and still they don't get the message!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bealine
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.
I quite agree - two separate issues, but with one common denominator - the threat of safety to the passengers and crew of the aircraft!
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.
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!
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!
and still they don't get the message
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Prince of Darkness
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA and a Brit
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DXB
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Senility?
Can't afford/too busy in retirement to follow world events?
Overwhelmed by the airport enviroment?
Guest
Posts: n/a
AOG007
Pub brawls and premeditated mass murder was my analogy for anti social behaviour and terrorism, not your words.
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.)
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 
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.
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!
I don't recall mentioning Pub Brawls?
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?
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?
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
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.
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!
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 17th Mar 2003 at 18:01.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: DXB
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to Hew Jampton's (much) earlier question:
Several times I've been carrying things packed by other people (ok - none of them as scary as my Mum 
), and I've replied "No" to this question. Once I've explained the circumstances I've been sent on my merry way.
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".
), and I've replied "No" to this question. Once I've explained the circumstances I've been sent on my merry way.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!)
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!)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Liverpool & Luton
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Eddie
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.
Sorry and all that - if it seems hard, tough, the world can be a very nasty place
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.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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!
Last edited by bealine; 20th Mar 2003 at 20:36.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 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.
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!
(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.