Security costs Jobs
Thread Starter
Security costs Jobs
"A bag costs us more to put through an aeroplane than a passenger," Mr Godfrey told Channel Nine.
If the Airlines had stood up against the knee-jerk reactions to security issues, they wouldn't be in this position now. There is one immediate saving that can be readily implemented.
Stop screening people with ASICs and airside access cards.
If the Airlines had stood up against the knee-jerk reactions to security issues, they wouldn't be in this position now. There is one immediate saving that can be readily implemented.
Stop screening people with ASICs and airside access cards.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would love for an Independent review of the whole aviation security process in Australia, unfortunately the Lunatics are now running the show and nothing is likely to change.
Not screening ASIC-holders would save money how?
Also, forging an ASIC card wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world.
Don't get me wrong, current security arrangements are ludicrous. You know, Jonny bagchucker just walks onto the tarmac via the staff entrance while captain kremmin upstairs gets the 3rd degree from some rent-a-cop over his 120ml container of anti-ageing cream and nail scissors.
Also, forging an ASIC card wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world.
Don't get me wrong, current security arrangements are ludicrous. You know, Jonny bagchucker just walks onto the tarmac via the staff entrance while captain kremmin upstairs gets the 3rd degree from some rent-a-cop over his 120ml container of anti-ageing cream and nail scissors.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an absolute crock! Godfrey is obviously trying to justify having to put costs up. Many airports are getting sick of the airline monopoly of providing the screening service and putting in whatever figure they like on the airline ticket to cover it. Fact is, many airports are now applying to be screening authorities in their own right and after careful analysis of capital procurement, wages and maintenance can put the cost at somewhere between $7.00 - $10.00 per pax/bag combined.
The airline's day of milking the security cow might just be coming to an end. Time to find another scapegoat Mr Godfrey.
Gin Jockey,
I don't for one minute agree with all the measures being applied to aircrew but looking at the first paragraph quoted above it sort of justifies the second.
The airline's day of milking the security cow might just be coming to an end. Time to find another scapegoat Mr Godfrey.
Gin Jockey,
Also, forging an ASIC card wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world.
Don't get me wrong, current security arrangements are ludicrous. You know, Jonny bagchucker just walks onto the tarmac via the staff entrance while captain kremmin upstairs gets the 3rd degree from some rent-a-cop over his 120ml container of anti-ageing cream and nail scissors.
Don't get me wrong, current security arrangements are ludicrous. You know, Jonny bagchucker just walks onto the tarmac via the staff entrance while captain kremmin upstairs gets the 3rd degree from some rent-a-cop over his 120ml container of anti-ageing cream and nail scissors.
Last edited by Islander Jock; 9th Jun 2008 at 06:14.
7-10 dollars per pax bag - on a $100 ticket that is a large percentage isnt it!
You have made Godfrey's point.
I reckon airports are only looking at becoming screening authorities because they see a buck in it - they are the biggest group of monopoly operators in this country and they charge an arm and a leg for what really are fairly average facilities.
You have made Godfrey's point.
I reckon airports are only looking at becoming screening authorities because they see a buck in it - they are the biggest group of monopoly operators in this country and they charge an arm and a leg for what really are fairly average facilities.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DHD,
I think you missed my point though.
Airports would have to be open about how much they charge per pax for screening. Just as they do for landing and terminal head charges. No such transparency exists with the airlines.
Also the figure I quoted was for a reional airport. I would suggest given the high volume of pax, the costs would be much lower for the larger airports.
I think you missed my point though.
Airports would have to be open about how much they charge per pax for screening. Just as they do for landing and terminal head charges. No such transparency exists with the airlines.
Also the figure I quoted was for a reional airport. I would suggest given the high volume of pax, the costs would be much lower for the larger airports.
the figure I quoted was for a reional airport. I would suggest given the high volume of pax, the costs would be much lower for the larger airports.
Thread Starter
Screening costs money. A percentage of people screened are crew. Therefore, it costs money to screen them. If 5% of people screened hold ASICS and Airside access cards, then by economies of scale, at least 1 or 2%of screening costs could be saved by not screening them. If you have a forged ASIC and are able to gain airside access, the present security screening process would not even slow you down.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binghi,
I just crunched some numbers and capital outlay for separate checked and cabin baggage x-rays, ETD machines, walk thru metal detectors, hand wands etc would come out in the vicinity of about $750,000 max. That would be more than sufficient to service one of the regional airports with say 75 to 100 thousand pax/pa. So not taking into account, staff training, wages, security licences, operating costs for equpment etc. You could realistically cover the capital purchase over a 3 year period.
