Manchester Airport Security Flaws Exposed on TV

[truthnolies]

I have been told by a good reliable contact at Manchester Airport
that a BBC reporter has been working undercover on the airports security section for the last few months. Apparently a program about aviation security in this country
will be broadcasted on 9/11 this year.

Is this true, does anybody else know about this?

[Danny]

Lots of fodder at Manchester Airport Security for exposes, especially in the management! :eek:

Just one example is a crew based in MAN with a new pilot on a temporary pass. Pilot has to remain on temp pass until Disclosure Scotland get their pathetic act together. This means that said pilot has to be signed through and has to be manually searched each time. Problem is that if said pilot isn't accompanied by ANOTHER pilot then said pilot can't pass through security. Doesn't matter that senior cabin crew who holds full pass issued by MAN Security and has been 'disclosed'. Senior cabin crew member cannot escort said pilot on temp pass through security. ANOTHER pilot has to be summonsed to sign for pilot on temp pass! :rolleyes:

This is an edict from their 'security management'. Obviously, a full pass holder who is on the same crew as the temp pass holder is deemed not worthy unless they 'look' like a pilot. It hasn't dawned on the dipsticks who make these rules that the cabin crew member could, in theory, be a pilot. Also, it hasn't dawned on the 'management bod' that the vetting of the cabin crew is IDENTICAL to the vetting of the flight crew.

The security don't even want to see licence or other photo ID. Just their temp pass and ANOTHER person dressed in a pilot uniform with a full pass. They ignore the fact that the pilot with the temp pass COULD take off their jacket, issue themselves with a ticket for the flight out of their own stock and board with the rest of the pax, which in theory would save a whole load of hassle and time wasting by security bods whose only real effectiveness is to stop pointy objects getting past their induction loops. :rolleyes: What on earth do the security bods think about positioning crew?

I hope that the BBC do a real expose, without the over-dramatisation of some granny with a pencil sharpener and instead, open the publics eyes to the farce that is considered to be security. If they don't show it to be the cosmetic exercise to dupe the travelling public that all's well when in fact all it is is a money saving excuse because real security is far too expensive.

Ooh... must go and have a lie down now. Don't get me started on security. :yuk: :mad:

[TURIN]

Maybe he is the over-zealous chap in T1 who clobbered about 4 of us in the knackers yesterday!!!:mad: :{ :sad:

Ball-ache in the right testi all afternoon the git!:ouch:

[truthnolies]

The latest news is, John Donnison, the security manager has been removed from his post. This is only rumour at present.


Corrupt police chief handles airport safety

By Robert Mendick 17 February 2002

The head of security at Manchester airport, which has witnessed two serious security breaches in recent weeks, is a former police chief with a criminal conviction for dishonesty.

The revelation comes ahead of a 36-hour strike by security staff at the airport next weekend that could lead to lengthy delays for passengers. Airport bosses want to slash the average wage of security staff from £23,000 to £12,600 and cut up to 200 jobs, out of 600 security staff.

One of the leading figures in the management negotiations is John Donnison, a former chief inspector with Leicestershire police. Donnison pleaded guilty in January 2000 to 14 charges of false accounting, and ordered to perform 200 hours' community service for fiddling his police expenses over a three-year period.

His role in the negotiations has infuriated union leaders who accuse the airport of gross hypocrisy in employing him. Security staff have a clause in their contract that allows the airport to summarily sack them if they have a criminal conviction.

Donnison is in charge of up to 700 staff and a total budget of reportedly more than £20m. He is believed to be on a salary of £70,000, £30,000 more than he earned as a police officer.

Phil Craven, Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) convenor at the airport, said: "Because of his past he has not got the integrity or the ability to build up the trust needed in the security department."

Manchester airport confirmed Donnison is head of security with the job title of fire and security services business manager. A spokeswoman said: "We are not going to talk about it. It's in the past and nothing to do with ability to do the job. I am not going to go there. It's not relevant."

Leicestershire police confirmed Donnison was a chief inspector working in the northern region at the time of the police investigation into his affairs. According to reports, he admitted inventing 236 car journeys to claim £1,200 while serving as an officer. A police spokeswoman said the investigation was taken "very seriously".

The airport spokeswoman said she was confident next weekend's 36-hour stoppage would not cause any disruption to passengers.

She said the airport wanted to cut average wages to what it claimed is a market rate of £12,600, but was offering staff compensation packages of as much as £62,000 to do so.

The change in working conditions affects 590 security staff, who have been given notice their contracts will end on 25 April. They are being told to take new contracts on much less favourable terms.

Unions are baffled by the airport's persistence in pursuing the cuts in the wake of worldwide security fears since 11 September. That has been compounded by security breaches at Manchester airport in recent weeks. Last week, a bag containing bomb-making equipment, guns, imitation explosives, three detonators and dummy bullets were smuggled on to a plane bound for Gatwick after they were missed by a security guard employed by private contractor Securicor ADI.

The airport also employs private contractors but the unions point out this security breach was the result of trying to employ workers on the cheap. The weapons were planted by Global Air Training, to test security procedures. Journalists have also smuggled knives and other weapons onto a flight at Manchester.

Dave McCall, TGWU regional spokesman, said: "Manchester aiport tells us the two breaches of security at the airport last week were not related to the dispute. That has got to be the biggest load of nonsense any of us have ever heard. Both the breaches took place in areas where cut price security has already been introduced at this airport. If they continue we will get that sort of breach happening over and over again."

THE INDEPENDENT !7 February 2002

[charlady]

if he exists, send him to west gate at 0600 each and every am, security there especially, seem to talk the job but dont do the job, i hv lost count of the no of times you leave bags etc in your vehicle on display in the back seat....and security never pick up on it, you put your stuff through the scanner...what for bcos 9 out of 10 times theirs no-one watching the damn thing anyway.

why do man security guards think they are better than everyone else who works there...they think they can enforce rules they dont have to stick to...

on a remote stand last week, private security firm watching a/c, you know the firm i mean...i noticed a security agent with no id, asked him to see it, he showed it to me and i told him to wear it instead of having it in his pocket...to which he replied : but its new and its raining'.....pleassse if these are the people who look out for our safety - god help us.. by the way i told him to wear the id or i'd have his ass hauled of the airfield before he could say
tosser of the week..

dont get me started on security.....

:cool:

[rampman]

truthnolies

it is true about the B.B.C they are under cover lets hope they do some good because the security at MAN leaves a lot to be desierd

if you want to know how i know this PM me and i will tell you


:ok: rampman

[silverhawk]

How about we forget individuals and their alleged misdemeanours no matter what their current positions and concentrate instead on the real issue where security is concerned.


What is required is proper ,real, secure security, - not politicians pandering to the media or the public with pathetic proposals. What's needed is profiling, proper searches and appropriate punishments for offences.

Don'you dare take a Leatherman or a corkscrew to work!

You can take any sharp metal object through security onto any flight, even a craft knife like the 9/11 people used.

Nothing has really changed since 9/11 and as all of us in the industry know- the flight deck door policy is nonsense, is driven by American politicians, and has done nothing except drag CRM between flightdeck and cabincrew back 10 years or more.

