security, restore the balance of power
I understand the discomfort that comes from being scrutinized on the way to the airplane. I've expressed frustration at the seemingly nasty approach of some security officers when passing through as crew. But let's think about the proposed boycott logically. Let's say that solidarity was magically found and pilots actually did drop tools en masse for a few days. How do you suppose that would play out in the media? I can see the headlines now.
"Pilots inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers because they believe they are above the law".
Or how about
"Pilots want to bypass security rules designed to protect passenger safety".
You may as well be advocating that pilots no longer need to undergo occasional proficiency checks. After all, they already have a licence. Why should their competency ever come into question.
In short, a boycott is not the way to go, IMHO. It's a losing proposition.
"Pilots inconvenience hundreds of thousands of passengers because they believe they are above the law".
Or how about
"Pilots want to bypass security rules designed to protect passenger safety".
You may as well be advocating that pilots no longer need to undergo occasional proficiency checks. After all, they already have a licence. Why should their competency ever come into question.
In short, a boycott is not the way to go, IMHO. It's a losing proposition.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LGW
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seats upright for landing
The consequences of an emergency happening on landing do not discriminate against whether the passenger is a frequent flyer card holder or not! If company SOPs dictate seats should be upright for landing then they should be....no exception. Where do we draw the line when crew start to make exceptions for differing classifications of pax? In my view, it was a lazy way out of avoiding confrontation where the crew were upholding a valid safety requirement.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: usa
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew baggage screening event LHR
LHR CREW BAGAGE SCREENING EVENT
DISCRIPTION OF THE EVENT
After arriving at LHR Terminal X at XXXX hrs to operate ABC 123 to XXX, I approached my airline ticket counter to enquire about the departure gate and on-time status of the flight I was to operate. I was informed that the flight was on-time and that the gate would be XX. I decided to pass through the employee screening channel in the terminal alone, prior to going on duty at XXXX hrs, so that I could find a quiet corner to sit and study the flight planning material on-line via my company website. I was not in uniform at that point (I was wearing a sweater over my uniform shirt) and I was not wearing any identifiable company markings. I presented my ICAO crew ID card and proceeded to the screening area. On entering the screening area I observed 3 people conducting screening; one male, and 2 females wearing head scarves. All three appeared to be culturally western Asian. The area was empty save for myself and a European male wearing a hi-viz vest covering what looked to be a disheveled suit on the other side of the walk through scanner. I presumed this man was something to do with the eternal construction activities within the terminal as his clothes were filthy, his shirt wrinkled and his overall appearance suggested he had just slept in the items he was wearing. None of these people wore any identification that could be seen and were not dressed in any type of uniform. My immediate impression of the screening area dynamic was that the male screener was overly concerned with presenting an air of authority, and of his image to his female co-workers.
After my items were scanned, the male screener, aggressively and full of macho bravado, told me very loudly that my liquids had to be removed from my bag. I asked why. The male screener retorted in a rude confrontational manner that all liquids were required to be scanned separately. I removed my shaving kit from my bag and placed it in a plastic tray and gave it to him. He then passed the tray through the baggage scanner and told me again that all my liquids would have to come out of my shaving kit and placed in a clear plastic bag and then be re-scanned. I then muttered under my breath “for Christ sake”. The screener immediately yelled in a very loud indignant voice, “did you just tell me to **** off?” I said, “no, I did not”. The male screener then asked his 2 female colleagues whether they had heard me say **** off? They both looked down at the ground and said yes, they had. I proceeded through the walk-through scanner. Immediately after that I asked to talk to the supervisor and was shocked to be told that in fact, the disheveled looking male standing behind the body scanner was in charge of the whole process. I asked to be taken to a room so that I may discuss with him the discourteous and rude treatment that I had been subjected to. Meanwhile the male screener was continuing to loudly assert that I had told him to **** off. I was shown into an area bordered by plastic curtains, open to the examination area and still in full view of the screening personnel.
