cpx

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6225809

rfrost

Like one of the posters above, I've been taking a number of quick (3 or 4 day) trips to London. Much as I love the Royal Ballet and want to see my 7 or 8 favorite dancers dance every role, I think these carryon rules will, if they become permanent (and I saw at least one article in a relatively reliable newspaper saying they would), end up reducing those, if not eliminating them, over time.

Aviatrix

I assumed you were talking about getting from New York to Delhi. The link you posted is a thread about restrictions on El Al. Surely there are plenty of other ways of getting from the USA to India?

cj001f

And they are either more expensive or take longer. Yet more economic inefficencies induced by the worthless screening.

cpx

I'm "assuming" this is imposed on most or many flights withing and to/from
India. If this is the case.. its bad for me.. I dont have confirmed
reports for other flights though.

Bruiser

Even if they somewhat relax restrictions, who is to say they won't start them up a again at a moment's notice, like the flight that got diverted today to Italy and the bomb scare (so called) in the States. LHR is going to be dicey for a long time I think.

cpx

If all the impulsive warnings hits the tax and other revenues, then some one will
have to think twice before issuing such stupid warnings!

Nevsky

Apparently the hassles of UK airports received the attention of the Financial Times in an editorial "In defence of British hand luggage--New Security rules are counterproductive and impractical", Wednesday, August 23.

It said that the hand luggage rules made "little long-term sense" and that for the UK to unilaterally try to change IATA standards "would be presumptuous even if it was likely to work ." It then mentioned other threats to aircraft security, such as checked baggage and cargo.

The editorial concluded by saying "[b]ut all this should not come at the expense of an innocent party, the traveller's best friend: his poor, innocent piece of hand baggage."

Well said.

You want to go where?

From everything I have seen, this is an Indian government restriction and has nothing to do with the airline.

On the OPs original question, my answer is quite simply: Yes. I do not fly to Europe, but I transit all the time. The new UK size restrictions will make it impossible for me to carry on essential equipment which I am unwilling to trust to checked luggage, both for the risk of damage and the risk of theft, especially in developing world airports. If other European airports follow suit, I may have to change my business patterns and consider flying via Asia as a consequence, despite the increased expense.

I can live with the small inconveniences of not being able to do the work I would like on a plane, or having to check luggage because of toiletries. But I can't just choose to leave valuable equipment at home and the airlines are unwilling to provide a secure luggage process.

cpx

These policy makers should fly coach on a 12+ hr journey
and then they should decide if they should change the IATA standards
or not... or any other security and carry on standards.

Globaliser

And what's so difficult about a 12+ hour journey down the back?

cpx

I'm just saying.. if they actually take some time and thought by
going through the procedure themselves.. they may get a better insignt and be
able to make the process even more efficient. I think there is room
for improvement here

Nevsky

Actually if you really want them to understand, have them take at 12+ hour flight and then tell them that their luggage is lost and keep them waiting for four days (while trying to track it down) as happened to me on a trip to Russia. Then make them go back to the airport (where there is no easy transportation and it is expensive) to pick it up.

Globaliser

It's OK, the smiley was for real. The comment looked good just above my signature.

Nevsky

According to a CNN story security experts say that the UK restrictions reducing the permitted size of hand luggage " does little or nothing to reduce the risk of a terror attack."

Not only do they make our lives miserable, or cause us to avoid the UK or not travel, but the rules are a means to an end that does not even help accomplish the objective.