[toon]

oh i was hoping to be able to resist posting on this one - nope

Manchester is a disgrace, always has been, idiotic management who never bother to have a look around them, the taxiways are hopeless, need resufacing and repainting (but have for years) the docking systems are out of the 70's, the passenger walkways are never switched on, and as we all know, security is a joke, oh, and what the hell have they done with the road system ?? oh and they also managed to lose all the disclosure scotland forms.
idiots, just idiots.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[master slug]

Truth be said. If Mr Donnison is guilty as charged.As confirmed by the police authority, Why have the airport still got him working there.

Seems the higher and more incompitent you are...The more chance you have for promotion.

So says the slug............

[jetset445]

I can confirm Mr Donnison is a convicted felon, he was awaiting trial when he took over the running of the fire staion. He is now in charge of car parks. Word on the ground is it was C4 and not the BeeB that was playing at Mole.

[Bally Heck]

Just wondering how Mr Donnison, as boss of security at a major international airport, and presumably a holder of an airside pass, and a convicted felon?, got through Disclosure Scotland?

Long sentence, I know, but I'm mystified:confused:

[ATIS]

Probably cos those muppets at disclosure scotland lost his form. As they also have lost dozens of forms from my company. Loads of cabin crew from my company have had to submit new forms and arrange new references.

Get your act together.
An increase in incompetence in various industries in the UK is driving me up the wall path. Sorry rant over

[BN2A]

Walk through the security arch.. No beep or anything..
Self important security chap insists looking under one's cap!!

What for?

Why would I hide a pair of tweezers under my cap when I'm sat in the flight deck next to a full set of tools and an axe!!

MAN security.. PATHETIC.

:mad:

[Half a Mexican]

BN2A,

It is absolutely 100% essential that they check under your hat.
You might be hiding something under there that would allow you to gain control of the aircraft!;)

Cheers,
HaM

[BoeingMEL]

Not sure if there is any disappointment in the pipeline for John Donnison..... but he was at his desk this morning and is due back tomorrow (Thursday 19th)...then away til Tuesday 24th.


By the way...these revelations about MAN security are nothing new..... some of us found it a shambles for donkeys' years before 9/11....glad I've left the party thanks! bm

[2close]

BN2A,

Probably looking for the carbon fibre knife that you were going to use to hijack yourself.

The serious question is, in the era of PC and litigation would he/she have insisted that the Sikh male or Muslim woman remove their respective turban / bourka (please excuse spelling)? This is not a racially motivated point, as the same could apply to the caucasian from Wherever with his head in bandages. However, the security officer is more likely to encounter one of the former and does their training cover these eventualities?

Having spent many years working with security staff I am only too aware of how bad it is in the UK, not just in the aviation industry, but you pay peanuts.........(before anyone takes offence that remark doesn't apply to all - there are some very good security officers out there).

It was mentioned earlier that the average wage at MAN was £23K (prior to any reduction). How is that average reached (Managerial salaries included?) and what hours are worked to achieve it - I'm not disputing the accuracy of the post but it seems quite high for the security industry generally and is possibly only attained through working long hours on a regular basis, unless of course aviation security officers are paid more than their general security counterparts.

And long hours of often mind-numbing routine = tiredness, lack of concentration, apathy, complacency, etc. It's possible that looking under the hat of the flight crew was the highlight of the day!!!

[Captsteve]

They cannot even keep staff at Manchester, they are dragging them in off thedole, for £12,000 a year. Then they leave and go back on the dole. Would you work for 12 hours a day with only an hour break, on the frisk for over 4 hours at a time. No wonder NO BODY is at all interested in what goes through or what happens.

[2close]

It is absolutely 100% essential that they check under your hat.

And of course, as my good lady insists I point out, you may be wearing WMD (Wig of Mass Destruction).

Sorry, you've probably got your own rug but to keep the peace.

[toon]

they look under your hat to make sure your not carrying any 'top secret documents' that could be used against the western world in a 'situation' :ok:

[sacktheboard]

Apparently i am told, they have to look under your hat or anybody elses because you could be concealing something.

It is a bit of a farce but it is part of the protocol laid down by
the DFT and we must remember these guys and girls are on
CCTV 24/7 and i believe a number have been suspended this
week due not doing certain checks correctly.

[master slug]

The last I heard about these muppets, was that they are far to busy to search you...unless you have a spoon.

Because they were to busy Stabbing each other in the back........

Talk about sticking together.


So says the slug.........

[truthnolies]

In the 'Sun' today,

'BAG CHECK SHAMBLES'

The BBC is set to broadcast a shock expose on lax airport security to coincide with the 3rd anniversary of 9/11.

An undercover women reporter got a job at Manchester airport in may checking luggagae for knives. She was given top level security clearance after using bogus work and character references.

The reporter armed with hidden cameras and microphones smuggled into the terminal building, taped failures to carry out baggage checks.

[policepilot]

I doubt she'd be given a top level security clearance, although she would have had some background check. This embarrassing exposure might explain a recent newsletter from the Pass Office quote: The Pass Office will now check all the personal details of the applicant also of the references provided against a number of national databases. unquote.
Does this mean they didn't. Renewing passes is always a highlight for Manchester staff. Unenviable job I would think.

[sacktheboard]

The program will be broadcasted on:

BBC1 2100hrs Tuesday 7th September 2004 'Whistleblower'
Michelle Cox is the undercover reporter for
the BBC

Worked for MAN on T3 from May this year until very
recently.

Hopefully this should show the world what a
joke MAN security really is and how MAN puts profit
and getting the Queue down before Security.

"Get them through as fast as you can so they
can spend spend spend"!!!!!.

Heads should roll for this at senior level.

we will see.

MAN is probably the only airport in the world that
sacked halve its workforce and slashed the remainders wages
by over 40% including inferior terms and conditions with Sh*** rosters only MONTHS AFTER 9/11

[AUTOGLIDE]

MAN is no better or worse than any other UK airport. What is the point of making a big deal about how you can 'smuggle' razor blades onto an aircraft? The idea behind an airside pass is that you have, within the guidelines issued by the government, been checked out and deemed trustworthy and that you have no hostile intent. If this doesn't happen there will be no aircraft maintenance because tools won't be allowed airside, and we may as well all give up.
Also anyone who thinks MAN is such a bad airport should really get out more. Try working at LHR's central area for a while, MAN is absolute heaven by comparison.
This forum has people complaining that security is too lax, and others moaning because they got searched! At least the security staff at MAN are usually polite!

[RED WINGS]

Since 9/11 airport security procedures other than the CRC have hardly changed as anyone in the industry knows. What has dramatically changed is the number of idiots who try to undermine the system. I am shocked and appalled at some of the comments in this thread! I cannot believe so many people have the same mentality as these journalists who barely have a brain cell to rub together who go around telling the world how to breach airport security. YES I am sure professional terrorists will already be aware of these security lapses however come on lets not encourage all the psychopaths in the world to further frighten the public. I believe that ars****es like the sun reporter at BHX last week and if true the undercover reporter at MAN should be prosecuted and thrown in jail, how do we know they are not terrorists posing as journalists posing as airport workers LOCK THESE PEOPLE UP!!!
The DOT regularly sends undercover operatives in to probe airport security we do not need it on the front page.

As for the security manager at MAN he would be subject to the higher level of CRC and if convicted of fraud would not qualify and hence could not hold an airside pass or presumably the post of security officer let alone manager.

