Security staff??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LONDON
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security staff??
Just watched an interview on BBC with Michael O'leary and they were talking security and the BBC said that BA have there own security staff and Ryanair dont is this true?? If so what do they do as the pax have to go through BAA security anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Frimley, Surrey.
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also on the same prog, an EOS bod saying they fast-track their pax through security. How does that occur? Is there separate security for "premium" pax?
Have to admit I liked what MOL said. Never thought I'd ever be saying that...
Have to admit I liked what MOL said. Never thought I'd ever be saying that...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view, Mike O'Leary said it exactly like it is as far as the security situation goes. He is right and I don't doubt we'll see him denounced by the powers-that-be in due course. And he'll still be right. All that went on didn't make a blind bit of of difference to passenger safety.
There, I've said it. Let the howling rage commence.
There, I've said it. Let the howling rage commence.
O' Leary's bat is that current security at UK airports is funded by the airports... and obviously passed on to the airlines.
The great and good in the EU justice system have decided that as the security threat is aimed at countries rather than airlines, countries rather than airport operators & airlines should shoulder the cost - as is the case in the US.
Hence his threat to the non security bill paying UK Government, even the Police detailed to each airport are currently billed to the airports.
There is always a subtext...
The great and good in the EU justice system have decided that as the security threat is aimed at countries rather than airlines, countries rather than airport operators & airlines should shoulder the cost - as is the case in the US.
Hence his threat to the non security bill paying UK Government, even the Police detailed to each airport are currently billed to the airports.
There is always a subtext...
Notice how quickly the greedy BAA changed the rules to allow people to buy things from their airside shops.......
Good luck to MO'L - on this issue he is right. If the UK DfT wants increased security measures, it should be expected to pay the associated bill and not expect the airports to cope without improved infrastructural support.
Let's get back to sanity.
Good luck to MO'L - on this issue he is right. If the UK DfT wants increased security measures, it should be expected to pay the associated bill and not expect the airports to cope without improved infrastructural support.
Let's get back to sanity.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOL is purely thinking of his airline profits, as it costs him more money if pax put luggage in the hold, and also extends his short turnaround times.
It was a bit odd watching someone from a foreign country cavorting around with a Winston Churchill look alike and union flag for the Media, saying 'No Surrender' 'Let's keep Britian flying'.
As far as I'm concerned, I see no reason why I as a tax payer should subsidise MOL's foreign airline (or any other) for security. Shall we subsidise Air France or Lufthansa too? Take a look at MOL's profits, then decide whether we should give him some tax payers money. I certainly don't want security reduced just to suit Ryanair, especially in light of the fact that it is widely reported that martyrdom tapes have been found for some of the current suspects.
As for this Irishman suing the British Government - just a lot of hot air, and free publicity. Pretty shoddy to use a real terrorist threat to publicise his airline.
Much as I hate it, the current increased security is what pax want. The incompetence of BAA to run this security is not the fault of British taxpayers and I don't see why they should pay.
Airlines pay for their own security, not taxpayers.
It was a bit odd watching someone from a foreign country cavorting around with a Winston Churchill look alike and union flag for the Media, saying 'No Surrender' 'Let's keep Britian flying'.
As far as I'm concerned, I see no reason why I as a tax payer should subsidise MOL's foreign airline (or any other) for security. Shall we subsidise Air France or Lufthansa too? Take a look at MOL's profits, then decide whether we should give him some tax payers money. I certainly don't want security reduced just to suit Ryanair, especially in light of the fact that it is widely reported that martyrdom tapes have been found for some of the current suspects.
As for this Irishman suing the British Government - just a lot of hot air, and free publicity. Pretty shoddy to use a real terrorist threat to publicise his airline.
Much as I hate it, the current increased security is what pax want. The incompetence of BAA to run this security is not the fault of British taxpayers and I don't see why they should pay.
Airlines pay for their own security, not taxpayers.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: About 1 mile from WOD ndb
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the government should employ and pay for airport security staff, as in the USA. IMHO, there was a noticeable improvement in efficiency and consistency there once they all became Federal employees.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways has four different Security measures in place:
1. BAA security (in the UK) - using the same common security areas at airports shared with other airlines.
2. G4S (a merger of Group 4 Securitas and Securicor) to:
(a) Keep premises, compounds, stores and areas occupied by BA secure.
