taking a laptop?

Originally posted by catsilversword
[br
So how many did you take? You said you took a Lewis (singular) because they (plural) were pining....?

I have one of my 7 which has a little tear in the bit to hang it up with - and bizarrely it is also slightly bigger than the other 6 - so rather than take all 7 I just took that one as a kind of proxy Lewis for all the others - Im sure they all chatted about how lucky he was to be going back on VS while he was away!![:I]

Originally posted by MarkJ

Originally posted by catsilversword
[br
So how many did you take? You said you took a Lewis (singular) because they (plural) were pining....?

I have one of my 7 which has a little tear in the bit to hang it up with - and bizarrely it is also slightly bigger than the other 6 - so rather than take all 7 I just took that one as a kind of proxy Lewis for all the others - Im sure they all chatted about how lucky he was to be going back on VS while he was away!![:I]

But did he post a TR on his return???;)

i didnt think they allowed razors in the cabins anymore

[Decker]

Safety razors are fine.

Can you shave a duck before cooking? I thought you plucked a duck. I said PLucked for anyone who misheard me.

Originally posted by sailor99
Can you shave a duck before cooking? I thought you plucked a duck. I said PLucked for anyone who misheard me.

Yes - its plucked and then singed - but you can shave a pig if a piece of pork is too hairy monsieur!!

Surely 'safety razor' is an oxymoron???

Who's shaving a pig anyway, and getting all French into the bargain?! Excusez mon francais - oh, anyone see that series? I thought Marcus Brigstocke was excellent.

Seems to me that this arbitrary choice of such a small bag has NOTHING to do with security; given what's emerged over the last 4-5 days, how on earth does the size of the carry-on (putting the ridiculous wheeled wardrobes that some people seem to drag around with them to one side for a second)say plus or minus a couple of inches from what's being proposed, have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the threat from liquid explosives in small lucozade type bottles etc???[V]

It's naked opportunism by the carriers and BAA - especially the carriers who will in due course take FULL advantage of these restrictions, to bump up their profits - mark my words (excess baggage/weight charges, shorter pax loading times/quicker turnarounds etc). I say again, WHAT does the size of the bag have to do with the threat - within reason (think very small bag with 50 electrical gadgets in versus one slightly larger bag with two or three books - absolute rubbish and greed)?[V]

Bloody typical.[:(!]

Hmmmph.

[Decker]

Occam's razor would suggest that they're trying to speed up the search process and to save arguments about individual cases (sic) they're standardising the rejection threshold.

Either that or they're out to get MOL (RyanAir) and their carry on policies. Seems a bit extreme though...

[Neil]

Last comment might be a bit extreme Decker, but with BAA it really wouldn't surprise me.

Vizbiz has got it 100% spot on, this is a stupid, rushed "solution" from BAA that makes no sense, it really annoy's me how decisions like this can be made and approved without proper thought. The size of the bag is totally irrelevant, why couldn't I take a large bag with only a couple of things in it? what difference is that to a small bad with only 2 things in?

BAA need to invest in extra securty staff to enable to the more thorough searches to be carried out quicker and increase the number of secondary screaning searches (which includes tasting any drink etc)

Vizbiz - Bang on [y]

Originally posted by Attitude23

BAA need to invest in extra securty staff to enable to the more thorough searches to be carried out quicker and increase the number of secondary screaning searches (which includes tasting any drink etc)

I dont think BAA have covered themselves in glory over this but in an interview with Michael O'Leary on Channel 5 today he did make the point that the government had required these increased security measures to be put in place and rather than pass on the cost to passengers or for BAA to pay for it that the government should have provided police or military staff to help out. And whilst Im not O'Leary's biggest fan I do agree with him!!

Sorry Mark, but I don't agree with him. This was foreseeable and BAA should have planned for it. We pay airport tax, buy duty free and the airlines buy slots. I am afraid that having taken the money they have to take the rough with the smooth. There are pleanty of other industries, including mine, where government dictates change the playing field. You just get on with it and compete, not bleat 'not fair'. If Mr O'Leary feels life is unfair, he should vacate the Board room.

But how could they plan for this - - they didnt know what the requirement was going to be?

Its all well and good have risk strategies and major accident plans - but if these are prepared and then something comes along that throws a curve ball at ya then even the best prepared can be caught with their proverbial pants down.