We all are aware of problems with the system and it will never be perfect terrorists will always find a way in, all we can do is make it as difficult as possible. This means not leaving details on this web site which is monitored by the press I am sure, don’t give them a free story and if any members of the press are reading this please try and be responsible don’t “Sex up” the facts like you did with last weeks story in Birmingham and remember B S stories that are becoming the norm not only endanger everyone’s safety but put thousands of people out of jobs when tragedies occur!

Danny – please ensure both yourself and your forum is used responsibly in such matters!

Before anyone says it no I do not work in security or ever have done I am speaking merely from many years of working in the industry.

RW

[surely not]

Why doesn't MAN Apt take the reporter to court for making false statements to gain an airside ID?

Lets face it items were smuggled in to Colditz which had a reasonable level of security I believe, so some smart alec is always going to be able to smuggle something into an airport.

The reporter has broken the rules and regs deliberately to make money for their company and possibly to cause fear amongst the public. If they or their company really cared about security they would take their findings to the DfT and work with them, without publicity, to rectify the wrongs.

They have no interest in security whatsoever.

[RED WINGS]

Well said SN, lets put these people behind bars before they put us all out of work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[jet_breeze]

Doing that is terrorist like behaviour falsifying docs to gain airside access surely the Terrorism act thing says something about doing it otherwise terrorists themselves can only take advantage. How do we know that they aren't already trying it on wasn't it on the news that someone had plans to blow Heathrow, then again the charts and pictures shown are readily available on the internet. I feel the BBC is digging itself a small grave after doing this attempting to expose our airports to the worried public which can only be bad news for operators, especially for Manchester my most favourite. :D

[bjcc]

Throw them in jail?...Thats not going to happen.

The offence of giving false details to get an airside pass is under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. It is only triable at Magistrates Court and only punishable by a fine. However, one of the factors to be taken into account before someon's taken to court in the UK is the Public Interest. Now, uncovering loopholes in security is to be honest going to be seen as in the public interest. The DOT do send thier inspectors round to test things but obviously don't find everything. So the chances of the Crown Prosecution Service supporting a prosecution are zero.

[surely not]

It is not in the public interest to shout from the front page of a newspaper, or a prime time TV programme, that it is easy to commit acts of terror at an airport or on an aircraft.

The public interest would be served by working with the DfT Inspectors on a long term and workable plan to close the loopholes. Once this has been achieved by all means put it in the papers and on the TV how you helped close the loophole, but to do it beforehand is creating a period of vulnerability whilst a response is cobbled together!

I thought giving information to the enemy was treason?

[bjcc]

Thats one way of looking at it yes, however, the fact is they have pointed out loopholes. The same as the sun did. Given the events in Russia, where the press don't have the same freedom, then the public interest would be seen to have been served in this case. Please remember that you have your point of view which is probably not shared by the majority of the public. As to working with the DFT, do you know they didn't?

[Bernoulli]

It'll be interesting to see what is done after the programme has aired. Tradition has it that in slamming the stable doors our Politicians, Regulators and Managers under pressure to "do something!" look to the legitimate users of the system for a result. After the tragedy of Dunblane we saw handguns removed from the ownership of registered users. This of course resulted in an immediate and lasting reduction in gun crime.

The awful events of 11 Sep see us jumping through DoT hoops in a flurry of paperwork with the pointless confiscation of corkscrews and nailclippers, all in the name of security. But hey, it allows the unholy trio above to point and say "something has been done!"

But it hasn't improved security.....not one jot.

For that they would have to genuinely check out applicant's backgrounds.

[surely not]

bjcc, I think that it would have been noticed if the programme makers had been working with the DfT. Procedures at all Apts would have been tightened prior to the exposee on the programme, and the programme makers would no doubt have mentioned that thanks to their public spirited work the loopholes had been closed.

That none of the above happened is a strong indication IMHO that they didn't work with the DfT.

[bjcc]

Surley not

I am sure the loopholes have now been closed, and the BBC Program has not been shown yet. End result is the same excpet that this way its difficult for the Civil Servents to drag thier feet. The potential for rolling of ministers heads being wonderful for focusing civil servent minds (about the only thing that does unless thier allocation of rich tea biccies is wrong)

Pre 9/11 the DOT inspectors turned up at LHR and funnily enough the airport always seemed to know about it...shock that! So unless they have changed vastly then at the moment they arn't much of a test.

I have no love of the press, but then again I have no real desire to be on an aircraft that someone has done something sneeky to either, so as long as the result is that I am safe I couldn't give a toss how that result is achieved.

[truthnolies]

Airport security 'exposed' on TV


CLAIMS of poor security at Manchester Airport will be made in a BBC documentary next week.

Undercover reporter Michelle Cox spent three months working as a security officer at the airport.

Her findings, which include hidden camera footage, will be broadcast in an hour-long programme called Whistleblower to be screened on BBC1 on Tuesday at 9pm.

It is timed to coincide with the third anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, when hijackers bypassed security.

It will include allegations that security staff waved passengers through without carrying out body searches - in order to tackle huge queues of passengers building up at peak periods.

It is understood one female security worker is recorded saying "We cheat" when asked about the rate of body searches.

Soon after the September 11 attacks, bosses at Manchester Airport were criticised for security cost-cutting. Wages were cut and jobs were axed at a time when America was ploughing more money into security at airports.

The cost-cutting was designed to reduce landing fees to attract more airlines, especially budget carriers, to Manchester.

Struggled

It resulted in a series of damaging strikes.

At the time, the airport was hit by three separate allegations of security breaches, once when a government inspector managed to get bomb equipment through a scanner undetected as part of a test; and twice when journalists smuggled blades on board aircraft.

It is known that airport bosses have struggled to recruit and keep staff because of the wages on offer and the unsocial shifts required.

Last month, the M.E.N. uncovered a security loophole when a reporter was able to gain access to restricted areas of Terminal 2 by punching a widely-available code into a door lock.

A Manchester Airport spokesman said: "The safety of the travelling public and our employees is our highest priority.

"Manchester Airport's procedures, systems and equipment are part of a robust effective defence system, comprising several different levels, which changes and evolves as necessary.

"Together with regular reviews and inspections, this provides an intricate system of checks and cross-checks which, taken together, provide a robust security net.

"The integrity of this security system works as a whole and is not dependent upon any one single element. "

"We take any allegations of shortcomings extremely seriously and any breaches in procedure are rectified immediately."

Do you feel safe at Manchester Airport?

John Scheerhout Manchester Evening News 4 September 2004

[pilgrim]

Not in the Public intrest. I read in some of the posts, Me thinks it,s very much in the public intrest, as they are the one,s paying our wages,and least we forget it. We have a duty of care to all our passengers and crew to ensure that they get from A-B safely.I have worked for several years in aviation security both mainline and now Corporate.When you employ staff who really are not intrested in what they are doing and just turn up for wages ,then you have the wrong people working for you. In the UK we are fully compliant to every rule imaginable, from DFT and JAR and anything else Brussels wants to throw at us. If we can,t get the Basics right then their is no point in wasting time and effort at throwing people in uniforms who are not motivated trained or intrested in doing quite a important job properly. A reality check is required by MAN management and some other airports. Stop Paying Lip service to security.

