Aviation Discussion

[Airline Man]

An article from the Telegraph about BA's declining standards if service. Okay, it's concentrating on First Class, but service levels are declining even faster in the other cabins and on the ground.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/n...anair-as-fresh-flowers-latest-victim-of-cuts/

BA's CEO, Alex Cruz ran Vuelling, iberia's no-frills subsidiary and is merely repeating the formula with BA. I work for them and its soul destroying how quickly all the 'frills' are going and having to justify them to staff (knowing that I don't agree with them).

 

[Joe Paxton]

Well I'll admit defeat. Apparently Luton airport should be in a top 10 and worth visiting. What a world we live in.

Truth is a lot of people just really aren't that fussed if the price of the flight is right.

Flyers aren't visiting Luton airport, they are visiting wherever their aeroplane takes them (or have just visited the UK).

 

[ld0595]

A UK flight ban on laptops and tablets is to be announced on flights to the Middle East

The UK is due to announce a ban on laptops and other electronic devices on certain passenger flights, following a similar move by the US.
It is understood the UK restrictions may differ from the US Department of Homeland Security's ban, which affects laptops and tablets.
Flights from 10 airports in eight Muslim majority countries are subject to the US announcement.
US officials said bombs could be hidden in a series of devices.
BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said the UK move was "obviously part of coordinated action with the US".
The attempted downing of an airliner in Somalia last year was linked to a laptop device and it appears the security precautions are an attempt to stop similar incidents, our correspondent added.
Under the US move, large electronic devices will only be allowed on board in checked baggage. Phones are exempt from the new rules.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said extremists were seeking "innovative methods" to bring down jets.
Passengers on some 50 flights a day from some of the busiest hubs in the Middle East, Turkey and North Africa would be required to follow the new rules.
The airlines affected by the US ban are: Royal Jordanian, Egypt Air, Turkish Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Kuwait Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Qatar Airways, Emirates and Etihad Airways.
The Turkish government has said the US ban is wrong and should be reversed.

Thoughts?

 

[Airline Man]

A UK flight ban on laptops and tablets is to be announced on flights to the Middle East



Thoughts?

It seems a bit harsh to ban laptops on planes after an incident in Somalia where, I safely think airport security is poor to non-existent. In the meantime, more confusion and queues at check in and security with passengers unaware of the rules. Even today some passengers are unaware of the liquids rule.

Just something else to live with.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Thoughts?

Maybe I'm a cynic, but the US airlines have been bitching for a good few years about the Middle East Big Three stealing all their business.

Funnily enough, US airlines are exempt from this new rule, it's just the airlines that have their hubs in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha that will suffer the most.

I'm sure that's just coincidence.

 

[Butts]

An article from the Telegraph about BA's declining standards if service. Okay, it's concentrating on First Class, but service levels are declining even faster in the other cabins and on the ground.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/n...anair-as-fresh-flowers-latest-victim-of-cuts/

BA's CEO, Alex Cruz ran Vuelling, iberia's no-frills subsidiary and is merely repeating the formula with BA. I work for them and its soul destroying how quickly all the 'frills' are going and having to justify them to staff (knowing that I don't agree with them).

I can confirm this having taken 6 BA Flights this Month on Short Haul in the UK and Europe.

EDI - LHR No Breakfast

LHR-LUX No packet crisps / Scotch/ Coffee

LUX-LHR Repeat Above

LHR- EDI Repeat Above

LGW-GVA No Breakfast

GVA-LGW No Crisps / Scotch/ Coffee

I'm afraid the "race to the bottom" is well and truly alive and kicking. Prices are as much now for no frills as they used to be for a full service so the cheaper fares are an illusion. Personally I would rather pay a tenner more and keep the freebies but I am probably in a minority.

The BOB on BA is now working from what I experienced on the above flights, but they need to start doing "Meal Deals" like Flybe if they expect it to really take off

I can't see how staff would object to BOB in Economy as there job is now a lot easier - instead of a virtual 100% take up when free the charging model is I would guess 30% at the most.

 

[berneyarms]

Maybe I'm a cynic, but the US airlines have been bitching for a good few years about the Middle East Big Three stealing all their business.

Funnily enough, US airlines are exempt from this new rule, it's just the airlines that have their hubs in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha that will suffer the most.

I'm sure that's just coincidence.

No US airlines fly to any of the airports in those countries from what I can tell.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No US airlines fly to any of the airports in those countries from what I can tell.

No, but US airlines and their codeshare partners fly plenty of other places where the ME3 compete.

Most traffic through those three airports is transit traffic, which will be subject to the same rules as traffic that originates there.

I think it has little to do with security and lots to do with commercial self-interest.

