Security costs Jobs [Archive]

Kelly Slater

9th June 2008, 02:36

"A bag costs us more to put through an aeroplane than a passenger," Mr Godfrey told Channel Nine.
If the Airlines had stood up against the knee-jerk reactions to security issues, they wouldn't be in this position now. There is one immediate saving that can be readily implemented.
Stop screening people with ASICs and airside access cards.

BPA

9th June 2008, 02:48

Sounds good to me, but it will not happen.

Flyingblind

9th June 2008, 05:00

Would love for an Independent review of the whole aviation security process in Australia, unfortunately the Lunatics are now running the show and nothing is likely to change.

:ugh:

Gin Jockey

9th June 2008, 05:59

Not screening ASIC-holders would save money how?

Also, forging an ASIC card wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world.

Don't get me wrong, current security arrangements are ludicrous. You know, Jonny bagchucker just walks onto the tarmac via the staff entrance while captain kremmin upstairs gets the 3rd degree from some rent-a-cop over his 120ml container of anti-ageing cream and nail scissors.

Islander Jock

9th June 2008, 06:02

What an absolute crock! Godfrey is obviously trying to justify having to put costs up. Many airports are getting sick of the airline monopoly of providing the screening service and putting in whatever figure they like on the airline ticket to cover it. Fact is, many airports are now applying to be screening authorities in their own right and after careful analysis of capital procurement, wages and maintenance can put the cost at somewhere between $7.00 - $10.00 per pax/bag combined.

The airline's day of milking the security cow might just be coming to an end. Time to find another scapegoat Mr Godfrey.

Gin Jockey,Also, forging an ASIC card wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world.

Don't get me wrong, current security arrangements are ludicrous. You know, Jonny bagchucker just walks onto the tarmac via the staff entrance while captain kremmin upstairs gets the 3rd degree from some rent-a-cop over his 120ml container of anti-ageing cream and nail scissors.

I don't for one minute agree with all the measures being applied to aircrew but looking at the first paragraph quoted above it sort of justifies the second.

Dehavillanddriver

9th June 2008, 06:16

7-10 dollars per pax bag - on a $100 ticket that is a large percentage isnt it!

You have made Godfrey's point.

I reckon airports are only looking at becoming screening authorities because they see a buck in it - they are the biggest group of monopoly operators in this country and they charge an arm and a leg for what really are fairly average facilities.

Islander Jock

9th June 2008, 06:22

DHD,
I think you missed my point though.
Airports would have to be open about how much they charge per pax for screening. Just as they do for landing and terminal head charges. No such transparency exists with the airlines.

Also the figure I quoted was for a reional airport. I would suggest given the high volume of pax, the costs would be much lower for the larger airports.

Flying Binghi

9th June 2008, 07:29

the figure I quoted was for a reional airport. I would suggest given the high volume of pax, the costs would be much lower for the larger airports.

Islander Jock, I wont ask the annual pax numbers (for obvious reasons) but aproximatly what average flight pax numbers needed to get the $7 to $10 figure ?

Kelly Slater

9th June 2008, 08:15

Screening costs money. A percentage of people screened are crew. Therefore, it costs money to screen them. If 5% of people screened hold ASICS and Airside access cards, then by economies of scale, at least 1 or 2%of screening costs could be saved by not screening them. If you have a forged ASIC and are able to gain airside access, the present security screening process would not even slow you down.

Islander Jock

9th June 2008, 10:05

Binghi,

I just crunched some numbers and capital outlay for separate checked and cabin baggage x-rays, ETD machines, walk thru metal detectors, hand wands etc would come out in the vicinity of about $750,000 max. That would be more than sufficient to service one of the regional airports with say 75 to 100 thousand pax/pa. So not taking into account, staff training, wages, security licences, operating costs for equpment etc. You could realistically cover the capital purchase over a 3 year period.

That only applies to a very small number of the total pax in Australia with equipment and staff operating part time. Double the equipment holdings at the same time more than quadrupaling the pax through put operating continuously and the costs would have to come down futher.

I just don't believe the cost is having as much of an effect on the overall ticket price as the airlines would like us to believe.

Kelly,
an ASIC only shows that you have been through a background checking process and then only allows you airside with lawful reason. Yes there are a million and one ways to get airside but doing anything untoward and undetected might be a tad more difficult. And I don't mean sneaking in under the cover of darkness at night to spray graffiti on a locked up aeroplane.

Kelly Slater

9th June 2008, 12:21

Islander Jock, I have said that screening anyone with both an ASIC and airside access card is an unnecessary expence. It is also a pointless exercise. I stand by this statement and you will be extremely hard pressed to sway me.

