Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

Uk Airport Chaos (hand wringing thread)

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

Uk Airport Chaos (hand wringing thread)

Old 13th Aug 2006, 02:55
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Belgium
Age: 69
Posts: 59
Smile

Hello,

Reading the press..many forums...and just tinking five minutes....I still wondering why such a group of terrorists...choice a country like UK (where security is at high level from years) for prepare such plot.
The third world countries seem's to me a better choice...and AFAIK..US airliners are also going in those countries (if the flag of planes victims is important matter for the terror perpetrators)..for prepare their actions.
Or ...the terrorists are stupids...and so I must feel comfortable with this idea......
All this stink from the beginning....
TheSailor is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 03:18
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 235
As long as there are people like bjcc supporting this kind of overreaction, the terrorists (whoever they are) will win. This makes bjcc an accomplice, but I doubt he'll ever grasp that himself. The terrorist's weapons of choice are not bombs, but simple-minded and fearful people: scare them enough and you'll accomplish your goals.
xetroV is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 05:14
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
You really have to compare and wonder about these two situations:

(1) "The authorities" intercept and prevent an alleged plot to blow up planes and despite nothing actually transpiring in comes this new draconian security regime; whilst,

(2) Last year four ACTUAL terrorist attacks occurred on London trains and buses, yet despite the hand-wringing, I haven't heard of equivalent draconian security being implemented on all who ride those vehicles. Correct me if I'm wrong, someone? I am down-under afterall....

I'll bet the London bus driver is still allowed to take his sandwiches on the bus with him....

Ron & Edna Johns is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 06:26
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The GREAT North West
Posts: 68
We had friends coming 'up north' for the weekend from Brighton. Only he came up in the end on Friday as they had booked BA from LGW and didn't want it to wreck the weekend completely...
We checked last night for his return flight, everything seemed ok, first two cancelled but later two appeared ok!
Checked one last time before I went to bed and ALL four have been cancelled..

Now we have to see whether we can get him home via rail, which we don't think we will have a problem but like you say not only is it a bit of a mess at the moment, but i bet there is a few modes of transport who are making very good business from it all...
johno617tonka is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 06:40
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Almaty
Posts: 211
It just shows that either previous security screening was totally inadequate and unsafe or that now we are suffering from gross overreaction! Either way the situation is a total mess. I just hope this time the security services have found some real bad guys, and are not just using their usual sources of information (overheard discussions in local bars!)
Harrier46 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 07:05
  #386 (permalink)  

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 1,292
I am not a great reader of the News of the World, however Lord Stevens the retired CC of the Met wrote this.

It is a must read.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/lordstevens.shtml
sky9 is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 07:25
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
According to bjcc, pax with mobile phones are a 'bloody pain'.

What a truly stupid, ignorant comment. No further analysis required.
10secondsurvey is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 08:34
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
10secondsurvey

If you read whats writen, rather than jumping to conclutions, you'd see, I said mobile phones are a pain, not pax with them. Different point.

Bronx

Whats a 'Patrol Cop'?

Spork

Yes, I'm afraid a total ban on hand baggage is sustanable. It's very easy to do, and much simpler for airport authorities. The ban it's self is not the cause of delay, the delay is the additional search proccedure. If the additional search requirement remains, and hand baggage is permitted, it will increase delay, if for no other reason than the staffing at search areas is not suffiecent to to do both quickly.

As I said, I doubt that it will be sustained, thats not to say that airport authorities would not prefer to have a permanant ban on hand baggage, it is certainly something they often talked about in the mid 90's.

"Quote:
waisted Police time… … a few people who really shouldn't be being arrested.

Umm… What?"

As I said in the full post from which you quote, a large number of items are banned from being taken on aircraft, and have been for a long time. Some of those are illegal to possess, eg knives, firearms, pepper/cs/mace sprays. That is, illegal to possess in the UK. But maybe legal in the pax country of residence. They are often found at search areas, and that can and has led to the pax arrest, missing thier flight and thier flight being delayed while thier hold luggage is found and removed.

