BA Handling of laptop/tablet ban

Old Sep 30, 2017, 10:47 am
  #91  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Silver, VS Red, HH Gold, IHG Gold, Marriott Gold, SPG Basic, Alitalia Status Match
Posts: 1,171
Originally Posted by gms
I would guess that most regular business travellers using BA to IST will have by now switched over to Turkish. I appreciate BA don't have a large number of flights to IST, but is this really the best they can do?
Got back yesterday from a work trip from IST. Despite BA status, I opted to fly Turkish (where I have no status), primarily to be able to keep my laptop. The prices were comparable, but Turkish also came with a 3 course hot meal in both directions in Y. While BA have the option of buying a sandwich...

Assuming BA eventually can let passengers take electronics back into the cabin, I will probably continue to use Turkish on this route, both for business and leisure with family.
ankomonkey is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2017, 11:24 am
  #92  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,048
Originally Posted by itfcfan
Anyone have an idea of the bigger picture here? Why are some carriers (Turkish Airlines, Egyptair and tourist charters such as Thomas Cook, etc) able to implement whatever is required to avoid the UK ban, whereas BA seem unable/unwilling to do the same? Is it down to money (i.e. some carriers are willing to pay extra security charges, while BA is not) or something else?
BA has its own security assessors who are closely associated with the various security services. They are proactive and quite often make decisions that others do not follow for your safety. They stopped us flying over parts of Ukraine a few years ago and a Malaysian aircraft flying over that area was shot down. If they are keeping the laptop ban in force they have their reasons. You are free to fly with another airline if you wish but their agenda may be quite different to BA. You pay your money and you take your choice - convenience over safety. Enjoy.
Waterhorse is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2017, 1:08 pm
  #93  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
Originally Posted by Waterhorse
BA has its own security assessors who are closely associated with the various security services. They are proactive and quite often make decisions that others do not follow for your safety. They stopped us flying over parts of Ukraine a few years ago and a Malaysian aircraft flying over that area was shot down. If they are keeping the laptop ban in force they have their reasons. You are free to fly with another airline if you wish but their agenda may be quite different to BA. You pay your money and you take your choice - convenience over safety. Enjoy.
My conversations with BA staff have been less reassuring when they say that BA won't buy the extra equipment needed and that the UK government has demanded that 40% of hand baggage is wiped down for scans whereas BA only want to do 25%.

BA themselves have stated a number of times that this is a British Government requirement and that it will on;y change when the British Government changes the rules.

I hope you are right, and it is a sign that BA are extra security conscious, but that is not what BA is saying.
Worcester is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2017, 1:43 pm
  #94  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: london
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by ankomonkey
Got back yesterday from a work trip from IST. Despite BA status, I opted to fly Turkish (where I have no status), primarily to be able to keep my laptop. The prices were comparable, but Turkish also came with a 3 course hot meal in both directions in Y. While BA have the option of buying a sandwich...

Assuming BA eventually can let passengers take electronics back into the cabin, I will probably continue to use Turkish on this route, both for business and leisure with family.
I've just booked with TK for exactly the same reasons. I'm not going to get more than Silver before my year ends so don't need the points and everything else looks like it will be better.
criso is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2017, 2:21 pm
  #95  
gms
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South East, UK
Programs: BA Gold / GfL, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,431
Originally Posted by Waterhorse
BA has its own security assessors who are closely associated with the various security services. They are proactive and quite often make decisions that others do not follow for your safety. They stopped us flying over parts of Ukraine a few years ago and a Malaysian aircraft flying over that area was shot down. If they are keeping the laptop ban in force they have their reasons. You are free to fly with another airline if you wish but their agenda may be quite different to BA. You pay your money and you take your choice - convenience over safety. Enjoy.
Just so we're clear, the UK DoT has removed restrictions where specific airports and airlines have implemented the required additional security measures.

What you seem to be implying is that BA has made a decision not to implement the recommendations of the UK DoT because it does not believe it is safe to do so (i.e. nothing to do with the fact that BA is not prepared to pay the additional costs associated with the requirements).

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up. I appreciate BA does have to make regular tough decisions about flight routings and related safety, etc. But to imply that BA is better positioned to make decisions on security risks at airports compared to the DoT (which will be advised by the UK national security and international intelligence services) seems a bit far-fetched.
gms is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2017, 11:55 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Aberdeenshire
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by Waterhorse
BA has its own security assessors who are closely associated with the various security services. They are proactive and quite often make decisions that others do not follow for your safety. They stopped us flying over parts of Ukraine a few years ago and a Malaysian aircraft flying over that area was shot down. If they are keeping the laptop ban in force they have their reasons. You are free to fly with another airline if you wish but their agenda may be quite different to BA. You pay your money and you take your choice - convenience over safety. Enjoy.
So are you saying the UK Gov has given the go ahead for BA to lift the ban But The BA assessors say it is not safe to do so?
Knickam is offline  
Old Sep 30, 2017, 11:55 pm
  #97  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
Originally Posted by gms
Just so we're clear, the UK DoT has removed restrictions where specific airports and airlines have implemented the required additional security measures.

What you seem to be implying is that BA has made a decision not to implement the recommendations of the UK DoT because it does not believe it is safe to do so (i.e. nothing to do with the fact that BA is not prepared to pay the additional costs associated with the requirements).

