and still they don't get the message!

[newswatcher]

From the BBC(14/3):

"A teenager who jokingly told airline check-in staff he had a gun in his luggage has been barred from flying with classmates to Lanzarote. Sufyan Sadiq, 16, from Peterborough in Cambridgeshire, made the claim when he was asked routine security questions at Gatwick Airport on Thursday morning. He was not allowed on the JMC flight to Arrecife, but instead took a later flight with a different airline and joined his group from Stamford College that evening.

A spokesman for JMC said the airline had adopted a "zero tolerance" policy after 11 September and voided the tickets of passengers who made such comments.

He said: "We will not tolerate any statements which could put passengers' lives at risk, even though it may have been said as a school joke.

"No one knew for certain that the boy was not telling the truth until his bags had been searched.

"Other passengers were checking in and heard the boy's statement.

"Such remarks cause distress."

Stamford College, which organised the trip for 20 students and three teachers, said it would investigate the matter once Sufyan had returned. School marketing manager Jayne Olney said: "It is a prank in one respect, but with very serious implications which the college totally deplore."

Gatwick Airport teminal manager Andy Rozumski said such jokes caused distress to other passengers.

"A lot of people make comments like that, then afterwards, when questioned, they realise the seriousness and fall back on saying it's only a joke."

He said all such comments were reported to the police, who would what action to take.

[Hew Jampton]

You say: "and still they don't get the message!". While of course I agree that it was a stupid 'joke' and the remark should not have been made, he was a sixteen year old kid, probably on his first trip without his parents and therefore the first time he had personally been asked the security questions. While those of us who work in the industry all the time are all too aware of "the message" not to joke about this subject, it isn't widely known among the very occasional and first-time pax, as evidenced by the number of times this happens. Exactly where can such pax be expected to get "the messsage", especially a kid?

I think that some form of 'caution' should preface the security questions, either printed on or with the ticket, or on a notice on the check-in desk, with the notice being brought to the passenger's attention before the questions are asked.

Incidentally, and with reference to this incident, I've always wondered what would happen if the answer to the question: "Did you pack the bag yourself?" was given as: "No, my Mum did".

[newswatcher]

I don't know HJ. It is difficult to believe that anyone, including this 16 year-old, cannot be aware that the world of air travel has changed after 11/9/01.

If it really was his first trip away, then I would have thought that he would have been slightly cautious of doing anything that might be "wrong". Joking to people in authority is usually done by people who are over-confident .

Next time your car is stopped by the police, why not tell them that there is a body in the boot, that you have just left the pub, and ask them if they would like to sample the powder you have in a little bag. How they will laugh!

[kriskross]

Newswatcher,

and you don't know any 16 year-old lad who is over-confident???

[Hew Jampton]

"Difficult to believe", yes but demonstrably true. The average sixteen year old knows little about the world, let alone the world of air travel.

I'm not defending him but pointing out that the industry could do more to highlight in advance the perils of such 'jokes'. Prevention is better than cure.

Over-confident? Could equally have been nervousness.

Your motoring analogy doesn't really work.

[fireflybob]

From the press reports this would appear to be a trip organised and managed by the College concerned. The students, whilst bearing a mark of responsibility, are, by definition, not adults.

In my opinion, it therefore rests on the school/college authorities to be aware of the current rules etc. and to instruct their teachers (or other persons who are responsible for the trip) to inform the students of said rules prior to check-in.

In this case, I feel a certain amount of sympathy towards the 16 year old concerned without belittling the gravity of making such remarks.

[newswatcher]

kriskross - I was referring to HJ's comments that this might have been the first time he was away on his own. And yes, I have recently brought two of my own through this challenging age barrier.

HJ - On the subject of "early warning", have I not seen a message to this effect at Stansted or Heathrow, before reaching check-in?

[harpy]

I don't defend the boy's remark, but he is a boy and it was meant as a joke. We can't rely on everyone to behave sensibly all the time, least of all sixteen year old boys.

The JMC spokesman recognised it was a joke but seemed to think it had endangered people's lives. It's a pity people no longer seem able to deal with such a matter without throwing the book at the offender.

Bring back Dixon of Dock Green.

[Miserlou]

The comment may have been meant to be be taken as a joke whilst really being true.

Given that radical, religious fanatics have links in the UK and that their indoctrination is literally from the cradle and further that the name of the individual in question is, how can one say, not typically english, I think the airline most certainly did the right thing!

What better cover for a terrorist than as a school boy, or don't you think terrorists would stoop to that?!

[Snoop]

It doesn't matter what this 16 year olds actions are put down to, at 16 he should know better. It is not as though he is not had the option of education, he was on a school trip! At 16 he can leave school, start working, join the forces etc. Basically start his adult life. Not to far off in the future and this teenager would be tried as an adult.

I am sorry, it may seem harsh, but he deserves what he gets and due to his age it won't be much other than a slapped wrist and maybe a suspension from school.

Just hope that him and his mates didn't find it so funny after he was chucked off the flight.

The school should have sent him home and he should have forfeited the right to the trip. That would have certainly pushed this lesson home.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

And as Miserlou has already brought up, it is not beyond certain organisation to use indoctrinated teenagers as suicide bombers, gunmen etc.

The world has changed, I don't like the fact it has, and I don't like the fact that this kid needs to be alot more socially aware at 16 than I had to be. Equally worying though is that he doesn't appear to have had any idea how many problems his actions would cause. I think maybe that is what should be looked at.

Still think he should have the book thrown at him though and maybe other 16 year olds would learn to maybe hold back on rash comments in such circumstances

[Final 3 Greens]

Well, this action should certainly stop anyone else smuggling guns on board shouldn't it?

