Foreign Perspectives

In days gone by you could carry quite a selection of items onboard: case (up to 110 cm total dimensions) plus an assortment “personal items” which include such things as a handbag, coat, umbrella, walking stick, camera, a reasonable amount of reading material, essential medication, binoculars and briefcase or laptop. Bring a child and you can add a child seat and can take the pram up to the aircraft door.

Those are the former “official” items that you could bring but, as we’ve all seen, you could bring on bags substantially larger and, of course, you could always buy more stuff in the shops and dutyfree after you checked in which consequently was never weighed and had the overall effect that some people could barely carry the bags onto the plane. So, in reality, nobody paid much attention to the official list of items but even if you did, there was a very substantial chunk of luggage that could legimately be taken onto the plane. That’s before you even consider the exceptions that were always made.

Fly from the UK today and you’ll find that things are a good deal more strict. The case is now down to 55cm (essentially a laptop bag) and the personal items have all but disappeared from the allowances. It’s been a while since you could take a syringe on without proving that you were diabetic but even liquid medicines now require a prescription to prove that you need them.

Also out are the exceptions. So that precious cello that can’t go in the unpressurised baggage hold can’t go which is causing some grief with musicians who travel around.

OK, I do accept that the security risk at the moment means that there will need to be limitations on what can be carried through security checks. However, that’s the point: it’s the security checks that are limiting what can be carried on. The only real reason that you can carry on a 55cm bag is that business in the UK would grind to a halt if laptops couldn’t be carried around as airlines simply aren’t equipped to carry large numbers of fragile items in the hold. Is a 55cm bag packed with electronic equipment “less risky” onboard than a cello? Quite obviously it isn’t: a cello looks very simple on an x-ray, a laptop is anything but simple.

So why not the cello? Well, simply because the authorities don’t want to complicate the life of the security people with growing lists of exceptions. The large number of passengers passing through security checks means that yes/no decisions need to be taken quickly and at very low levels. The people on the ground screening your luggage almost certainly don’t know why they are excluding certain items, just that if an item isn’t on their list then it’s not permitted. Which is, of course, the problem – they need to be educated as to why each restriction is in place. For instance, all liquids, gels and the like are out because numerous explosives come in that form but I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people checking your luggage don’t know that’s the reason.

With some education, perhaps we could get back to a sensible carryon allowance. A 110cm bag full of clothes is much easier to check than a 55cm one with a laptop. For one thing, the complex electronics that make up a modern laptop could easily conceal a bomb timer; that’s even before you consider the battery which usually isn’t transparent on a scanner. In practical terms, I suspect that one extra bag needs to be permitted to carry passports, tickets and the like but I’d be inclined to call a halt beyond that for the majority of people.