This so called supervisor then proceeded to try and lecture me about security in the UK. I stopped him immediately and informed him that his efforts were in vain. He then started berating me for telling the male screener to **** off. I explained to him that I did not tell the male screener to **** off and that the male screener was mistakenly assuming that I had sworn at him. I explained that this person had probably heard the “F” in my “for Christ sake” muttering and had assumed that I had said **** off. A long discussion then ensued about security in general. During this discussion I was again lectured as to the fact that ”at Heathrow we do things right”. I made a point of asking why, on leaving LHR after a previous layover, my bags having been packed exactly as they were now, had they passed through the same scanning station successfully and without any further need for closer inspection? The supervisor then turned around and walked off leaving me wondering whether I should leave as well. I heard him in discussions with his personnel. He then returned and told me that he had asked his personnel again whether they had heard me say **** off and they had all said they had. In the middle of reiterating why I thought that the screener had misheard me the male screener aggressively walked into this supposedly private area and remonstrated to me again about how I had told him to **** off and that he “wasn’t going to take it”. I explained to him that he had probably heard the “F” in my “for Christ sake” muttering and had assumed that I had said **** off. Both men then rounded on me and accused me again of swearing at the male screener. The supervisor then inferred that because I had been caught not obeying the regulations, that I was creating an incident to somehow mask ‘guilt’. I asked the supervisor to clarify what he had just said after which I explained that I seriously had no regard for his regulations or the abusive, intrusive and invasive process that I had just been subjected to. The male screener then started wildly accusing me of other things in a loud voice. I pointed out to the supervisor that the screener’s complaints about me had now changed from his original assertion that I had sworn at him and that this whole ordeal had become ridiculous. The supervisor then became very officious and asked the male screener what he wanted to do about the situation. I interjected immediately that I was sorry that the screener misheard me (my exact words). The screener nodded and walked away. The supervisor then motioned for me to leave. I collected my belongings. As I was about to leave a female screener demanded that she place my toiletries in a see-through plastic bag and re-scan them. I nodded “yes”. When this finished I repacked my belongings and left the employee screening area. I proceeded, bewildered, to an empty seat in the passenger waiting area to review my flight planning documents. The time was XXXX, 30 minutes after initially entering the employee screening area. I subsequently reported for duty, on time, 45 minutes later at gate XX.
MY COMPLAINT
The UK has always been a nightmare for security/customs/immigration as far as us flight crew are concerned. I have even been threatened with arrest for just showing a general declaration to immigration authorities in Manchester. There seems to be a very wide interpretation and implementation of screening standards from one port of entry to another and from each screening team to another. Certainly this was the case in this instance and is unacceptable.
Rudeness, disrespect, discourteousness, inappropriate familiarity and plain obstruction seem to be the norm when flight crew enter and exit the UK, particularly at LHR. Many screening teams I have been unfortunate to encounter have no respect for the sensibilities of the people they are tasked with serving. In many instances my crew and I seem to have been thought of as an inconvenience and extraneous to their activities. I have yet to be treated as a professional let alone be addressed as Captain or Sir (not that this is very important to me) in my dealings with anyone tasked with screening me or my crew in the UK. My impression is that if maximum inconvenience and belittlement of flight crew can be achieved then so much the better.
In the UK (and elsewhere), screener attitude seems to be that all flight crew should be treated and regarded as common criminals and errant teenagers. This is unacceptable, as is a seeming overarching intent to embarrass us. Intra-screener team point scoring off flight crew for some sort of egotistical or perverted sense of professional pride is an affront. We pilots do not tolerate it in the cockpit and neither should we tolerate it elsewhere.
In the event I have described, I was subjected to false accusations, threats and a group ‘mobbing’ by male and female screening and supervisory staff who were more interested in making sure they falsely accused me of things I did not do in unison rather than actually acknowledging the facts. This is unacceptable.
Not being able to readily identify, both by ID badges and/or uniform, on-duty screener personel is unacceptable. As employees, we have a right to know who and/or what are conducting security and screening activities-particularly as it pertains to us.