Now, if some pax are stupid enough to take items like those mentioned above on a flight, in hand baggage, then you can see why the DfT wanted to make the regulations as simple as possible when it comes to banning liquids. Which they have. Ban everything, then there is no doubt involved.

Of course, those like you didn't know the above, and just assume there is no logic to these restrictions.
bjcc is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 08:49
  #389 (permalink)  
Final 3 Greens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, I'm afraid a total ban on hand baggage is sustanable. It's very easy to do, and much simpler for airport authorities.

No it is not. If you were capable of deductive reasoning, you would realize that the impact of this action will be politically unacceptable due to loss of tax revenues and extremely strong lobbying from the airlines and business.

This action is placing UK plc at a competitive disadvantage.

Therefore it is not sustainable.
 
Old 13th Aug 2006, 09:20
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Final 3 Greens

Politically unacceptable is not the same as unstainable.

There are 2 causes of this issue, one you, and no one else have mentioned, which is the additional search requirements. The second is the ban on hand baggage.

The hand baggage ban reduces the time taken for searches, along with the staffing needs. BUT, the additional search of people requirement increases that staffing need again, to beyond the previous situation. That, is where the delays are being caused, not through a ban on hand baggage!

At some point, one, or both of these requirements will be relaxed. I think it will be the search of people one. The ban on liquids will probably remain for a lot longer, look, for example at the ban on sissors resulting from 9/11. That to the BAA is sustainable, It's not something that will bother airlines, and as no one is being prevented from taking items such as laptops etc, buisness leaders arn't in a position to lobby against it either.
bjcc is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 11:01
  #391 (permalink)  
Final 3 Greens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
BJCC

Once again your limited intellect and UK centric view makes you look foolish.

Politically unacceptable directly = unsustainable.

You need to think top down, not bottom up.

When a few multinationals let it be know that they are considering transferring 10,000 jobs elsewhere and when the airlines (and support industries) add their voice, measued in terms of large scale redundancies, the change will come.

You seem blissfully unaware that the UK is acting in a vacuum (at least in Europe), for instance I have just checked in for an intra European flight and am sitting in the lounge typing this on my laptop using wifi.

Its the first time I've flown Lufthansa for over a year, but its going to become a regular happening unless things change in the UK.

Of course, you and your compatriats may choose to commit commercial suicide, if you wish.
 
Old 13th Aug 2006, 11:13
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 817
bjcc
Whats a 'Patrol Cop'?
We use 'cop' for police officer. I always thought we got it from the British 'copper'.
'Patrol' cops are the lowest rank guys who ride around on 'patrol'.
Now put the two words together and American 'patrol cop' = British 'police constable'.
Simple, huh?
I should have said you were a police constable but thought cop was used most places.

Let's try another one.
Fact - Yo Blair is doing real bad in the public opinion stakes and a lot of his own party think he was wrong for going with GWB over Lebanon. Sure, they could be right and the rest of the world leaders wrong -- maybe.
Fact - GWB isn't doing so bad as Blair but more and more Americans think the war on Iraq is a big mess we shouldn't have gotten into, think it's wrong America's taking sides over Lebanon and are very unhappy he blocked the ceasefire resolution when so many innocent men, women and children were being killed.
Now try and think outside the box.
Did you read all that Blair thanks Bush and Bush thanks Blair stuff after the terrorist plots got announced? Sure, thank each other all day if they want but they both thought they'd do it in the press and media.
In his weekly radio address the President just linked terrorist plots to bring down airplanes full of "innocent men, women, and children" with, guess who - Hezbolla. He didn't say there's any evidence at all of any link with Hezbolla, just a hint to try and make folks think he's right over Lebanon.
Maybe the timing of these plots was just good luck but GWB and Yo Blair are sure as hell are gonna milk it all they can and keep folks scared for as long as they can.
Sure you can say 'the government knows more than we do so we shouldn't question their decisions', but some folks think it's healthy to be skeptical about polititians motives.


You're always real quick to say folks that don't accept what you say don't understand. Big mistake. Bad habit. There's lotsa guys on Prune who are a whole lot cleverer than you and me.