[ceedee]

From the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3629336.stm

BBC finds airport security lapses

A BBC investigation has revealed "shocking" security lapses at Manchester Airport, programme makers claim.

A reporter working as an aviation security officer was encouraged to flout Department for Transport rules on bag searches, the BBC says.

It said she also found planes left open and unattended overnight and that staff knowingly used faulty metal detectors.

The airport said travellers' safety was its "highest priority" and any breaches in procedure were fixed "immediately".

A spokesman said: "Manchester Airport's procedures, systems and equipment are part of a robust effective defence system comprising several different levels, which changes and evolves as necessary.

"Together with regular reviews and inspections this provides an intricate system of checks and cross-checks which taken together provide a robust security net.

"We take any allegations of shortcomings extremely serious and any breaches in procedure are rectified immediately."

'We cheat'

Journalist Michelle Cox spent ten weeks working at the airport.

Programme makers said on one occasion around a thousand passengers passed through the airport from Pakistan but only three random bag searches took place.

"Michelle was told by colleagues to exaggerate the figures, with one workmate openly declaring, `We cheat'," a statement said.

"Michelle also discovered planes left open and unattended on the tarmac overnight with easy access provided by the steps, which had been left attached, contrary to security rules."

The reporter was also able to gain access to one of the planes and film undisturbed, the programme said.

The BBC also claims the film will show a metal detector failing to sound when a knife and gun were passed through it as part of a test.

It said: "The detector failed to go off on a number of occasions and was shut down.

"The second detector in the area was tested with a large pair of scissors and also failed to go off on a number of occasions.

"This one was not shut down and staff continued to allow approaching passengers through security using the unreliable machine."

Security team leaders are also alleged to have tipped off colleagues about covert DfT inspectors, phoning their physical descriptions through to colleagues.

The BBC show screens on Tuesday at 2100 BST on BBC One as part of the Whistleblower series.

[chikenscanfly]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3629336.stm

wow, airplanes open overnight!!

:bored:

Well lets sneak a nice little surprise into their Birmingham offices overnight then and let the competition loose.
:E

[Bally Heck]

Programme makers said on one occasion around 1,000 passengers passed through the airport from Pakistan but only three random bag searches took place.

Not only is that a very big aircraft they've stepped off, but arriving passengers don't normally have their baggage screened except perhaps by the excise man.

[Wings]

1000 passengers from the country where Osama Bin Laden himself is believed to be hiding passed through the airport and only 3 pax bags were searched.

Pause for a second and think.

O.K. perhaps this suggests that security at Manchester is below standard.

Or perhaps it suggests that this entire bandwagon of security, security, and even more security is not as vital as some would have us believe.

Perhaps the people with vested interests (financial / political) in creating empires in the security industry are being shown here that the overwhelming majority of airline passengers and crew are not security threats and need not be treated as such.

How many days had the metal detector been u/s ?
And how many aircraft departing Manchester have been hijacked or blown up etc. during that time ?
Was the number of hijackings etc greater or lesser than during the time the metal detector was working?

I know that all it takes is one evil person to commit attrocities, and because of that, security is necessary.

The point I'm trying to make is,
before watching the BBC article, putting our hands to our face and shouting in rage and horror at the suggested failures in security,
perhaps we should watch the article and decide if there are other messages.

Or put more simply,
try thinking for yourself rather than thinking what the BBC tell you to think.

Cheers

[anawanahuanana]

Here we go again. I can almost guarantee that this thread will go in the same direction as all the others where the press, be it the BBC, The Sun newspaper, or anybody else for that matter, reports a serious breech of security. It will be met by the usual "Oh it`s just some tabloid hack looking for a cheap story again. What do they know anyway?" response.

The fact of the matter is that security at all of the U.K airports where I have been, including the one where I work, is not good enough. Aircraft should NOT be left open overnight. There are many places, accessible during flight where a weapon could be hidden, and retieved later by someone with a fanatical mind. This weapon could quite easily have been brought onto the airpot during the night by a cleaner/caterer/engineer or whoever, and easily made it through security because the van search was "minimal" to say the least (more of a wlkround than a search), as they are most of the time, unless their supervisor or the D of T is on the airfield. But hey, maybe that doesn`t bother some people (quote "wow, airplanes open overnight!!") as they can`t get into the flight deck these days anyway. Lucky for you guys up the front then. Let`s just hope that your family or friends aren`t travelling down the back having their throats cut eh?

As for the metal detectors. How anyone can justify what is reported is beyond me. If you turned up for duty and the passengers were all being filed around the detectors, and when you asked what was going on you were told "well, they`re not working anyway", you would not operate that service, claiming there had been a major security breech. But I guess it`s OK if the security don`t TELL you that they`re not working, because then you can have a clear concience, and blame anything that happens on them. Comments like "How many aircraft departing manchester have been hijacked or blown up etc during that time" when the metal detector had not been working, are both unhelpful and frankly a childish and appalling way to look at the problem.

The security in this country is still a joke. That is a fact. It`s no good burying your head in the sand, or blaming everybody else. Instead of getting angry at the people whose job it is to report these security lapses, why not get angry at the people whose job it is to prevent them?

And lastly, when you say things like "well lets sneak a nice little surprise into their birmingham offices overnight then and let the competition loose", you`re sounding like a child. And also forgetting the massive car bomb left outside television centre perhaps........

It`s not often I post (and thank God most of you will be saying). This is just my opinion.............

[sharpshot]

There should not be a problem leaving a plane open and unattended in the RZ of a major international airport............presuming we could trust those employed in the RZ.

Get back to basics - these bogus people shouldn't get in.

Having worked airside for more years than I care to mention, it is utterly insulting to the majority in a like situation to have our integrity brought into disrepute because of these "journalists" who don't play by the rules knowing they'll evade prosecution.

[witchdoctor]

Anybody who thinks any such 'revelation' about security or any other aspect of the vulnerabilities of aviation (or indeed any of our transport systems) is unknown to potential terrorists at this point in time is a bigger fool than the journalists who produce these scoops.

Terrorists don't sit around all day reading the Sun and watching Trisha, they're slightly smarter than that and unfortunately need to be given some credit for their organisational abilities and intelligence, whether individually or collectively. Nothing in this programme is likely to be unknown to them.

That said, I currently fail to see the usefulness of such a programme beyond time-honoured tabloid sensationalism to induce the public and politicians into unwelcome 'knee-jerk' reactions. Only time will tell, and I reserve judgement until I have seen the programme.

[Krystal n chips]

The lunch time local BBC News carried a preview ( promo ! ) of the programme and one rather contradictory point seemed to emerge. Notably said reporter who claimed to have gained access to aircraft with doors open. She was shown gazing wistfully at a MYT DC 10 and a BY 767--both with doors closed and steps attached. She comments to the effect that, " all you have to do is lift a little lever and you are in the Cabin"--this was followed by a very "hushed and conspiritorial" commentary in the 767--presumably for dramatic effect :yuk: However, it begs the question as to how she gained the authority and expertise to open and close a Cabin door. Most members of the public have no idea of how a door opens / closes anyway. On the surface, this negates her claim re. access to open aircraft and suggests this programme will be more sensationalist orientated than a serious documentary---which, I have to say, on the basis of the ham actor reporter I have seen so far, is sadly going to be the case.