SUMMARY
The concept of flight crew screening is logically and fundamentally, largely redundant. We as flight crew seem to be unwilling participants in a giant ‘shutting the door after the horse has bolted’ exercise. Indeed, none of the very few security events involving flight crew over the years could have been prevented by the procedures in the event I have described above save for, maybe, an incident involving the downing of a USAir BAE 146 by a disgruntled ticket agent in the 80’s. This tragic event happened at a time when airport employee security screening did not occur in the USA and could have been easily prevented by comprehensive employee assistance programs and peer group monitoring.
Further, I ask why we flight crew must be screened at all when we arrive at an airport to undertake our duties? In this modern era of comprehensive, world encompassing, far reaching, highly technological intelligence gathering and dissemination surely there is a more efficient, less futile way to attain the flight crew specific goals of aviation security? I can only assume that flight crew screening is carried out for far more suspect, invasive, personal liberty contravening reasons using mass fear as an excuse.
Most importantly though, as to the event at LHR I have described above, to have to endure the treatment I received, at the beginning of what would turn out be a long, stressful 12-13hr flight duty period ending with holding delays and a landing in the midst of severe convective activity in the arrival Terminal FIR, was and is unacceptable and plainly did not contribute to or add to safety or security in any way. Rather, it had completely the reverse effect.
Captain
Major International Airline
DISCRIPTION OF THE EVENT
After arriving at LHR Terminal X at XXXX hrs to operate ABC 123 to XXX, I approached my airline ticket counter to enquire about the departure gate and on-time status of the flight I was to operate. I was informed that the flight was on-time and that the gate would be XX. I decided to pass through the employee screening channel in the terminal alone, prior to going on duty at XXXX hrs, so that I could find a quiet corner to sit and study the flight planning material on-line via my company website. I was not in uniform at that point (I was wearing a sweater over my uniform shirt) and I was not wearing any identifiable company markings. I presented my ICAO crew ID card and proceeded to the screening area. On entering the screening area I observed 3 people conducting screening; one male, and 2 females wearing head scarves. All three appeared to be culturally western Asian. The area was empty save for myself and a European male wearing a hi-viz vest covering what looked to be a disheveled suit on the other side of the walk through scanner. I presumed this man was something to do with the eternal construction activities within the terminal as his clothes were filthy, his shirt wrinkled and his overall appearance suggested he had just slept in the items he was wearing. None of these people wore any identification that could be seen and were not dressed in any type of uniform. My immediate impression of the screening area dynamic was that the male screener was overly concerned with presenting an air of authority, and of his image to his female co-workers.
After my items were scanned, the male screener, aggressively and full of macho bravado, told me very loudly that my liquids had to be removed from my bag. I asked why. The male screener retorted in a rude confrontational manner that all liquids were required to be scanned separately. I removed my shaving kit from my bag and placed it in a plastic tray and gave it to him. He then passed the tray through the baggage scanner and told me again that all my liquids would have to come out of my shaving kit and placed in a clear plastic bag and then be re-scanned. I then muttered under my breath “for Christ sake”. The screener immediately yelled in a very loud indignant voice, “did you just tell me to **** off?” I said, “no, I did not”. The male screener then asked his 2 female colleagues whether they had heard me say **** off? They both looked down at the ground and said yes, they had. I proceeded through the walk-through scanner. Immediately after that I asked to talk to the supervisor and was shocked to be told that in fact, the disheveled looking male standing behind the body scanner was in charge of the whole process. I asked to be taken to a room so that I may discuss with him the discourteous and rude treatment that I had been subjected to. Meanwhile the male screener was continuing to loudly assert that I had told him to **** off. I was shown into an area bordered by plastic curtains, open to the examination area and still in full view of the screening personnel.