Good job he didn't have a catering van to hand. :)

It sounds to me to be an over reaction. I did things at 16 that were pretty crass and I can imagine that a stern lecture to the teacher in charge by the authorities would have got the message through strongly enough to the young lad in due course.

When you consider the remarks made by a pilot to a local authority recently and what some other pilots considered an over reaction by a court, this episode seems to be a bit of a storm in the teacup.

[126,7]

Judging from his name, and the fact that he might have a different complection than the others or maybe he even wore traditional clothing, you could understand when people get jumpy at remarks like that. In some countries 16 is seen as adulthood and I personally feel he should have known what the reaction would be. You just dont stuff around with things like that. Maybe he thought it would be "cool".

[paxman]

126,7 what on earth has his complexion got to do with it??

Your logic makes as much sense as your name.

This kind of racism is not only deeply offensive, it's illegal.

Take your views somewhere else, please.

[126,7]

Paxman
Put yourself in the position of the security personell !!
And look at the scenario again. Not racistic my friend, but reality.

[Few Cloudy]

And away from the main point of thread - but as long as we're there - the main perceived threat is presently from middle eastern organisations. It used to be from slavic countries (note I'm writing about the perceived threat) and from time to time from organisations in ireland, as far as UK has been concerned.

Now, with little to go on, any security man who ignored traits common to the countries of origin of the perceived threat, taken in combination with a sour "joke"as above would - politically correct or not, not be acting in the best interests of the traveller.

This is hard on the vast/vast majority of law abiding people from other countries and feeds the flames of hate but so does driving aeroplanes into 3000 odd unwilling human shields in a world trade center. Unfortunately it's war - quite true - "still they don't get it".

[ZRH]

I agree with Few Cloudy and also understand what 126,7 is saying. Whats it all got to do with cricket? Because that is one game I canot understand.

[timzsta]

JMC were absolutely right in what they did. Security applies to everyone, regardless of age, sex, race, skin colour. Those of us who work for airlines/handling agents/airport security have no tolerance for this kind of "sick humour". By denying boarding to those people who think it is funny to make jokes about security we will eventually get the message home. You want to mess with me at the airport and I will mess with you. I will go home at the end of the shift with a pat on the back from my employer. You will go home with your holiday ruined.

As an aside (and no doubt I will be slated for this) the youth of today have little respect for authority, and are often rude and arrogant. A good slap down like this is what so many of them need and in the future the individual concerned will thank JMC for what they did - it will have taught a valuable lesson to him about respect for authority and the law. Remember compliance with security questions is the law.

[DistantRumble]

EMA there are signs up

"ALL COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY" or some such.


More of this is needed to avoid misunderstanding.

[brownstar]

A few people have mentioned that the boy's comments were just a joke. Well when are people going to get the message that such comments are never seen as jokes and never will be, NO EXCEPTIONS !

[bealine]

The 16 year old was very lucky to get away with just missing his flight at LGW!

Normally in such circumstances, (regardless of which airline or handling company is involved) the offender will be asked to repeat what has just been said (viz: "I have a gun in my bag").

If he/she does repeat the statement, the police are called who will, usually:

1. Arrange hand-searching of baggage
2. Formally arrest and arrange strip search of offender - a most uncomfortable and embarrassing experience.
3. Ensure offender remains in custody long enough to ensure all flights to the required destination have departed for the day!

To those who see this offence as a trivial issue, there are some of us still working in aviation who have lost friends, relatives and colleagues in terrorist incidents. Believe me, ('cos I have first-hand experience) of all the flights you check in day in and day out, when an "incident" occurs you can remember every face you dealt with!

My son knew from the age of three not to crack jokes about air crashes or hijackings (or train crashes, if travelling by rail!) It's very unpleasant for anyone in the vicinity who is nervous!

As stated in another thread, IF A 16 YEAR OLD DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE IN PUBLIC, BLAME THE PARENTS!!!

[PPRuNeUser0171]

the main perceived threat is presently from middle eastern organisations

which gives the terrorist organisations of other countries the perfect chance to cause some major havoc or for the terrorist organisations from the middle-east to 'brain-wash' europeans.

Just because the main threat is from the middle-east don't expect the next attack to be perpertrated by people from the middle east or with ties to the middle-east.

--
Gary.

[ChrisVJ]

My grandmother used to tell me:

Before the war my grandfather had a boat tailed Ballot. One weekend they had been sailing down at Poole harbour with a friend. On the way back it was chilly so the friend sat up front with my grandfather and my grandmother curled up under the tonneau in the back and went to sleep.

She woke up when they were stopped outside the old Ace of Spades club (where the gas station is now, I worked there for a year, just coincidence.)

After complaining that my grandfather was driving too fast, ( he always did) the policeman asked if there was anything else he should know about.
"Only the old lady's body in the back."

The policeman didn't even look.

[harpy]

timzsta

I think you'll find it's not an offence to make jokes about security. However, it is an offence to make threats or to refuse to co-operate etc. The other thread - about the catering van driver and the reporter - shows there are plenty of laughs to be had on the subject of security. The difficulty comes when someone makes a joke that is taken as a threat. In that case it's understandable that the security officer will want to make sure the joker isn’t really dangerous. But once they had searched the boy and his baggage it must have been obvious to them that he was just a sixteen-year-old who had spoken foolishly.

From reading your letter, I guess that you frequently find yourself the butt of other people's humour. I wonder if you are in the right job. You might find it gratifying when you get a pat on the back from your employer for ruining someone’s holiday but that’s no substitute for job satisfaction.

bealine

"Ensure offender remains in custody long enough to ensure all flights to the required destination have departed for the day!"
That sounds like summary punishment of a minor by a Jobsworth. Then you go on to say that his parents are to blame. So why are you punishing the son?