It will be interesting to see how deeply the programme goes into the causal factors concerning these lapses--and in particular the management failings of Manchester Airport with regard to staff cuts / rosters and cost savings.

I have to say though, whilst security is a major issue, I agree with the post by Wings :ok: and the observations made therein so I will view the programme with a very open mind.

[anawanahuanana]

How do these people gain the expertise to open a cabin door? They probably read the big writing on it that says "pull lever to open door". Or maybe they just follow the big red arrow. It isn`t exactly rocket science opening a main entry door.

Besides which, anyone who thinks a terrorist who plans to put something on an aircraft is going to get as far as the door, only to be flummoxed by it, and go away with his tail between his legs, is a fool. As a previous poster has said, while me may deplore what these people are trying to do, we have to give them a bit more credit. They haven`t spend their whole lives in a desert.

[Krystal n chips]

True, there are usually directions as to how to open a Cabin Door, but, in this instance, it was being done on a covert basis, it was night / subdued lighting and how many people would know how to depress the cover,. lift the handle, push open a 767 door and then close it again---all at the first attempt ?. I have seen crew and engs. alike be wary of the doors on their first encounter so how can a journo ---without any known previous contact with an a/c do this with such ease on her first attempt?. Not picking an argument here, just pointing out the facts as I perceive them and my reasons for commenting.

[Leodis]

I can asure you that everything that you mentioned happens accross the country.

This happened today.......

*Today the staffing levels had been low. A massive line of people waiting to pass through security tailing back beond the doors. Airport Terminal Officer arrives on site, this quickly followed be the Airport Security Managers, Contract Manager and Aviation Security Training Officers. Get the passengers through, quick, get them through!! The idea that someone could miss their flight being more important than the security of the flight.

*DfT bag search requirements. Staff are told not to carry out the correct proceedure and are told to falsify paperwork. The airport authority knows this is done. Persons carrying out the correct proceedures are removed from their post for slowing down the passenger flows. They are then given other duties away from the public domain.

*The ramp only has one security person on it and even then, it's only if there are the staffing levels to allow for this or if the Dft are on site.
*The staff are told when the DfT are on site by the security Supervisors and Team Leaders and told to adhere to proceedures. Staff are often moved around the site to follow the DfT to provide the correct staffing levels at the various posts.
*The x-ray equiptment regularly misses bags as they are scanned because of the enormous volume of bags going through the scanner. The required distance between the bags is not undertaken. A set distance allows for the maximum length of time to view the bag on screen. Only one item should be viewed at a time. The actual figure is as many as three bags at a time, or less than two seconds viewing time. Remember, how long does a doctor has to view a bone fracture?
*The management only promote yes men. Supervisors who carry out correct proceedure and slow the flow of passengers down are swiftly removed from their possition and are demoted.

The list goes on and on. What is the answer? Firstly, the Aviation Security Officers are *underpaid. Cleaners at the airport get more money for emptying dustbins and mopping floors. People have been known to leave Aviation Security to be an Airport Cleaner at this airport.
*The airport hires the aviation security contract to the company who offers the best value for money. What we may class as value for money is certainly different from the managements idea of value for money.
*Aviation Security Officers here work 12 hour shifts on a regular basis, working as many as 66 hours in a row. 12 hour shifts often start between 0300 and 0400. Having had no sleep the night before, the officers are then expected to work x-ray machines. The managers are not interented in the well being of their staff.
*The people are in place to carry out the job properly, but the industry should be put into full government control. The airport authorities accross the contry would then be forced into having propper provision for aviation security.

[MAN777]

I have seen doors open on aircraft many times at MAN, the most common being the MYT DC10s (now down to 1), when i questioned it with engineers I was told it was quite normal.

[BizJetJock]

Slightly off topic, but here's a good one for you.
At a UK airport recently (not MAN), the ground staff quite correctly in accordance with DfT rules X-rayed all the (8) passenger's bags before letting them board. Not a single comment to them or to me about the fact (which I knew in advance) that every bag contained a gun!!

Security??

[Firestorm]

I expect that the reporter found out how to open the door to the aeroplane by asking someone whilst sat in their rest room, or over lunch or something. it's not rocket science, as someone else so eruditely noted earlier.

Until we all watch the programme tonight it is very difficult to make any sensible comment about this particular investigation.

What astounds me is that we hear of these breaches of security by journalists on almost a weekly basis. How come the system cannot react to prevent further occurances, or do they just not report the failed attempts? Probably not. I agree with all the comments about Disclosure Scotland being an absolute farce. I am at a loss to know how a proper background check can be done on an individual for £13. Maybe they do an Ask Jeeves and a Google. Any of us who have undergone vetting (both positive and negative) for other jobs, particularly in the Services would know how long those searches take, and cost, and how thourogh the results are.

And, as already noted, how are you going to get effective staff on the minimum wage? I would prefer to see the government spend more money on the police force and have a much higher visible police profile (as well as any plain clothes element that may already be deployed) in UK airports. At the moment the problem seems to be about the airport's operating bottom line, rather than dealing with the problem. It's great to see 4 coppers in T1 at LHr with MP5s (one between two, mind you), but it would be much greater (excuse the grammer) to see 8 or more. T1 is a big manor, and more has to be better. I would feel better if there were police on the security gates to supervise the security companies. I don't think it would be a waste of a highly trained resource, before anyone says that. I think it would be a good use of a highly trained resource.

[bagpuss lives]

What a poorly executed and presented programme, overall.

True, the events shown were concerning to say the least.

I was expecting, yet deeply dreading, something truly damning.

Instead I watched an amateurish botch of an "investigation" in which most of the "evidence" was pure here-say with a pretty face.

[barbiegirl]

and very repetetive, padded out by showing the same thing over and over again.

[bjcc]

Niteflight...why?

It put the point accross, poor vetting, poor supervision poor security and cross checks. Attitude of team leaders was 'who cares'......

The reply from the airport authority was management bulls**t, albeit they seem to have gone into panic behind the scenes. The DfT inspectors are still as obvious as a large cow in the drivers seat of your car, and she managed to get into the ristricted area when she's not even on duty!!!!!!!

Hearsay is evidence not known first hand....there was some of that yes, but evidence of foot patrols being fiddled was not, evidence of the attitude of supervisors was not, evidence of the obvious nature of the DfT inspectors again was not hearsay. She gave direct evidence of the number of bags she searched compared to the written record, again not hearsay evidence.

[jettesen]

Well niteflite01, it will be amateurish won't it, cause she is undercover, and will not have the best of equipment to use will she. At least she has identified some serious failings amongst the baggage screening.

[Scottie Dog]

Whilst it is obvious that there are many lapses in security, it is a shame that the BBC did not try to make a better programme out of what the gained.

The whole thing seemed to amateurish. The interviews with the informant - so enthralling that I have already forgotten his 'name' - where so blatantly read from a script.

The American DFT guy having is bag checked appeared to be wearing either an airport visitors pass or at the very least a badge saying 'look at me'.

I can not and will not condone the attitude of the workforce with regards to massaging figures, and the airport needs to be seen to be taking active steps to promote a new approach to it's security.