This so called supervisor then proceeded to try and lecture me about security in the UK. I stopped him immediately and informed him that his efforts were in vain. He then started berating me for telling the male screener to **** off. I explained to him that I did not tell the male screener to **** off and that the male screener was mistakenly assuming that I had sworn at him. I explained that this person had probably heard the “F” in my “for Christ sake” muttering and had assumed that I had said **** off. A long discussion then ensued about security in general. During this discussion I was again lectured as to the fact that ”at Heathrow we do things right”. I made a point of asking why, on leaving LHR after a previous layover, my bags having been packed exactly as they were now, had they passed through the same scanning station successfully and without any further need for closer inspection? The supervisor then turned around and walked off leaving me wondering whether I should leave as well. I heard him in discussions with his personnel. He then returned and told me that he had asked his personnel again whether they had heard me say **** off and they had all said they had. In the middle of reiterating why I thought that the screener had misheard me the male screener aggressively walked into this supposedly private area and remonstrated to me again about how I had told him to **** off and that he “wasn’t going to take it”. I explained to him that he had probably heard the “F” in my “for Christ sake” muttering and had assumed that I had said **** off. Both men then rounded on me and accused me again of swearing at the male screener. The supervisor then inferred that because I had been caught not obeying the regulations, that I was creating an incident to somehow mask ‘guilt’. I asked the supervisor to clarify what he had just said after which I explained that I seriously had no regard for his regulations or the abusive, intrusive and invasive process that I had just been subjected to. The male screener then started wildly accusing me of other things in a loud voice. I pointed out to the supervisor that the screener’s complaints about me had now changed from his original assertion that I had sworn at him and that this whole ordeal had become ridiculous. The supervisor then became very officious and asked the male screener what he wanted to do about the situation. I interjected immediately that I was sorry that the screener misheard me (my exact words). The screener nodded and walked away. The supervisor then motioned for me to leave. I collected my belongings. As I was about to leave a female screener demanded that she place my toiletries in a see-through plastic bag and re-scan them. I nodded “yes”. When this finished I repacked my belongings and left the employee screening area. I proceeded, bewildered, to an empty seat in the passenger waiting area to review my flight planning documents. The time was XXXX, 30 minutes after initially entering the employee screening area. I subsequently reported for duty, on time, 45 minutes later at gate XX.
MY COMPLAINT
The UK has always been a nightmare for security/customs/immigration as far as us flight crew are concerned. I have even been threatened with arrest for just showing a general declaration to immigration authorities in Manchester. There seems to be a very wide interpretation and implementation of screening standards from one port of entry to another and from each screening team to another. Certainly this was the case in this instance and is unacceptable.
Rudeness, disrespect, discourteousness, inappropriate familiarity and plain obstruction seem to be the norm when flight crew enter and exit the UK, particularly at LHR. Many screening teams I have been unfortunate to encounter have no respect for the sensibilities of the people they are tasked with serving. In many instances my crew and I seem to have been thought of as an inconvenience and extraneous to their activities. I have yet to be treated as a professional let alone be addressed as Captain or Sir (not that this is very important to me) in my dealings with anyone tasked with screening me or my crew in the UK. My impression is that if maximum inconvenience and belittlement of flight crew can be achieved then so much the better.
In the UK (and elsewhere), screener attitude seems to be that all flight crew should be treated and regarded as common criminals and errant teenagers. This is unacceptable, as is a seeming overarching intent to embarrass us. Intra-screener team point scoring off flight crew for some sort of egotistical or perverted sense of professional pride is an affront. We pilots do not tolerate it in the cockpit and neither should we tolerate it elsewhere.
In the event I have described, I was subjected to false accusations, threats and a group ‘mobbing’ by male and female screening and supervisory staff who were more interested in making sure they falsely accused me of things I did not do in unison rather than actually acknowledging the facts. This is unacceptable.
Not being able to readily identify, both by ID badges and/or uniform, on-duty screener personel is unacceptable. As employees, we have a right to know who and/or what are conducting security and screening activities-particularly as it pertains to us.