[Final 3 Greens]

As a frequent traveller, I find some of the comments on this thread quite scary, as it appears that some posters who work in airport ground ops have difficulty differentiating between the prevention of terrorism and tackling unacceptable social behaviour by pax - two quite different issues.

Reading in between the lines of some of the posts, its apparent that some enjoy the feeling of schadenfreude from this 'payback' given to a 16 yr old who is peceived as being representative of 'arrogant youth', although there is no empircal evidence on the thread that this is the case. Did anyone witness this incident?

But what does this actually achieve in avoiding terrorism? It seems pretty obvious to me that terrorists are trained to keep a low enough profile to achieve their mission and joking about guns at check in is hardly likely to be 'best practice' at any reputable terror training camp.

So hammering a youth who did something stupid doesn't really help the big picture does it?

Taking action to modify the anti social behaviour that is reprehensible is fine in principle, but please don't patronise me by linking it to reducing the likelihood of terrorist action, because I do not buy that.

I fly an average of 4-8 sectors a month and ground ops personnel would do well to bear in mind that people like me are the lifeblood of passenger aviation, through direct airport taxes and also income via the airlines who are the airport users. If we do not feel safe, we will stop travelling and use video or telephone conferencing instead. (It's a poor substitute for being face 2 face, but better than feeling unsafe.)

What I want to see (and will support 100%) is an attitude from all grounds ops personnel that makes a difference to my safety by reducing real risks, such as the ability of unauthorised people to get on to airliners, e.g. EGSS last year, EGKK this year.

I've been spot checked three times this year already and accept this with good grace, as I'm a single man travelling alone and understand the concept of profiling and the reasons for it.

But chucking a kid off a charter flight gives me little comfort, no matter how much ground ops people find it appealing and it is really scary that the fuss caused could let the quiet, respectable, bad guy slip through un-noticed.

[Fat Boy Sim]

Final, beautifully written.

[timzsta]

Harpy

Read my post properly. I did not say it is an offence to make jokes about security. I said it is the law that security questions have to be complied with.

I get immense satisfaction from my job. And why? Because I when I go to work I do my job with the utmost professionalism. I take no risks, safety of the aircraft and passengers comes first and foremost. As people in the military (where I come from) often say "I will not let it happen on my watch" and I dont. An occurence, which I will explain, has shapped me on that. I will explain at the end.

I remind you it is a legal requirement laid down by the Department of Transport that passengers comply with security questions. Those who do not are subject to extra security or removal from the flight.

Lets just take a look from another angle. Lets just say that a journalist had put this 16 year old up to it. His comments are ignored because "oh he is just a silly little kid playing a joke, he doesnt know any better". Next morning front page of the tabloids "AIRLINE STAFF IGNORE PASSENGER SAYING HE HAS A GUN". Then the same people who are slagging of JMC would be still slagging them off for lax security.

With regard to the incident at Gatwick lets remind ourself that the journalist got access because the truck driver breached security procedures and the security staff breached procedures. I hope they all get the sack. I dont breach security procedures - I follow them to the letter of law because if I dont I could lose my job or even worse be held responsible for an aviation disaster and spend my days in prison.

Let us remind ourselves with regard to the journalist who got a job at Stansted falsified his references to enable him to get the job - again an offence. When I started at Buzz two people on my course were booted out on day three when it was discovered they had supplied false references, so I can assure you the holes are not as gaping as the journalists would have you believe.

And so to the incident that has shapped me on the issue of by the book:
Mid March 2000 I was still in the Navy. I was serving as a Fighter Controller and Officer of the Watch on HMS Exeter, a Type 42 destroyer. We were off NW Spain heading NE, two days to go to Portsmouth at the end of a six month Gulf deployment. It was 2 am in the morning, weather was choppy sea state 5, steaming at 18 knots. It was a dark night. A small flashing light passed down the port side, very close, spotted as it passed the bow by me and quartermaster. We turned to each other and said "probably just a fishing float". About five seconds later we turned again and said "lets just check, if it is a person we would never forgive ourselves". So I ordered the QM to disengage the autopilot and informed the Captain what I was doing and he approved. I went out to the bridge wing and conned the ship around the light into the man overboard recovery position, takes a lot of skill at night in a sea state 5 at 2 am. We shone our 15 inch signal light on it - it was a fishing float. Reported as such to the Captain and made a note in the ships log. At 4am I handed over the watch and I went to sleep. My cabin was directly below the Bridge and about 8am I was awoken by the sound of much activity. After a shower and coffee I went up to see what the fuss was about. The Captain turned to me and said "Tim, you are going to be so glad you stopped and checked that light last night". We had received a pan call from a container ship stating that they had lost a crewman overboard at around midnight and wanted assistance. Despite us searching, launching our helicopter, help from a Spanish frigate and her helicopter, a french Patrol Aircraft and numerous merchant ships the crewman was never found. Imagine what I would have had to live with I had not gone that extra mile and checked, doing my job with the utmost professionalism, taking no chances, I would have forever had to sleep at night not knowing. That is why I dont mess around with security and aircraft safety : "it will not happen on my watch".

[broadreach]

The boy managed to catch a later flight. By which time I imagine he would have had plenty of 20/20 rear vision to consider the stupidity of his offhand joke. One suspects that had he played it in a country further to the west he could well have been detained for considerably longer.

The kid had a wrist slapped. He'll remember it and so will all his school. And perhaps the gruesome reality of where we're at today will sink in. Part of growing up.