Hopefully the army of aviation enthusiasts will continue to provide an additional layer of security on the 'southside' mounds. They probably are more aware of who is around at anytime, and I am sure many keep a close eye on what is going on.

Well those are my initial observations. A programme that needed a far better producer to make you stay awake, and a presenter who had no charisma at all and who seemed to be trying to find things to film to fill the time - too many shots of the Terminal 1 food hall.

Scottie Dog

[Spike001]

I've just seen this program on BBC 1, and it's EXTREMLY worrying to say the least.

How can an airport employ individuals who fake data, don’t take ANY sort of steps to find the flaws in security checks, that “supposedly” will ensure passenger safety.

Passenger/PILOT! safety basically is NON EXISTANT, and I’m about to go into this industry, and about to start ATPL ground school, and this is just a bit of a concern.

You would have thought that September 11th would have woken the world up to the risks, but seeing this program makes me feel even more vulnerable than ever before, and we’re just asking for trouble!

People say Aviation is the safest type of transportation, try and prove this then! It would be much safer flying for the RAF at this rate!

The desire to become a pilot is too great, from a young age, while in the long run; it could be the most expensive way to an early grave - literally!

Many of the pilots on this forum properly are aware of lapse in security at UK airports, and didn't need to watch the program.

Personally, I'd like to send all these personnel onto an a/c with a "fake" terrorist, and give them a taste of what they deserve, or maybe just sack the whole lot.

The other worry (which wasn’t covered in the program), GA a/c tend to be unlocked as well!


WHY do we have to wait until something bad happens to see RESULTS?

…………This is what you get when company profitability comes first and passenger/pilot safety being the last thing on the lists.

[bagpuss lives]

Investigative journalism is supposed to be dramatic, well written and well constructed enough to bring people's attention to a subject matter serious enough to warrant the time and effort taken to gather the information, in a clear and concise way.

Not simply bore them to tears with some arty shots of the inside of a sparsely decorated city centre flat (nice sofa by the way), about 10 minutes footage of said journalist strolling through various urban and rural scenes looking pretty, a handy "where to spot" guide for the airport's aviation enthusiasts, 10 minutes on how worried the journalist was about getting her camera equipment into her uniform and through the detectors, and, to top it off, the rest of the programme discussing seemingly inconsequential and uncorroborated "evidence" from an anonymous source without even the courage of his own convictions to actually do something, something worthwhile, something official, about it in person.

All of this whilst he was and is, of course, still taking the supposedly evil company dollar.

I can't really comment about film quality sadly my friend as I'm no expert. I am though somewhat of an armchair expert in decent, worthwhile, fact-laden and constructive journalism.

Something this evening's programme certainly wasn't, in my humble opinion.

[RampRage]

Well i think it was a good program...maybe it will make the fat cats at MAN wake up and smell the coffee!!

i work on the ramp at manchester and i know how bad security is... u never get searched the way u should and most of the time staff to busy chatting etc to look at ur bag going threw the x-ray etc

it will be just like everything else .....it will take another major incident to get things right!!

it only takes one nutter to get something on an aircraft ..knife,etc etc,a passenger or a airport worker...its that simple

i dont know about u guys...but i wouldnt wanna be on that plane,in the cabin or the flightdeck in the sky when the s*** hits the fan

[ShotOne]

Some of the programme was nonsense -for example filming on the raised ground by 24 threshold with a telephoto lense to make it look like there is no fence (there is in fact a very effective one, barbed wire and all).

also I had to laugh at the patronising tone of the US security "expert", like there's never been a lapse in security there - Wasn't it a US airport security guard arrested recently at LGW with a revolver and ammunition?

[CiPher]

Firstly any spelling mistakes are beer induced!.

I found the program to be worrying in many aspects. I think it’s easy to hammer the "beeb" for a poor program, but looking at the whole picture and how the information had to be obtained I would go as so far as to say they did a fair job.

I found the “figure massaging” a most worrying trend, and the footage of the guy pretending to X-Ray bags when the machine was clearly not operational was just downright madness.

I've worked in environments in the past where "targets must be met at all costs" and I must admit that EGCC is very reminiscent of that, unfortunately the big difference is that if I massaged the figures th MD was happy and I had a few P**s*d off customers, but at EGCC you could end up with something far far worse.

One thing that did strike me was when the journo was in the plane that was “left open” why were all of the interior lights on? I don’t know much about large birds but it did seem strange that she could get on a fully illuminated plane at somewhere near 2am?

Anyhow that’s my beer induced two-cents/Penneth!

Cipher

[TCXCadet]

Would have been more constructive going to the DfT with the evidence instead of trying to make an hour long programme out of a few weak video clips.

As with the previous messages the only MAJOR security problem I could see was the number fiddling.
The security fence 'disappearing' southside made me fall off my chair - how high would that fence have to be to be seen from the top of the hill with the camera in the grass??

Also, does working as a journalist give you the right to lie on a reference form? Last time I checked it was illegal. I take it the BBC and the other investigative journalist knew what she was doing when they signed for the 5-year employment check everyone has to go through?

[HiSpeedTape]

Quote from sacktheboard

"MAN is probably the only airport in the world that
sacked halve its workforce and slashed the remainders wages
by over 40% including inferior terms and conditions with Sh*** rosters only MONTHS AFTER 9/11"

Not quite. The very same thing has happened at NCL. Not just to Security but across the board from baggage and passenger services through the AFS and ATC. And for what reason. Well to lower the costs far enough for the to$$er who is now the aiport chief exec to entice sleazyJet in. They (sleazy) are charged a fraction per passenger for handling than the rest of the airlines that operate here (except possibly for Ryanair). This is at the expense of everybody who has had their wages slashed, pensions removed, holiday entitlement reduced and shift patterns destroyed. No wonder that people have little inclination to achieve targets when some halfwit (who incidentally has rewarded himself with a new Porche Carrera 4 which sits under 24 hour surveillance outside the security post in which sit the very people he has shafted) has ruined many peoples livelihoods!
Actually it wouldn't suprise me if someone topped him.

[bjcc]

The allagations of the 'mole' were on there own not worth the breath used to speak them. However as the reporter pointed out they then set out to corrobarate them by her working in security. To a large extent the original allagations were proven by her direct evidence as shown on the admitadly poor quality filming.
Leaving aside the spotters guide and the sparsely furnished flat (although she was rather nice to look at) which perhaps are irrelevent, the original object was to show the lapses in security...that having been achived, it is more worrying that the attitude of the management at Man was so poor. Thier written answer was as I say pure bullsh**t.

TCXcadet

Do you know she lied? It wasn't made clear what her referrees said when asked. yes she said she used to work as an English teacher, they did not say it was not true, she may have done so.
No jurnos do not have the right to lie, however to prosecute it would have to be in the public interest. Which public interest is served to a greater extent? Exposing a big hole in security, or taking someone to court the end result is unlightly to be a conviction and even if it does will only be a small fine.

There was more than fiddling numbers involved, the broken xray machine for instance, the lack of staff search, the fact that she could get a video camera airside without it being found. The claim that security patrols were carried out when they could not have been for, the list goes on.....

My recollection was they did inform the DfT after they finsished filming. I can see why they didn't before, note the comments about how obvious the DfT inspectors were.

