one in

and you "should" know that there is a world of difference between what passengers should be aware of and what they are aware of. not everyone is as aviation minded as those of us on this forum.

Quoting Analog (Reply 20):
Security should be able to justify its taking of peoples' lives by being able to demonstrate a net gain in lives. If a screening change adds 15 minutes wait at LHR, BAA (or whoever) should be able to demonstrate that it will likely save more than 25 lives a year. Failure to do this kind of analysis would indicate that security is not about saving & improving lives, but about something else.

Of course it's about something else. As with all things political the only real thing that counts is public perception and the backlash and fallout when (note when not if) something goes wrong. Even if it doesn't help security they have to have something they can point to and say they were taking precautions.

// 'slightly-cynical world weary old man' rant off //

maddog


User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2416 times:

Quoting Strudders (Reply 21):

Now times that by an extra bag and you increased the time further.

That's a nice false dichotomy: one bag or longer lines. If security lines are long, add more stations and screeners to shorten the lines. Every other country seems to be able to do it.

Quoting Strudders (Reply 21):
New scanning equipment better able to detect the threat, as I have stated, is being installed. (48 scanners at LHR if my memory is correct)

Great! Maybe the rest of the world can welcome LHR, et al. back to the realm of reasonable carry-on allowances?

Quoting Strudders (Reply 21):

Why should the Government/BAA justify why it is taken an extra 15 mins at security?? I believe the demonstration of net security gain over the past 6 years is more aligned to how many attacks have been prevented NOT who has been caught at the gate and how long the screeners take. I for one do not mind 15 mins here, 15 mins there in queues knowing it MAY prevent or catch something. Lets face it why the rush?

A government's taking of anything: money, property, liberty, time, etc., needs to be questioned and justified as reasonable. In this case the taking of time needs to be justified (quantitatively) in terms of a substantially lowered risk of death. The generic "it's for your security" mantra is the sign of a lazy bureaucracy that sees terrorist attacks in terms of a political risk far out of proportion to the actual risk to people's lives.

I do mind an extra 15 minutes here, another 15 minutes there. For frequent travelers those waits quickly add up to many days a year. It is reasonable and proper to sacrifice some security for convenience. More importantly, time is precious; forcing people to throw it away for a production of security theater is unconscionable.

How many attacks have been prevented and how many lives have been saved by the increased security? Obviously this cannot be done experimentally, but such an analysis should be done. It's foolish to blindly follow the mantra that more security is good. If we could dramatically shorten the lines, say to an average of 1 minute/passenger, at an expected cost of 1 more life per year lost to terrorism, we should do it.

If it's logical to just add security to combat a perceived threat without doing any risk analysis as to the increased cost in both time and money, it would be logical to not let anybody fly (infinite wait). That would eliminate any terrorist threat on aircraft and in the secure area of airports. (pardon the reductio ad absurdum)


User currently offlineStrudders From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

Quoting Analog (Reply 23):
That's a nice false dichotomy: one bag or longer lines. If security lines are long, add more stations and screeners to shorten the lines. Every other country seems to be able to do it.

I dont see that sorry, LHR for me personally, is not an Issue. I have more problems getting on my domestic flights back to base from MAN, or NCL than I do on a trip abroad. Same rules apply of course. Yes you could chuck more screeners and scanners, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the threat and the type of threat. OK, take two bags on board and all the hassle of people still having to empty their bags because they have more that 100 ml. The threat drives the Security precautions and in this country the threat means 1 carry on bag and no liquids more than 100 ml.

Quoting Analog (Reply 23):
Great! Maybe the rest of the world can welcome LHR, et al. back to the realm of reasonable carry-on allowances?

Well as the thread states yes.......

Quoting Analog (Reply 23):
The generic "it's for your security" mantra is the sign of a lazy bureaucracy that sees terrorist attacks in terms of a political risk far out of proportion to the actual risk to people's lives.

Thats quite an arrogant thing to say to a country that has been living with very tight security for years. All my life in fact, Perhaps we as a nation accept the fact we need to make small sacrifices in the name of security

Quoting Analog (Reply 23):
How many attacks have been prevented and how many lives have been saved by the increased security? Obviously this cannot be done experimentally, but such an analysis should be done. It's foolish to blindly follow the mantra that more security is good. If we could dramatically shorten the lines, say to an average of 1 minute/passenger, at an expected cost of 1 more life per year lost to terrorism, we should do it.