[harpy]

timzsta

I agree, you did not say it is an offence to make jokes about security. But you did suggest that you would “deny boarding to those people who think it is funny to make jokes about security”. So it seems you are prepared to deny boarding to people who haven’t committed an offence but who have made a joke that you disapprove of.

This might seem like reasonable behaviour in the humourless world you inhabit but some will see it as a misuse of authority. And waging war on a youth who has made a stupid remark will do nothing to help counter the real threat. I don't say you should have to tolerate rudeness from passengers but you shouldn't confuse rudeness with terrorism.

Just to clarify: if the youth in question had called you a pompous fool, that would be a joke – perhaps even an offensive joke – but not an offence.

[Xenia]

Security is a serious issue, regardless of age and as it has been said before especially after 11/09 there is zero tollerance about any kind of relates jokes.
Even small boys toy guns are not allowed anymore. For some people it is extreme, but after the events I must say I am the first one to agree.

[bealine]

It reminds me of a story which, as a small boy, my mother used to tell me after I'd been "given the stick"!

A mother went to visit her son on the morning he was due to face the electric chair. She was told to sit no closer than six feet away from him, yet he kept saying to her "Lean forward, mummy! I want to tell you something in confidence!"

As she leaned as close as she was able, he spat full in her face and shouted "That's for all those times I should have been punished but you and dad let me get away with it! If you had only done your duty, I wouldn't be in the mess I'm in today!"

..........and with that, he went to the chair!


Yes! It is the child who gets punished for what should have been the parents' fault.............but that's life, and the sooner some people wake up to the fact, the better!

[harpy]

Edited by Xenia http://digilander.libero.it/doniuccia/faccine/Confused/smil04_1_.gif

Harpy check your PMs

[Freeway]

I must say that after reading all the posts many of you are dismissing the fact that an individual young,old, foreign or otherwise has answered the security questions in a manner that is unacceptable to the airline. Remember, the staff at check-in are your first form of defense from dodgy individuals and are paid by the airline to check in AND vett the pax.
How would you as a flight crew member feel if the dispatcher arrived on the flight deck and said " You've got 344 + 8 and only 2 pax said that they have a gun or a bomb on board... but it's ok because those that said it are only 17 year old boys".
I have to agree with Hew Jampton on this one. I used to be a police officer. Before anything serious was put on the official arrest notes I had to issue an official caution. The security questions are serious questions or else they wouldn't be asked in the first place. By prefixing them with an official caution,may, I say may, get pax actually treating them due respect. :p

[AOG007]

Harpy and Final 3 Greens,

What planet are the pair of you from? Did 9/11 pass you fools by, and have no impact on your daily life, or your outlook on life?

If you like, I can posts some links to news sites, that refer to 9/11. These will remind you of what happened, and maybe wake up those dead brain cells, which seem to be doing all of your reasoning.

Hope this young lad get's punished severely, and maybe that means that the school should expell him for behaviour, which surely brings the school into disrepute.

He's 16, not 6, and therefore he is fully aware of world events, not only today, but of 9/11.

AOG007

[DX Wombat]

Harpy, that was pure, unwarranted nastiness towards Bealine - or at least that's how it appears to me. :mad: Or are you speaking from personal experience? If so, you have my sympathy for what has happened to you but NOT my approval for your comments. :mad:

[Final 3 Greens]

AOG007

What planet are the pair of you from? Did 9/11 pass you fools by, and have no impact on your daily life, or your outlook on life?

No it didn't and if you re-read my second post you will find the evidence in there.

But throwing the book at a kid who behaved stupidly does not make me feel any safer in the same way that throwing the book at the pilot who threatened to crash his 767 into the local authority building didn't make me feel any safer either - I don't regard either as serious terrorist threats - is this clear enough ?

Anti social behaviour and terrorism are different aspects of security and although I am not against dealing with the former, please do not confuse if with the latter.

By the way, it is a shame that you cannot argue your point of view without being abusive.

[Xenia]

My only rule .....
Play the ball and NOT the player!!!!! http://digilander.libero.it/doniuccia/faccine/Varie/053.gif

[AOG007]

As you state you are a frequent traveller. I therefore can't quite get my head around how you think, this is acceptable behaviour for a passenger, being asked the mandatory questions at check-in.

If you think about it, anti social behaviour, and terrorism are most similar in some respects. So as a result, for the untrained check-in agent (untrained, I refer to observing potential terrorists), any silly remark is treated as a potential threat.

I totally agree with your comment refering to 'terror training camp', so therefore they would be one's being very quiet, and acting in a suspicious manner due their actions. How therefore can a check-in agent, who is the first line of detection, able to spot these type's, when only minutes earlier, a stag weekend pitches up, and twenty intoxicated men jokingly say, "yeah we got hand grenades and pistols, and handcuffs!". The check-in agent is going to be 100% sure that these gentlemen will be joking. But what about Mr & Mrs Joe Bloggs stood behind them in the queue. Nervous throughout the entire duration of their journey? Probabable! Should they actually be carrying the afore mentioned items (if terrorists), and they use them, Oops! Sorry Master and Miss Bloggs, Mummy and Daddy have been involved in a terrible act of terrorism. Which of course could have been avoided had the check-in agent raised the alarm at the earliest opportunity. Could you live with that?

This senario is also valid if these practical jokers had wound up the check-in agent with their comments, and he/she then fail to spot the sweaty, quiet passenger, who has the tools required for something more sinister, than the 20 blokes on a stag weekend.

Anti-Social behaviour is not acceptable to an industry still recovering in many aspects from the aftermath of 9/11. But it must be treated simillarly to ensure we all get the right people.

The sixteen year knows right from wrong, and knows that comments, such as the one stated, are not received well by many individuals.