B.

Last edited by Bronx; 13th Aug 2006 at 11:55.
Bronx is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 12:04
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the Milky Way
Posts: 194
Lord Stevens....It is a must read.
I second that. That's the most sensible analysis of the problem I've read for a while.
I'm sure the bleeding heart do-gooders and other lobotomised individuals such as George Galloway will dismiss it as rascism. However, these people need to learn that pinpointing the problem does not constitute rascism.
ElNino is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 12:28
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,391
bjcc,
I'm not sure if you're aware that a large proportion of the flight delays now are because more hold baggage has to be checked because the scanners are detecting laptops, ipods etc. It was quicker to check them with a handbaggage check.

I don't know why you defend the indefensible. This plot was apparently known of for some time, preparations for a/c security should have been pre-planned thoroughly, not this half-baked, last-minute c**k-up.
BusyB is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 12:39
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by BusyB
This plot was apparently known of for some time, preparations for a/c security should have been pre-planned thoroughly, not this half-baked, last-minute c**k-up.
Oh, I don't know, seems they had plenty of plastic bags ready at the last minute . . .
derekl is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 12:50
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
bjcc,

Thought I'd quote what's written:

"Some people may have to be surgicaly removed from their mobile. Good! They are a blood pain, and the world would be better off with out them."

What a stupid ignorant comment. No further analysis required.
10secondsurvey is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 12:52
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 84
Posts: 2,373
Originally Posted by BusyB
bjcc,
This plot was apparently known of for some time, preparations for a/c security should have been pre-planned thoroughly, not this half-baked, last-minute c**k-up.
Isn't everything this "government" does a half baked, last minute cock-up?
The plastic bags are a rare example of efficiency.
brakedwell is online now  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 13:11
  #398 (permalink)  

PPRuNe Playmate of the Month
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Donington, Lincolnshire
Age: 67
Posts: 593
I understand that no liquids may be carried through security and onto aircraft but, despite searching, I can find no reference to the wearing of bras with gel-filled pockets which are widely used these days. Are these subject to removal and security check?

Also, is there any policy applicable to stoma patients (ileostomy, colostomy, etc)? Are they subject to any kind of additional security examination?
PilotsPal is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 13:14
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Summer
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by LD Max
This works from the assumption that permitting carry-on baggage is putting people at risk. Idiots carrying explosives is what puts people at risk. Western governments imposing their stupid foreign policies on the middle east is putting people at risk....
I couldn't agree more with you LD. I think the reason things are so messed up is that there is so much hipocracy and struggle for power. Sensible security does not exist, why they are trying to hide such a simple fact ?

Still, by baggage gets lost/stolen everyday. My passenger rights are often ignored by some unscrupolous airline or their employee. There are many aspects to be addressed in Aviation safety (not security).
Not many decision makers care about these thing, why? Because getting visibility and being the mouthpiece of terror thinking is much easier. Hard, tedious work of everyday too difficult and brings no reward.
el ! is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2006, 13:29
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Bronx

Oh, a Police Constable. I see, so the fact that every member of the British Police Service is a Police Constable (with the exception of some senior members of the Met Police)makes them all Patrol Cops then?

As for questioning Yo and the Bush, I'm in favour, but it wasn't thier decision, that was made elsewhere. Just as you advocate questioning them, why should one not question some of the dafter theories, and doomsday statements being made here.

I very much doubt that scaring the population is a way of increasing popularity. Then again, we are a bit more used to terrorism here than the USA is.

It may come as a suprise that there are people in the press here (BBC News this morning) suggesting excatly what I said, that a permanant ban on hand baggage is actually a good thing.

Ok, so some think this is a cock up, and badly planned (On the last point I would agree) but no one has yet suggested a workable alternative. Inteligence based profilling is labour intensive, not to mention extreamly difficult to introduce and would take a considerable amount of time to train the staff needed. It would increase check in times considerably, and is unreliable.

So what else do you do? Ignore a possible threat? Good idea, that really could cause the doomsday therory put foreward by Final 3 Greens.
bjcc is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.