Jump to content


Photo

Travel


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#37 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:33 AM

It sounds Draconian, but hopefully it will be only a short-term measure? :unsure:

It is Draconian... as in Draco Malfoy! :ph34r:

Let me speculate on some of the implications of these sudden new rules:

1) With all the additional bags and items presumably going into hold baggage and no additional equipment or personnel (never mind experienced personnel) for examining it, security will be worse, not better.

2) Neither the government nor the airlines would seem to have been assigned any responsibility for loss or damage to items which people are suddenlyl forced to check.

3) Nor does there seem to be any requirement that airlines refund ticket purchases to individuals who cancel their travel, whether for fear own their own personal safety or because there's no point to the trip if they can't be guaranteed that certain of their possessions will arrive intact.

4) As for those who carried their valuable items with them on the outward flight and who now suddenly discover that they won't be allowed to do so on the return leg.... :angry:

5) Meanwhile, through this government edict, the would-be terrorists have already succeeded in causing a major dislocation to the air travel industry and damage to the psychological well-being of those who travel by air. (Tell an addicted traveler he can't fly, and he'll be angry. Tell him he can fly but then snatch away his security blanket as he boards the plane, and he may panic.)

With the prevalence of laptop computers in business use, and the risk of damage if they are sent as checked baggage, could this effectively shut down the business travel industry? And what about the super-discount airlines, for whom a large portion of their clientele deliberately travels with only carryons?

6) Meanwhile, the news announcement has made sure that any would-be bombers won't be caught in the act, since they've been warned that there's no point in trying today.

P.S. From what Stephen quoted, one may carry on "Prescribed medicines essential for the duration of the flight, except in liquid form unless verified as authentic." Verified? How? By whom? Is there some method that works on bottles labelled as prescription medicine that doesn't work on off-the-shelf bottles marked for contact-lens drops? Either one can be emptied and refilled.

Also allowed is "For those traveling with an infant: baby food, milk and sanitary items essential for the flight." So if you want to bomb a plane, carry with you an innocent infant and a bottle of high-explosive "baby formula"?

#38 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:40 AM

All we'd have had left after they'd had a trip in the hold would be a pile of wood-chippings, a few reeds and some wire! :(

Is fiddle wire as dangerous as concertina wire? :unsure:

#39 Geraghty

Geraghty

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Eugene, Oregon, USA

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:41 AM

Also allowed is "For those traveling with an infant: baby food, milk and sanitary items essential for the flight." So if you want to bomb a plane, carry with you an innocent infant and a bottle of high-explosive "baby formula"?


Apparently they're making the parents taste the baby food/formula to prove it's not poison. Some of my online parent friends have said that once the formula has been unsealed and is open to the air, it's only good for an hour before it starts to go off and is unsafe to give to the baby. So that's an additional problem for parents on long flights..

Edited by Geraghty, 10 August 2006 - 04:44 AM.


#40 Woody

Woody

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 930 posts
  • Location:Malmesbury, Wiltshire, UK

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:44 AM

Let me speculate on some of the implications of these sudden new rules...............................

Blimey Jim! Can't you accept for just a moment that the security services just might be trying to do their best in a very difficult situation, might have some competence in doing their job, and can't you possibly give them the benefit of the doubt until it's proven misplaced?

- W

#41 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 10 August 2006 - 04:57 AM

So if you want to bomb a plane, carry with you an innocent infant and a bottle of high-explosive "baby formula"?

Apparently they're making the parents taste the baby food/formula to prove it's not poison.

As far as I know, most explosive liquids don't cause immediate death or even convulsions when ingested in small amounts. And if the person is already intending suicide (by being present when the bomb goes off), why should they care if it's poison? Or are they counting on the bomber being unable to suppress a grimace at the taste? B)

Meanwhile, here are some additions to the news:

Apparently, all European flights of less than 3 hours length going into Heathrow have been cancelled. Not Stansted, though, so it seems those who fly the cheap airllines are less inconvenienced by that than those who pay full fare.