"Abusive" Well I apologise if I have offended you in any way, it was certainly not my intention. However I standby those comments posted earlier, as they are my opinion. I am entitled to that, as much as you are to yours.

But I know I would rather travel through an airport that I was running, as oppossed to one that you may possibly run. I really do think you are failing to see the relevance of terrorism v's anti-social behaviour.

AOG007

[super aviator]

AOG

Valid and very good points!!!

Its a shame the 16 year old was not on a college trip to America and decided to pull this stunt on the return leg of his journey.

Im sure the Americans would of found it highly amusing!


SA

[Final 3 Greens]

AOG077

If you think about it, anti social behaviour, and terrorism are most similar in some respects

Nonsense, your sentence is hopelessly ungrammatical, but the thrust is theorising that a punch up in a pub is analagous to premediated mass murder .... when did anti social behaviour last kill 3k people?

But I know I would rather travel through an airport that I was running, as oppossed to one that you may possibly run

I have no intention of running an airport, but I have high expectations of performance from those who do. Incidents invovling reporters getting into the engineering bases at STN and a parked 75 on the apron at LGW and a vandal damaging a 73 flightdeck at STN do not impress me. This is totally unacceptable and much more serious than a youth making a fool of himself at check in.

The sixteen year knows right from wrong, and knows that comments, such as the one stated, are not received well by many individuals.

So you know this for sure do you? Please explain when you interviewed him to ascertain this.

Let's get real. The anti terrorism bit of check in is about ensuring that the pax has no doubt about what is in their checked luggage.

"Did you pack the bag yourself"

"Could anyone have interefered with your baggage"

"Did anyone ask you to carry anything for them"

etc etc

All sensible questions and if the answer to any of the above is unacceptable (either positively or by uncertainty), then the screening has done it's job and a security officer can investigate in more depth.

If a someone jokes at check in about carrying a gun or bomb, then deal with their anti social behaviour accordingly. If someone is drunk, do the same.

The professional pilots who post here would much rather that you keep ANY problems on the ground (as would I.) I support the actions of the Astreus captain who diverted to Cardiff 100% despite what some others have said and I detest loutish behaviour in every respect.

But I do differentiate it from terrorism and if you cannot understand my argument, then we will have to agree to disagree, for I respect your right to hold your opinion too.

[bealine]

Sorry - I missed Harpy's post which, I guess was directed towards me, 'cos Xenia did the old moderating bit!

I imagine I didn't miss any words of wisdom?:rolleyes:

[bealine]

As a frequent traveller, I find some of the comments on this thread quite scary, as it appears that some posters who work in airport ground ops have difficulty differentiating between the prevention of terrorism and tackling unacceptable social behaviour by pax - two quite different issues

I quite agree - two separate issues, but with one common denominator - the threat of safety to the passengers and crew of the aircraft!

To be honest, I have never refused any "joker" travel - because I have always found that the stern warning "There are people here who would not find that funny......do you really want to repeat what you just said?" sufficient to elicit a burbled apology! It also lets them know, in no uncertain terms, that bad behaviour will not be tolerated!

Alcohol or drug misuse is a definite "no-no!" - I will always recommend the offloading of anyone obviously under the influence. The reason is purely out of concern for fellow travellers and my flying colleagues - at 30,000 feet, there's nowhere for them to escape to if the drunkard (or junkie) goes berserk!

As a child, I had a happy time! My parents practised corporal punishment - I both respected and loved them dearly! The village policeman, the retired Brigadier and the retired Major all dished out a "clip round the earhole" to unruly kids, but equally would dish out a threepenny or sixpenny piece (tanner) if they saw you picking up stray litter around the bus shelter or telephone kiosk! All three were well-respected!

No one would ever have dreamed of accusing my parents, the bobby, the "brig" or the major of child-abuse! Far from it - when the youth club was threatened, who put up the money to keep it going?..........all of them!


Perhaps our liberal society is to blame for the gradual deterioration of respect! Ladies and gentlemen, the decay of civilised society starts with dropping litter, putting feet on seats, riding bikes on pavements, flippant remarks about guns and bombs etc. etc. and ends up with mugging, assault and violence!

[DX Wombat]

Bealine I imagine I didn't miss any words of wisdom? Precisely. And that is all I am going to say. :)

[Unwell_Raptor]

Nipping back to the original post, I see that the college has a marketing manager.

A What?

[Final 3 Greens]

Bealine

I quite agree - two separate issues, but with one common denominator - the threat of safety to the passengers and crew of the aircraft!

I agree with your analysis.

Most have us have occasionally come across other pax who are some where on the cusp between boisterous and dangerous.

It sounds as if your stern words have diplomatically dealt with a few people in way that achieved a good outcome for all.

[Jump Complete]

I agree with AOG007's comment-suppose that due to the 'joke' of some idiot or group of, the security staff are too wound up to notice then genuine threat. It's not acceptable. At all.
Having said that, I feel the parents and the school staff are guilty of a certain failure of duty.
In the coach before entering the airport they should have stood at the front and said. "Every one has to behave and anyone who makes the slightest joke about guns or bombs in the airport will not be traveling and will probably be arrested. They will take it very very seriously and so will we. Does every one understand that?"
I think in the circumstances his punishment was approiate. He missed his flight, he was probaly (hopefully) scared silly for a while with threats as to what might happen next, then allowed to go out and have his trip. He won't forget!

[radeng]

Part of the problem has to be that so much of this vaunted airport security is a joke. Not that that is any excuse, but, but having seen an insulin pump ripped off a man at a US airport by a stupid security woman who wouldn't wait for an answer - she didn't like the blood that she got, though! - I have the gravest doubts as to how much good most of this 'security' really is. My wife unpacked her carry on bag in her hotel in Seattle after a flight from San Francisco earlier on this year - and found a pair of scissors. The tales of Gatwick and Stansted etc., just confirm that we have a major problem that is not being addressed.

