'Have you got your pistol, dear'

[InFrequent Flyer]

This was on the travel letters page of the Telegraph on Saturday.


Security is no joke

M Ashworth from Lancashire wrote
My wife and I checked in for an EasyJet flight at Liverpool airport on October 16. I was asked the usual security questions and then shown diagrams of various weapons and asked if I was in possession of any. At this moment, my wife arrived and, in a jocular manner, I asked her if she was carrying her pistol. I was incredulous when the check-in agent said she was calling security.

We were whisked away by four airport security people and a policeman. They searched our bags and we assumed they were then satisfied that we were harmless senior citizens. To our amazement, we were told that we would not be allowed to fly until the following day. When we asked why, we were told that this was EasyJet company policy and that 74 customers had been refused flights in the previous week for similar security infringements.

Our pleas that we were travelling to Belfast to look after our grandchildren because their parents were going away fell on deaf ears. I asked for a refund of our fare, but this was not forthcoming. Eventually, we were given a copy of our flight confirmation with a handwritten comment that we had been refused travel for breach of security questions.

We finally flew from Manchester with British Airways the following morning. So the question "Have you got your pistol, dear?" ended up costing us £80 for an overnight hotel and £248.80 for air fares. Were EasyJet's actions legal and what is the airline's policy on refunds to customers it refuses to carry?

Gill's response
On behalf of EasyJet, a spokesman said: "Everyone is incredibly sensitive about security and we have adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards people who don't take it seriously. Our view is that, if you're going to mess about and say things such as this, you're not going to travel with us. This is not the time for gags or stupidity."

The airline is within its rights to refuse to carry you under Article 8 of its conditions of carriage "for reasons of security".

As for a refund of your unused flight tickets, I am afraid that EasyJet will not grant this. "We did offer to fly this couple the following day," said a spokesman for the airline, "but because they chose not to take up this offer the tickets are non-refundable."

Your letter provides a timely reminder to air travellers to take all questions about security seriously these days. Any jokes about guns, bombs, knives, anthrax and so on are going to land you in big trouble, not just with EasyJet, but with many airlines that will not hesitate to invoke their right not to carry you.

What can you say?

Electronic Telegraph (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/travel/main.jhtml?menuId=113&menuItemId=-1&view=ASKGILL&grid=T4&targetRule=5)

[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: Capt PPRuNe ]

[trevorinns]

it doesn't say what his wife replied....if she said "no" then there is no problem right? He could have been (Correctly) making sure his wife was not carrying her pistol!

[radeng]

Be very interesting to see what the results of a Small Claims court case on this would be.

Strikes me that we might be getting to the stage of getting so many people so upset with length of time for check in, and the sensitivity to remarks etc., that they just stop flying. An example has to be the New York - Washington shuttles where they can't get up: it sounds very much as if it's actually quicker and more convenient on that route by train. Not the way to get 'bums on seats'in airplanes, but on the other hand, getting people so fed up they won't fly does solve security problems.

[radeng]

It appears that the head of IATA has concerns, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1651000/1651755.stm

[411A]

Pierre Jeanniot has very valid pilots, and passengers, if they have a choice, will not fly. It is time that airlines start treating passengers as "customers" and not cattle.
There can be NO excuse for airline antagonism.... the business is slowly going down the drain, with no plug in sight.

[fionan]

It seems to me that M Ashworth would have had no problems if he had kept his mouth shut.

Picture this: Mr. & Mrs. Ashworth arrive at the airport to be told by security that their family have been on to say no need to travel their grandchildren have been victims of a terrorist attack.

Would the stupid git think it was funny??

He wouldn't head for the small claims court then would he?? :mad: :mad:

[Out Of Trim]

Don't be so silly; This is and has been the standard reaction to "Stupid Answers" to serious security questions throughout the industry for some time and long may it continue.. When will the passengers / customers realise that we are not joking about security - which is implemented for everybody's safety?

I cannot believe the stupidity of many people in "joking" in this way.. They must be brain dead if they think we will just laugh at them! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[trevorinns]

What I don't understand is why this is a security breach (if quotes are accurate). If I am travelling with (say) a firearms duty I would be very reasonable to ask if any firearms were in his or her baggage. Also, he was repeating a question the check-in staff asked of him!

And yes passengers do think they are funny, they and the other 74 that week believe they are the first to make any joke to staff. Have you ever (tried) to make a joke of something to an employee in another industry...they've heard it before too.

[HotDog]

Anybody stupid enough to make inane remarks in regard to airtravel security, deserves to suffer all the incovenience as a result. To complain about the consequences in public, underscores the mentality of Mr.Ashworth. :mad:

[radeng]

Hotdog, I think you're missing the point. Stupidity maybe - but it's those 'stupids' whose 'bums on seats' are very necessary. I heard this morning on the radio that many Americans are talking of cancelling travel by air after yesterday's terrible disaster. How much more can this industry take?

Lets just suppose the CEO of some company who provides $1M per annum makes some comment (maybe to a colleague on the plane) that gets misinterpreted, and gets taken away. He's talking and says 'we'll be taking over in 20 minutes', referring to a company take over formalised when the stock market opens. (Not too far off - some guys were pulled off a plane the other day for saying something similar - it's in Pprune somewhere) How happy will the airline be when he chops that $1M with a company ruling that 'Airline X' are not to be used for company travel?

Talk of 'Heads you lose and tails you lose'..

[HotDog]

radeng, no I don't think I'm missing the point. The ratio of "stupids" is very small compared to the sane. We always had an open cockpit door policy in my airline, the number of stupids in my 33 years on the flight deck I can count on one hand. However, we did have them; including a couple who stashed two aircraft life jackets in their hand baggage which unfortunately for them, were discovered during a security check by the cabin crew at Taipei airport where transit passengers have to disembark. In those days perhaps some people's juvenile sense of humour, although irritating, was accepted but not any more and the sooner these people learn to keep their mouth shut, the better. Remember the guy who came home late from an extramarital romp and smeared billiard cue chalk on his pullover? When his wife challenged him about his late arrival, he told her he was down the road ravishing this big ti**ed blond. Don't lie to me, screamed his wife, I know you were in the pool hall, you are covered in chalk.

[Few Cloudy]

Well,

This is not the first instance of people being delayed, held over or even arrested for making jokes in security. Trouble with Brit. "humour" is that it is so dry that it often sounds serious - ask my Swiss wife....

There is no room for uncertainty in the security area and what is humour for some: "Hi, Jack!" and "Gun is in my other bag" is an added problem for the checkers and must be taken seriously.

More of those and you will be an even more InFrequent Flyer methinks.

PS It happened to be easyJet but any good security system will have this philosophy.

[gul dukat]

I recently flew from Italy to UK and had to transfer my bags in UK to connect with the same airline to another UK destination(low cost carrier and EXCELLENT in every way). At checkin I was asked had my bags been out of MY sight since I packed them and could anyone have interfered with them? .I honestly replied that yes they were out of my sight and yes someone could have interfered with them .Should that have merited a stern response also?.Does this mean that I have to unpack and recheck my luggage each time I connect through? or should all carriers operate some form of transfer system for luggage? Security IS a serious matter,but there has to be a sensible balance drawn somewhere.

[pilotwolf]

Sorry ANYONE who makes jokes concerning security - however riduculous they/we think the questions are - deserves what ever response the security/police/airline deem appropiate. Personally I think they were lucky to spend the night in a hotel rather than a police cell. :mad:

[DX Wombat]

Radeng, it's my thread on this forum, see under "Arresting remarks" Those two stupid people caused a great deal of anxiety and misery to the people nearby with their tactless remark. Maybe the other passengers should sue them for compensation for the mental cruelty they inflicted. I hope QF don't ever let them onto another of their aircraft again. Having to drive or catch a train back to Sydney would be a good idea. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[PETERJ]

Phew.....you couldn't make it up ...could you ?. Two senior citizens on an internal Uk flight, psssibly extremely nervous about flying and a bit out of touch with the seriousness of security considerations these days.... get bumped and embarassed. The check in lady having obviously checked her potential security threat profiles and found a match You people in the airline industry had better get real. I used to travel frquently for pleasure pre WTC.....I've already canceled two trips since then....one to Portugal and one to Los Angeles. Why ??? Cos I don't want to subject myself to that sort of stupidity and hassle.....I don't need or want it .
"We haf ways of making you sweat and feel threatened ......this is war , JA !? " .
Mental note what is El Al's route network........... do they fly to Madrid.Lisbon ex UK............hum !!!!!!!! :confused: :confused:

[Down and Welded]

Passenger Ashworth made a remark that was not particularly funny but neither was it particularly offensive. He committed no security breach and was refused carriage because some security and airline personnel were unable to decide when outrage is appropriate and when it isn't.

All aviation industry staff who react in this somewhat excessive manner are, unfortunately, venting upon these hapless (and in some cases misguided) individuals the general sense of horror and outrage felt by us all following September 11.

Now, more than ever, cool heads should prevail. Take the individuals aside, speak sternly to them, let them know their comments are not appreciated by staff and may not be by other passengers. Then wish them a happy flight and put them back in the line (or in their seat). Lashing out unecessarily will ultimately do more harm than good.

Even if Mr Ashworth could be described as unwise or silly, his purchase of a fare is still a valuable one.

[fionan]

PeterJ admit it to yourself if not others why you don't fly post sept. 11. . Why ??? Cos I don't want to subject myself to that sort of stupidity and hassle.....I don't need or want it .

This man brought it entirely on himself and his wife. He displayed a complete disregard of the seriousness of airport security. If he was in court he would be done in any country for contempt.

If you are terrified of flying admit it and don't try to spread your affliction...it can be treated! ;) ;) ;)

[Gunner B12]

Westman

Quote:
If you are terrified of flying admit it and don't try to spread your affliction...it can be treated!

I think we should reword that an apply it back to most of the people who have posted on this topic. It should read :-
If you are terrified of passengers admit it and don't try to spread your affliction...it can be treated!
Simple fact is there is a lot of paranoia around at the moment and whilst security is important,so is common sense. Admittedly the joke was in poor taste and was inappropriate, but so was the over reaction of the check in and security staff. I’m with PETERJ and Down and welded on this one.

I'll learn how to work this thing one day!

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Quote:
If you are terrified of flying admit it and don't try to spread your affliction...it can be treated!
I think we should reword that an apply it back to most of the people who have posted on this topic. It should read :-
If you are terrified of passengers admit it and don't try to spread your affliction...it can be treated!
Simple fact is there is a lot of paranoia around at the moment and whilst security is important,so is common sense. Admittedly the joke was in poor taste and was inappropriate, but so was the over reaction of the check in and security staff. I’m with PETERJ and Down and welded on this one.

Have to agree. There seems to be a paranoid over reaction going on now by aircrew and gate staff. In the 12 months to September I spent somewhere around £12,000 on flights to various destinations. Since September 11, because of the hassle involved in flying I have flown only once. It is simply less trouble to not go or find alternative means, eurostar into certain European cities is soooo much less trouble than flying from London now.

A balance needs to be found and found soon. The alternative is a lot less airlines. Passengers are not the problem they are the solution.

[Covenant]

Sadly I have to agree with a lot of these posts. The rights or wrongs of Mr Ashworth aside, too many people in the airline industry see passengers as irritating inconveniences that simply get in the way of their important job of flying aeroplanes!

Air travel is in no danger of extinction, but there are some lean years ahead and I think there needs to be a serious change in attitude if things are going to get better.

I wonder if the pilots who are crying for the blood of people like Mr Ashworth have the same attitude when it comes to reports of pilots who make smartass remarks to ATC or ground controllers? It's the same situation in my book; it's a serious business that, in the strictest terms, leaves no room for horseplay. However, it's rare that a pilot will get locked up for cracking a joke over the VHF, or indeed making a humorous remark over the cabin intercom. But then, the pilots are important respected pillars of the community whereas the passengers are just the cattle who pay their wages. :p

A bit of common sense is what is needed instead of knee-jerk reactions. Someone recently coined the phrase "emotional correctness" to describe a phenomenon which is currently on the increase. In short, it's social pressure to conform to an emotional state, be it outrage at one thing or sensitivity towards something else. What I think the airline industry is going through at the moment is as serious case of EC!

[fionan]

It is presisely out of concern for passengers that crews and security staff take a dim view of "stupid remarks". Can you imagine the potential fear generated amongst the inexperienced travelling public caused by these smart remarks on-board. I'd rather see them licking their wounds on the ground than spreading fear in the air.

reports of pilots who make smartass remarks to ATC or ground controllers? It's the same situation in my book;

This is not comparible at all. Crews and ATC while on the air will have already been security screened and are just carrying out their duties. A bit of banter between professionals can liven up the day. Eveyone in this situation knows who they are dealing with and where they stand.
The same is not true about Pax. It must be obvious to even the above writers that Sep 11 was caused by people posing as ordinary pax. Crews, airport staff and most importantly pax themselves are paranoid about other pax. Sadly nothing can be taken for granted anymore and these remarks can't be tolerated.
:( :( :(

[Juan To Go]

I'l bet the dumb ass doesn't make such a stupid comment next time.

[Down and Welded]

From a previous poster...

Can you imagine the potential fear generated amongst the inexperienced travelling public caused by these smart remarks on-board?

I've read about a few of these 'incidents' since Sept 11. They were either wisecrack comments or innocent discussion taken out of context by crew. I doubt they caused much in the way of fear (potential or otherwise) amongst other pax. I DO think they provided convenient opportunities for on-edge security and/or crew members to give vent to some of their emotion - fully aware that in the circumstances, they could prevail and would not be challenged.

This is nothing more than a form of bullying under the dubious camouflage of righteous indignation. We are ALL grieving for the victims of this outrage.

It must be obvious to even the above writers that Sep 11 was caused by people posing as ordinary pax. [/I[I]

Yes it was, but they were definitely not pax who were going to draw unecessary attention to themselves by cracking stupid jokes at the check-in counter!

Crews, airport staff and most importantly pax themselves are paranoid about other pax.

If this is indeed so, then those employees need to think about a change, either of job or of work environment. Cool heads are needed.

Sadly nothing can be taken for granted anymore and these remarks can't be tolerated.

The first statement is unarguable - as to the second, re-read the above. Such airline industry staff need to ponder their futures and perhaps reconsider their tolerance thresholds.

[JudyTTexas]

I'm not undermining the seriousness of making comments etc. However, I would question, wouldn't those who pose a "real threat" be more likely not to attract attention to themselves? Their response would be to say no more than they had to?
The purpose is to get "on the plane" to carry out their intentions?

[fionan]

Down and Welded and JudyTT, Clearly you don't fly ( unless maybe cargo ) and have no idea how easy it is to scare people, particularly at the moment.

JudyTT my point was not about the "real threat" but about passengers real fears. An idiot who thinks he is funny ( albeit no threat ) can terrify innocent pax. This has happened countless times pre-sep 11 and is potentially a much bigger problem now. Incidentally it is a felony in the States.

D a W ( Rather appropriate initials )

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
I've read about a few of these 'incidents' since Sept 11. They were either wisecrack comments or innocent discussion taken out of context by crew

If you have only "read" about these you show remarkable arrogance in lecturing those who have witnessed them. Also they were not taken out of anything by "crew" beause they were directed at and dealt with by security!

[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: westman ]

[DX Wombat]

D&W, I take it you are one of those people who feel it is quite alright to crack tasteless jokes even when they know it could really upset someone? The incident on the QF flight occured IN THE AIR somewhere between SYD and PER. It REALLY UPSET nearby passengers. I was not on that flight but have accurate information about this (identities of the frightened passengers are confidential information so you will just have to trust me) Were you on that flight? Do you know the people concerned? Have you spoken to them or their relatives? Had the two people making the remarks really been terrorists then mid-flight is surely the most likely time for them to strike. The crew can hardly have been said to have over-reacted. Had they handed over to the police the mangled bodies of the two culprits there might have been reason to make such a claim but they didn't. The two walked off with the WA Police. These two were senoir management in their company, posts which one would have thought implied that they posessed at least some intelligence and a basic knowledge of human nature. Their irresponsibility was totally inappropriate for their positions. It was NOT a little bit of fun.
To all crew: Please continue to protect your passengers by whatever action you deem necessary, and, before some silly person dares to suggest it, I am not a frightened or nervous passenger, I just want to arrive safely at the place I intended. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[frogfriday]

As a general point, is there anyone who can tell me just how we can choose, change or police peoples senses of humour? Who gets to decide what is funny and what is not? And who gets to make the decision about what jokes are appropriate and where.

Please - not Hollywood or airline security.

[Gunner B12]

DX

I agree that in the air it is not acceptable to joke in this way. However the original post was about an elderly couple on the ground where a question was asked which could have been a joke or could have been a valid query to make sure his wife had not inadvertently packed such an item. What also should be borne in mind is that nervous people tend to joke about the very thing they are nervous about as a means of dealing with it themselves. At worst these people should have been subjected to a more thorough security check followed by a quiet word then allowed to board. I will say that if the more thorough check wasn’t conclusive I agree that they not be allowed to fly but at the moment it appears that the terrorists are winning as evidenced by the paranoia that is making this industry tear it’s self apart.
Time to lighten up, not on security just attitude towards the people who ultimately you work for.
:(

[Flap 5]

Those of you who think that the Ashworth's were 'insensitive' should take a few lessons in being 'sensitive' yourselves.

Down and Welded makes a very good point. Check in staff should be much more reasonable (sensitive?) with passengers who clearly are just being silly. Sure thing it is not sensible to make such remarks, but let's get some perspective shall we?

DX Wombat you are confusing this with some other incident. Try and keep to the point of the thread.

[Crepello]

A terrorist would be unlikely to declare concealed weapons so reacting in this way is of debatable value. There's also a danger of creating a culture of fear over check-in: Pax will be less inclined to admit leaving bags unattended if they fear more than just an enhanced search.

That said, there's a downside to asking check-in staff to decide if the pax is a security risk or a stand-up comedian. Whenever judgement calls are made, there's scope for human error.

Perhaps the best option would be to better educate pax about the formality of the check-in procedure. Many airlines have leaflets explaining the security questions. How about a footnote such as "Your check-in declarations are legally binding, please take them seriously and do not make jokes" ?

[FlyingRabbit]

I'm just a pax. All I can give you is my point of view from where I stand. It may interest some of you who actually cares to hear how we feel and see this events that are happening after that tragic Sep. 11.

I fly almost every week, different airports, different carriers, in US and out of it. I love flying since I was a kid, have no fear of flying whatsoever, even after Sep 11.

Lately, every time I go to the airport I get the feeling that I am considered as a terrorist until proven otherwise. I check and recheck my luggage trying to find out if any of my belongings can be considered as a weapon or something a terrorist would be carrying. I try not to look at the security in order not to raise any concerns, at the same time that I think they are looking at me and wondering why am I avoiding eye contact. I certainly do not make bad taste jokes like that, but this I did not do even before.

The reason I am given is that it is for my own safety. Sadly, I do not believe that. I believe in x-rayed carry-on luggage, in positive id of every checked luggage, in checking all personnel that works on the air side of operations, but the psychological part of this attitudes is simply awful. Believe me, there are far more pax terrified by this attitude then by bad taste jokes like that. And don't even get me started on air marshalls, the thought that there is a gun on board not controlled by crew is terrifying enough.

It has been said a lot, these are times for cool minded people. Not all pax are terrorists.

[flapsforty]

FlyingRabbit there is no such thing as "just a pax".

Without yourselves and the non-self-loading freight, there would be no airline industry, and all us would have to work in a field much less exiting and much less fun!

It's good to read things from a different perspective since being "on the indside" it's not always that easy to see what's like from the passengers' point of view, nor what it feels like to be treated the way you are at the moment.
So thank you for your level headed comment.

[Gunner B12]

OK so lets try to lighten up a bit :)
Having a fear of flying has a name but the word escapes me :confused:. So what is the name, if there is one for fear of terrorists?
Better still what should we call fear of passengers???
How about Paxophobia or SLFobia?
Any other suggestions :) :) :)

[AA SLF]

I am just a pax (slf) too. And I will be very happy to have an Air Marshall on the plane with me. These people are trained in handgun marksmanship and are of high character. Most are ex-military or ex-police and are mostly mature individuals.

Most on this board seem not to remember that armed Air Marshalls are not new to US flagged carriers. I flew with them in the '70s with no problems.

Back on subject - if I hear any "funny" comments from ANYONE, especially Mom & Pop Vacationer, I will turn their ass in as fast as I can!! There has NEVEN been anything remotely "funny" about "hi-jack"; "gun"; "bomb", etc. and any idiot that thinks there is does NOT need to be on the same plane as I am on. Do I travel a lot? Yes, 122 segments last year. Don't try being "funny" within my hearing or your ass is grass, as we say over here in 'merica.

dAAvid -

[FlyingRabbit]

Flapsforty

thank you so much for your kind words. It is people like you that makes me come back smiling every time despite the paxophobics (great one, Gunner) on the ground.

AA SLF

I agree that 99% of the air marshalls fit in your description. It is the 1% that worries me. Remember that that individual that blew the Arizona building would fit in this description too. And I believe it creates a huge breach in security, i.e., a gun is allowed in the plane.

Again, I'm no expert in any of this, this is just how I feel.

[AA SLF]

FlyingRabbitt - We can certainly agree that people like flapsforty are the ones who bring enjoyment to business travel. :) This lady, and her peers - if there are any out there, receive my biggest THANK YOU everytime I find them on one of my flights. On AA we top-tier pax have a special document that we can "award" these fine people with. This document will allow the employee to receive absolutely "free" travel on AA, not fees at all and with a "reserved seat" as well. It is called an SOS (SomeOne Special). I love to give them out to any AA employee I meet who exhibits great customer service!

The gentleman that you refer to would never have gotten to be an Air Marshall IMHO. He had exhibited all the "bad" characteristics while he was in the Army that would have shown a lack of "stability" and maturity and thus disqualified him from the job.

I am not a "paxophobic" as I have faced up to the fact that I might be on a flight with a "bad guy" and have decided that I must go after that person regardless of the consequences. Once you make that kind of an examination of yourself you no longer have a phobic fear of the event, just a normal fear level that is good as a driving force to motivate you and quicken your senses. This was/is very common in military and police people. Yes, they have the fear, they face it, and they move on to do their jobs as best they can. We pax/slf did not have to think about this prior to 11-Sept, but now we do! It is a sad world we live in today.

Hope you always have a safe flight every time!

dAAvid -

[Gunner B12]

FlyingRabbit

I’ve just realised Paxo is also an english brand name for a filling used to fill dead birds prior to roasting them. So if we don’t lighten up then I suppose aviation’s goose will definitely be stuffed.

I didn’t realise how appropriate the word would be.
:D :D :D