And Tony Blair is currently vacationing in the Caribbean. Will they make all his security guys check their little electronic gadgets into the hold on the return flight? :unsure:



#42 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 10 August 2006 - 05:11 AM

Blimey Jim! Can't you accept for just a moment that the security services just might be trying to do their best in a very difficult situation, might have some competence in doing their job, and can't you possibly give them the benefit of the doubt until it's proven misplaced?

No.

Way too late for that.

#43 chris

chris

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 570 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leicestershire

Posted 10 August 2006 - 06:39 AM

Oh well it looks like Ohio is going to have to do without my concertina over christmas. Or did they hear that I was going to take it :ph34r:
chris

#44 Bob Tedrow

Bob Tedrow

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 08:56 AM

You may find that they will let you take your knitting on the plane - but not the needles?????

Or have they lightened up on that?


I called American Airlines yesterday, pushed buttons until I got to speak to a human, and she told me that yes, I can bring my knitting AND my needles on to the plane! She clearly did not approve, but oh, well.

As for my concertina, I'm still undecided. I don't have any reason to bring it, other than not to be apart from it for 5 whole days :( . Plus, I'm guessing my father would like to hear it, for about 5 minutes!

I should prolly start a new topic, but does anyone know of any good folk happening in Seattle this weekend?


On our last plane trip to Albany, Klari took both her concertina and her knitting needles on the plane, no trouble at all. Delta was the carrier.

Bob

#45 Dirge

Dirge

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Napier, New Zealand

Posted 10 August 2006 - 12:48 PM

Infuriating. It's all pointless window-dressing; the government 'seen to be taking action'. Totally ineffective but comforts the half-witted.

The whole business is very 1984; I can't help wondering if Blair is trying to keep people scared to keep their eyes off the ball in other areas.

I object to being inconvenienced like this. I'm old enough to remember the IRA at it's most active and my parents remember watching V1's flying overhead on the way to London and I'm damned if I'll allow the current small bunch of morons to put the frighteners on me.

#46 Leo

Leo

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1766 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Western Pennsylvania United States

Posted 10 August 2006 - 01:11 PM

Infuriating. It's all pointless window-dressing; the government 'seen to be taking action'. Totally ineffective but comforts the half-witted.

The whole business is very 1984; I can't help wondering if Blair is trying to keep people scared to keep their eyes off the ball in other areas.

I object to being inconvenienced like this. I'm old enough to remember the IRA at it's most active and my parents remember watching V1's flying overhead on the way to London and I'm damned if I'll allow the current small bunch of morons to put the frighteners on me.


Dirge:

Took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't agree more. However it's not limited to Blair. Same thing this side of the pond, only more so. (It's a lot bigger in size). To quote one of our most eloquent recent presidents: his term will emphasize "symbolism over substance". (Clinton)

Just to keep me on topic for this net I should say concertina somewhere. I occasionally drive around with one. No problems intra state, but I haven't tested going interstate, yet. I haven't gathered the courage.

Thanks
Leo

Edited by Leo, 10 August 2006 - 01:18 PM.


#47 Woody

Woody

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 930 posts
  • Location:Malmesbury, Wiltshire, UK

Posted 10 August 2006 - 03:48 PM

Infuriating. It's all pointless window-dressing; the government 'seen to be taking action'. Totally ineffective but comforts the half-witted.

The whole business is very 1984; I can't help wondering if Blair is trying to keep people scared to keep their eyes off the ball in other areas.

I object to being inconvenienced like this. I'm old enough to remember the IRA at it's most active and my parents remember watching V1's flying overhead on the way to London and I'm damned if I'll allow the current small bunch of morons to put the frighteners on me.

As somebody who's had the dubious pleasure of nearly being blown up twice by the IRA I'm not particularly concerned - I kind of believe if it's going to happen it'll happen - just fate/chance/luck or whatever.

Whilst this might all be a Blair/Bush scam/conspiracy, what would the security services do different from this if there were a genuine threat? Would it seem very different or would it look exactly like this? How can you tell it's a scam?

As for "ineffective" - what would be an effective approach?

