An opportunity for the railways to capitalise if short-haul face these restrictions in future??
No.
Seriously think the EU should come down with a law that states every passenger can have 5kg for free in the hold. That would be plenty for laptops, liquids and a GPS device to find out where your bag's gone.
I'm sure they will, contact your MEP for it. If enough of us agree it will become a regulation
Oh wait, we're leaving the EU. Oh well, perhaps write a letter to the daily mail.
Hold luggage is dropped subject to impact testing, rifled through subject to enhanced tactile inspection, and frequently lost often given diverse routing, so is less attractive as an attack vector.
Genuine LOL
Yes, this. Or pay by card and keep only a small sum of cash for when you can't. I've done this in all sorts of places.
Worth having 50 quid in GBP with you just in case there's an issue to tide you over, you can always change it at the airport (at a whacking fee) if it comes to it.
If travelling outside of EU/US/certain far east countries, I'd suggest £50 and $50, possibly 50 too, stored in at least 2 locations. However Howard's point of putting £1000 in the hold. Some people have trousers that cost that much. To me, losing a laptop in a hold costs time -- you need to find a store in your destination city, buy a new laptop, find some decent internet connectivity, and reprovision your laptop (restoring files etc). All of this costs a ton of time, if you've flown to Cairo or Amaan for 48 hours to visit a client, you're screwed. Fortunately this doesn't apply to the outbound leg, only the inbound leg, so much of that goes away for UK citizens.
The alternative of course is to fly with KLM or Lufthansa and bypass the ban.
Washington Post have an alternative take
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-underlying-story/?utm_term=.cd2df94d4253
It may not be about security. Three of the airlines that have been targeted for these measures Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways have long been accused by their U.S. competitors of receiving massive effective subsidies from their governments. These airlines have been quietly worried for months that President Trump was going to retaliate. This may be the retaliation.
These three airlines, as well as the other airlines targeted in the order, are likely to lose a major amount of business from their most lucrative customers people who travel in business class and first class. Business travelers are disproportionately likely to want to work on the plane the reason they are prepared to pay business-class or first-class fares is because it allows them to work in comfort. These travelers are unlikely to appreciate having to do all their work on smartphones, or not being able to work at all. The likely result is that many of them will stop flying on Gulf airlines, and start traveling on U.S. airlines instead.
....
In this context, the United States is plausibly leveraging its control over access to U.S. airports, which are central nodes in the global network of air travel between different destinations. It is using this control to attack the key vulnerabilities of other networked actors, by going after the central nodes in their networks (the hub airports) and potentially severely damaging them.
If there's an element of protectionism occurring against the big 3 gulf carriers (which are all excellent, and cheap), I don't expect it to go away any time soon.
Flights to the US often attract extra security overseen by the US government at the gate, in addition to local airport security - and that's even from the UK. BA do the same thing from some airports (Last time I went to Nairobi for example). In that case, why is the cabin security situation for an American Airlines flight from Dubai to New York any different for an Emirates flight from Dubai to New York? Any why isn't Dubai included in the UK's clampdown?