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up. I appreciate BA does have to make regular tough decisions about flight routings and related safety, etc. But to imply that BA is better positioned to make decisions on security risks at airports compared to the DoT (which will be advised by the UK national security and international intelligence services) seems a bit far-fetched.
Having used both TK and BA this also does not make a lot of sense either, as BA have to spend money on staff at the gate, checking every bag for electronic devices. TK have more staff for this but also more passengers to check. They also have more scanners. Unless BA won't invest in the scanners?
Worcester is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2017, 6:33 am
  #98  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,048
Originally Posted by Knickam
So are you saying the UK Gov has given the go ahead for BA to lift the ban But The BA assessors say it is not safe to do so?
I did not say that at all, you can see what I said quite clearly in my post - you quoted it.
Waterhorse is offline  
Old Oct 1, 2017, 9:34 pm
  #99  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Aberdeenshire
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by Waterhorse
I did not say that at all, you can see what I said quite clearly in my post - you quoted it.
Well, You may not have said it quite like that,
Reading your reply to the question that was asked about why BA still have the laptop ban in place, All you talk about is BA security and how they may have made the decision to keep the ban in place for our safety.

Not really relevant if they have not been given permission from the government in the first place.

This was my reason for the question.
Knickam is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2017, 2:55 am
  #100  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 134
I booked BA IST-LHR on the understanding that when low-cost and charter airlines were announcing that they had implemented the extra measures to satisfy the DoT, BA would surely follow. I found this thread searching for an update. It appears IAG is 'cheaper' than low-cost and have taken a policy decision not to pay for the extra measures demanded.

There is not much remaining of a once-great airline.
timmillea is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2017, 3:28 am
  #101  
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Morbihan, France
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 19,085
Originally Posted by timmillea
I booked BA IST-LHR on the understanding that when low-cost and charter airlines were announcing that they had implemented the extra measures to satisfy the DoT, BA would surely follow. I found this thread searching for an update. It appears IAG is 'cheaper' than low-cost and have taken a policy decision not to pay for the extra measures demanded.

There is not much remaining of a once-great airline.
That was an assumption on your part - an incorrect one as it turned out. So BA is not going to spend a lot of money on measures that may be lifted ( according to those who proport to be in the know - based to some extent on hearsay and gossip from what I can gather), and which exist nowhere else. I find them inconvenient, superfluous, not being party to the facts will obey them. What other carriers do or do not do is irrelevant to me - I want to know what BA is doing whether I like it or not.

It's all a blessed nuisance and maybe it is here to stay - like the liquid and gels. Why not blame the real culprits and that is the people who would detonate a device on a civilian aircraft carrying innocent people? I do.
PUCCI GALORE is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2017, 5:21 am
  #102  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brexile in ADB
Programs: BA, TK, HHonours, Le Club, Best Western Rewards
Posts: 7,067
You have some right points but I think this is Political rather than Security

I base this premise on the following

1. No airliner has been brought down by a bomb in the cabin, while several have been through bombs in the hold
2. There is a very real threat from batteries in the hold where if they catch fire the fire cannot be dealt with
3. A terrorist capable of building a bomb invisible to x-ray machines is capable also of driving to an airport where electronics are allowed in the cabin
4. No other government thinks there is the intelligence to support such a move
Worcester is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2017, 5:36 am
  #103  
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,703
Originally Posted by Worcester
You have some right points but I think this is Political rather than Security

I base this premise on the following

1. No airliner has been brought down by a bomb in the cabin, while several have been through bombs in the hold
2. There is a very real threat from batteries in the hold where if they catch fire the fire cannot be dealt with
3. A terrorist capable of building a bomb invisible to x-ray machines is capable also of driving to an airport where electronics are allowed in the cabin
4. No other government thinks there is the intelligence to support such a move
It's very difficult to come to any conclusions like this since we (as an FT community) really don't have access to the security information which the authorities are working with.
KARFA is online now  
Old Oct 3, 2017, 8:20 am
  #104  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by KARFA
It's very difficult to come to any conclusions like this since we (as an FT community) really don't have access to the security information which the authorities are working with.
Yes, I can understand that bringing down a plane of the flag carrier for Britain could be a greater trophy than that of a low-cost, multi-national airline such as easyJet. Also that there are formulations of lithium-based batteries which are essentially explosives without modification - they just need shorting.

Still a great deal of harm could be done with a glass bottle on sale from duty free. When the security measures benefit the airports and airlines - e.g. the liquids restrictions, they are very keen to implement them. When they may hurt sales, e.g. glass bottles in duty free, they are non-existant. I would not say the airlines and airports are in league with terrorists but they certainly financially benefit from the threat, real or perceived, from them.

It is the moral equivalence of having signs before security saying, "Terrorists, no bombs past this point!", then on the airside, "Terrorists, buy bombs at 20% off!". Back to lithium batteries, they do already.

Cynical.
timmillea is offline  
Old Oct 3, 2017, 12:25 pm
  #105  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: London
Programs: BAEC Bronze
Posts: 573
Im flying to Cairo in a few weeks on BA. Is the tablet ban still in place?
jday is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.