- W

p.s. No, the IRA did not try to blow up my Concertina

Edited by Woody to add something about Concertinas ;)

Edited by Woody, 10 August 2006 - 03:50 PM.


#48 duckln

duckln

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Posted 10 August 2006 - 05:07 PM

[quote name='Woody' date='Aug 10 2006, 03:48 PM' post='43987']
[

As for "ineffective" - what would be an effective approach?

- W

An effective approach is to invade Afganistan and Iraq. Compromise the Pakistanis,
it's my understanding that they supplied the crucial warning.

Now to deal with Iran and support the Israelis, there's no easy way out.

#49 Theodore Kloba

Theodore Kloba

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois, USA

Posted 10 August 2006 - 05:21 PM

Just to keep me on topic for this net I should say concertina somewhere. I occasionally drive around with one. No problems intra state, but I haven't tested going interstate, yet. I haven't gathered the courage.

I've taken mine on road trips around Illinois and to Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota and Wyoming. By plane they've made it to Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Arizona. I've never experienced damage, but I've been a bit fanatic about packing methods when checking them. I used to be able to take my medium-sized Chemnitzers/Bandonions as carry-on, but most domestic carriers have reduced the allowable size of carry-on baggage making that impossible. For my next trip, I'm taking my smallest Bandonion which just got a new case. I hope the recent "changes" in air travel security will not force me into checking it.

- W

Hmm... Maybe it is a Bush conspiracy after all...

#50 duckln

duckln

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Posted 10 August 2006 - 05:39 PM

I can't help wondering if Blair is trying to keep people scared to keep their eyes off the ball in other areas.




I object to being inconvenienced like this. I'm old enough to remember the IRA at it's most active and my parents remember watching V1's flying overhead on the way to London and I'm damned if I'll allow the current small bunch of morons to put the frighteners on me.


'Didn't your recent subway bombings scare you.'

'Well, you did something about the V!'s and IRA. Why not do something about the Islam
fascists? If you don't care for your life, at least support others, including Blair, to take on that bunch of morons . They are not morons, they are countries, they are killers and they are smart. '

#51 david_boveri

david_boveri

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1061 posts
  • Location:chicago, illinois, usa

Posted 10 August 2006 - 05:51 PM

if anyone is doing any travel relatively soon, make sure you can have carry ons. as of today, carry ons are banned on international flights out of london (and i'm not sure about in) because of an attempted / planned terrorist attack (the news is not very clear). i doubt they'll make exceptions for instruments. also, within the USA, any liquids or gels of any sort are prohibited, but i'm assuming everyone's concertinas are currently in solid form.

#52 ceemonster

ceemonster

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1320 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 09:47 PM

for those of you who "object to being inconvenienced like this"......that stance may change if the day comes when you are viewing tv footage of devastated salvage crews diving for the unidentifiable partial remains of 8 or 10 thousand innocent people after a dozen or so commercial jetliners detonate over the ocean. the horrific implications of these events go just a wee tad beyond inconvenience to concertina geeks.

#53 Rod Thompson

Rod Thompson

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Kangaroo Point, Qld, Australia

Posted 10 August 2006 - 09:48 PM

Liquids and gells are prohibited on certain flights here, but the real problem is that anyone flying from here connecting via London (e.g. to UK, Ireland or Europe) will not be able to take hand luggage on from London.
I don't know what that means for anyone already in the air??

#54 Paul Woloschuk

Paul Woloschuk

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:'twixt Malmesbury and Chippenham, Wiltshire. UK

Posted 11 August 2006 - 04:07 AM

Furthering the conspiracy theory even more…has anyone else noticed how well-organised the authorities have been in producing detailed lists, thousands of clear plastic carrier bags and rolling out printed posters both sides of the pond outlining the emergency procedures in only a few hours. No hand-written notices as you might expect. So they were well-prepared for this.
Assuming that these 'plotters' have been under surveillance for some time, was it just a coincidence that the airports were thrown into total confusion 24 hours AFTER 'our Tony' had left the UK on his hols?
! :rolleyes: ....just a thought!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users