SUMMARY
The concept of flight crew screening is logically and fundamentally, largely redundant. We as flight crew seem to be unwilling participants in a giant ‘shutting the door after the horse has bolted’ exercise. Indeed, none of the very few security events involving flight crew over the years could have been prevented by the procedures in the event I have described above save for, maybe, an incident involving the downing of a USAir BAE 146 by a disgruntled ticket agent in the 80’s. This tragic event happened at a time when airport employee security screening did not occur in the USA and could have been easily prevented by comprehensive employee assistance programs and peer group monitoring.
Further, I ask why we flight crew must be screened at all when we arrive at an airport to undertake our duties? In this modern era of comprehensive, world encompassing, far reaching, highly technological intelligence gathering and dissemination surely there is a more efficient, less futile way to attain the flight crew specific goals of aviation security? I can only assume that flight crew screening is carried out for far more suspect, invasive, personal liberty contravening reasons using mass fear as an excuse.
Most importantly though, as to the event at LHR I have described above, to have to endure the treatment I received, at the beginning of what would turn out be a long, stressful 12-13hr flight duty period ending with holding delays and a landing in the midst of severe convective activity in the arrival Terminal FIR, was and is unacceptable and plainly did not contribute to or add to safety or security in any way. Rather, it had completely the reverse effect.
Captain
Major International Airline
Last edited by pablo shaglo; 22nd Jun 2012 at 09:10.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Due to a recent change to the Department for Transport (DfT) Single Consolidated Direction 2010 (SCD) it is no longer permitted for staff to carry liquid based food stuff into the Critical Part. This includes all food which is suspended in a liquid i.e. gravy, sauce, brine, oil or syrup due to the fact that it is not possible to quantify the amount of liquid present.
And all staff requiring access to the CP are requested not to compromise security operations and security staff by attempting to take such food items into the CP. Therefore with immediate effect security staff have been directed to confiscate and dispose of the foods described above, examples of liquid based food stuffs now prohibited to be carried into the CP include, Spaghetti, Bolognaise, Soups, Broth etc. the list is not exhaustive.
The latest from this pathetic island.
And all staff requiring access to the CP are requested not to compromise security operations and security staff by attempting to take such food items into the CP. Therefore with immediate effect security staff have been directed to confiscate and dispose of the foods described above, examples of liquid based food stuffs now prohibited to be carried into the CP include, Spaghetti, Bolognaise, Soups, Broth etc. the list is not exhaustive.
The latest from this pathetic island.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the BAA and other "protected by DFT" airport security provide airport workers with pre-searched rations that are in silver foil and security sealed
Or maybe we should just work 12 hour shifts and not eat. Pathetic. Gone ******* mad
Cant remember who it was but maybe that idiot who came on here about a "biryani bomb" was right all along.
Or maybe we should just work 12 hour shifts and not eat. Pathetic. Gone ******* madCant remember who it was but maybe that idiot who came on here about a "biryani bomb" was right all along.
Last edited by Flightmech; 22nd Jun 2012 at 13:29.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security personnel at Brussels airport are allowed to bring litre bottles of water/fizzy drink through to the sterile area unchecked. I asked the supervisor why this was permitted? He shrugged his shoulders and said that he didn't make the rules.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had BAA security threaten to revoke my airside pass for questioning their procedures.
The security search in Stansted in particular were rude beyond belief during the period from early to late 2009. Then one Sunday night it was all smiles and customer service. What a huge change! Someone must have kicked arse.
The job can be difficult enough for all parties, but the flight crew should not be treated the same as the travelling public. With some airlines not providing food and drink for the flight deck, it is an outrage that I cannot take food and drink with me. Contact lens solution is another case in point. It is all stupid and disproportionate.
Properly check the staff and let them do their job.
D and F
The security search in Stansted in particular were rude beyond belief during the period from early to late 2009. Then one Sunday night it was all smiles and customer service. What a huge change! Someone must have kicked arse.
