I have just endured another check-in at London Heathrow. And frankly, endure is the only word to use. I removed just about everything so each item could be scanned separately, I followed the new ludicrous restrictions on baggage size and it still took 45 minutes to get everything done.
Before some of you shriek, "better tight security than being blown up in mid-air," let me point out that this blog is being written on board a flight across the Atlantic (UA with miles going into Mileage Plus) so I think I have a stronger vested-interest in good security than most.
But the new rules and regulations -- especially the ridiculous restrictions on the amount of hand baggage that can be taken on board -- don't make any sense. New restrictions at UK airports, including London's Heathrow, mean your bag can be no more than 45 cm by 35 cm by 16 cm. It's the 16 cm width that is absolutely impractical. Take my usual carry-on bag, a Travelpro used by a very large number of flight attendants that is at least 20 cm wide. With the new rules, you can effectively carry only a ladies' handbag or a briefcase -- provided you don't put anything in it!
It's not often I agree with Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary, but when he says the terrorists must be "rolling around the caves of Pakistan, laughing at us," and describes the rules as "insane and farcical," he has a point. I won't comment on his threat to sue the British Government. That would be taking sides in a potential legal action that I might have to report upon.
What worries me is that there is no agreement on the sizes that can be taken on board. Earlier this week I flew from Riga to London (Air Baltic tip: get a front row seat where there is more leg room -- no air miles). Flying out, it was the last day of the "no hand baggage" rule, but coming back, Air Baltic were concerned only about liquids or gels and certainly didn't bat an eyelid at the size of the bag I'd had to check in on my flight there.
This is silly. It means airports across Europe are going to be in competition with each other, to prove which is the most user-friendly. Although all will be safe, some airports will clearly be preferred because of their more "relaxed" approach to carry on luggage.
And here I pity poor Heathrow. Why, oh why would you transfer at LHR when you face much stricter restrictions on the size of hand luggage and you risk having to check your modicum amount of hand baggage? If your trip involves going through a European hub, I foresee travelers doing everything they can to avoid the British airports.
This is very, very sad. I have always loved London Airport (as it used to be called). There is an excitement about the place -- the range of destinations, the number of airlines, the look and feel of this true global hub, "the world's busiest international airport."
Frequent flyers will vote with their tickets. They will change at AMS or CDG. They will route themselves through MUC or even MAN. Heathrow's mantle will be toppled not by the terrorists, but by stupid regulations that fails to introduce proper sane security measures.
BA's woes
P.S.: Spare a thought for poor old British Airways -- its new, much-vaunted luggage policy is in tatters along with its schedule and hub. The airline was introducing new luggage restrictions, even before this latest crisis, whereby passengers would have been allowed one piece of carry-on baggage of any weight, so long as it would go into the overheard safely. They would ALSO be allowed a laptop or briefcase. No bag must weigh more than 23 kilograms (50 pounds) in the hold. Incidentally, the new restrictions have angered frequent flyers, and infuriated global travelers (see this month's excellent review in Business Traveller magazine.)
But hey, BA's rules are irrelevant now. In the current climate, we are allowed only one piece of much smaller hand baggage at Britain's airports. Surely BA won't stick to the silly 23 kilogram rule if we are all having to shoehorn more stuff into our suitcase -- or maybe it will because that way we will have to check more bags in, and the airline can make more money on excess! C'mon BA. What's the policy going to be?
Forum
From:Michael Gorgel Posted: August 22, 2006 Comment: Richard, I totally agree with you that the carry-on rules suck, I fly a lot within the U.S. and outside but I'm going to avoid LHR till they relax the rules again. I was booked on a LHR flight to rent a car and visit a friend in Manchester then drive back to LHR and fly to AMS to visit my parents in The Hague. I just wrote an e-mail to my friend in Manchester to cancel my visit there and told him that I will be flying to AMS direct only carrying the minimal in my carry-on. I totally understand the precautions but in this case I think they went a bridge to far.
