Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: The Future in Travel

  1. #1

    The Future in Travel

    Flew today to Washington, DC and witnessed what I suppose will be a new era in travel. Water bottles, medications, baby formula, wine and even my tripod were not permitted past the security section of the Montreal airport! On the other side, the only means of hydration were 2 water fountains which were still working... Starbucks, Burger King, and the 2 other restos on the US destinations side had posted signs that they could no longer offer beverages due to the new rules at the airport.

    Weird thing was, I arrived in Detroit for my connection, glorious liquids were available everywhere, but had to be consumed before boarding. Gels of all types and flavours were being sold... PENS (I had to dump my pen in Montreal - it contains liquid!)...

    I am hoping this all dies down by Monday for the return flight... but I doubt it.

    Anyone else get this surprise this morning?

    xoxox
    Anik

  2. #2

    Angry This doesn't look good.

    Anik

    I too got this surprise today as I was going to catch a very early morning plane back from the US to YUL. I noticed a story on CNN as I was leaving the hotel but didn't think anything of it. When I came to check in, one of the airline employees starts asking me if I have any bottles with water, gels, etc. to carry on-board. I wasn't planning to carry anything onboard so it didn't matter but they explained everything to me at the check in counter. What I finally discovered is that no liquids, gels, pastes, etc can be brought onto the plane, only in checked bags. This includes all beverages you might purchase to bring onboard. All this due to these "Islamic facists" as Bush called them today. I'm no fan of Bush but he's right on this. Luckily, I was so early, I missed the big security line up. I did see a number of people later on that had missed connections due to the delays. Even our own flight was delayed by about 20 minutes to let people stuck in security make the flight.

    Given the severity of this new plot, they may choose to maintain this new security procedure for long time and its going to cause a lot of headaches in travel. Forget the carry-on roll-away suitcase because you have to check your toiletries. In the UK, all electronics are also being banned from entering the cabin - no laptops, cell phones, etc. If they go down that route, that will be bad. I travel a lot to the US and this has me concerned. You'll probably still have similar restrictions by Monday.

    MakeIt

    P.S. Detroit is sure a long way to get to DC! Must've been really good deal.
    I don't necessarily agree with everything I say - Marshall McLuhan

  3. #3

    It's just like taking our shoes off

    Hi fellow merbites,

    Thanks to the shoe bomber we all have to take off our shoes before boarding a flight. Now that terrorists have plotted to use Nitro Glycerine you can count on the same restrictions for fluids or lotions on any aircraft. They will be absolutely prohibited.

    Rango

  4. #4
    Security has been heightened for all air travel to and from the US. For example, the threat level has been raised to red for flights from UK to US and orange for US to UK. The new regulations bar liquids from being carried on board - except for baby formula, they should all be in the checked luggage.
    Last edited by Robin; 08-10-2006 at 08:38 PM.

  5. #5
    A poor corrupt official
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Casablanca
    Posts
    1,229
    Here's a good explanation from Stratfor, an international security consulting firm, of the dangers of homemade explosives to airliners:

    Special Report: The Tactical Side of the U.K. Airliner Plot
    Stratfor.com
    August 10, 2006

    British authorities said Aug. 10 they thwarted a militant Islamist plot to attack as many as 10 U.S.-bound passenger jets flying out of London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports. They also said they are taking extraordinary measures at British airports, such as banning carry-on luggage on trans-Atlantic flights. Liquids such as toiletry items and drinks and some small consumer electronic devices also are being banned.

    Media outlets are reporting that the operation would have caused an unimaginable catastrophe. Such an operation, however, was both imaginable and practicable. Indeed, a very similar operation -- called Operation Bojinka -- had been planned in 1994.

    After his participation in the first World Trade Center bombing, Abdel Basit (also known by the name on his fraudulent Iraqi passport, Ramzi Yousef) settled down in Manila, Philippines. He assembled a cell of operatives who began to plan a long list of terrorist attacks. One of those was Operation Bojinka, a plan to simultaneously destroy 12 airliners en route to the United States from Asian cities.

    Basit and his cell developed a modular improvised device constructed of a doll stuffed with nitrocellulose, a detonator and a timer made from a modified Casio wristwatch. Once through screening and on the plane, the devices were to be assembled in the aircraft's restroom.

