New US & UK Laptop/Tablet ban on up to 8 countries

[Pushka]

Honestly, we went to Iraq War because of the Intelligence of the Bush Government. Weapons of mass destruction they said. I marched against the Invasion. From that date onward I treat 'intelligence' with a dose of a reality check.

 

[amaroo]

I was liberated the day I ceased travelling with a laptop :mrgreen: At the age of 44 - I've been flying like a bird!

 

[opusman]

Who needs a laptop when EK hostie will bring you a bottle of Paradis

 

[TheRealTMA]

Who needs a laptop when EK hostie will bring you a bottle of Paradis

And a bottle of Château d'Yquem 2005!

 

[defurax]

Who needs a laptop when EK hostie will bring you a bottle of Paradis

Not mutually exclusive! I drank half the bottle of Paradis on my last EK F trip and did some pretty creative work on the laptop:shock::mrgreen:

 

[Pushka]

Who needs a laptop when EK hostie will bring you a bottle of Paradis

I have no idea about Paradis but that won't stop me trying it in a few days time, because I can.

 

[defurax]

I have no idea about Paradis but that won't stop me trying it in a few days time, because I can.

Paradis is a very very good cognac! Unfortunately, it is always served cold by the crew, so I suggest you ask them to warm up your glass first by pouring hot water around it.

 

[Pushka]

Paradis is a very very good cognac! Unfortunately, it is always served cold by the crew, so I suggest you ask them to warm up your glass first by pouring hot water around it.

How 'bout - taking it in the shower with me . I'll need a lid.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Armchair warriors who think for themselves vs the sheep who believe everything they're told.

Anyone familiar with the writings of Joseph Conrad may recognise this quote ... "The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness".

Whilst that quote remains true, there will be restrictions placed on those that are innocent and those restrictions will be seen by some to be overbearing, officious, bloody bureaucracy. I doubt it really matters whether people identify themselves with being an armchair warrior or a sheep, those making decisions are unlikely to be actively invoking legislation based on what a group of FFers are griping about.

Honestly, we went to Iraq War because of the Intelligence of the Bush Government. Weapons of mass destruction ... From that date onward I treat 'intelligence' with a dose of a reality check.

I'm certainly not sure, but I'm guessing you are not privy to much high level Intel to make any reality checks. I think you're probably confusing intel with decisions based upon intel. Two very different things. Your comment also gives no credit to the ongoing Intel that saves tens of thousands of lives annually. Without intelligence gathering and good decisions based upon such, terrorists and common garden variety criminals would have a free for all.

No laptops seems to me to be not an insurmountable problem, but certainly a change to what we're used to and it certainly will annoy some people. No LAGs, full body scanning, bomb residue testing, luggage scanning, no nail sissors even, are all things that annoy some people, but my guess is that there are very few people who would rather have those freedoms back at the risk of ending up an airline terrorist statistic.

 

[Pushka]

I understand the intel said there were weapons of mass destruction. No interpretation required.

Having gone through security with quite pack of blu tac I'm not confident that security will pick up much at all. Except the obvious.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I understand the intel said there were weapons of mass destruction. No interpretation required.

Having gone through security with quite pack of blu tac I'm not confident that security will pick up much at all. Except the obvious.

Interpretation of the Intel is to what you are referring. Of course you and anyone (including me) are entitled to hold an opinion. Not everyone will always agree.

 

[Himeno]

No LAGs, full body scanning, bomb residue testing, luggage scanning, no nail sissors even, are all things that annoy some people, but my guess is that there are very few people who would rather have those freedoms back at the risk of ending up an airline terrorist statistic.

I'd rather not deal with "security" measures that do nothing for security (ie, body scanners, liquid bans) and face the extremely small risk of being injured in any sort of airline incident.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I'd rather not deal with "security" measures that do nothing for security (ie, body scanners, liquid bans) and face the extremely small risk of being injured in any sort of airline incident.

Each to their own.

 

[amaroo]

I'd rather not deal with "security" measures that do nothing for security (ie, body scanners, liquid bans) and face the extremely small risk of being injured in any sort of airline incident.

$hit happens ... we all have to live with it.

 

[TheRealTMA]

I understand the intel said there were weapons of mass destruction. No interpretation required.

Having gone through security with quite pack of blu tac I'm not confident that security will pick up much at all. Except the obvious.

Blutac and Semtex have different X-ray signatures.

 

[opusman]

Paradis is a very very good cognac! Unfortunately, it is always served cold by the crew, so I suggest you ask them to warm up your glass first by pouring hot water around it.

Just get them to leave the bottle and it'll warm up eventually

 

[Skyring]

No laptops seems to me to be not an insurmountable problem, but certainly a change to what we're used to and it certainly will annoy some people. No LAGs, full body scanning, bomb residue testing, luggage scanning, no nail sissors even, are all things that annoy some people, but my guess is that there are very few people who would rather have those freedoms back at the risk of ending up an airline terrorist statistic.

It took less than an hour for the fourth 9/11 attack to be foiled. That's because the passengers worked out what was going on and did their best.

Why not share more information with the passengers? Their lives are directly at risk, unlike those of TSA policy wonks, screeners, or politicians.

Instead of information, every bloody time all we get are instructions on what to do and have to back-engineer the reasons why from whatever obscure pieces of information the security gods let slip.

These things happen because the black hats have already worked out their method of attack, so it's hardly a secret to them. Just to those most affected.

It seems the latest round of restrictions is because someone worked out it was possible to put explosives in laptops or ipads, hold them up to the aircraft skin, detonate them and put a hole in the aircraft.

Obviously not seen as a huge threat, because it's not a blanket ban, just a ban on a few airlines and airports.

So why bother?

 

[Deleted member 29185]

It took less than an hour for the fourth 9/11 attack to be foiled. That's because the passengers worked out what was going on and did their best ...So why bother?

Are you asking me? I'm not a spook nor am I involved in airport/airline security, I'm simply a FFer who has an opinion and do appreciate the efforts made to better our security.

But since you ask, I'll reply with my opinion. Why bother, you ask? That's pretty easy, all those pax you mention in your first two sentences died as result of some madmen being able to hijack planes. I think if we were able to ask them, they'd all agree that it would have been a far better outcome for them if those madmen were detaining before they boarded the planes ...

 

[Skyring]

Are you asking me? I'm not a spook nor am I involved in airport/airline security, I'm simply a FFer who has an opinion and do appreciate the efforts made to better our security.

But since you ask, I'll reply with my opinion. Why bother, you ask? That's pretty easy, all those pax you mention in your first two sentences died as result of some madmen being able to hijack planes. I think if we were able to ask them, they'd all agree that it would have been a far better outcome for them if those madmen were detaining before they boarded the planes ...

Are you trolling me?

If not, go back and read what I wrote. The "why bother?" was referring to a quite different point. Cheers.

 

[There'sOnlyOneJimmy]

I'd rather not deal with "security" measures that do nothing for security (ie, body scanners, liquid bans) and face the extremely small risk of being injured in any sort of airline incident.

I'm not having a go at you, just quoting your statement because it made me think [quite an achievement...], that if the existing web of occasionally annoying security measures wasn't in place, then the bad guys would probably have a very easy time making the overall airline incident statistics very much worse indeed.