As I said - dont think BAA has done much right - but they coudld have been helped - especially on the first couple of days - now I just think they are being a bunch of arses!

Well, going back to the 'normal times' had they had enough security points open to reduce queues, it would have helped me feel more positive about them. Then once the crisis kicked in, to have concentrated on getting people through, rather than telling airline to cancel flights or risk breaking their terms of trade would have been good. Then to have introduced the revised policy immidiately rather than waiting 24 hrs would have also helped. But more than this, I do not see this as an unforeseeable event for left field. Terrorists are part of the landscape I am afraid. It is very foreseeable that they would try to break through airport security. So what's the next weak point they will try to exploit? Staff access, airside delivery, cargo transfer, bonded warehouses? I don't know, but it ain't difficult to contingency plan.

BTW, I know BA is a foul word over here, but did you know they have had to cancel just over 1000 flights as a result of all of this. By my estimate, that is £30,000,000 in turnover. And that is just 1 airline. With numbers like that I am afraid 'we didn't see this coming' doesn't wear.

I was OK to take my laptop and Ipod on board on Sunday night just no gel or liquid.

Agree with Jeremy, the airlines (and government) will happily leap on any opportunity to slap on taxes - security, 'green', passenger, but clearly not put this money to its proper use. Of course, it's impossible to be precise about any threat of terrorism - but, if there has been all this surveillance going on, then there can be no excuse for them NOT having a pretty good idea. That being the case, then appropriate extra security measures should have been in place long ago, instead of the knee-jerk reaction we saw last week.

But, of course, we all know that taxes don't go where they should, and yet again, it's all been totally cocked-up. Oh, can I say that???

Originally posted by PVGSLF
I'm in the school of "passport and ticket is already too much carry-on....

Wow! Just re-read my post from before the security change... prophetic or what?

I may need to start planning ways of getting my stuff home when i leave Seoul next year if I'm still limited to 1 small bag. Though I suppose the restrictions still only apply going out of the UK.

[Neil]

Originally posted by catsilversword
But, of course, we all know that taxes don't go where they should, and yet again, it's all been totally cocked-up. Oh, can I say that???

Too right you can say that, only last month the Government announced passport costs were rising again[V], the reason, to make us nice and safe, but now apparently the only way we will be safe is to take a small cabin bag instead of a large one, who needs biometrics with security like that!!!

Both BAA and the Goverment should take a good look at themselves, I wonder who will of lost the most because of these problems, the airlines or BAA, I aint no Mystic Meg but Im sure I could predict that one correctly.

And now, I read there's a cal for a terrorist tax. Oh yeah, and what precisely do they plan to do with that? Well, apparently, use it to deploy troops and the police, where necessary. Oh, that'd be the troops that are in Iraq then.....

Sorry, I really must get off my soapbox.....[:#]

Originally posted by catsilversword
And now, I read there's a cal for a terrorist tax. Oh yeah, and what precisely do they plan to do with that? Well, apparently, use it to deploy troops and the police, where necessary. Oh, that'd be the troops that are in Iraq then.....

Sorry, I really must get off my soapbox.....[:#]

You'd think that if BAA were not making enough cash they wouldn't have been a target of a £10bn takeover ... so I'd guess that's not the issue and any calls for a tax should instead be diverted to just how much money the airports are making while keeping security channels inactive. In BAA's defence, recruiting lowly paid security screeners around Heathrow in particular is hard work, then again perhaps it's the 'lowly paid' part that's hard work?

[Neil]

Originally posted by slinky09
In BAA's defence, recruiting lowly paid security screeners around Heathrow in particular is hard work, then again perhaps it's the 'lowly paid' part that's hard work?

Thats exactly the problem, BAA bosses are far to bothered about how hugh their bonuses are going to be, and not bothered enough about spending some of the vast amounts of money they earn as a company on increasing the quantity and quality of the securty staff and equipment.

Neil:)

Over on flyertalk they are talking about getting a petition together about the dismal performance of BAA, and their propensity to blame everyone but themselves.

To be honest I dont see why the army or police should help. BAA are a publicly traded company why should my tax go to help out their cockup? Football clubs etc have to pay for policing, so why should the BAA be any different? Now if they paid for that help, different story.

[Neil]

Thats a good point Gelding, I work at football on matchdays and our police bill for this season is going to be over £650,000, if we need extra help we pay for it, why doesn't BAA.