Loosening the LAG restrictions: what do you think?

[jjpb3]

After the verdict on the trial of the accused (I have richer terms for them) regarding the incident in which they are alleged to have planned to cause an inflight explosion, there is now a call to end the current LAG ban:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7606892.stm

What do you think? Have you found the LAG rule onerous? Are you reassured by the verdict and inconvenienced enough by the restrictions that it's time to revisit the restrictions?

[jhm]

I can't understand why the conclusion of a trial means that it's now safe to remove the LAG restrictions (assuming they're justified in the first place).

I haven't been troubled by the LAG restrictions. Small quantities (e.g. an amenity kit sized toothpaste) don't appear to get detected so I don't bother with the plastic bag for those. I'd be happier if they removed the shoes (this mostly seems to be LHR nowadays and even then sometimes required, sometimes not) and laptop out (not required at LHR T5 at least) restrictions and standardised them across Europe.

[Kiwi]

Yes - get rid of the restrictions (liquids, shoes, belt especially).

[MAN Flyer]

While I would like to see it lifted I've got used to it now so it's not as much of a problem. What has made life easier is I now use the SQ bag we got as a gift on the LHR-SIN A380 inaugural, which is much better that those poxy flimsy plastic bags you get everywhere.

I agree it's consistency we need on this. LHR now doesn't require laptops out but MAN and Changi do. Why is it different ?. I also discovered - by accident - that some airports set the body scanners to beep even if they don't detect anything.

I was flying MAN-AMS last week as usual had hand luggage only. I also took with me some items for a customer I was visiting in Malaysia. I wasn't sure if they let me on board with them and after asking a Supervisor they said I had to check them in. Fair enough. Ten minutes later I come back to security and walk through exactly the same scanner as before and it beeped, despite the fact I went through ten minutes earlier and it didn't. As they asked me to step to one side for a pat down I said 'That scanner's faulty mate, I went through ten minutes ago with exactly the same items as now and it didn't beep'. His mate chimed in and said 'Doesn't matter, it's set to beep after every five people through it anyway so we can do random pat downs'. The guy with me said ' Sssh, we're not supposed to tell anybody that'.

[nickbot]

I can't understand why the conclusion of a trial means that it's now safe to remove the LAG restrictions (assuming they're justified in the first place).

I agree with JHM's statement; it would be similar to saying "we've caught those responsible for 9-11, so now you can take knives onboard again" -yes, that's an oversimplification, but the risk from both knives and liquid explosives still exists, especially now that the information on what explosive they were making/planning to make is blatantly in the public domain.

Without advanced scanning/detection facilities I think the LAG restrictions should stay in place. In my opinion, those of a right mind to plan/commit such acts will be looking for any chink in the armour, and to re-open a previous chink would be a backward step IMHO.

[jjpb3]

Ten minutes later I come back to security and walk through exactly the same scanner as before and it beeped, despite the fact I went through ten minutes earlier and it didn't. As they asked me to step to one side for a pat down I said 'That scanner's faulty mate, I went through ten minutes ago with exactly the same items as now and it didn't beep'. His mate chimed in and said 'Doesn't matter, it's set to beep after every five people through it anyway so we can do random pat downs'. The guy with me said ' Sssh, we're not supposed to tell anybody that'.

MAN Flyer, you just became a security leak.

[up and away]

I hope they'll do away with these stupid restrictions!

[taipeiflyer]

personally, i HATE the restrictions... and felt they never should have been instituted in the first place. why are they there- because ONE time someone tried to use liquids or their shoes as an explosive device... where does it stop?

we put up with these stupid restrictions because we someone have a false belief that they are implemented to protect us... not the case! they are implemented to scare us and go along with the herd, while our basic liberties continue to be further impinged on. when someone eventually decides to stick liquids up their privates, we will all just queue up and subject ourselves to strip and full-cavity searches, and do it with a smile, because "hey, i know they are just trying to look out for my safety."

every time one of these means of destruction is thwarted, we take the retroactive step of making it more difficult to engage in the act that was stopped, but the terrorists are already thinking forward to the next method of destruction using alternative means. they are not going to try the same trick... and it's foolish of us to believe so. the LAG restrictions should have been eliminated a long time ago... same with the shoes... same with the laptops out... the list goes on, and on, and on, and on.

[Lobster]

Although I do not find the LAG restrictions too inconvieient as I never used to take liquids onto the plane (except duty free) I do agree with Taipeiflyer. The benefit to security of these restrictions is absolutely minimal. These sorts of restrictions at best are meant to make the traveller feel secure (at worst are meant to make them feel scared and willing to go along with whatever big brother wants them to do). You just have to look at the farce that is the LHR shoe rules to see that they have no intention of stopping a determined terrorist who will just see which lane you do not have to take your shoes off for and go through that lane.

Although any death is tragic looking at the big picture deaths from terrorism are absolutely minimal (why have we not put as much money into stopping drink driving?). No security systme can keep us totally safe there is always a cost/benefit analysis which has to be done. One failed alleged attempt at bring down some planes with liquid explosives leads to a ban. One successful attempt to blow up public transport in London does not lead to a ban on backpacks. Why cost too high. Well in my opinion the cost of the restrictions on flying are too high as well.

[Kiwi]

While I would like to see it lifted I've got used to it now so it's not as much of a problem. What has made life easier is I now use the SQ bag we got as a gift on the LHR-SIN A380 inaugural, which is much better that those poxy flimsy plastic bags you get everywhere.

I saved a number of the old Air NZ amenity kits to use as liquids baggies. These are made of hard plastic, are see through with a zip top, and far more durable than the normal ziplock bags. In fact I've just now got a small split on the first one - which I've used for a few hundred flights.

I also discovered - by accident - that some airports set the body scanners to beep even if they don't detect anything.

I've known this for years. It annoys the heck out of me - at AKL domestic terminal (QF side) and also the international terminal they set it up to beep on the very first pax of the day through the machine. I've lost count how many times that is me. The screeners know me and know I know how it goes.

[Kiwi]

Without advanced scanning/detection facilities I think the LAG restrictions should stay in place. In my opinion, those of a right mind to plan/commit such acts will be looking for any chink in the armour, and to re-open a previous chink would be a backward step IMHO.

The problem with that line of argument is there are plenty of other vulnerabilities in the system that are not plugged and well-known. It is a bit pointless trying to put a finger in the dyke while around the corner someone is bulldozing the thing down!

The other major issue I have with the restrictions is the total lack of cost-benefit analysis performed. Seemingly every minor thing can be justified for security when really the cost of doing all that "security" stuff far outweighs the savings. [Oops I should have read Lobster's post first - that is spot on.]

Sorry for the rant.