From: John F. Leech Phoenix, AZ Posted: August 23, 2006 Comment: After reading Mr. Quest's blog, I've formed a few opinions, but the most important one is ... Richard Quest needs to go back to reporting on the inane. Of course the immediate airline travel baggage restrictions, just after a thwarted terrorist plot, are a knee-jerk reaction. Of course the policies border on the ridiculous. What real choice to governments and airlines have? If they keep security at the same level or reduce security, and something happens, then the law suits will crush an airport, airline or government. Are the new security measures, since 11 September, 2001, providing us with safer air travel? NO. Does the general public perceive that airline travel is more safe? YES. Will most people adapt, over time, to these new airline baggage rules? YES. London Heathrow and London Gatwick are but the first airports to institute these policies. US Airports were doing the same banning of liquids and gels the same week. Next, after today, will be Amsterdam. The rest of Europe and the US/CANADA will soon follow, along with JAPAN/KOREA/AUSTRALIA etc. The major airlines will demand that the rest of the world follows suit. In a matter of months, this will be the only way to fly. IN all this London and BA are setting the trend, not going it alone. All the airlines/airports will all have the same policies and procedures in a matter of months.P.S. Mr. Quest, please don't fly in/out of Manchester Airport as that's my home. I would hate to be behind you in a security line, you with your oversized baggage, containing banded items, that may wind-up in an overhead baggage compartment over my head.
From: Alain Meloche Posted: August 24, 2006 Comment: Mr. Quest, I am booked next week , to suffer through LHR, to go to work. I will advise my company to never book me through London again. I do not enjoy the alternatives, but in this case they are better.
From: Philip Townsend, Bali, Indonesia Posted: August 24, 2006 Comment: I fully agree with your comments and I believe that unless common sense prevails soon, both BA and, in particular BAA are going to be in trouble. I live in Bali, Indonesia and travel through Europe frequently, often transiting Heathrow. I will not do that now. Like most frequent travelers (and all Americans?) wherever possible I prefer to carry all my (minimum possible) luggage onboard. This avoids the risk of all too frequent loss and an additional hour at many airports waiting for bags at the carousel. BAA will have particular problems because not only will it lose transit passengers but also the loss of duty free sales will force airport franchisees to demand lower concession fees, which comprise a significant proportion of BAA earnings. Conversely, duty free sales (other than on flights to and from The UK and The U.S.) represents a new revenue opportunity for cash-strapped airlines. I do believe that UK authorities have already recognized this evolving problem and have generously offered to assist other European airports bring themselves up to "the same high standards as British airports to ensure that the terrorists do not take advantage of lower security at other European airports." This is, in my opinion, disingenuous at best. I just flew yesterday from Beijing via Singapore to Bali and on neither flight, mercifully, has anything changed, bags on board and some fine wines to bring home from the excellent duty free facilities in Singapore. Next week I must fly to Cape Town and I have told my travel agent to route me via AMS, FRA or CDG but definitely not LHR. Perhaps most importantly of all, I believe that the terrorists are winning by eroding the civil liberties and ways of life which have taken hundreds of years to develop in civilized society.
From: U.S. citizen, Greece Posted: August 24, 2006 Comment: My Mother and family are coming from the U.S. to Greece for my daughter's baptism. Of course this means lots of presents and some of which needed to be carried on. My mother was to bring her new laptop so that I can set it up for her. With the new problems, gifts are left behind and will probably be lost in the mail as this is generally what happens with packages from the U.S. to Greece. Not to mention already long travel time, now extended with the precautions. Something so wonderful has turned into a mess. Not only has most of my family elected not to travel as the prices are already ridiculously high due to September 11th as airlines have been forced to raise prices to pay for added security measures, but now they have made it all but impossible to have a reasonable time traveling. I am all for protection and the safety of passengers and the countries, but with already booming rates and added security measures, the travel industry everywhere is being hard hit once again. I hope that the airlines will be kind enough to inform upcoming passengers that lap tops will in fact be allowed, so that they do not arrive at the last minute under false information.
From: Garrett Kenny, Dublin, Ireland Posted: August 24, 2006 Comment: Hi Richard, totally agree with your points on this. Am sitting in Prague airport as I write this. Direct flight back to Dublin overbooked. Given choice of flying through Heathrow and arriving home at 16.55 or through Schiphol and getting back at 18.20 ... Went for the later Schiphol itinerary as Heathrow is not worth the hassle.
CNN.com gives you the latest stories and video from the around the world, with in-depth coverage of U.S. news, politics, entertainment, health, crime, tech and more.
CNN.com gives you the latest stories and video from the around the world, with in-depth coverage of U.S. news, politics, entertainment, health, crime, tech and more.
External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pay service with live and archived video. 