[Vuelo]

I can't see BMI being too happy with this programme. Wonder if we will see them bring in their own security for USA services now?

[racasanman]

Last week I passed through T3 staff entrance several times with only a pound coin in my pocket and no other metal on me and the detector beeped every time, maybe they could swap the machines around. After all I've had my background checked twice
in the last twelve months and passed both times, more than can be said for the SLF, and I'm expected to act as unpaid security on the ramp If I see anything suspicious which is more than the security staff do and that is what they are there for!!
On a side note the reporter went airside at 04.30am and showed a BA 146 taxying...........please.........no BA traffic after 00.00 untill the JFK lands around 05.30am

[chiglet]

Where did her "driver" come from?
watp,iktch

[ATTCS armed]

I can't see BMI being too happy with this programme. Wonder if we will see them bring in their own security for USA services now?

I hope they do for ALL flights ex MAN

[plantzzman]

Well myself I found it an interesting program or as interesting as an undercover investagative program is likely to be.
I fall on the side of shock and concern like many do and not the side of Bah humbug like some who post-those presumebly who work in those areas of the industry. If we think about it clearly it isnt acceptable to cut corners with security but like all businesses corners are cut. In many industries this may not have a big affect on the world at large-sadly this isnt the case in aviation as we know from past events over the last few years.
The program did it's job in that it raised security issues which should concern us-very much like watching undercover footage shown in the UK after a massive bad meat processing chicken plant was highlighted. It puts things into the public domain which people need to know about. None of us want to be on that plane when the terrorist pulls out his knife and goes crazy so we shouldnt attack the BBC for the program it produced-ok maybe it would be better if the reporter was Roger Cook from the Cook report (UK bods will know who I mean) but there you go.
One thing I ponder is are these issues also to be found at Manchester airports other airports around the UK?

[eal401]

My tuppence worth.

Yes, it wasn't the best programme in the world, our hero Michelle seems fresh from a media studies course!

However, it very definitely succeeded in making Manchester Airport look very stupid, both at management and staff level. At management level because, as the "mole" (who's words were obviously that of an actor Scottie Dog) stated, one of her referees was an investigative journalist, never mind that any robust search on her should have shown her up for who she really was. So that proved their background searches were useless.

The staff looked stupid as she was firing all these blatent "I'm a spy" questions at them, and fat, dumb and happy they all happily answered.

The cheated figures on search/patrol sheets etc. and non-working metal detectors, were just plain worrying.

Sad though that the programme did choose the "sensationalise" route, as stated, the clever use of camera lenses showing spotters practically alongside the runway was a good one! All the stuff about open gates were arguably irrelevant, as I am sure a terrorist with a SAM could find a million places to stand!

Be interesting to see how much "denial" goes on here though....:p

[Chris Wannabe]

What I found interesting was the most effective security came from the trainer on the induction course.

Wasn't this the person who pushed buttons because he/she had doubts? Whats that saying about first impressions?

Shame his/her superiors let the side down.

If something doesn't seem right it's usually because it isn't!

[eal401]

Wasn't this the person who pushed buttons because he/she had doubts?
Correct, highlighted the problem with management who proceeded to bungle the further investigation.

[ecj]

Would not the acid test be for a further undercover investigation to take place, not necessarily at Manchester, to see whether the system is robust?

All UK airports should be put on notice from the DfT to ensure that the prescribed procedures are complied with at all times.

If you think security is expensive, wait until you have a major breach ......

[bundybear]

The old adage, Monkeys And Peanuts.
You cant blame someone for not being able to be in two places at once, as it seems "security" staff would have to be to do their job properly.

However it appeared that some security weaknesses were through staff just not be bothered to,for example, check bags.Peanuts again I suppose.

What I think is most worrying though is that a group of individuals, calling themselves Managers, has been allowed to so obviously degrade the overall security cover at MAN whilst giving themselves salary rises.
:yuk: :yuk:

[oic]

I think it is generally a bad idea to let companies run this sort of thing as they will always have an interest in doing things as cheaply as possible. I feel this sort of thing should be run by the government employing reasonably paid employees. Since aviation is so important for this society I also think that the government should pick up the bill.

[Propellerhead]

I think the quality of the program is irrelevant. I think the BBC were fairly responsible for journalists - who normally quite rightly get a slagging on this forum.

1) They didn't try to smuggle knives/bombs/guns etc through security like the tabloids
2) They obtained 1st hand accounts and evidence.
3) The evidence was handed to the airport BEFORE the program was aired.

The most worrying aspects were
1) Made up hold bag counts.
2) Failure to search enough random bags (3 out of 1000?!)
3) Security staff themselves going through security without passing through metal detectors (if aircrew have to, why not them? - They are supposed to).
4) A cleaner walking around the detector with a huge gashbag.
5) Using a broken metal detector
6) Transfer pax going through an unmanned security check point, sent back, then 1 bloke not watching screen as loading bags (screen not actually on)

However, the bit about the spotters corner was rubbish - they actually aide security.

Security at MAN has been visibily tightened recently, so thanks to the BBC.

[Evening Star]

Watched the programme and came to roughly the same conclusion as Propellerhead, that as far as the journalist methodology goes it was at the responsible end of the spectrum. It all left an impression that if one pays for security at the lowest tender, one will get quality to match.

Sensationalism was easy to filter out although the point about access from outside the perimeter was a bit over the top. Unless we create an impractically wide sterile zone outside the perimeter fence there will always be good unobstructed views of the aircraft. Encourage the spotters I say ... by definition they are interested and observant.

[Flap 5]

There have been a lot of complaints from professional pilots on this forum about the way that security at Manchester treats the pilots who are trusted with millions of pounds worth of aircraft and passengers lives. To see the way that they conduct security at the airport on this programme was truly shocking.

Yes it is a shame that the programme was not presented a bit better but the 'amatures' here are definately the security staff and security management at that airport, and they are really playing with fire!

[busz]

Went in to work at T2 to day and the queue was snaking all over the departure concourse. Clearly that is what happens when the security screeners are doing their job properly and checking people carefully. There was an evident increase in the quality of the searches being carried out, although the staff did seem a little, shall we say, demoralised:ugh: .

Regards

Alex

[timbucthree]

Bloody mickey mouse security, hang on that's an insult to disney they would do it much better.

That is how we looked, yes I am a security officer at the SCAREPORT as it should be now known, but that's an old one. No excuses just shame to be associated with it all, how are we to be ever taken seriously again, just waiting for the comments from every man and his butty box............

Just one point though the people who looked as though they were avoiding going through the archway, would of already been screened and would of just been forward of the archway to pass a message on, or to deal with a query. that also applies to the cleaner the rubbish she had collected would of been airside rubbish, so errrrrr expertly screened previously, no excuses but got to try and salvage something, from this sorry shower of (the proverbial)

On a lighter note Jacko's patch should have it's own agent and equity card!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) crimson with embarrassment

[eal401]

would of already been screened
Er, where?

If the individual has come in from landside to airside, he could easily have picked something up from someone who hasn't been screened? Very unlikely of course, but possible.

[cargo boy]

T'was indeed humorous early this morning as I went from the crew room to go the aircraft. In T2 there was a 'snake' of pax winding and zig zagging across the terminal. There must have been over a thousand pax waiting to go through security. Even in the 'Fast Lane' where the crew go through there was a long line.

