Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Airports forcing troops to change on tarmac?

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Airports forcing troops to change on tarmac?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 26th Dec 2007, 20:18
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

Sadly this is not just a BHX problem, when arriving back at BZN have heard the tannoy message stating that those travelling to LHR and LGW have to get changed as they would not be allowed to fly onwards from those airports in uniform. I don't know if this is just a BAA thing or not, but it's still a poor way to treat people. As for myself and others like me, we just look forward to the 12 hour bus journey North from BZN (in uniform usually). PC and EO has gone mad.
Hoots is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2007, 20:19
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On an American Airlines flight out of LAX to Honolulu recently, when the boarding call came, the first to be asked to board were our men and woman in uniform, then First class etc etc.
Not only were they accorded that privilege but all were upgraded to first class, including a Merchant Marine officer despite his explaining that he in fact was not military. Then once we were under way an announcement was made especially welcoming these people onto the flight, followed by Applauses.(I gather that these people were returning home to Hawaii, by the gathering at Honolulu.) I was sitting next to the desk, so that is how I heard all of this.
ekoja is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2007, 21:04
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Depends how you define terrorists."

What utter pish.
johnny99 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 02:29
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Shrewsbury, UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unfortunately richatom, it is not Sir Richard Dannat's place to stand up and oppose government policy, as much as we might like him to. Nor is it his place to play a popularity game with the affections of the general public. He took the same oath the rest of us did.

The burden of keeping the government 'honest' is borne by every member of the UK electorate, we do their bidding, by proxy of the power we have all vested in our elected government. If people have a problem then they can get off their apathetic asses and go to the polls!

I echo the sentiments that the Great British public are not ignoramuses, and to suggest they would not appreciate the service of the troops, regardless of their views of the government, is to credit them with less discernment than our oft-maligned American cousins, who seem to appreciate their troops so well.

As always, this PC nonsense comes from those with so little regard for the intellect of those they fear may be offended that they themselves are the ones acting in a discriminatory fashion, and only succeed in alienating everybody!
RobinXe is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 03:10
  #65 (permalink)  
Nixor ut Ledo
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: obviously NOT in the same kindergarten playground as the management!
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So if the order/request was allegedly given by the pilot then the carrier was????

I'm sure that someone on PPRuNe would be able to furnish that particular piece of information.

Note to Richatom et al - capitulation to terrorism is a different concept to pragmatism when dealing with criminality dressed up as religeous buffoonery.
allan908 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 05:59
  #66 (permalink)  
S78
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not entirely sure.....
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sounds like a one off decision made by a muppet.

I work at BHX and have seen loads of trooping flights/medevacs - including diverts from Brize - come through in camos and carrying weapons.

The only part which has ever caused me concern re the diverts was the MOD instruction for the squaddies to hire cars and make their own way back to Brize rather than the MOD taking the trouble to sort out transport for them



S78
S78 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 06:15
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The situation to date seems to be that someone has decided that the Queen's troops, wearing their official uniform can't be in some parts of the UK as they represesnt some sort of 'threat', rather than the forces of law and order. I suppose that they might be targets of some terrorist attack or that they might cause an attack to take place. Bearing in mind that the Queen herself might be considered a target and that thousands of people turn out to watch the Changing of the Guard, I am amazed that this ceremony is carried out in uniform. BHX more important than Buckingham Palace? I don't think so
A2QFI is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 06:49
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,822
Received 271 Likes on 110 Posts
This shouldn't take that long to sort out, surely?

1. Perhaps Birmingham Airport's 'Customer Relations Executive' or 'Security Management Team' could clarify whether the airport has any specific policy regarding the movement of troops in uniform?

I doubt very much whether the airport would make any such stipulation.

2. If the airport has no such policy, where is this directive coming from? Is it the Air Movs empire (no, I don't want to start a 'mover-bashing' discussion) - or is it some faceless suit at whatever DTMA is called these days? Or some shiny arse in the mad Mod-box?

No matter who gave such an order, to expect homecoming troops to change their clothes on the apron in mid-December is outrageous. As is S78's report that others have been told to make their own way to Brize in hire cars, rather than in a chartered coach....
BEagle is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 07:48
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somerset
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does this new policy of BHX mean that next time there is a Terror Alert, BHX will be patrolled by a bunch of Ragheads from the local Militias or will they call in British Armed Forces, the Professionals?

Of course they will call in the British Armed Forces to ensure the publics safety when travelling. But will the British Armed Forces be expected to patrol in civvies? I think not.

I know that when I travel through any airport, the sight of someone in uniform adds to my re-assurance that I can travel in safety. Irrespective of whether they are on duty or travelling on leave.