 

[berneyarms]

No, but US airlines and their codeshare partners fly plenty of other places where the ME3 compete.

Most traffic through those three airports is transit traffic, which will be subject to the same rules as traffic that originates there.

I think it has little to do with security and lots to do with commercial self-interest.

So how do you square that with the UK ban which excludes the ME3 bases and includes BA and EasyJet?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

If this is a long term thing, and given that the liquids and shoes are still going many years later, airlines will need to reverse their policy of reducing on-flight entertainment offerings because people are using their tablets.

 

[dcsprior]

A UK flight ban on laptops and tablets is to be announced on flights to the Middle East



Thoughts?

How on earth would that work logistically? Would UK airports have some security lanes for middle-east airports where staff wouldn't allow you through with a laptop, and prevent passengers with a ticket for these airports going through the remaining lanes? Also if phones are allowed, where do you draw the line: is a 6" phablet OK? If so, what about a 7" tablet with a SIM card in? Or a 10" with a SIM? Technically all three of these are phones, and all three are tablets.

I likely have to go to India later this year for work. Travelling from Edinburgh, it looked like the best option would probably (depending on what dates etc) be involve changing in the middle east, but this would encourage me to change elsewhere.

 

[atillathehunn]

How on earth would that work logistically? Would UK airports have some security lanes for middle-east airports where staff wouldn't allow you through with a laptop, and prevent passengers with a ticket for these airports going through the remaining lanes? Also if phones are allowed, where do you draw the line: is a 6" phablet OK? If so, what about a 7" tablet with a SIM card in? Or a 10" with a SIM? Technically all three of these are phones, and all three are tablets.

I likely have to go to India later this year for work. Travelling from Edinburgh, it looked like the best option would probably (depending on what dates etc) be involve changing in the middle east, but this would encourage me to change elsewhere.

When I travelled through Istanbul in the aftermath of the Egypt bomb and there were more stringent checks on passengers leaving Turkey and going to the UK, the additional securty check was completed at the gate. This involved a passport check followed by complete check of hand luggage and switching on of devices.

I would imagine the set up will be very similar.

 

[me123]

I likely have to go to India later this year for work. Travelling from Edinburgh, it looked like the best option would probably (depending on what dates etc) be involve changing in the middle east, but this would encourage me to change elsewhere.

Interesting to note that, whilst the US have imposed the ban for the UAE, the UK have not done so. So, if you do go to India, you can take your laptop/tablet/whatever on the plane if you go with Etihad (although you wouldn't be able to do so with Turkish).

How will this work? I'd suspect screening at the gate is the answer. Won't be a pretty sight though - about a year ago I overhead someone at Edinburgh airport asking if water was a liquid.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If this is a long term thing, and given that the liquids and shoes

Liquids are, but shoes aren't. I have not had to remove my shoes at airport security for many years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How on earth would that work logistically? Would UK airports have some security lanes for middle-east airports where staff wouldn't allow you through with a laptop, and prevent passengers with a ticket for these airports going through the remaining lanes? Also if phones are allowed, where do you draw the line: is a 6" phablet OK? If so, what about a 7" tablet with a SIM card in? Or a 10" with a SIM? Technically all three of these are phones, and all three are tablets.

The UK has specified maximum measurements.

 

[fowler9]

I'm kind of guessing this relates to some specific security intel out there in relation to something somebody somewhere had planned. Very possibly overkill but hey ho. Always found parts of the whole security relations odd. Some ten years ago I wasn't allowed to take a lighter on a plane from Liverpool to Barcelona, on the way back I was. More recently I was asked to take my trainers off going through security from Liverpool to Amsterdam about 2 1/2 years ago. Many inconsistencies.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So how do you square that with the UK ban which excludes the ME3 bases and includes BA and EasyJet?

The UK ban doesn't include Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha, and doesn't exempt domestic carriers...

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm kind of guessing this relates to some specific security intel out there in relation to something somebody somewhere had planned.

There was a laptop bomb on a plane from Mogadishu last year. It did a lot of damage but the plane landed safely.

Of course the bomb was given to the passenger airside by airport staff, one assumes to avoid passenger security screening, but Trump and May aren't going to let that get in the way of anything.

 

[berneyarms]

The UK ban doesn't include Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha, and doesn't exempt domestic carriers...

I know that. That was the whole point of my question to you.

You're saying this is a commercial decision by the US to focus on the ME3, yet the UK has ignored the 3 ME3 hubs and has included UK carriers which would surely suggest that there is some form of intelligence based threat behind this?

Or are you saying that it's a hybrid and that the USA are combining both?

Incidentally I see that Canada is now considering a similar ban.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Or are you saying that it's a hybrid and that the USA are combining both?