The job can be difficult enough for all parties, but the flight crew should not be treated the same as the travelling public. With some airlines not providing food and drink for the flight deck, it is an outrage that I cannot take food and drink with me. Contact lens solution is another case in point. It is all stupid and disproportionate.
Properly check the staff and let them do their job.
D and F
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightmech
It was the hitcher on this thread from last year;
http://www.pprune.org/engineers-tech...ge-wear-5.html
specifically post #86, brilliant thread, so funny, just sat and re-read it all again
It was the hitcher on this thread from last year;
http://www.pprune.org/engineers-tech...ge-wear-5.html
specifically post #86, brilliant thread, so funny, just sat and re-read it all again
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
security, restore the balance of power
This could be a tip for aircraft accident investigators (and I do not think it has ever been given the right attention).
After checking: efficiency of the aircraft, airworthiness and compliance with the schedule of inspections, aircraft technical log, proper documents on board, correct flight planning, proper supply of liquid, ground / air communications, earth scrap in terms of: dynamic projection, hole depth, length and direction of the groove, position of levers and switches, black boxes reading, pilots “currency” in terms of: licenses and medical validity, correctness of the machine transition, deadlines meeting, simulator checks, and line checks, sufficient rest before flight, not excessive flight and duty time, and the more you have, the more you put; SHOULD BE MEASURED THE STRESS LEVEL, AND THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES, IN WHICH HE, THE CAPTAIN AND/OR THE FIRST OFFICIAL, WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FLIGHT BY THOSE TORMENTORS.
HOW IS IT TO BE CONSIDERED?
DUTY TIME?
FLIGHT CHECK TIME?...
Fly Safe
DOVE
After checking: efficiency of the aircraft, airworthiness and compliance with the schedule of inspections, aircraft technical log, proper documents on board, correct flight planning, proper supply of liquid, ground / air communications, earth scrap in terms of: dynamic projection, hole depth, length and direction of the groove, position of levers and switches, black boxes reading, pilots “currency” in terms of: licenses and medical validity, correctness of the machine transition, deadlines meeting, simulator checks, and line checks, sufficient rest before flight, not excessive flight and duty time, and the more you have, the more you put; SHOULD BE MEASURED THE STRESS LEVEL, AND THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES, IN WHICH HE, THE CAPTAIN AND/OR THE FIRST OFFICIAL, WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FLIGHT BY THOSE TORMENTORS.
HOW IS IT TO BE CONSIDERED?
DUTY TIME?
FLIGHT CHECK TIME?...
Fly Safe
DOVE
Last edited by DOVES; 22nd Jun 2012 at 18:08.
I was not in uniform at that point (I was wearing a sweater over my uniform shirt) and I was not wearing any identifiable company markings. I presented my ICAO crew ID card and proceeded to the screening area.
My immediate impression of the screening area dynamic was that the male screener was overly concerned with presenting an air of authority, and of his image to his female co-workers.
Limited power because the job description gives them very little leeway for judgment calls or the use of common sense. The rules say put liquids in a clear bag and scan them separately. If this guy had picked someone's grandma for not adhering to the rules to be made an example of, his co-workers would figure him as an impotent little bully.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of the time the "security" gits took my sunscreen bottle from me (which I had forgotten to take out of my bag that had previously been in hold baggage coming back from an Asian trip but now in hand baggage on an unexpected trip to the UK.
"No sir, no terrorist is going to get through on our watch", they beamed at each other. Then after passing security, I went to our crew room to drink the 2 cans of soft drinks I had also forgotten about (I'm so not a morning person) and were still in my hand luggage after going through the Xray machine..
Security in the UK is a joke, it is often rude and mostly ineffective.
Does Chirping have any effect at all? One of these days the security hassle is going to be the last straw and the final hole in the Swiss cheese, dus to the unnecessary stress and distraction that it causes.
Face it, the terrorists have won, big time.
"No sir, no terrorist is going to get through on our watch", they beamed at each other. Then after passing security, I went to our crew room to drink the 2 cans of soft drinks I had also forgotten about (I'm so not a morning person) and were still in my hand luggage after going through the Xray machine..