I just have to ask why you keep measuring time to life? If it fits your model, I would be willing to wait an extra 40 mins for no life were lost anywhere from gate borne terrorism. I simply do not accept your theory of "if I get to the airport 10 mins later, somehow I have gained something". Have you been on the Tube lately? caught a bus from Hatton Cross? whatever you feel you have gained not queuing at security can be lost by a strike, a busy period at the airport or Check in. If you do whizz through to the other side, what exactly are you going to be doing?

I think we agree to disagree.

Time is money but life is priceless.

Cheers

Very Best Regards

Struds


25 Analog : How am I being arrogant? This has nothing to do with the country involved, as I'm not talking about specific threats. Security should be at a level t
26 APYu : Scanning two bags takes twice as long and makes the queues longer. Having lots of people standing in a queue BEFORE SECURITY is a big security threat
27 EI564 : As long as you realise that retail revenue subsidises airport passenger charges. So if the baa sold less retail, they'd presumably increase airport c
28 APYu : It adds significantly to the huge profits BAA make - agreed. Doesnt the government cap the charges it can charge the airlines and the passengers as o
29 EI564 : Its regulated yes but the amount charged is based on the following (simplified) formula: Airport Charge = Costs - Commercial Revenue - Profit. I can'
30 DLPMMM : Normally the equpiment fits in a normal sized/weight briefcase and the laptop/paperwork goes into a normal lap-top case. The combined case for everyt
31 Analog : So hire more screeners. By failing to do so LHR is creating a security risk (with the 31 minute average wait). Hire enough screeners to permit two ca
32 APYu : Would the guy on the X Ray machine spend less time looking at the second item? Or roughly about the same? If the guy on the X ray machines takes, on
33 Post contains images A340600 : But how exactly does only scanning one of our bags protect us anymore than two, you're undermining the quality of the job you do and it is worrying f
34 Strudders : Because the threat, (liquids, creams, other bomb making components) were more difficult to find with the current technology. The rules were put in pl
35 JoeCanuck : None of this is new. LHR has been a mess from when I first transited through there over 5 years ago. 2 machines to connect through T3 then, the same n
36 APYu : As a bread and butter premium traveller I feel fully justified in that statement. Indeed as a BA Gold cardholder I am one who had to become very fami
37 DLPMMM : And as a premium traveller who is top tier in 2 of the three major alliances (elite plus and *Gold) who travels long haul I can tell you that BAA and
38 APYu : The UK, like the US is at the top of certain extremists Hitlists for terrorism and as such as introduced increased security procedures. We did the one
39 Post contains links Strudders : Please see http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleases...&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en This outlines the current EU restrictions and rules for Liquids
40 JoeCanuck : Ok but who is responsible for implementing the security at LHR? BAA, isn't it? If they spent more effort on security than shopping, say by installing
41 Post contains images DLPMMM : As I said before, the liquids rule has nothing to do with the 1 bag rule. I do not know why you keep bringing up the liquids rule. If the lack of equ
42 APYu : Because they do a great job running it - they make millions doin it. Terror threats come from all sides. I didnt mention in the air specifically. Our
43 Strudders : OK then why was it introduced? or did BAA (along with every other airport operator) in the UK decide, OK we will stop people carrying on 2 bags. BAA
44 Post contains images JGPH1A : They do a great job running a shopping mall - they do an abysmal job running an airport. I don't know why the UK government don't just break up the B
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air One To Go Long-haul posted Tue Jun 6 2006 08:47:03 by Flying-Tiger
Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down posted Sun Feb 13 2005 00:32:40 by SonOfACaptain
Swissport UK About To Go Under posted Mon Nov 15 2004 16:45:42 by Jiminyman
Will One Of The Regionals Have To Go Away? posted Tue Jul 15 2003 02:26:16 by Cody
First Uk Routes To Go? posted Thu Sep 20 2001 19:14:36 by Sevenair
Incident KIX; Air Canada Forced JAL To Go Around posted Tue Oct 23 2007 06:02:16 by SMOLT
KLM To Go 2x Daily YYZ W/ B747/A332 posted Thu Oct 18 2007 22:55:05 by RicardoFG
AA To Go 2x Daily MIA-MDE; 3x Daily MIA-BOG posted Fri Oct 12 2007 15:51:47 by MAH4546
UK Aviation Tax Switches To Planes posted Tue Oct 9 2007 11:07:27 by PurpleBox
UK Gov't Pressuring BA To Buy Airbus posted Tue Sep 11 2007 23:19:42 by N1786b