[Heathrow09L]

I had some French People going to CDG, there was three of them, One guy who was being so cocky and showing off acting like a two year old but probaly in his 40's, when asked Security questins he said,

"oh, yes we've got bombs and fireams in our bag" laughing away, I immidiately contacted an A6 (Supervisor, who backed me up 100%, the stupid idiot and his colleagues were offloaded, taken to security, passports confiscated, search one by one, cases all opened and then after that the police had a nice chat with them, they were there for hours. That smirked grin turned into a sad face which went red by the minutes, he later came back and apologised, all the passengers thought is was well deserved and didn't want to travel on the same flight with them

I've got no sympathy for people like that.

[Ozzy]

I give no endorsement to the French idiot who
made the joke about the bomb and firearms.
However, isn't the right approach to do profiling
like they do in Tel Aviv (been there and been
through the security check). Heath, you knew
the idiot was joking so what was your motivation?
To teach him a lesson? Is that your job? Isn't
your job to secure the cabin. Obviously you can
tell the difference between an A hole and a
normal pax. So was this you making a point? Don;t
want to annoy you but please respond.

I know that even joking about a bomb etc is an
offence, but can't we apply common sense. I know
I am going to get battered for this post but I
just ask you to think.

Ozzy

[AOG007]

Final 3 Greens,

Whilst my statements may have been written quickly, and therefore not to your standards of grammatical correctness, I don't recall mentioning Pub Brawls?

I talk only of behaviour whilst at an airport, or onboard an aircraft. And therefore I still believe that the two should be treated almost the same.

You mention some of the incidents at STN, LGW and the diversion into CWL by Astreus. STN and LGW to my knowledge were nothing to do with security questions at Check-in, and were directly related to lapse security at airfield gate access. So not really a valid point to try and raise?
The CWL incident was to do with drunken football supporters, not potential terrorists, and the crew did exactly what they should have done. They landed, kicked them off, and had them arrested. Sorry, was that a little to harsh for you? Maybe you would have liked the crew to continue serving them alcohol, and maybe they would have all passed out?

Returning to our differing opinions of the 16yr old in question. I believe that I have given this individual credit for being a well educated 16yr old. Thus the reason why I made the statement that he knows the difference between right and wrong. I am not aware of how many 16yr olds you know, but the one's that I have come across of late, are very clued up on the events currently affecting our world. So I believe that he knew exactly what comments he was making. Only thing being that he probably did'nt realise how much hassle he would have caused for himself. Oh well, he learnt the hard way.

Well, we clearly will not agree on this topic, but I have just been advised that a similar incident has occured at Luton earlier today, involving two 60yr olds. At the boarding gate, one mentioned that they had a revolver in their bag. Both offloaded, banned by the airline in question, and have now lost their hard earned holilday. Sorry, rules are rules, and again, they should have known better, and I have no sympathy for anyone who makes ridiculous statements. If people have to learn the hard way, then so be it.

AOG007

[pilotwolf]

Wonder if anyone can come up with a convincing argument that the two 60 year olds didn't realise what they were saying/doing?

Senility?
Can't afford/too busy in retirement to follow world events?
Overwhelmed by the airport enviroment?

:rolleyes: :mad: :rolleyes: :mad:

[Final 3 Greens]

AOG007

I don't recall mentioning Pub Brawls?
Pub brawls and premeditated mass murder was my analogy for anti social behaviour and terrorism, not your words.

You mention some of the incidents at STN, LGW and the diversion into CWL by Astreus. STN and LGW to my knowledge were nothing to do with security questions at Check-in, and were directly related to lapse security at airfield gate access. So not really a valid point to try and raise?

With respect, it was very valid. As I said in an earlier posting, I want to see ALL grounds ops people (including security at access gates) tackling terrorism. These lapses concern me greatly, because unauthorised people go on board aircraft.

Paying customers really don't care whose responsibility it is - your industry either gets it right holistically, or frequent travellers will find alternatives to your services. (Note the pax volumes carried since 9/11 on the North Atlantic routes.)

The CWL incident was to do with drunken football supporters, not potential terrorists, and the crew did exactly what they should have done. They landed, kicked them off, and had them arrested. Sorry, was that a little to harsh for you? Maybe you would have liked the crew to continue serving them alcohol, and maybe they would have all passed out?

Did you actually read my post AOG? If so, what part of "I support the actions of the Astreus captain who diverted to Cardiff 100% despite what some others have said and I detest loutish behaviour in every respect" did you have difficulty understanding :confused:

Returning to our differing opinions of the 16yr old in question. I believe that I have given this individual credit for being a well educated 16yr old

So you don't know him. Neither do I, so neither of us should speculate on his comprehension of the world, nor his understanding of societal values.

Bottom line, by all means deal with people who behave in an anti social way (drunk, acting foolishly at check in), but don't confuse this with the avoidance of terrorism.

Out of interest, how many terrorists have been apprehended at check in or post check in, pre boarding recently? I don't have a feel for this and would be genuinely interested to know.

The only one that springs to mind is the cleric with the gun in Sweden who was apprehended before boarding thankfully (although he didn't declare his pistol at check in!)

But as I am not 'in the business' there may be many more that I am unaware of.

We may meet professionally one of these days and I know that I am one of the more reasonable pax to deal with, just as I am sure that you are very good at your job, so let's not fall out over a genuine difference of opinion, as in reality I think that we are both aligned in understanding how people should behave when travelling by air. :D

Pilot Wolf

The best excuse that I can think of is that they said they had a copy of the Beatles 'Revolver' CD and the check in agent misunderstood ;) They are the right age band to have bought it first time around!

