Flights to Sharm el-Sheikh delayed/cancelled

Moto2

Fairly simple really, you prioritise things like bombs, as they're a tad terminal if they get through, that means there's less resource for other things.

If they can't prevent a bomb getting through 3 separate systems given the current situation and knowledge, I wouldn't call their security tight.

peachyprice

Pincher wrote: »

Say what you like, the Egyptian military/police has a pretty tight hold on things, the tour guide needs permits to go on excursions, and there are checkpoints everywhere.

No they haven't and they never did have. Smoke and mirrors all of it, designed to give the illusion of safety for tourists at the cheapest cost to the government.

Moto2

There's plenty of evidence that their security is far from tight scattered all over the Sinai Desert

eDicky

Pincher wrote: »

If security could be 100% effective, how do drugs get through all the time?

Drug traffickers buy the cooperation of corrupt officials and staff at ports and airports, but these facilities are not extended to terrorists for obvious commercial reasons. They need to infiltrate or gain sympathisers among staff, something that is very hard to counter 100% in a Moslem country unless the airlines take their own security measures, which Metrojet apparently was not doing.

Pincher

I seem to remember there was a £20 device some con merchant was selling for thousands to security people. It was supposed to detect multiple forms of explosives. The procuring minister was either clueless or corrupt, and signed a deal for millions.

There are too many ways security could be compromised, not least hacking breaches. One of these days, they just plant a virus in the flight computer, and point it at Buckingham Palace. Guess what, it's the RAF that will shoot you down.

PompeyPete

An entertaining and informative article...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3311344/Where-cut-price-package-hols-Gaza-strip-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-doesn-t-understand-Britons-willing-families-risk-search-cheap-break.html

I've been to Sharm once, out of season for a week, before joining a Thomson cruise. Is it really like this...

"A friend of mine used to run a company catering for Scottish sunseekers. He told me that after they'd had a few pre-flight sherberts at Glasgow airport, he could have taken them anywhere, just so long as the sun was shining and the beer was cheap.

All these resorts look the same and few people ever venture much further than the all-you-can-eat salmonella buffet. The whole point is to drink yourself silly and come home with a radioactive tan and a souvenir donkey."

Moto2

I refuse to open a link to the Daily Fail but get the gist of it and agree 100%
I once got persuaded to go on an AI with friends, never again, I didn't really feel I fitted in TBH.
I don't lay in the sun, drink or smoke so I was in a minority of one, or so it seemed.

dawyldthing

I'm not a big fan of all inclusive as it only benefits the fat cats at the top with a pile it high and sell it cheap approach

814man

To be fair the DM article is not really all about AI, but more related to why people choose to go to destinations such as Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia etc when for a similar price you can get to the US or Caribbean, which historically have been far safer destinations.

PompeyPete

Spent all of this September in Vietnam.

Total spend came to less than £2,000 for 2 of us...

- Flights. 2 x return LHR to Saigon £864

- Internal Flights x 3 for 2 of us. £189

- Accommodation. 27 nights good standard B&B in 6 locations. £547

- Spending money for everything else for 4 weeks £325

- Visas x 2. £72

Total: £1,997