Thankfully my flight got away on time but I wonder how many others were delayed. It just goes to show you what sort of investment the airport needs to make to ensure that their security searches are conducted according to the DfT rules and guidelines. The simple fact that they slashed security staff numbers and reduced the terms and conditions of those that were left in order to show a much healthier bottom line to their shareholders rather than generate their income through a better quality product for the airlines and the pax is just one more example of poor management and accounting. These top level executives are supposedly employed, with generous recompense, for their 'expertise' in getting the business to generate better profits. What we appear to have is greedy 'fat cats' whose only ability is to show improved profit at the expense of their most valuable assets, their employees rather than any ability to generate more income. As has been pointed out on these forums many times in the past, these managers/accountants know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Todays example of the security staff working by the book will probably have cost the airport dearly in penalties for flights that were ultimately delayed due to congestion at security. Assuming that the security staff will continue to work according to the book for some time to come, will we see the airport recruiting enough security staff at a wage that will attract the right sort of people so that they can avoid paying the penalties because of their original management blunder in slashing their costs by reducing the required numbers of security staff and demoralising the remaining ones by reducing their terms and conditions? Somehow, I seriously doubt it. They'll probably just not bother to repair the few remaining walkways and try their luck on the cleaners instead. :rolleyes:

The BBC program, whilst padded out, did reveal some serious flaws in the way the security at Manchester was was conducted. Whilst the security leaves a lot to be desired in the first place even if it had been at the required manning levels, proper security needs to be far more in depth than the cosmetic approach we have at the moment, it served to highlight shoddy management practices that start at the very top and filter their way down through the system to 'team leaders' and even to the individual security personnel in many cases.

As a crew member, often subjected to nonsensical searches when, as the presenter highlighted, it is very easy to get aboard a parked aircraft overnight and there is already a number of items, including the crash axe, why did we see smuggled video footage from the CCTV system of security personnel and even cleaners bypassing the very system that is supposed to protect us? It is all a sham and that is possibly why the Manchester Airport management thought they could slash their costs by reducing the number of security personnel and and screw the rest out of those that remained. Perhaps their decisions have returned to bite them on their backsides after all! :hmm:

[Backtrack]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3629336.stm

Does anyone recognise the a/c interior?

The build up to this piccie included some external shots of a MYT DC10 (I think) and a couple of BAL B767s - one in old clothes & the other in new strip.

Looking at this photo, however, it would appear to be taken in a single aisle cabin with a heck of a lot of lighting:

ERGO

1. Not on the aforementioned DC10, nor 767s.

2. Did Michelle Cox necessarilly have to open the door, or was the a/c in the early stages of dispatch? This could explain her comment about leaving the a/c quickly? :confused:

[Big Tudor]

Just as a matter of interest (mine not public), why was the name on the side of the MYT DC10 blanked out, yet Britannia, BMI, BA were shown in all their glory? :confused:

[toon]

Cargo boy, i went through t1 this morning and also encountered queue's out of the door, i hope the security force all stick together now and don't fiddle ought, and do the job right, if it takes along time due to lack of staff, well there ya go, better that than a 'paperwork exercise'.

Bet if i go through next week there won't be any queue's !!

The only thing that they really missed was to hang out to dry the incompetent prats who run the place.

[AUTOGLIDE]

In the case of MAPLC aren't the shareholders the local authorities who 'own' the airport? Wasn't it those local councils wanting more profit from the airport (to subsidise council tax which in some cases is close to the UK's highest anyway) that caused the cut-backs a couple of years ago?

[eal401]

'Fast Lane'
Or the "Stand there in frustration as crew after crew shoves past you lane" which would be a more accurate name. Totally off topic, but as an enhanced "product" MAN :mad: ed that one up big time.

[PAXboy]

There were no surprises in this and I was bored rigid by it. The total amount of information would have filled 20 minutes but they had to make a drama out of a crisis. I agree with the PPRuNEr who mentioned the trainer that sussed something wasn't right with the journo. The BBC certainly picked the wrong kind of person to use for this, as she was so atypical of the kind of people that do the job. I cannot think why they used her, she was a greenhorn at undercover work and life in general. Breathily telling us that she might have trouble getting the camera gear in was a waste of time. Either she would or she wouldn't and odds-on she would. Whichever happened would be worth reporting but the programme had to make news as well.

The programme simply showed how modern companies operate. If you squeeze the staff, they will squeeze you back! If you ensure that their livelihood depends upon certain numbers - then certain numbers are what you will get! The Govt proved this with the NHS and schools. No doubt, if someone went undercover in the BBC, they would find numerous ways in which they fail at their stated aims and objectives.

People will say "This is different because lives are at stake" but No it isn't. The folks at MAN see it as an 'overhead' not a core asset, so they will respond as if lives are not at stake.

Having worked in a wide range of commercial companies/groups and local govt for 26 years, I could have predicted all of this. As indeed, could just about anyone in the country - because this is what is happening in thousands of workplaces in the country. That said, telling the story is the only way to get the story told!

The reply from MAN staff was the biggest 'win' for the programme, as it was a SOP of what management thick they ought to say and says 180 degrees the opposite. It undermined them more than the prog itself. :rolleyes:

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[Rudedog]

Big Tudor, I too had mused the same thing. Was there a bit of advanced warning to BAL and MYT do we think? And MYT decided a bit of an incentive to the cashstrapped BBC execs might save a bit of face?

To my canine compadre Scottie Dog: I agree about the BBC programme. If I had wanted lessons on documentary making I could have gone to drama school. I reckon that the BBC could have slaughtered MAN and let them off the hook. Worrying nonetheless.

RD

[Wings]

If an airline looks after its passengers, the passengers will look after the airline, or in this topic, airport.

This simple concept is not taught in beancounter school.

At beancounter school, all the students are stripped of any religious denomination and taught instead to worship the mighty dollar (pound / euro / etc).

Staff are then treated badly, wages are cut, work hours increased, facilities not maintained and passengers inconvenienced.

All in an effort to worship the mighty dollar.

False promises are made about caring for workers, caring for the environment, caring for the community, caring for the customer. The promises are made to harvest greater wealth so they can even more fervently worship the mighty dollar.

Little do the beancounters realise, that if they invested in sufficient staff numbers, invested in staff training above minimum acceptable standards and rewarded staff with reasonable incomes and lifestyles the results would generate wealth beyond their beany - dreams.

Sufficient security staff and equipment (properly maintained) would eliminate the snaking queues of passengers. It would catch the jounalists and terrorists trying to smuggle guns, knives and nail clippers onto aircraft. It would give the security staff a feeling of worth - that what they are doing is valuable and necessary. This would give them the encouragement to do a good job.

Imagine how you would feel if you were the security staff told to pretend to check passenger's bags using a u/s X ray machine. Would you not feel like the whole thing was a joke, your contribution was irrelevant and no one really cared ? Passengers must think of them as little more than a bloody nuisance and at best a necessary evil. What quality of life ? What job satisfaction ?

So they don't do a good job. Who can blame them ?

The beancounters could do something about it.

But they are too busy worshipping the mighty dollar.

It looks like the BBC have gone some way in showing that they are worshipping false idols.

Cheers