My initial opinion was before the UK followed suit, but yes, I think the US are using it as an excuse to get a good kick in to the ME3. US carriers don't fly to the Middle East, but they do fly to plenty of other places where the ME3 are undercutting them. The fact they were given a specific exemption is telling.

If there was specific intelligence that the airports at Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi were weakened then I would have expected the UK to follow suit.

 

[atillathehunn]

Were this just the US I would assume it's posturing - making life harder for travellers from certain countries (although friendly-ish countries), one in the eye to the ME3 and a general trend towards isolationist foreign policy.

However, the fact the UK joined in the party makes it seem a little more evidence based. We have a lot more to lose from the ban than the US, and have lumped in our own carriers which will - as others have noted - likely cause quite a bit of trouble (though I wouldn't go possibly as far as chaos).

Canada joining the mess seems to almost confirm evidence based. They have been very quick to prove they will do the opposite to the US in foreign policy, and I don't think they would take this decision lightly.

I think people have jumped a bit too quick on the Daallo airlines bomb. This is proof of concept. They will have received some kind of intel that means the ban is in place. The fact you're now encouraged to put the devices in the hold seems to fly in the face of all previous advice to not put any of this kind of device (specifically their battery) in the hold.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think people have jumped a bit too quick on the Daallo airlines bomb. This is proof of concept. They will have received some kind of intel that means the ban is in place.

I think it's a bit of a hybrid, extending the specific intelligence to give a boot to economic rivals to US companies.

The Mogadishu bomb was definitely proof of concept. But I still find it problematic because the proof of concept was delivered by airport staff and not a passenger getting it through security. And a bomb in the hold isn't so very different from a bomb in the cabin, the only real difference is a passenger can guarantee they are next to the fuselage.

 

[atillathehunn]

I think it's a bit of a hybrid, extending the specific intelligence to give a boot to economic rivals to US companies.

The Mogadishu bomb was definitely proof of concept. But I still find it problematic because the proof of concept was delivered by airport staff and not a passenger getting it through security. And a bomb in the hold isn't so very different from a bomb in the cabin, the only real difference is a passenger can guarantee they are next to the fuselage.

Your argument perhaps is seen to hold water given that the UAE isn't included in the UK ban but is in the US is perhaps evidence of getting one over on the ME3 - though only a possibility.

Though, having said that, it's possibly concern that the UAE serves destinations that are perhaps a little crisis hit at the moment and they might be concerned that transit security in Dubai wouldn't pick it up (thinking Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen).

Well I suppose we didn't need evidence that a bomb damages a plane - that stands to reason. So I didn't mean that.

I meant that there is evidence from Mogadishu and from Sharm that security can be infiltrated pretty easily from the inside, and that's where the concern lies. I would imagine that's what has precipitated this - a threat from IS (as reported on the BBC this morning) that they have people inside security working on a threat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. The US may be adding countries on for other reasons, but I think the UK rule is likely to be with good reason - especially considering the issues already experienced in Egypt.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Your argument perhaps is seen to hold water given that the UAE isn't included in the UK ban but is in the US is perhaps evidence of getting one over on the ME3 - though only a possibility.

It's something the Washington Post have commented on.

My personal belief is that some of it is based on a genuine threat, but bringing the ME3 into it is purely retaliatory.

Though, having said that, it's possibly concern that the UAE serves destinations that are perhaps a little crisis hit at the moment and they might be concerned that transit security in Dubai wouldn't pick it up (thinking Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen).

No doubt that is the official line.

I meant that there is evidence from Mogadishu and from Sharm that security can be infiltrated pretty easily from the inside, and that's where the concern lies. I would imagine that's what has precipitated this - a threat from IS (as reported on the BBC this morning) that they have people inside security working on a threat.

I wonder if they've discovered something about the Egyptair crash last year, the investigation on that seems to have gone very quiet...

 

[jon0844]

Were this just the US I would assume it's posturing - making life harder for travellers from certain countries (although friendly-ish countries), one in the eye to the ME3 and a general trend towards isolationist foreign policy.

However, the fact the UK joined in the party makes it seem a little more evidence based. We have a lot more to lose from the ban than the US, and have lumped in our own carriers which will - as others have noted - likely cause quite a bit of trouble (though I wouldn't go possibly as far as chaos).

Canada joining the mess seems to almost confirm evidence based. They have been very quick to prove they will do the opposite to the US in foreign policy, and I don't think they would take this decision lightly.

I think people have jumped a bit too quick on the Daallo airlines bomb. This is proof of concept. They will have received some kind of intel that means the ban is in place. The fact you're now encouraged to put the devices in the hold seems to fly in the face of all previous advice to not put any of this kind of device (specifically their battery) in the hold.

It is weird given I flew to Barcelona and easyJet staff taking cabin bags for the hold made people remove all electronic items, as - to directly quote one lady - they might blow up in the hold.

I found it weird, but amusing at the time, that staff would actually tell people about something potentially blowing up. I can't help but feel someone might take exception, especially if nervous already.

I guess advice changes though. Like the use of electronic devices on a plane.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Is the sarky jibe really necessary?

As, I would imagine, 99.99999% of the people on this forum are not professional pilots what else do we have to say? My experience of flying is limited to sitting down the back. That's aviation. And we're discussing.

And how many forum members know very much about front-line railway operations? Yet there are countless discussions about such matters. If your interest in aviation goes no further than "sitting down the back" then fine. But that doesn't mean other forum members should be prevented from engaging in more technical discussions. Perhaps it's time to have a separate aviation sub-forum similar to that which exists for buses and coaches thereby allowing the different types of discussion to be kept separate.

Did you bring anything to the table as a counterpoint?

Circular runways could be a good solution to the noise problems.

Optimal approach won't mean all that much in this kind of environment, and the theoretical appeal will be tempered by the practicalities.

Innovative, potentially useful in challenging airports to boost capacity.

There is in fact a separate thread discussing this now and in it you will find plenty of explanations why the idea has little value in the real world.

 

[atillathehunn]

And how many forum members know very much about front-line railway operations? Yet there are countless discussions about such matters. If your interest in aviation goes no further than "sitting down the back" then fine. But that doesn't mean other forum members should be prevented from engaging in more technical discussions. Perhaps it's time to have a separate aviation sub-forum similar to that which exists for buses and coaches thereby allowing the different types of discussion to be kept separate.



There is in fact a separate thread discussing this now and in it you will find plenty of explanations why the idea has little value in the real world.

No one is preventing you. I take umbridge at you implying otherwise. I do find the topic interesting, but there is no one on here who's opinion I would find valuable on the subject.

This is the point; there are a great many on the railway side of the forum whose opinion is substantive and interesting. I read the forums for the input from these people. I generally ignore the rest, or treat it as circumstantial.

Thanks for highlighting the other thread.

I also take umbridge that discussion of the public side isn't 'aviation' as you rudely tried to claim earlier. If you don't wish to read this, don't read it. I don't recall you trying to raise the quality of debate.


I do enjoy hearing experiences of travel, the merits of different airports, recalling times gone by and journeys made, scenes surveyed, airport hospitals visited with assorted tropical diseases.

Different strokes for different folks, but please don't sark from the sidelines without offering substantive action to change the present course.

 

[atillathehunn]

It is weird given I flew to Barcelona and easyJet staff taking cabin bags for the hold made people remove all electronic items, as - to directly quote one lady - they might blow up in the hold.

I found it weird, but amusing at the time, that staff would actually tell people about something potentially blowing up. I can't help but feel someone might take exception, especially if nervous already.

I guess advice changes though. Like the use of electronic devices on a plane.

Yes, this change in advice makes me believe the threat is credible.

We know that the lithium type batteries are prone to combustion. There are a number of reports floating round, and of course the notable Samsung scandal.

So we have no reason to believe the battery in the hold ban was scare-mongering particularly.

Therefore given the advice is now to put them in the hold says, on the balance of probability, the risk from an electronic device being used as a bomb is now greater than the chance of an exploding battery.

It might be that in the hold there is better a fire supression system. It also might be that the 'bomb-proof' blanket idea has taken off. It was touted by a university team (I think) a while ago as a solution to another Lockerbie style attack.

This kind of change isn't taken lightly, and especially not by two (I think soon to be three) governments.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I also take umbridge that discussion of the public side isn't 'aviation' as you rudely tried to claim earlier. If you don't wish to read this, don't read it. I don't recall you trying to raise the quality of debate.

And yet you said:

My experience of flying is limited to sitting down the back. That's aviation. And we're discussing.

As if the on-board experience is the only thing worth discussing.

You also said:

Did you bring anything to the table as a counterpoint?

and also:

I do find the topic interesting, but there is no one on here who's opinion I would find valuable on the subject.

Perhaps you would prefer it if the discussion was limited to those only with similar interests and opinions to your own. Maybe you would find a suitable Facebook group preferable.

I do enjoy hearing experiences of travel, the merits of different airports, recalling times gone by and journeys made, scenes surveyed, airport hospitals visited with assorted tropical diseases.

Different strokes for different folks, but please don't sark from the sidelines without offering substantive action to change the present course.

Again, you suggest only opinions broadly conforming with your own, whether in content or general direction, are acceptable. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list. In the meantime this forum continues to be open to all who abide by its rules.