That only applies to a very small number of the total pax in Australia with equipment and staff operating part time. Double the equipment holdings at the same time more than quadrupaling the pax through put operating continuously and the costs would have to come down futher.
I just don't believe the cost is having as much of an effect on the overall ticket price as the airlines would like us to believe.
Kelly,
an ASIC only shows that you have been through a background checking process and then only allows you airside with lawful reason. Yes there are a million and one ways to get airside but doing anything untoward and undetected might be a tad more difficult. And I don't mean sneaking in under the cover of darkness at night to spray graffiti on a locked up aeroplane.
I just crunched some numbers and capital outlay for separate checked and cabin baggage x-rays, ETD machines, walk thru metal detectors, hand wands etc would come out in the vicinity of about $750,000 max. That would be more than sufficient to service one of the regional airports with say 75 to 100 thousand pax/pa. So not taking into account, staff training, wages, security licences, operating costs for equpment etc. You could realistically cover the capital purchase over a 3 year period.
That only applies to a very small number of the total pax in Australia with equipment and staff operating part time. Double the equipment holdings at the same time more than quadrupaling the pax through put operating continuously and the costs would have to come down futher.
I just don't believe the cost is having as much of an effect on the overall ticket price as the airlines would like us to believe.
Kelly,
an ASIC only shows that you have been through a background checking process and then only allows you airside with lawful reason. Yes there are a million and one ways to get airside but doing anything untoward and undetected might be a tad more difficult. And I don't mean sneaking in under the cover of darkness at night to spray graffiti on a locked up aeroplane.
Thread Starter
Islander Jock, I have said that screening anyone with both an ASIC and airside access card is an unnecessary expence. It is also a pointless exercise. I stand by this statement and you will be extremely hard pressed to sway me.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kelly,
Whether or not my opinions sway you matters little to me as the application of the act and regs is not a democratic process. As certain as the sun and the moon - security is here to stay. Simply saying that screening, ASICs, fences or other security measures are a waste of time will do very little to convince the department to make any changes to the current system. It is not people such as you or I that the Dept is trying to weed out but until other means of denying undesirables access to critical points and inside a perimeter fence on the far side of the airport is NOT a critical point, we are stuck with what we have got.
Whether or not my opinions sway you matters little to me as the application of the act and regs is not a democratic process. As certain as the sun and the moon - security is here to stay. Simply saying that screening, ASICs, fences or other security measures are a waste of time will do very little to convince the department to make any changes to the current system. It is not people such as you or I that the Dept is trying to weed out but until other means of denying undesirables access to critical points and inside a perimeter fence on the far side of the airport is NOT a critical point, we are stuck with what we have got.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S.O.E.
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their is indeed an argument to be made for risk assessment to be a determining factor with airport security.
Witnessing people being repeatedly marched backwards and forwards through security screens until the offending jewelry or clothing is removed is nonsensical, time wasting, not cost effective and certainly NOT a deterrent to anyone seriously contemplating a terrorist event.
I'm sure companies such as Chubb must be making millions in this "pseudo" security world we live in.
An analysis of threats, costs versus results is long overdue. How many real "terrorist" events have been detected at passenger screening points in Australia?
Maybe if some common sense returned wrt security, airlines wouldn't have to use this as one reason why they want to raise fares.
Witnessing people being repeatedly marched backwards and forwards through security screens until the offending jewelry or clothing is removed is nonsensical, time wasting, not cost effective and certainly NOT a deterrent to anyone seriously contemplating a terrorist event.
I'm sure companies such as Chubb must be making millions in this "pseudo" security world we live in.
An analysis of threats, costs versus results is long overdue. How many real "terrorist" events have been detected at passenger screening points in Australia?
Maybe if some common sense returned wrt security, airlines wouldn't have to use this as one reason why they want to raise fares.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you've missed the point
A bag takes several people at each end of the process - check-in staff, scales, sticky label, conveyor infrastructure to send it out the back, customs/cops/security goons to go over it plus an X-ray machine, ULDs, mechanised loading ramps, a crew of camel-suiters to throw it on board.