Let our British Armed Forces travel in uniform and let us be proud of these men and women who serve OUR Country
helimarshaller is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 08:58
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
think it is turning out to be a load of bollox
Just had a glance at Arsse and this is the latest post.
Prostestations abound but after 70 posts and 6000 views PPRuNe appears to be no nearer the truth. I'm surprised a journo hasn't picked this one up and investigated.
I'm still trying to work out how long it would have taken for these soldiers to get to their civvies, which surely were in the hold, then strip down to their underwear and put civvies on, on the apron, in December!! I really can't imagine British soldiers allowing themselves to be humiliated in this manner or their Officers condoning it.

Last edited by goudie; 27th Dec 2007 at 09:19.
goudie is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 09:32
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Goudie, you are probably better off ignoring that last post on Arrse. Sven isn't exactly one of the 'more enlightened' posters on that site. I think hes the sort that would disagree that waters wet. He'd even be able to pick an arguement with Kofi Annan!
wg13_dummy is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 09:44
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Thanks for that Wg13, we have a few of the type on PPRuNE also
goudie is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 09:56
  #73 (permalink)  
GPMG
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
No we don't
 
Old 27th Dec 2007, 10:10
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I rest my case.
goudie is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 10:38
  #75 (permalink)  
Green Flash
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
1.5 M

My thoughts exactly.

Look lads, there isn't that many of us. United we stand, divided we fall.
 
Old 27th Dec 2007, 11:30
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
re the troops getting changed on the tarmac and having to wait for the bags to come out of the hold!!!! hey anyone flying ascot airways is a fool if they do not carry at least one nights kit as handbaggage in fact I think its usually always suggested

Bangor meet and greet love it when the brits come through as well, even when we are coming from a US airport heading back home, great cookies
14greens is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 13:03
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,580
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
The situation to date seems to be that someone has decided that the Queen's troops, wearing their official uniform can't be in some parts of the UK as they represesnt some sort of 'threat', rather than the forces of law and order. I suppose that they might be targets of some terrorist attack or that they might cause an attack to take place.
But how can a diverted flight be a threat? The threat to security at BHX would come from regular military movements that could be monitored by an extremist group and who could then act on any pattern setting they observed, whether that be to target the ac, either on app / dep or to target the personnel it was carrying as they were in the building.

To target a diverted flight in an opportunistic attack would mean a security breach from someone with inside knowledge of the intended military movements and that BHX is currently being dicked by an extremist terrorist cell, actively looking for a target of opportunity. And if that is the case, then quite frankly, the head of security at BHX has much bigger problems than a few squaddies in deserts to contend with.

Sounds like a load of politically correct tosh and nonsense dressed up in the thin veneer of security. Like so much else this Govt has done.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 14:35
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Terrorism is about predictability. If a civilian airport is known to be the "standard alternate", due to hitherto obvious and regular troop movements through it, it could become a target. We need to be unpredictable when selecting our alternates; particularly when the alternate is likely to be used. It would only need information in the public domain to work out when a standard alternate might be used. I give you the 23/24 Dec as a prime example. A lunatic with a bomb in his suitcase will gladly wait all day in the hectic arrivals area of the terminal building waiting for the lads to appear. Its not rocket science, it doesn't need any inside assistance and, unfortunately, it would work.

I, for one, do not have any criticism of a MoD policy of discretion with regular troop movements in the civilian environment. Occasional individual movements (one bloke or a few lads in a car) in uniform will not make an airport a target. However, such a policy of discretion with large troop movement must be carefully thought out to avoid the ridiculous situation cited by the OP. Troops undressing on the tarmac is outrageous.
EdSet100 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 14:50
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Shrewsbury, UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why would the current crop of terrorists wait all day in a crowded arrivals hall for our lads? They have shown no inclination to attack military targets within our borders, preferring the large-scale carnage of soft civilian targets. Surely this has been realised!
RobinXe is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2007, 14:51
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I hated travelling in uniform for 25 years.

I never travelled to work or from work in uniform always kept my kit in the work place and got changed there. Walked into work jeans + tee shirt.

Therefore I totally agree with BHX no uniform. It only takes a minute for a nutter in a car to think right troops in BHX thats it i'll have a go at the airport then we get another Glassgow airport drama and close down of every airport in the country, hundreds of flights suspended for what..... some bods in uniform, think guys you might like the uniform but not every one else does.

Oh short memories Can you remember why Germany BFG car plates got changed. Rail heads in the UK army troops shot at.

Uniform is just asking for trouble.
blogger is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.