Skip Navigation

Airport Security - Over reaction?

Travel Forums General Talk Airport Security - Over reaction?

Page

Last Post

41. Posted by Sander (Moderator, 4365 posts) 14 Aug '06 12:39

Quoting Jase007

The link is to what will be allowed.
Restrictions will still be in place for certain items, these are also listed.

Hmm, one of us is confused, or not understanding what the other is saying (or I'm seeing a completely different page than you are).

If I follow the "bag contents" link, I see the following text, with emphasis mine:

Changes in the security measures affecting hand luggage at UK airports will not come into force until 0430 on Tuesday at Gatwick and Heathrow.

Until they do, restrictions on hand luggage put in place last Thursday will remain, with some additional items now allowed.

Passengers may take through the airport security search area, in a single, transparent plastic carrier bag

That tells me that the entire list on that page is just what's allowed until tomorrow (aka, pretty much nothing (same as before), with the big change over a few days ago that mobile phones are now allowed again, and only in a clear plastic bag).

And then after tomorrow you can take regular hand luggage again (including laptops and everything that isn't a liquid), albeit the size of the bag must be much smaller than what was allowed up to last week (which is what the "bag size" page is talking about).

42. Posted by Q' (Moderator, 1987 posts) 14 Aug '06 14:32

Quoting Brendan

Quoting Q_

Your job in life isn't to achieve perfection. It's simply to survive. Because if you don't survive you can never achieve perfection.

Perfection is an impossiblity. (Also I think we are quite a ways past the "survival" era of our species.) Is the calm down thing aimed at me? :(

No, my comments were not aimed at you specificially. The topic you brought up is a wider and very interesting one. And as a matter of fact, I do believe our freedom has been hurt. Since 9/11 we've seen more border restrictions, tighter security, greater police powers with out public debate, etc. etc. Whether it's a conspiracy by our government or the result of terrorist planning is an unending debate in itself. Either way, it's something we should all be concerned about.

But, that's a huge, probably unending discussion. The topic of this thread is probably more manageable. And it's my job as a moderator to help keep the thread on topic. What I want to say is that we all have our own idea of what is acceptable and not acceptable. Rightnow, whether we like it or not, those concepts have been put aside. Maybe in a rude way, maybe it's justified. Our concern should be how to "survive" this bump in the road. Whether it becomes even more of an issue, we'll just have to keep our eyes on it.

43. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member, 1824 posts) 14 Aug '06 17:10

Good point Q. I guess, I conder this issue one and the same with the "main" one, aeroport securty being an extension of the power mongering. However, I see your point - and true as you say - we will have to see what comes of this.

44. Posted by wotthefiqh (Inactive, 1447 posts) 15 Aug '06 08:23

Quoting Brendan

If your government was responsible for the deaths of 80,000 people would you want to know...

Am I the only one with some reservations about the entire event? As far as I am concerned everything I hear on CNN, BBC, CBC, FOX, ecetera is hearsay. It seems most people are taking it all as fact. That 20 odd "terrorists" were thwarted by london's finest. They managed to stop "the next 9/11".

Looking at the big picture what did this allow? It took the spot light even further off Iraq. People forgot about Lebanon for the most part, and everyone is rallied behind their governments once again.

Fear is the ultimate tool of leadership. The only way for leadership to survive is for the followers to believe they need that leadership. In a time of non-believers, evil doers, anarchists, terrorists, liberals, vegetarians it is becoming more and more difficult for leadership to rally support. As our countries become more diverse and multi-cultural it becomes more difficult for our democratic governments to make a strong showing in other parts of the world.

So what is the one way around that? An enemy. If the country in question has an enemy, the people of that country - regardless of origin will (for the most part) rally behind the country. With all of the support they need they can make sweeping legislation to take away freedoms in the name of security. It has happened countless times through-out history, and it comes once again.

I don't understand when a person says "I would rather lose some freedoms to gain some security". You are losing the very thing that your supposed governemt is fighting for.

Airport security being an extension of the power mongering

I had a LOTR 'Two Towers' flashback when I read 'power mongering'. Reminded me of Grima Wormtongue accusing Eomer of war-mongering before Eomer got biffoed and exiled from Rohan.

The definition of suborn is -

1 To induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or evil act.
2 To induce (a person) to commit perjury.
3 To procure (perjured testimony).

From Brendan's posts, it seems that Tony Blair (Saruman to Bush's Sauron in some people's minds) has managed to suborn MI5, MI6, Special Branch, the Metropolitan Police, the Thames Valley police, every media outlet on the planet (at least the Western ones anyway), the Pakistani intelligence service and President Musharref, simply to take attention off Iraq and Lebanon.
Perhaps he offered Musharref a seat in the House of Lords with the title Lord Mushie of Peas.

Imposing that level of security at all UK airports has, and will have, a huge economic impact on the UK economy, especially as this is the high season for visiting foreign tourists.
Add the anger and frustation of UK citizens attempting to fly overseas for their summer holidays along with normal business travellers, and Blair would be hung, drawn and quartered at Tyburn if it came out that it was a government plot.

Does he need to invoke an imaginary enemy after Buenos Aires, Nairobi, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Istanbul and Mumbai, etc, etc, etc...

45. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member, 1824 posts) 16 Aug '06 08:47

Interesting Lord of the Rings analogy, horrible movies by the way. All I ask wotthefiqh, is that people at least question what they hear and see. Just because you hear on the new 21 people were arrested because they were going to blow up planes does not make it a truth. One way of questioning such events is to look at what would be the motivation and who has it.

The Terrorists™ do have motive of course - when their home countries are being blanketed in Depleted Uranium. The leadership of our nations certainlly have motive, they are doing a very good job of make us realise how much we need them.

I'm not saying there were definitely no Terrorists™, and I am not saying it was definitely a governemnt plot. All I ask is question.

Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question, "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Concience tells him it is right.

46. Posted by clover329 (Budding Member, 12 posts) 17 Aug '06 11:34

Hello all.

I read through all of the posts, but I didn't see anything stating if certain items were now allowed in carry-ons. I went to the TSA website (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm) and it does say that electronics (laptops, cells, pda's, cameras) ARE allowed on both in carry-on and Checked baggage.

However, non-solid food, liquids, gels etc are still NOT ALLOWED in carry-ons, but can be placed in checked luggage.
Here's an excerpt before the actual list of allowed/banned items:

Can I Take It?
Due to enhanced security measures liquids, gels, lotions and other items of similar consistency will not be permitted in carry-on baggage. These types of items must be packed in your checked baggage.

Additionally, liquids, gels and lotions purchased beyond the checkpoint but must be disposed of before boarding the aircraft.

To ensure the health and welfare of certain air travelers the following items are permitted.

Small amounts of Baby formula and breast milk if a baby or small child is traveling
Liquid prescription medicine with a name that matches the passenger’s ticket
Up to 5 oz. (148ml) of liquid or gel low blood sugar treatment
Up to 4 oz. of essential non-prescription liquid medications
Gel-filled bras and similar prostethics
You are permitted to bring solid cosmetics and personal hygiene items as such lipstick, lip balm and similar solids. Please remember these items must be solid and not liquid, gel or aerosol.

Please keep in mind, that while we can not provide an exhaustive list of items covering all eventualities, all liquids, gels, or aerosols of any kind are prohibited at security checkpoints, in airport sterile areas, and aboard aircraft. You can pack these items in your checked baggage.

We ask for your cooperation in the screening process by being prepared before you arrive. We also ask that you follow the guidelines above and try not to over-think these guidelines. Please pack liquids, gels, and aerosols in your checked baggage even if you do not normally check a bag.

In addition to liquids, gels, and aerosols numerous other potentially dangerous items are not permitted in carry-on baggage. We strongly encourage travelers to read more about previously prohibited items to avoid complications during screening

Here's a link to the "New Security Procedures" page as well: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/new-procedures.shtm

For all you Brits out there:

Please note that for flights originating in the United Kingdom, local policies regarding carry on baggage will apply. These policies tend to be more stringent than United States policy. You may wish to check with you air carrier for additional details on United Kingdom requirements.

Sorry for this being such a long post, but I thought I'd let everyone know what's up. Hope this info helps!

Thanks,
Calover

47. Posted by Sander (Moderator, 4365 posts) 17 Aug '06 16:00

So, with it now being pretty certain there were no actual explosives, and none of the alleged terrorists had even booked any tickets (right? I haven't been following things that closely, so correct me if I'm wrong), here's some interesting reading on the point of this all.

And if you were wondering about the feasibility of actually making something dangerous out of these "liquid explosives", here's an insightful look at that.

48. Posted by dwalker66 (Full Member, 210 posts) 18 Aug '06 12:19

I have had four flights (DXB-LHR, LGW-NOC, NOC-LGW, LGW-DXB) whilst BAA have been on “alert”. I take my hat off to the organization of the staff and the airlines, trying their best at all times. It’s the passengers (mainly the ones doing the complaining) that hold things up! It clearly states what you can and cannot take on board. Lengthy check in queues are caused by passengers suddenly repacking at the counter, rather than in line when they are told what they can and cannot take on board, there have been an abundance of airport and airline staff on hand telling what you can and cannot take with you. Then 20% of the passengers have to repack again!

The security lines to go through to departures, again, being held up by arguments from PASSENGERS trying to get make-up, drinks etc through the controlled areas.

Whilst my flights were delayed, I still hold passengers to blame to some extent!

Well done BAA on a difficult task done well to all extents considering the public that fly through the airports!

49. Posted by Purdy (Travel Guru, 3535 posts) 18 Aug '06 13:44

Quoting dwalker66

Well done BAA on a difficult task done well to all extents considering the public that fly through the airports!

Well l think this is great - totally agree with you and well done - the staff have had a hellish time to put up with things that have been out of thier control and they deserve some respect!

50. Posted by Q' (Moderator, 1987 posts) 20 Aug '06 00:03

Quoting Sander

And if you were wondering about the feasibility of actually making something dangerous out of these "liquid explosives", here's an insightful look at that.

Sorry, but this "security expert" expects me to believe people are going to blow up an airplane using chemistry 101? Same website, another reponse. A binary explosive disguised as something else seems more plausible to me.

Having said that, I know of at least two incidents when large holes have been blown in the sides of commercial airliners and most of the passengers have lived.