[AOG007]

Final 3 Greens,

Well.... I shall give up on this one, as your opinion, is one that clearly is different to mine, and we will only continue to go round and round in circles.

Back To The Bunker For Me Now!!!!! :}

AOG007

[Heathrow09L]

Ozzy

First of all this is a forum and your entitaled to voice your opinion.

I am not Cabin Crew so securing cabin is Cabin Staff Dept.

Yes I got pleasure in removing the smirk off his face, I also knew he was talking rubish, but the fact is I have a duty to the company and our customers to play a role in thier saftey, I was applying what I was told in clear instructions during training that any no matter what the reason that any pax who fails to answer the security questions most be reported.

There was passengers stood near my desk and heard everything, for all I know one of them could have been a reporter, a CAA Inspector who would have reported myself if I simply let the matter drop, hence my carrer out the front arrival doors, so therfore I am 100% happy what I did and would not hesitate to do it again even if my Managers made a joke like that I would report it because its my responsobilty at the end of the day, its my agent ref near the pax name so if anything went wrong it would come straight back to me.

I hope this answers your questions.

[malanda]

In answer to Hew Jampton's (much) earlier question:
Incidentally, and with reference to this incident, I've always wondered what would happen if the answer to the question: "Did you pack the bag yourself?" was given as: "No, my Mum did".

Several times I've been carrying things packed by other people (ok - none of them as scary as my Mum :p ), and I've replied "No" to this question. Once I've explained the circumstances I've been sent on my merry way.

[harpy]

Bealine

xenia removed my post because it was deemed to be a personal attack on you. I thought it was fair comment but I’ll try again without the personal attack. It seems to me that you have an authoritarian approach toward the public you deal with. Your post suggests that you would find it acceptable that a sixteen-year-old schoolboy who has made a stupid remark could have been subjected to a strip search and so delayed that he missed the last flight of the day. That sounds like summary punishment of a minor, which is illegal and unacceptable in our society.

Loutish behaviour by passengers should not be tolerated but any punishment should be imposed by the courts, not by you or the police or even the brigadier.

[bealine]

Harpy - you are entitled to your opinion!

However, mugging, stabbing and raping of individuals is also not acceptable in our society either and these "unchecked minors" are the very ones doing it!

I would disagree that 16 years of age is a "minor". At 16, I had left home, rented a flat in London, had a steady job with limited responsibility and was well on my way to making my first million! (Unfortunately, I then discovered aviation!)

[Eddie Ginley]

Dear All,

The simple fact of the matter (and everyone can wring their hands as much as they want) is that for the last couple of years and particularly this week of all weeks, Airports, Airlines and Handling Agents in the UK are simply not going to tolerate any arseing around of this type...

Sorry and all that - if it seems hard, tough, the world can be a very nasty place. I think our 16 year old chum has learnt that.

Eddie's the name - Gumshoe's the game...

[Final 3 Greens]

Eddie

Sorry and all that - if it seems hard, tough, the world can be a very nasty place

It is indeed, but there are different contexts.

Security should not be compromised, not should anti social behaviour be tolerated, but neither should airline personnel forget that pax have a choice or more jobs will go the way of Buzz - in fact, they might anyway depending on the events in the gulf and the reaction of the corporates to it.

[bealine]

Security should not be compromised, not should anti social behaviour be tolerated, but neither should airline personnel forget that pax have a choice or more jobs will go the way of Buzz

This is always a favourite threat!!! However, it is one that doesn't wash, I'm afraid. If we have to be pleasant to everyone and ignore the most piggish behaviour, then there may as well be no check-in staff! What is the purpose of check-in?.........It is to assess the suitability of the traveller to make the proposed journey and assist in ensuring bags are correctly weighed and labelled and thus enable a punctual, but above all, safe flight departure!

However, airline ground staff have a duty first, foremost and on every occasion to protect their flying colleagues and the airline's clientele from antisocial elements - who may or may not present a hazard in flight. IMHO there is only one thing worse that the 16 year old could have done and that is steal a life-jacket! (Possibly depriving a passenger at a future date of the means to survive a ditching!)

Please bear in mind that the check-in staff only have a few seconds interaction to assess the suitability of the traveller!!! It is better to offload a 16 year old who is simply cheeky than to find out 24 hours later that 137 passengers and 8 crew were subjected to a terrifying ordeal - or worse!!!

Bealine would rather lose his job than compromise safety!!!

FYI the attitude of the staff at "BUZZ" had absolutely nothing to do with Ryanair's takeover! It is the tragic situation the parent company, KLM, has found itself in that made the Buzz' disposal a necessity - in much the same way as BA disposed of "GO!" and Air Liberte (now bust!) and is seeking to get out of Deutsche BA!

If all this sounds a little arrogant, let me explain that approx 80%of the customers we handle are great! 19% are "tolerably" rude - ie munching McDonalds or slurping coffee at the desk or continuing to use a mobile phone at the desk or continuing a conversation with travelling companions. Of the remaining 1%, 0.99999999% are "angry with justification" - eg Excess Baggage charge disagreement, late connection causing missed flight, lost or incorrect documents for the journey, husband and wife not seated together etc etc. Only 0.000000001% would ever fall into the "offloadable" category!

I have many letters addressed to me, personally, from our clientele thanking me for the quality of service they have received! If the 0.000000001% feel hard done by, let them go to the competition - it won't break BA!

[Final 3 Greens]

Bealine

You misinterpret my point.

Eddie Ginley's opinion was that life is tough and mine was that this is a two edged sword.

My comment about Buzz was in the context of customer choice, not about the attitude of their people - who were generally very good.

