Why Is My Bag Too Big?

[Midnight]

I am so glad that this section of the forums exists, as without it I would have to kick the dog & beat the wife! But as I do not own a dog & the wife could easily ''take'' me, this is my only option!!

In the last couple of weeks Mrs. Midnight & I have made a couple of trips to the UK (non pleasure..... ie. non diving!!) & have got extremely pissed-off.

The focus of our ''disquiet'' is slightly unclear but most indicators seem to point towards BAA.

Following the recent ''alleged'' terrorist scare certain changes were deemed necessary. My take on the affair currently leans towards a political smokescreen over the recent troubles in the Lebanon, but that is for another time.

Prior to our trip everyone was told that everything was back to normal. Certainly on leaving Dublin this appeared to be the case, however, the return journey proved a little different.

BAA, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that the single piece of luggage you are allowed to bring as carry-on has now to be no larger than a small laptop bag. Not even America has applied this restriction, Poland are the only country following this lead.

I find it difficult to understand the need for this NEW restriction as the alleged bomb was the size of a coke can, which can still be fitted into the new size of bag and the fact that just about everything you go with is put through the X-ray any suspect items can be weeded out and checked such as exploding water, exploding Lynx deodorant and the worst of all exploding Lipsalve.

I postulate that a possible reason for this NEW restriction has more to do with ££££. Those evil empires of Ryanair and Easyjet who are pushing for a full carry-on service and now constitute the greatest proportion of air travel are putting the livelihood of BAA’s Baggage Manglers at risk. Some way was needed to bring these damn upstarts into line ergo the NEW bag size.

To add the kick in the balls Messrs Ryan decided that they would not swallow this unreasonable charge and we had to be charged to book in two very small cases at £7 each, however, as we paid it directly to BAA I have no idea where that ended up. Should I ask Ryanair to include my claim with his against the Uncle Tony?

I was so mad that I very nearly stood in the middle of Gatport Airwick and shouted “BOTTOM” whilst stamping my left foot but as I am British I grumbled under my breath, paid the bill, gumbled again and said “just you wait till I log onto YD”!!!!

Can someone…… ANYONE pour some sense onto this quandary…… PLEASE

Regards
Midnight

[Mark Davies]

You will find that the dimensions stated are the exact size of the trays used to pass your property through the X-ray machines at most UK airports. Larger bags can't go through and so have to be checked manually, which is very time consuming. The extra security measures result in more time being needed to process passengers through the checks, so this is intended to try and make things that bit easier and minimise the delays for you, the passenger.

[Lou]

Since when have you had to put your bag in a tray? I have only used trays for loose items, so how does putting one's bag in a tray speed things up?

I heard the reason that it was that you could only get a single layer of contents in it, thus making it easier to scan. That made slightly more sense.

It does cause me an issue for an iminent trip - I need a rucksack when i am there, and usually I would take it as my handluggae. Now I will have to use my crappier rucksack that will at lest pack into my main bag. What a waste

[Mark Davies]

I asked the very question of a security manager today and that was the answer I was given - it's the optimum size to allow a bag to be scanned through an X-ray machine and minimise the need for a manual search. I didn't say the bag had to go inside a tray - just that the dimensions matched. I presume there is a reason why the trays are that size which can also be applied to the bags. Perhaps the 'single layer' idea is the reason.

I appreciate it's difficult to understand why some things are done when you have no knowledge of what the specific threat is, but it must be obvious that all of this is costing the airline industry and none of it is done without reason. Believe me, the airports would love it if you could just step out of your taxi and straight onto a plane - it would save them millions - but unfortunately some things just have to be done to try and ensure YOUR safety.

[Midnight]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

but it must be obvious that all of this is costing the airline industry

Not that obvious when they are passing any extra costs straight onto the customer.

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

some things just have to be done to try and ensure YOUR safety.

So how come these restrictions are not being globally applied? Are BAA and the Polish equivalent just being more protective of the travelling public or more to the point do rest of the world not care enough???

Sorry, I still feel that the real reason has more to do with industry politics and "terrorism" is a timely and covenient scapegoat.

Regards
Midnight

[ahar]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

I asked the very question of a security manager today and that was the answer I was given - it's the optimum size to allow a bag to be scanned through an X-ray machine and minimise the need for a manual search. I didn't say the bag had to go inside a tray - just that the dimensions matched. I presume there is a reason why the trays are that size which can also be applied to the bags. Perhaps the 'single layer' idea is the reason.

Sounds like a bit of a smokescreen to me as almost all bags (before the recent politically inspired flap) got through anyway without a problem. If there was an issue with x-rays, other areas especially the US would have brought in the restriction.

It's a money saving scheme by BAA - they're share price is in the toilet and they haven't spent the cash on recruiting enough staff to sufficiently resource the security measures so they're screwing the passengers to make up for their idiotic management.

Binary liquid bomb - don't make me laugh.

[Fiona]

According to the news tonight there is a meeting next Tuesday and it looks likely that the size restrictions will be relaxed and some liquids(cosmetics / contact lens fluid) will be allowed.

Musicians are likely to be able to take their instruments on board

Originally Posted by midnight

Prior to our trip everyone was told that everything was back to normal. Certainly on leaving Dublin this appeared to be the case, however, the return journey proved a little different

Who told you that ?

Blimey there has been enough threads on here to fill the hold of a 747 about the subject.

You could always use Manchester they aren't BAA

[Mark Davies]

Originally Posted by Midnight

So how come these restrictions are not being globally applied?

Because the specific, known threat is to flights leaving the UK. I thought that had been made perfectly clear on the day the arrests were made - or don't you listen to the information being given on the news? Given the evidence that has been made available to police and security forces I am frankly very surprised that similar measures have not been introduced elsewhere, but then that's probably because it is costing the industry a fortune.