    On Dec. 11, 1994, the cell tested its device on Philippine Airlines flight 434. It detonated, but did not bring down the plane. In fact it killed only one person and wounded 10 -- not the spectacular results the militants had hoped for. Based on their test results, they went back to the drawing board and decided to augment their main charge with a liquid form of an acetone peroxide explosive, which they were going to place in contact lens solution bottles. This additional quantity of a powerful explosive would be sure to give them the added punch they needed. However, while brewing the liquid explosive they lost control of the reaction and their apartment caught fire. One of Basit's laptop computers was recovered from the apartment and the plans for Bojinka were discovered. Basit left the Philippines and fled to Pakistan, where he later tried to continue the plot. He was in the process of implementing it when one of his bombers got cold feet and turned him in.

    Based on this history, and the example of convicted “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, a plot like the one thwarted Aug. 10 in Britain is not far-fetched. It is very much within the capabilities of al Qaeda and smaller independent jihadist groups. Also, when viewed through this historical lens, it is easy to understand why authorities made the decision to ban liquids and small electronic items from the passenger cabins. Indeed, nearly five years after Sept. 11 and Reid's attempted attack, civil aviation is still vulnerable. Such attacks are not that difficult to plan and execute and there are many ways that explosives can be concealed in addition to liquids. Once liquids are banned from planes, jihadists will find another alternative.

    The Bojinka plan called for the plotters to board flights with multiple legs, hide the devices and then jump off before the devices activated. The current plot, however, almost certainly was designed to use suicide operatives, because of the airports and the flights -- direct to the United States -- involved. With as many as 10 flights reportedly being targeted, that meant they had identified and trained at least 10 suicide operatives.

    Though that is only half the number of operatives involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, it is nonetheless a significant number of suicide operatives for a single mission. When combined with the number and types of targets involved -- al Qaeda is fixated on aircraft -- it does appear as if this current operation was connected to al Qaeda. There are claims that the detainees are British citizens of Pakistani origin, revealing that al Qaeda's London management team was still largely intact following the July 2005 attacks against London's transit system.

    Many questions remain, such as why the authorities waited as long as they did to wrap up this plot -- seemingly at the last minute. There are two possible explanations for this: First, because this was a very big and complex operation, it took authorities longer to identify all the operatives involved. They did not want to miss any of the suicide operatives, planners or bombmakers, and leave them free to strike another day. This difficulty might have been further complicated by al Qaeda involvement, as the group practices better operational security than grassroots cells and it would have made it harder (and taken longer) for the informant and the authorities to connect all the dots and identify all the components of the organization. The British government still is embarrassed that it was unable to identify all the elements of the 2005 Underground bombings, so there would be an incredible amount of pressure on investigators to make sure they identified all of them this time.

    Second, the informant might not have come forward until the operation was well under way. The informant very possibly is one of the suicide operatives who got cold feet and changed his mind. He might not have made the decision to bail out of the operation until quite late in the game, and then it took the British government some additional time to verify the threat, identify the other elements of the cell and then swoop in and arrest them.

    Either way, somewhere in the attack cycle there was a serious breakdown in operational security -- and the plot was thwarted. These arrests demonstrate the threat remains very real. One of two other factors also is in play, however. Either the British government's counterterrorism efforts are sufficiently robust as to allow them to penetrate al Qaeda operations in some instance at least, or, as we have discussed in the past, al Qaeda's operational security has been degraded. Either way, penetration is now more possible -- raising the possibility that, though al Qaeda remains a threat, it is not the strategic threat it once was.
    Strasser: By the way, the murder of the couriers, what has been done?
    Renault: Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the usual number of suspects.
    Heinze: We already know who the murderer is.
    Strasser: Good. Is he in custody?
    Renault: Oh, there's no hurry. Tonight he'll be at Rick's. Everybody comes to Rick's.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    89
    I've been travelling on business for about 15 years, usually about 40 - 45 weeks a year. Most of the time I travel lightly and avoid checking in luggage. Now, however, it looks like I'm going to have to get used to that routine....checking in bags, waiting an extra 20 minutes for my bag after the flight lands, suffer the occasional (hopefully VERY occasional) lost baggage. Either that, or stock up on toiletries in every city, which isn't really practicle.