Islander Jock

9th June 2008, 23:53

Kelly,
Whether or not my opinions sway you matters little to me as the application of the act and regs is not a democratic process. As certain as the sun and the moon - security is here to stay. Simply saying that screening, ASICs, fences or other security measures are a waste of time will do very little to convince the department to make any changes to the current system. It is not people such as you or I that the Dept is trying to weed out but until other means of denying undesirables access to critical points and inside a perimeter fence on the far side of the airport is NOT a critical point, we are stuck with what we have got.

Dale Hardale

10th June 2008, 03:18

Their is indeed an argument to be made for risk assessment to be a determining factor with airport security.

Witnessing people being repeatedly marched backwards and forwards through security screens until the offending jewelry or clothing is removed is nonsensical, time wasting, not cost effective and certainly NOT a deterrent to anyone seriously contemplating a terrorist event.:ugh:

I'm sure companies such as Chubb must be making millions in this "pseudo" security world we live in.

An analysis of threats, costs versus results is long overdue. How many real "terrorist" events have been detected at passenger screening points in Australia?

Maybe if some common sense returned wrt security, airlines wouldn't have to use this as one reason why they want to raise fares.

Bendo

10th June 2008, 06:28

A bag takes several people at each end of the process - check-in staff, scales, sticky label, conveyor infrastructure to send it out the back, customs/cops/security goons to go over it plus an X-ray machine, ULDs, mechanised loading ramps, a crew of camel-suiters to throw it on board.

Self-loading freight, on the other hand, are just that - if you have an e-ticket and no bags you get screened on the way through, and then your boarding pass is scanned by the cabin crew as you go down the big ramp thingy.

Isn't that a reasonable explanation of his comment? :ugh:

porch monkey

10th June 2008, 06:53

That makes perfect sense Bendo. That was what Godfrey actually meant. In saying that, I don't agree with making it an extra charge. For F@cks sake just put the ticket price up, and keep it inclusive. It's not like the other airlines won't follow suit in like 3 seconds time........

Whiskey Oscar Golf

10th June 2008, 10:46

Without getting into too much detail, the most effective way of keeping Australian Aviation safe will be happening well away from an airport. If you are relying on grabbing your baddies on the way into an aircraft you've already blown it. The risk assesment is done by identifying trouble before it arrives at the check in. The security charade at airports that we all have to put up with is window dressing at best, at worst some clown who got picked on at school on a power trip.

The background checks for your ASIC and the unseen stuff is a more logical, effective way of keeping us all secure. While it is annoying we have to go through the same stuff each time we apply and we pay a range of agencies to check if we're on a watch list, at least you know the person holding it is who they say they are. The ASIC should be used in a more logical way with screening for aircrew on flights, after all that's why it's there.

The same logic applies to baggage. Identify the threats before they get to the xray. If you rely on the xray checker to spot the threat you better be sure they're trained well and had a good nights sleep. If you want to save money I'd look at the screening of pax and aircrew first. That and stop reacting and get one step ahead of the people who want to hurt us.

Flying Binghi

10th June 2008, 13:16

The background checks for your ASIC and the unseen stuff is a more logical, effective way of keeping us all secure

Planet Earth calling Whiskey Oscar Golf :hmm:

....... keeping us all secure from what ?

How goes the footy bombers court case ?

Whiskey Oscar Golf

11th June 2008, 01:15

Mr Binghi Keeping us secure from people who wish to do us harm whether here in Australia or somewhere else in the world. They are here and it's a little strange to think they are not, that thinking caused the current problem. These people generally look for soft easy targets. If they see checks being made or that they've been tagged and monitored they will hopefully move on or stop their plans. The best way we can stop bad things is to let them know we are on to them ie a full background check for an ASIC.

I think it is a little silly to think they will replicate previous operations, they tend to evolve. That is what we have to be constantly aware of and amend our procedures to ensure we stop and predict the next act of evil. How we do that should be left to others.

The cost of baggage checks and annoyance of screening is all there to reduce the threat. While we might find it a pain, it is there to attempt to protect from and dissuade terrorists. We might also find it a little off kilter and possibly not the most effective use of resources, but it's what we have to put up with. The associated costs are there to stay unfortunately and if something did happen there would be a whole heap of media and people saying why didn't you do this, this and this.

On a final note Mr Binghi, there are many things done by brave, smart people who you'll never know or hear about who do their best to eliminate the threats to us domestically. They don't have court cases fail, they don't annoy you and they don't work at a screening point. Easy to be critical from the stands.

max autobrakes

14th June 2008, 06:14

Really WOG.
Read the Wheeler report!
What's going on now, is purely window dressing!

Spikey21

14th June 2008, 06:21

Godfrey's issue is the cost of having to fund security at the turbo-prop airports where he is sending jungle jet.

cjam

14th June 2008, 10:50

Can anyone come up with one good reason why there were 13 security personal on the x ray machine at BNE int transit at ten am on Friday went I went through? There is only one machine..... Is there a good reson that I have just missed or is it a blatent waste of money?
How come 2 of us can operate a 230 tonne machine at 400kts but it takes 12 of them to man an x ray machine? When I asked them if they were having a meeting they "randomly " selected me for an explosives test.

carbon

14th June 2008, 13:24

13 Security personnel....thats 230 tonne right there!

You know the system is stuffed when a guy can't even get to work without breaking the rules...."Mr Security can you let me in, ohh ok you have knocked off....Mr re fueler can you let me in?....ohh ok you have gone home too, Mr bag thrower that has been here a month can you let me in please"

Ok, now that I am in, how do I get out later?

It would be cheaper, and much more useful to just buy a set of bolt cutters (well even wire cutters would work!) rather than renew the ASIC next time.:yuk:

Either that or just walk a kilometer or so until the proper fence meets farmer Joes sheep fence...:D

Whiskey Oscar Golf

14th June 2008, 13:32

How many airport security people does it take to change a light bulb?

cjam

14th June 2008, 23:08

No good reason? I seriously thought I might have missed something and there is a good reason for needing that many staff on the x ray machine....anyone?

Worrals in the wilds

15th June 2008, 08:56

I would have thought five was the maximum you needed...

One to load, one to read, one to unload, one to man the walk-through and one to man the explosives tester, maybe add a supervisor... This was the case when I worked on them, anyway, but that was some years ago (I still get the flashbacks :ouch:)
You can run a screening point with two, but it frequently gets ugly, and probably not in keeping with the post 9/11 "More Is More" security philosophy...

Shift change or trainees maybe? :confused:

fallen

15th June 2008, 17:31

I would have thought five was the maximum you neededadd another two since LAG's restrictions have come into effect

Worrals in the wilds

16th June 2008, 00:42

Sorry, forgot about them. The lunchrooms must be getting crowded :\

Word around the campfire here is that airside access point security will increase. Complaining about baggage handlers and caterers accessing aircraft unscreened while air crew are screened will only increase airside security (rightly or wrongly), hopefully not to the level at some UK airports where I understand you can't take hot soup onto the airfield :ugh:. My two pesos is that it will do nothing to ease screening in the terminals, as no pollie or public servant wants to take the risk, however minimal, of something going bang if they do. The media and liability fall out would be horrendous.

All an ASIC card shows is that you haven't been caught doing anything dodgy. I get sick of hearing pollies bang on about increased background checks for aviation workers, childcare workers et al, because all a background check can do is identify people who were dopey enough to get caught. They can weed out the total nutters and gangsters and look good on the press release (Government Gets Tough On Crime) but that's about it. Remember that a number of alleged paedophiles arrested in sunny Queensland recently had blue cards and clear background checks.

Any terrorist organization (or criminal organization, for that matter) would be sure to use cleanskins. This has been standard practice for drug smuggling operations for some years now.

Capt Wally

16th June 2008, 08:53

You people don't realise that so many standing around would be normal for them, they are afterall ex council workers minus their shovels!:E
Yr taxes at work, or should that be at rest?:bored:
I often see numerous bodies hanging around, no doubt waiting for something exciting to happen. Just think about that job, could anybody thing of anything worse? Fortunetly over the years good decent blokes & gals have let me thru into the terminals via the cargo/baggage area's etc & outn again using the best security skill known, common sense! I think as long as yr wearing an ASIC card, they kind of heard you rock up in yr steed saw you get out they figure ahhh the risk of this guy coming to blow up my baggage handlers lunch room is remote !
Many years ago I worked as a refueler (in another well paid life) & the likes of us just came & went day in day out & rarely did any of the security staff check us, when they did they had been tipped off that the boffins where about. Thanks guys for doing as I said, using common sense, something we rarely see these days in & around security!:bored:

CW

walaper

16th June 2008, 09:17

You have to admit that osama has given those that would otherwise be on the dole the privilege to join the rest of the tax paying community. But annoying as they are, Cantberra must be the ones to bare your distaste for the warm and fuzziness that these good folk are entrusted to SHOW the public that the sky's are indeed safe to ply.

carbon

16th June 2008, 21:01

My two pesos is that it will do nothing to ease screening in the terminals, as no pollie or public servant wants to take the risk, however minimal, of something going bang if they do. The media and liability fall out would be horrendous.

hmm in other words "be scared of what you do not understand" great attitude from our "leaders"