(b) To guard aircraft whilst on the ground and prevent unauthorised access.
(c) To maintain vigilance at the oversized baggage acceptance point and ensure name on baggage tag matches name on boarding pass.
(d) To x-ray screen any baggage belonging to non-English speaking pasengers who have not understood security questions, or to x-ray screen any items at the request of BA staff.
(e) To select pax at random for searching at gates of USA bound flights. (Since last week, this has been 100% of passengers for searching).
3. A team of Passport and Visa specialists who scrutinise documents of passengers bound for the USA. In addition to watching for forged documents, they check passengers have correct visas or are holding return booking confirmation if travelling under the Visa Waiver Program. These teams are in place to reduce the hefty fines imposed on the airline by the USA for passengers arriving with incorrect documentation.
4. A small team of security managers in place to examine ticket fraud, deception, credit card misuse etc.
So, when Micheal O'Leary states BA has its own security, he is quite right only it's to provide different functions to those he requires. Indeed, if it was up to that idiot, he would have no security at all!
1. BAA security (in the UK) - using the same common security areas at airports shared with other airlines.
2. G4S (a merger of Group 4 Securitas and Securicor) to:
(a) Keep premises, compounds, stores and areas occupied by BA secure.
(b) To guard aircraft whilst on the ground and prevent unauthorised access.
(c) To maintain vigilance at the oversized baggage acceptance point and ensure name on baggage tag matches name on boarding pass.
(d) To x-ray screen any baggage belonging to non-English speaking pasengers who have not understood security questions, or to x-ray screen any items at the request of BA staff.
(e) To select pax at random for searching at gates of USA bound flights. (Since last week, this has been 100% of passengers for searching).
3. A team of Passport and Visa specialists who scrutinise documents of passengers bound for the USA. In addition to watching for forged documents, they check passengers have correct visas or are holding return booking confirmation if travelling under the Visa Waiver Program. These teams are in place to reduce the hefty fines imposed on the airline by the USA for passengers arriving with incorrect documentation.
4. A small team of security managers in place to examine ticket fraud, deception, credit card misuse etc.
So, when Micheal O'Leary states BA has its own security, he is quite right only it's to provide different functions to those he requires. Indeed, if it was up to that idiot, he would have no security at all!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Indeed, if it was up to that idiot, he would have no security at all!
Michael O'Leary may be many things, but an idiot is not one of them.
Let's consider....
1) How many people have died due to terrorist acts on aircraft - probably the low thousands, including the 9/11 victims
2) How many people die on the roads each year - about 1,000 - that means that nearly twice as many have died as at the WTC in the period since, in the UK alone (Roadsafety.go.uk)
3) ASH (ash.org.uk) estimates that 6,000,000 in the UK died of smoking related illness in the period 1950-2000
To deal with point #2 the UK has rules, cameras and police.
The UK does not have a man with a red flag walking in front (anymore), a 5mph speed limit, speed bumps every 50m on motorways etc
And anyone over the legal age can choose to buy a pack of cigarettes.
We all have a choice whether to fly or not and I agree with MOL that a sensible balance should be reached. We are all responsible for determing what risks to take.
It is the first time in a very long time that I agree with MOL.
Michael O'Leary may be many things, but an idiot is not one of them.
Let's consider....
1) How many people have died due to terrorist acts on aircraft - probably the low thousands, including the 9/11 victims
2) How many people die on the roads each year - about 1,000 - that means that nearly twice as many have died as at the WTC in the period since, in the UK alone (Roadsafety.go.uk)
3) ASH (ash.org.uk) estimates that 6,000,000 in the UK died of smoking related illness in the period 1950-2000
To deal with point #2 the UK has rules, cameras and police.
The UK does not have a man with a red flag walking in front (anymore), a 5mph speed limit, speed bumps every 50m on motorways etc
And anyone over the legal age can choose to buy a pack of cigarettes.
We all have a choice whether to fly or not and I agree with MOL that a sensible balance should be reached. We are all responsible for determing what risks to take.