Security in the UK is a joke, it is often rude and mostly ineffective.
Does Chirping have any effect at all? One of these days the security hassle is going to be the last straw and the final hole in the Swiss cheese, dus to the unnecessary stress and distraction that it causes.
Face it, the terrorists have won, big time.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK= Jobsworth mentality, I litre of bottled water is evidently MUCH more dangerous than 20,800kg of JETA1 Reminds me why I left 20 years ago . . .among many reasons.
Denmark - please put your liquids seperately so we can see them
Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia/Norway/Sweden/Finland/Spain . . .we see your ID, we give you just a LITTLE bit of credit to be trustworthy, and in any case, you are driving a big f-ing metal tube containing 20800kg of VERY flammable liquid, so. . . .
Reminds me why I left 20 years ago . . .among many reasons.Denmark - please put your liquids seperately so we can see them
Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia/Norway/Sweden/Finland/Spain . . .we see your ID, we give you just a LITTLE bit of credit to be trustworthy, and in any case, you are driving a big f-ing metal tube containing 20800kg of VERY flammable liquid, so. . . .
Last edited by captplaystation; 23rd Jun 2012 at 21:11.
Psychophysiological entity
Former state solicitor general Ted Cruz . . . Dewhurst . . .
Last night, serious grilling on their policies. Mildly interesting, but when the came to the, and I quote, "groping" of the American flyer, they were both spitting nails in the same direction.
Why oh why, if even these people feel the same as we do, aren't there major changes to the way people are treated?
I'm fairly typical of my bracket, inasmuch as I'm traveling about 1/3rd of the times I would have done, simply because of the misery of the way I'm treated at airports and the discomfort of the flight.
Last night, serious grilling on their policies. Mildly interesting, but when the came to the, and I quote, "groping" of the American flyer, they were both spitting nails in the same direction.
Why oh why, if even these people feel the same as we do, aren't there major changes to the way people are treated?
I'm fairly typical of my bracket, inasmuch as I'm traveling about 1/3rd of the times I would have done, simply because of the misery of the way I'm treated at airports and the discomfort of the flight.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry. One more. He is dead, but his legacy lives on:
The title to the thread refers to the "balance of power" in RE: airport security. Who is playing the music and who is dancing to it?
The title to the thread refers to the "balance of power" in RE: airport security. Who is playing the music and who is dancing to it?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VHHH
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEASURED THE STRESS LEVEL, AND THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES, IN WHICH HE, THE CAPTAIN AND/OR THE FIRST OFFICIAL, WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FLIGHT BY THOSE TORMENTORS.
When are the pilot and cabin crew unions going to address this ongoing problem?
UK airports, especially Heathrow, have an appalling reputation for their over aggressive attitude toward staff and passengers. Some airports in the USA are not much better.
BAA = Bumbling Autocratic Assholes
TSA = Thousands Standing Around
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hades.
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a cracker coming through LHR recently. I was asked how many bottles I had and if they were alcohol. 6 (3.5 ltrs) and yes.
'Ah, you can only have 2 litres in one case'. 'Pardon?'
We managed to sort it out and find a solution but has anyone else had this?
I've subsequently looked in DG regs - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.
LHR website link to the CAA - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.
Company limit (CC manual) - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.
Any info on who to contact and verify this much appreciated.
Have to add that the staff were polite and not threatening, just doing their job which I can respect.
'Ah, you can only have 2 litres in one case'. 'Pardon?'
We managed to sort it out and find a solution but has anyone else had this?
I've subsequently looked in DG regs - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.
LHR website link to the CAA - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.
Company limit (CC manual) - Less than 24% by volume; unrestricted.
Any info on who to contact and verify this much appreciated.
Have to add that the staff were polite and not threatening, just doing their job which I can respect.
Last edited by helen-damnation; 3rd Jul 2012 at 17:35.