Self-loading freight, on the other hand, are just that - if you have an e-ticket and no bags you get screened on the way through, and then your boarding pass is scanned by the cabin crew as you go down the big ramp thingy.
Isn't that a reasonable explanation of his comment?
Self-loading freight, on the other hand, are just that - if you have an e-ticket and no bags you get screened on the way through, and then your boarding pass is scanned by the cabin crew as you go down the big ramp thingy.
Isn't that a reasonable explanation of his comment?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That makes perfect sense Bendo. That was what Godfrey actually meant. In saying that, I don't agree with making it an extra charge. For F@cks sake just put the ticket price up, and keep it inclusive. It's not like the other airlines won't follow suit in like 3 seconds time........
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without getting into too much detail, the most effective way of keeping Australian Aviation safe will be happening well away from an airport. If you are relying on grabbing your baddies on the way into an aircraft you've already blown it. The risk assesment is done by identifying trouble before it arrives at the check in. The security charade at airports that we all have to put up with is window dressing at best, at worst some clown who got picked on at school on a power trip.
The background checks for your ASIC and the unseen stuff is a more logical, effective way of keeping us all secure. While it is annoying we have to go through the same stuff each time we apply and we pay a range of agencies to check if we're on a watch list, at least you know the person holding it is who they say they are. The ASIC should be used in a more logical way with screening for aircrew on flights, after all that's why it's there.
The same logic applies to baggage. Identify the threats before they get to the xray. If you rely on the xray checker to spot the threat you better be sure they're trained well and had a good nights sleep. If you want to save money I'd look at the screening of pax and aircrew first. That and stop reacting and get one step ahead of the people who want to hurt us.
The background checks for your ASIC and the unseen stuff is a more logical, effective way of keeping us all secure. While it is annoying we have to go through the same stuff each time we apply and we pay a range of agencies to check if we're on a watch list, at least you know the person holding it is who they say they are. The ASIC should be used in a more logical way with screening for aircrew on flights, after all that's why it's there.
The same logic applies to baggage. Identify the threats before they get to the xray. If you rely on the xray checker to spot the threat you better be sure they're trained well and had a good nights sleep. If you want to save money I'd look at the screening of pax and aircrew first. That and stop reacting and get one step ahead of the people who want to hurt us.
The background checks for your ASIC and the unseen stuff is a more logical, effective way of keeping us all secure
....... keeping us all secure from what ?
How goes the footy bombers court case ?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Binghi Keeping us secure from people who wish to do us harm whether here in Australia or somewhere else in the world. They are here and it's a little strange to think they are not, that thinking caused the current problem. These people generally look for soft easy targets. If they see checks being made or that they've been tagged and monitored they will hopefully move on or stop their plans. The best way we can stop bad things is to let them know we are on to them ie a full background check for an ASIC.
I think it is a little silly to think they will replicate previous operations, they tend to evolve. That is what we have to be constantly aware of and amend our procedures to ensure we stop and predict the next act of evil. How we do that should be left to others.
The cost of baggage checks and annoyance of screening is all there to reduce the threat. While we might find it a pain, it is there to attempt to protect from and dissuade terrorists. We might also find it a little off kilter and possibly not the most effective use of resources, but it's what we have to put up with. The associated costs are there to stay unfortunately and if something did happen there would be a whole heap of media and people saying why didn't you do this, this and this.
On a final note Mr Binghi, there are many things done by brave, smart people who you'll never know or hear about who do their best to eliminate the threats to us domestically. They don't have court cases fail, they don't annoy you and they don't work at a screening point. Easy to be critical from the stands.
I think it is a little silly to think they will replicate previous operations, they tend to evolve. That is what we have to be constantly aware of and amend our procedures to ensure we stop and predict the next act of evil. How we do that should be left to others.
The cost of baggage checks and annoyance of screening is all there to reduce the threat. While we might find it a pain, it is there to attempt to protect from and dissuade terrorists. We might also find it a little off kilter and possibly not the most effective use of resources, but it's what we have to put up with. The associated costs are there to stay unfortunately and if something did happen there would be a whole heap of media and people saying why didn't you do this, this and this.
On a final note Mr Binghi, there are many things done by brave, smart people who you'll never know or hear about who do their best to eliminate the threats to us domestically. They don't have court cases fail, they don't annoy you and they don't work at a screening point. Easy to be critical from the stands.
Last edited by Whiskey Oscar Golf; 11th Jun 2008 at 01:21. Reason: spilling