Perhaps you could explain how they are passing the costs straight onto the customer, as last time I flew I don't remember paying the airport for anything except parking. I haven't seen any dramatic rises in the costs for flights, so it seems to me the industry is pretty much absorbing the rest of the costs.

Originally Posted by ahar

Sounds like a bit of a smokescreen to me as almost all bags (before the recent politically inspired flap) got through anyway without a problem.

Before they were not looking for liquid based explosives in plastic bottles - so of course it's different! The changes are because there was found to be a new, previously unknown threat. Of course the terrorists are constantly looking at ways to bypass current security procedures and developing new methods, so expect things to carry on changing in the future in an attempt to keep one step ahead of them. It's rather foolish to think the same old procedures will keep us safe indefinitely.

And as for 'failing to recruit enough staff' it just isn't that simple. All new staff have to be vetted (a process which can take a long time - mine isn't complete after 3 months and I'm a police officer!) - you can't just pull people in over night. Arguably there could be an agency pool of pre-vetted staff but the reality is that by the time you have vetted these 'temps' they will have found permanent employment elsewhere so won't be available. They have staffed it with overtime and most of those security staff who have been taking the brunt of the abuse have been working their arses off 12 hours a day, six days a week - all in an effort to ensure you have a safe journey.

The world has changed. Flying has changed. We're all just going to have to learn to live with it. You're being asked to pack your stuff in a case and put it in the hold - not donate a kidney!

Maybe - just maybe - it's being done for no reason other than your benefit.

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

...

Maybe - just maybe - it's being done for no reason other than your benefit.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Chris

[ahar]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

[font=Comic Sans MS][color=indigo]Before they were not looking for liquid based explosives in plastic bottles - so of course it's different! The changes are because there was found to be a new, previously unknown threat. Of course the terrorists are constantly looking at ways to bypass current security procedures and developing new methods, so expect things to carry on changing in the future in an attempt to keep one step ahead of them. It's rather foolish to think the same old procedures will keep us safe indefinitely.

I agree that security measures must change to keep up with current threats, but they don't. What I object to is the knee jerk reactions in a few areas that are supposed to make us feel better while completely ignoring the gaping holes in others.

The restrictions on bagagge was in response to a specific, timed treat, based on intelligence developed. Fair enough - you put the restriction in place, deal with the threat and then either go back to normal or change your proceedures as you have found a hole. If this security hole exists in the UK, then it must exist elsewhere as countries like the US are AT LEAST in as much danger as we are. If terrorists have thought about liquid bombs in the UK, then they will have thought about them in the US as well, whether or not there is specific intelligence on the matter. Therefore, if there were a continuing danger from binary or other liquid bombs the US and many other countries would be continuing with the restrictions. The US more than most in fact due to the legacy of 11/09.

The reason the US and co are not continuing with the restrictions must be that they do not see that they give them extra security. Our idioitc government continue to run around like headless chickens sniping at possibly real or imaginary threats seemly without a proper audit or assessment of how best to secure our air travel.

BAA do not have enough staff - they have not had enough staff for some time and continue in this way because they are a monopoly, have a vast and pointless management layer and seemly have no view on how to improve themselves. They are a monopoly - they are the only company running Heathrow, Gatwick and many other UK airports. With the huge growth in air travel in the UK, they should be rolling in cash. Instead, they are underperforming and the share price is in the toilet. Why? Because of poor management, inappropriate cost cutting and a lack of preparations for situations like these.

Large holes in the security of airports still exist - it seems like every other week a journalist sneaks onto a plane and is able to plant a fake bomb with the accompanying font page headlines. I suspect the newspapers next targets will be the duty free shops behind the security cordon - with the large amount of stock that they have I wonder how easy it is to slip something nasty in a laptop box, or bottle of wine?

I would believe that all the measures supposedly taken to safeguard our security didn't involve any politicians, but they do. Unfortunately they are as trustworthy as a bag of rattlesnakes and generally won't stop at anything to inhance their reputation or improve their electoral chances.

A great example from the US was in 2003 when they announced that there was a specific threat on blowing up certain bridges in major cities. It hit the top of the news in the US, but quiety later, after diligent probing by some journalists it was found that there was no new intelligence - in fact the announcement was the same as the one made a few months before. The co-incidence was that there had been a drop in polls for George W and he was facing some sticky questions about domestic matters so wheeled our the old 'terror attack' threat stuff to divert attention. You may not think that happens in the UK - remember Iraq, the dodgy dossier, the copied 10 year old PhD thesis and ignoring the raw intelligence to fit a political view point?

We are under threat - no doubt about it. However, the way in which the response to these threats has been undertake is in some cases useless. Remember the ricin trial - "Man planning to spread ricin poison on London Underground"? Except there was no ricin found. Or any equipment to make enough to cause any trouble. Or any detailed plans. Or a reciepe other than can be found in a university textbook available on Amazon.com. All there was was a guy unhappy with the UK, with vague notions of doing something nasty to the UK and no means of doing it.

And yet, while attention was focused on this small fry case, 5 guys who did actually have some knowledge and equipment managed to put together some bombs and blow up three tube trains and a bus in London. Though they had come to the attention of the powers that be, they weren't investigated.

I'm not scared of liquid bombs on planes or ricin on the underground - I'm scared of the guys who haven't been properly investigated by the security services because resources were diverted on a wild goose chase (Forest Gate 'bio bomb' anyone?), who are motivated, trained, understand what it takes to undertake a properly organised operation and know what a small amount of a substance like dimethlymercury can do.

Good thing this is the rant area