daysleeper

After all, Richard Reid used a match, not a lighter when he tried to ignite his shoebomb.

AndreasFromVienna

Sorry guys, not any more. Quote from todays statement off the OS-homepage:

Due to respective orders of US-authorities for even higher security levels for flights to USA, passengers are required to not take hand-luggage on board of the flights.
...
Please mind, that all electronic devices like laptops, cellular phones etc. are also not allowed in hand-luggage. Please store these items in your regular baggage.

andre1970

If they think they can afford it...

Threy

Probably not too long.

On BFBS yesterday, they already discussed how to handle the situation for soldiers carrying sensitive materials that cannot be checked...solution was to postpone the trip, if possible...

I see the executive aircraft operators gaining momentum already...

A300flyer

OS try to cook their own soup again. Noone said that hand luggage despite all UK departures are forbidden. Not at the TSA homepage nor at the homepage of homeland security. They are just a bit crazy and try to make it as convenient for themselves and VIE as possible and forbid any carry on luggage. is way faster for security checks... I already called them and asked whether they are totally crazy. LH e.g. allows carry-ons but ask pax to keep it to a minimum. liquids etc. are forbidden.

weero

Nah, Oz and CA do that too. But I agree that most civilised places do not .
Can you provide a link ploise? From the aua website, I can only find this about
Austrian handluggage and it clearly does not exclude electronics.

weero

I am glad that LH does not voluntarily introduce random new safety measures
and that there is some restistance to inhumane (withholding essential medicine)
safety practices pushed by some authorities.
This virtual uber-crime boosts the unilateral power of the authorities which
saved us - virtually - from it. And it bereaves us of the last remaining
amenities aboard.
Exactly - Nitroglycerine, a liquid explosive, was the very first high explosive (a
subtance that can detonate) at all. So if the authorities haven't included liquid
explosives in their searches so far ... what have they been searching for after all ????
As andre's post showed - these authorities basically admitted that despite
the extensive harassment they put us through for years, they obviously have
no capability of tracing the most oridinary explosives available. Am I missing
something or did it take an actual attempt to use liquid explosives for the
authorities to acknowledge that liquids could be used ?
If the only successful test for an evil substance they can deploy is to take it
away from its owner, how do they cope with the case Threy pointed
out? So the discomfort does not even add to the safety .

andre1970

Agree!
here you go

weero

Gosh - I am impressed. They feed us the plain lie that the US authorities do require
this.
And then they exhibit the temerity to come up with that 'name on drug' thingy
that does not even exist in Europe. How is that possible? Do they have a
British webmaster???

andre1970

Good point weero!

Apparently, OS's IT people seem to be as ...sophisticated as their LH counterparts, so if you look at the German or the US AUA site (for the latter the most recent announcement is on July 27th ), the phrasing is different and it only implicitly bans electronics (no cabin luggage)

Guess what: I just canceled an upcoming OS flight in C to the US scheduled for early September. I don't care if they change their policy, or of they didn't really mean it.

They have to realize that farces of this kind are costly and palinodes will be of no use. That's why I doubt they can afford their stupid, thoughtlessly adopted policy.

SleepOverGreenland

It has become highly inconvenient to travel now without liquids (e.g. toothpaste), because it always means to check luggage, which I avoided in the past three years for all my business travels.

If LH, like OS, BA and others, will disallow laptops on board they will loose a traveller with about 60-90K � p.a. Without a laptop on board I will not make just one more travel. If I pay significant money (F or C) I need to do my business work and I need to do my preparations for my meetings. Period.

weero

Well said SleepOverGreenland ^ .
I wonder if the action of AUA does not constitute a breach of the contract of
carriage on their behalf? When I buy a ticket (from a TA), I get the leaflet that
stats what I can carry and what I can bring. And warrants me handluggage within
the limits. BA at least can use the foul excuse that the BAA hinders them to accept
any handluggage whatsoever but OS?
So if I refuse to check/loose my laptop, am hence disallowed to board, don't
they owe me a full refund on my travel?

andre1970

Interesting discussion here.
I think robb has a point.

weero

Thanks for the link andre1970!
robb has one, AUA does not though. They try to bar handluggage with
they own wanton rules not upon being forced by a governmental spell.
Right on them ^ .
The latter thing ithough is what I think is indeed happening: they copy pasted
the harshest ruling without probably enforcing it. As much as I did like OS in the
past, I hope this insult hurts them enough to find back to reason.

SmilingBoy

Just a quick on-topic live report (it is boring though):

Checked in BRU-STR. Went through security. Am in the lounge now.

Nothing special to report. If anything, security was faster than usual. Nobody complained about my hair gel or toothpaste.

SmilingBoy.