    I can live with that (I think...). What bothers me is the next step...banning all electronics on flights. Having to check my laptop, cell phone, myfi. What happens next? Having to fly in the nude? hmmmmm.....come to think of it, that might be fun at times

  7. #7

    How useful are these checks though?

    I mean - I could buy a bra that has gel inserts... also, the guy at the NWA counter packed up my tripod in a big box - along with my roll-along luggage (I am not sure what the point of that was) and then taped the entire thing up. I expected that it would all be taken apart at the scanning machine - get this - no scan, just threw it on the mat to be put on the plane. Let me tell you - I DO NOT feel any safer because of this!

    xoxox
    Anik

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by MakeIt
    Anik

    MakeIt

    P.S. Detroit is sure a long way to get to DC! Must've been really good deal.
    A great deal - try 600$ US for roundtrip flight - 4 nights hotel (at a decent DC hotel!) - I gotta love travelocity and their last minute deals - great stuff!

    xoxox
    Anik

  9. #9
    Retired veteran hobbyist
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    17,819
    I always have carry-on when i travel. I suppose i won't be able to bring any toothpaste, mouthwash, hair gel, cologne, KY, etc. This sucks!!

    Maybe i'll have to ask one of my local friends if i can leave with him/her some of the things i'll have to buy once i get into town. I can't start throwing away toothpaste, mouthwash and all the other stuff everytime i'm about to leave town! What about my contact lenses' solution?

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
    I always have carry-on when i travel. I suppose i won't be able to bring any toothpaste, mouthwash, hair gel, cologne, KY, etc. This sucks!!
    Hi doc,

    I haven't brought any of that stuff with me on travels for years. Most hotels provide the basics (soap, shampoo, etc..), and anything they don't provide, I'll buy the "mini" version in either a gift shop or local pharmacy.

    For me, I started doing it with shampoos after an unfortunate exploding bottle episode, and I just started doing it to more and more items, until now, I pretty much only carry my own toothbrush, and nothing else.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
    I suppose i won't be able to bring any toothpaste, mouthwash, hair gel, cologne, KY, etc.
    There you have it, it is not the evil terrorist, it is the toileteries lobby.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    2,116
    What I think will be most annoying for me is that I usually try to ONLY bring carry-on. This way there is no such thing as lost luggage, and when we land I can skip the baggage claim.

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    They will forget what you said,
    they will forget what you did,
    but they will never forget the way you made them feel.

  13. #13
    Working rage-aholic
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    a rocky planet with one moon
    Posts
    863
    I can't bring my own beverage into a ballpark or a theatre. I have to pay outrageous fees for their product. Why am I allowed to bring beverages on a plane? Airlines are in financial trouble, too. Extra revenue would be helpful, any way they can get it.

    As for the national guardsmen at the airport, they're pure window dressing. No terrorist plot has ever been thwarted at the airport. Intelligence is the key.
    Why are homely people discriminated against...we're the majority

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Heavy D
    Hi doc,

    I haven't brought any of that stuff with me on travels for years. Most hotels provide the basics (soap, shampoo, etc..), and anything they don't provide, I'll buy the "mini" version in either a gift shop or local pharmacy.

    .
    I've thought of that, but I sometimes do 2 or 3 cities in a week. If I had to replace everything at every stop, it would cost a fortune. I guess there will now be an additional expense line on my invoice to customers..."toiletries - $40.00" lol

    On the occasions where I know I'll be spending a few weeks or months in one city, I think I'm going to leave my stuff with the hotel front desk when I check out on friday and pick it up again when I check back in on monday. A PITA, but it's either that or checking bags.

    As for carrying beverages on the plane, that I'm not sorry to see go. I can't count the number of times I've seen people spilling coffee, soft drinks, etc while trying to navigate the aisles with a drink in one hand and multiple bags with the other. It may even have happened to me once or twice! lol

  15. #15
    Lover of Life
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    103
    Does anyone know if it's just international flights that are increasing security like this? or is it happening with domestic flights as well?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •