Security Costs too High
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security Costs too High
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6898576.stm
It appears that the gravy train is overloaded. Time to remove some of the more idiotic parts of the screening process, perhaps?
It appears that the gravy train is overloaded. Time to remove some of the more idiotic parts of the screening process, perhaps?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Essex
Age: 54
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just make the government pay for the security then perhaps they'll think twice before issuing any more moronic directives.
of course this would have nothing to do with the underlying 'green' agenda now would it.
of course this would have nothing to do with the underlying 'green' agenda now would it.
Originally Posted by AlexL
just make the government pay for the security then perhaps they'll think twice before issuing any more moronic directives.
After all, it's not as if it's their own money...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How wonderfully cynical and true the last statement is.The BAA don't get much sympathy from me however when you see large queues at security and hardware going unused.It shouldn't be that way.Enough said.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again today the crews at Gatwick were subjected to the unilateral decision of 'Security' to have all shoes removed by everybody, as well as the normal pat down and jackets off. Why? It's worse than for passengers! There is no security for crew, particularly pilots. When I get on the aeroplane, I can lay my hands on a large, sharp steel weapon. In my hands I control a high speed fuelled vehicle containing up to 150 tons of kerosene- I don't need a sharp nail file of bottle of shampoo larger than 100 ml to do damage! Security has become a sef perpetuating empire whose costs are borne by others. It's an absurd waste of time for crew, so they may as well stop the higher degree of security that applies to crew.
It's not about security anyway, its about the govt being seen to have done something.
Consider; 3 attempted car bombs, 1 in a road by a nightclub, 1 in a road near the nightclub and 1 on the road and into an airport terminal.
Reaction; shut all roads past airport terminals because, a, the public will wear it and b, it costs the govt nothing. Shut all roads past nightclubs? train stations, tube stations, sports events, the list goes on? Not likely, that would cost money. So, we'll dick around the air transport system and pretend its cos we're tough on "security". Or are train and bus passengers and club goers more expendable than air travellers.
Consider; 3 attempted car bombs, 1 in a road by a nightclub, 1 in a road near the nightclub and 1 on the road and into an airport terminal.
Reaction; shut all roads past airport terminals because, a, the public will wear it and b, it costs the govt nothing. Shut all roads past nightclubs? train stations, tube stations, sports events, the list goes on? Not likely, that would cost money. So, we'll dick around the air transport system and pretend its cos we're tough on "security". Or are train and bus passengers and club goers more expendable than air travellers.
Whatever happens,.. happens!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 19' N, 82' W
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without going into details and coming back to the original headline of this topic: "Security cost too high"
Seeing the effect that the cost of required security measures have on our bottom-line, the original question is definitely justified.
I don't know what the answer is, but we will have to find an answer that is not as expensive as today's solution.
If you want to be part of a phenomenal growth industry, just start a security company!
fluf
Seeing the effect that the cost of required security measures have on our bottom-line, the original question is definitely justified.
I don't know what the answer is, but we will have to find an answer that is not as expensive as today's solution.
If you want to be part of a phenomenal growth industry, just start a security company!
fluf
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The airlines are sick and fed up with one ruling being piled on another. Some are thought through, others are just knee-jerk reactions. When they ask for financial assistance they are told 'security is the responsibility of the airline'. Well is it? Safety is, but security?
Example: Airport operational areas have to be 100% secure. Fair enough. But another ruling says that aircraft on overnights have to be physically guarded and their doors stuck up with tape. Fair enough, but both?
Armoured cockpit doors. Everybody had to retrofit them after 9/11 at a cost of [six figures] per aircraft. The US carriers presented the bill to their government, the European carriers had to dig deep and pay up.
Supplying passenger data on demand to the US government. The US constantly wants more. The airlines have to pay for the data-gatherers and processors. But the Europeans want all kind of personal confidentiality safeguards built in. So the airlines have to employ even more data specialists to do this job. And when they dare to suggest that the Governmental agencies might like to pick up the bill resulting from their actions they are told 'security is the responsibility of the airline'.
Sorry, but the miscreants that these rules are designed to catch are, by definition, no threat to the aeroplane and its passengers. They are trying to gain access to another country where they can cause damage to its general
public and its social and political fabric.
There is a ring of security around the City of London. Is it paid for by the people who work there? No. There is a ring of security around the Houses of Parliament. Is it being paid for by the people who 'work' there? No.
Just don't get me started on bloody liquids in hand baggage...
Example: Airport operational areas have to be 100% secure. Fair enough. But another ruling says that aircraft on overnights have to be physically guarded and their doors stuck up with tape. Fair enough, but both?
Armoured cockpit doors. Everybody had to retrofit them after 9/11 at a cost of [six figures] per aircraft. The US carriers presented the bill to their government, the European carriers had to dig deep and pay up.
Supplying passenger data on demand to the US government. The US constantly wants more. The airlines have to pay for the data-gatherers and processors. But the Europeans want all kind of personal confidentiality safeguards built in. So the airlines have to employ even more data specialists to do this job. And when they dare to suggest that the Governmental agencies might like to pick up the bill resulting from their actions they are told 'security is the responsibility of the airline'.
Sorry, but the miscreants that these rules are designed to catch are, by definition, no threat to the aeroplane and its passengers. They are trying to gain access to another country where they can cause damage to its general
public and its social and political fabric.
There is a ring of security around the City of London. Is it paid for by the people who work there? No. There is a ring of security around the Houses of Parliament. Is it being paid for by the people who 'work' there? No.
Just don't get me started on bloody liquids in hand baggage...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you love their effectiveness??
"You have to be lucky every single time," the Irish Republican Army used to say. "We have to be lucky just once."
"You have to be lucky every single time," the Irish Republican Army used to say. "We have to be lucky just once."
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Time to remove some of the more idiotic parts of the screening process, perhaps?
1. Be seen to be doing something, anything in fact.
2. Do nothing that loses voters or support.
3. React in a pavlovian manner to security edicts from this side of the pond and vice-versa.
4. Protect the travelling public.
Clearly #4 is the most important, but least effective, so the area where money should be spent is the last place it goes.
By treating the threat as a single global entity (Al Queda) the response is neither focussed or effective. Government spin doctors are probably not best placed to determine if an Airline pilot is susceptable to proxy terrorism, but by insisting that they are treated the same as Joe Public in the security lines, they protect the Government's share of the vote in an election. The point made by many on here about airborne pilots having the ultimate weapon, with or without 50ml of Weapons Grade toothpaste is carefully avoided, as there is no publicly acceptable answer to that observation. So instead we carry on the charade of treating aircrew like master criminals.
If security was handled in a localized and time reactive manner, the security state would be responsive to the emerging threat, with an ever changing level of deterrence based on actual target likelihoods, not based on the re-election of Government parties. This requires Airport Security to be under the control of experienced anti-terrorist professionals, with access to all the intelligence that is available, but more importantly, with the authority and knowledge to change the threat counter-measures on a local basis. The unfortunate fact is that some airports and airlines run a higher risk than others, but rather than accept that fact and tailor the response (and funding) accordingly, we continue to treat Granny getting on an ATP to the Isle of Man the same as a correctly profiled international traveller transiting through LHR from Pakistan to JFK, just so we don't disenfranchise anybody. Maintaing the highest level of threat counter-measure at ALL sites simply erodes funding at an exponential rate and desensitizes the security staff and travellers to the real threat.
Expecting a centrally led Goverment initiative to be effective is a triumph of desperation over history. Until we start prioritizing and reacting to the likely threat on a local basis, and not the Government idealized view of what the threat might be, security will always be the hugely ineffective cash eating monster it is.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, didn't read all that stuff, but would like to comment that security costs in europe per pax are higher than a pax pays for the Captain of BA, AF, AZ, LH, IB, etc.
I would really like to quit my contract and charge every pax 5 Euros, but I'm not allowed to....
I would really like to quit my contract and charge every pax 5 Euros, but I'm not allowed to....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While concerned about the cost and dangers of "unfunded mandates", we should all consider the serious economic consequences if there was to be another successful terrorist hit using aircraft as the weapon/target... whether it be from shoe bombs, shoulder fired missiles from the perimeter fence, cabin incendiary devices and so on.
Security is here to stay... would any of you cockpit crew members really want it any other way? Now if the only issue is the treatment of flight crew screening...
Security is here to stay... would any of you cockpit crew members really want it any other way? Now if the only issue is the treatment of flight crew screening...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mere SLF I consider it the governments duty to pay the increased security charges.
I recently travelled to SE Asia and the charges/taxes on the cost of the ticket were £140, if the UK government has £30 in tax out of that, why cannot they use that to pay for the extra security?
I recently travelled to SE Asia and the charges/taxes on the cost of the ticket were £140, if the UK government has £30 in tax out of that, why cannot they use that to pay for the extra security?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roberts 975, take your point but the issue is;why is the same reasoning not applied to any other mode of transport? Even when the attack (a real bloody attack with multiple deaths, not a "threat") involves buses and trains, the security burden, and cost thereof is borne by aviation and no other mode of transport.
@ Navy_Adversary.
To be fair, the tax IS used for security - the real security, not the "gropers at the gate". The money goes to the ladies and gentlemen with body armour and nasty pointy things who stroll around the terminal.
To be fair, the tax IS used for security - the real security, not the "gropers at the gate". The money goes to the ladies and gentlemen with body armour and nasty pointy things who stroll around the terminal.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, the tax IS used for security
The local authority gets a subsidy from central government, to spread the cost so that council taxpayers around a large airport don't pay a huge bill.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question of airport policing is a complex one and the answers above are only partially correct. At designated airports (LHR, LGW, STN, PIK, GLA, EDI, ABZ plus MAN and BHX) the airport operator pays for policing. This causes problems as up till now the police have been perceived by the airport industry as writing their own cheque.
At all other airports, routine policing (as distinct from emergency planning, aviation security and Special Branch) is down to whoever is actually prepared to stump up for it. Typically the argument goes as follows:
Airport Operator: I pay my business rates so have already paid for police to patrol my airport.
Local Constabulary: In that case you get the same level of policing as everybody else. Ring us if you want us to deal with a crime and we'll send an officer round.
That is why at BAA airports, MAN and BHX you will see plenty of police, armed and otherwise. At the rest, it depends on local arrangements. The philosophical argument revolves around whether airports are responsble for attracting crime by the nature of their business. Terrorism is a different matter and forces will react according to the perceived threat. When it goes to 'Critical', plenty of uniforms are deployed. At 'Severe', fewer are deployed on a proactive basis. 'Severe' appears to be the new normal.
The Government, in fairness, has to introduce new measures to react to innovative threats. A few years ago, were we worried what the IRA wore on their feet? The advent of the Suicide Bomber has changed all that. What is to stop someone who appears to be a pilot, if exempted from a search, from taking explosives airside and stashing them or passing them on? The simplest approach is to include everyone. It's inconvenient, and especially tedious for crews but better than having your aeroplane vapourised at 35000 feet. You might be interested to know that patrolling police officers cannot take any more liquids airside than anyone else.
An 'Independent Review of Airport Policing' has been carried out, but its findings are marked Restricted so cannot be discussed in a public forum.
In the meantime, please be aware that there is a lot of information and intelligence that is rightly outside the public domain, but would explain why all this is necessary. Also, please bear in mind that the threat is real. There really are a lot of people hell-bent on killing a lot more people, especially those travelling by air.
At all other airports, routine policing (as distinct from emergency planning, aviation security and Special Branch) is down to whoever is actually prepared to stump up for it. Typically the argument goes as follows:
Airport Operator: I pay my business rates so have already paid for police to patrol my airport.
Local Constabulary: In that case you get the same level of policing as everybody else. Ring us if you want us to deal with a crime and we'll send an officer round.
That is why at BAA airports, MAN and BHX you will see plenty of police, armed and otherwise. At the rest, it depends on local arrangements. The philosophical argument revolves around whether airports are responsble for attracting crime by the nature of their business. Terrorism is a different matter and forces will react according to the perceived threat. When it goes to 'Critical', plenty of uniforms are deployed. At 'Severe', fewer are deployed on a proactive basis. 'Severe' appears to be the new normal.
The Government, in fairness, has to introduce new measures to react to innovative threats. A few years ago, were we worried what the IRA wore on their feet? The advent of the Suicide Bomber has changed all that. What is to stop someone who appears to be a pilot, if exempted from a search, from taking explosives airside and stashing them or passing them on? The simplest approach is to include everyone. It's inconvenient, and especially tedious for crews but better than having your aeroplane vapourised at 35000 feet. You might be interested to know that patrolling police officers cannot take any more liquids airside than anyone else.
An 'Independent Review of Airport Policing' has been carried out, but its findings are marked Restricted so cannot be discussed in a public forum.
In the meantime, please be aware that there is a lot of information and intelligence that is rightly outside the public domain, but would explain why all this is necessary. Also, please bear in mind that the threat is real. There really are a lot of people hell-bent on killing a lot more people, especially those travelling by air.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like all of us I understand the need for security checks on all crew etc. What continues to irritate me is amount of loop holes and inconsistencies there are at every airport. For example at LHR and LGW once your hold bag has been screened by security you then take the bag with you on to the crew bus to deposit it at the rear hold! No one ever stops me while on the bus, from taking items from my case and placing them in my flight deck case!
Also on several occasions when called out on sby at short notice, to save time I have passed through security and taken my case from the crew bus straight up the aircraft stairs and in to the flightdeck passed several important looking security staff and never once been challenged!
Also on several occasions when called out on sby at short notice, to save time I have passed through security and taken my case from the crew bus straight up the aircraft stairs and in to the flightdeck passed several important looking security staff and never once been challenged!