With respect, KLM are not in a tragic situation. They are faced with a difficult business environment and tough governance constraints. Howewer, Buzz was never going to work for various reasons (aircraft too small, routes not frequent enough etc.), whereas the Go, Air Lib and DBA disposals IMO are the result of BA trying to be innovative.

I have many letters addressed to me, personally, from our clientele thanking me for the quality of service they have received! If the 0.000000001% feel hard done by, let them go to the competition - it won't break BA!

I cannot believe that you wrote this - I have worked in BA and know that the company is great, but the airline is perceived by many pax as being arrogant.

(1) it's not .000000001% that you have lost over the past 2 years and (2) Rolls Royce went bust in 1971 when this was untinkable.

Anyway, I'm getting off thread, but I suggest you take a firm sanity check.

If you look at my comments all the way through this thread, you'll find that I am very supportive of good security and also dealing with anti social behaviour firmly.

But I do not like the attitude of some posters (I have to say, not yours) who seem to be in the wrong job. Customer facing is tough, I know because I am in the space too, but if you can't stand the heat exit the kitchen and don't use 'security' as a stick to beat up people you don't like.

[bealine]

Point Taken, Final 3 Greens - I misinterpreted your post!

I agree that BA is perceived as arrogant and, whilst 99% of my colleagues are a joy to work with and possess excellent customer facing skills, there will always be the odd one who comes to work with the proverbial "chip on the shoulder"!

Over the years, our management haven't helped..........

Who remembers the rigidly enforced Cabin Baggage policy? (On my training day, the manager in charge announced that the objective was to "teach those passengers a lesson!" ("£5000 for a First Class ticket and you're going to teach me a lesson!!!")

Equally, how about the "Close Gate on Time" policy? Tragically, BA lost a good number of high-yield corporates to that one, dreamed up by an outside Consultancy firm! (Apparently, this was just what the customers wanted!...............Hmm!)

The "All Day Deli", (or Sick Bag, as it's known in Gold Card circles), is another issue dreamed up by an outside Marketing Firm that, apparently is the dog's doo-dahs in the eyes of our clients! Unfortunately, the very term "Sick Bag" tells me just what our customers think of it and our cabin crew are almost apologetic when they hand it out!

That having been said, the UK is almost the only country I have observed where there is any interaction between check-in and the customer! (Although I did have a positive experience in Canada).

In Madrid, the check-in staff chat to each other without even looking at you! In any German airport, you feel as though you're about to be interrogated!

In Newark, I saw a suited and booted business traveller pulled roughly out of the gate queue by a gate agent.................
"Now look here, buddy boy, you're not in Business First! Did we ask ya to join this line? You jest wait your turn, ya hear?"

Security then approached the traveller and pulled him away for the "third-degree".

I don not know any colleague who would use security just as a means to "get back" at someone they didn't like, but equally, none of us will take any chances! The trouble is, people's memories are very short and they've already forgotten the United and American Airlines' crews who lost their lives on 09/11!

[harpy]

bealine

Quote

"IMHO there is only one thing worse that the 16 year old could have done and that is steal a life-jacket! (Possibly depriving a passenger at a future date of the means to survive a ditching!) "

Is that really the worst thing you can imagine him doing? From all you’ve written so far I thought you had a very vivid imagination. You’ve expounded on the subjects of mugging, rape, stabbing and terrorism but now it seems the worst offence of all is theft of lifejackets. Stealing lifejackets is reprehensible but it’s not in quite the same league as terrorism.


Quote

"I would disagree that 16 years of age is a "minor"."

Eighteen is the age of majority. And if you think a sixteen-year-old is old enough to be humiliated by you or the police for making a foolish remark, how young would he have to be for you to spare him the humiliation? Fourteen perhaps? Or maybe twelve?


Quote

"However, mugging, stabbing and raping of individuals is also not acceptable in our society either and these "unchecked minors" are the very ones doing it!"

While there are some very unpleasant “unchecked minors” in our society it is wrong to assume that every cheeky sixteen-year-old boy is one of them. There were unruly boys in society even when you were picking up stray litter around the bus shelter. Most of them went on to become normal adults. It should be noted that the present generation of terrorists is coming not from western society, undisciplined and loutish as it often seems, but from rather more strict and repressive societies where adults have more control over youth.


Quote

"Only 0.000000001% would ever fall into the "offloadable" category!"

That’s one passenger in a hundred billion (I think) so what are you complaining about?

[GwynM]

"It should be noted that the present generation of terrorists is coming not from western society, undisciplined and loutish as it often seems, but from rather more strict and repressive societies where adults have more control over youth. "

remind me where the "shoe bomber" came from

[harpy]

GwynM

Good point. I should have been clearer. I was of course referring to the Islamic terrorists who are the main threat now. We have certainly produced our share of terrorists over time.

It's difficult to categorise the Shoe Bomber. He doesn't quite fit in any society. His parents were from different cultures and he was on the margins of our society before he got sucked in by militant Islam.

My point still remains that our home grown louts, troublesome though they might be, provide a less likely breeding ground for terrorism than for example Pakistan.

I don't approve of loutish behaviour but I won't confuse it with terrorism. And I don't think we will steer youth away from terrorism by giving wayward youths a "clip round the earhole".

[Final 3 Greens]

Bealine

I know what you mean about deli bags - most pax don't like them, but strangely enough I quite like them as I prefer a sandwich to a light meal! Maybe it's a consultant thing?? (I am one, although not for deli bags or the other things you mention!)

Using the GVA run from your place from time to time (Swiss client won't pay for Club) I find that a sandwich and glass of wine is very pleasant on such a short sector.

All the best. Finals