It is the first time in a very long time that I agree with MOL.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 19th Aug 2006 at 12:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: LONDON
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ba have all these extra security measures in place which is a good thing. However the responsibility must be with the airport/government to arange security. For example Ryanair park at STN leaves the aircraft all shut up and complies with all the regulations. Then shorely as the aircraft is on BAA property/land and ryanair have paid to park there then BAA should do regular patrols and have cctv. Its surely not up to Ryanair to have there own security staff doing the patrols for them.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: london
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So ,when the likes of o'leary has his way, are the airlines going to make it clear that 'they are NOT doing everything possible to ensure safety'. Then people truly can make a choice based upon the risks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
10 Second Survey
Please answer why airlines should pay for security, when the government pays for other transport sectors?
Of course Michael O'Leary is thinking of his operation and he is smart enough to realize that his company is facing a major business risk.
However despicable a person one may think he is, his view on airport security is valid.
I travelled around Europe last week, under the usual security arrangements, as did many thousands of others.
Despite your assertion, I do not wish to have the British approach imposed on us - in fact I think it is mad.
Please answer why airlines should pay for security, when the government pays for other transport sectors?
Of course Michael O'Leary is thinking of his operation and he is smart enough to realize that his company is facing a major business risk.
However despicable a person one may think he is, his view on airport security is valid.
I travelled around Europe last week, under the usual security arrangements, as did many thousands of others.
Despite your assertion, I do not wish to have the British approach imposed on us - in fact I think it is mad.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
Whilst broadly agreeing with your sentiments, I would point out that the number of UK annual road deaths is in fact over three times the figure you quoted.
In 2005 3201 people were killed, marginally down from the 3221 in 2004.
In other words, a tragedy comparable to the WTC outrage every year yet, whilst many people understandably express concern about terrorism on aircraft or at airports, they seem quite oblivious to the greater danger facing them on our roads.
The majority of our road vehicle drivers have passed only a minimal test and are amateurs in every sense of the word. In commercial aviation pilots and controllers are highly-skilled, subjected to demanding tests and thereafter assessed on a regular basis; they are professionals in every sense of the word.
I know the type of transport environment I feel safest in, even with the inherent terrorist threat.
I still cannot follow the rationale that smaller hand baggage will somehow help to combat terrorism, despite 'explanations' that it will make the screeners' task easier.
Whilst broadly agreeing with your sentiments, I would point out that the number of UK annual road deaths is in fact over three times the figure you quoted.
In 2005 3201 people were killed, marginally down from the 3221 in 2004.
In other words, a tragedy comparable to the WTC outrage every year yet, whilst many people understandably express concern about terrorism on aircraft or at airports, they seem quite oblivious to the greater danger facing them on our roads.
The majority of our road vehicle drivers have passed only a minimal test and are amateurs in every sense of the word. In commercial aviation pilots and controllers are highly-skilled, subjected to demanding tests and thereafter assessed on a regular basis; they are professionals in every sense of the word.
I know the type of transport environment I feel safest in, even with the inherent terrorist threat.
I still cannot follow the rationale that smaller hand baggage will somehow help to combat terrorism, despite 'explanations' that it will make the screeners' task easier.
I think that the bottom line here is that the security risk is a national issue, i.e. its targeted at the state (in this instance the UK), the state issues diktats as to how it will be dealt with in terms of airport security. logic would suggest that the controlling authority - in this instance the "state" would therefore pick up the tab for this increase in activity?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoL is a chancer. I think he has a real cheek asking the UK government to pay his security costs. When he puts all his aircraft on the G-reg and all his pilots meet UK CAA standards then we will discuss the matter. But we all know this is never going to happen because it would cost him a fortune. Sorry Mr O'leary but you cannot have your cake and eat it!!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Forget about MOL and Ryanair for a second....Do you think its fair that the likes of Easy, BA and BMI should have to pay for increased security when its the government that insists on these new procedures???? UK airlines..especially the longhaul ones risk a major loss of customer share as a result of these security procedures when customers begin to realise that they will be less "harassed" by transiting through continental airports such as Frankfurt and Amsterdam! If the government is insistant that the airlines should pay for this act of suicide then I think the government should relax the rules somewhat!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
UK airlines..especially the longhaul ones risk a major loss of customer share as a result of these security procedures when customers begin to realise that they will be less "harassed" by transiting through continental airports such as Frankfurt and Amsterdam!
Spot on analysis.
Spot on analysis.