Er, where?

If the individual has come in from landside to airside, he could easily have picked something up from someone who hasn't been screened? Very unlikely of course, but possible.

T'was indeed humorous early this morning as I went from the crew room to go the aircraft. In T2 there was a 'snake' of pax winding and zig zagging across the terminal. There must have been over a thousand pax waiting to go through security. Even in the 'Fast Lane' where the crew go through there was a long line.

Thankfully my flight got away on time but I wonder how many others were delayed. It just goes to show you what sort of investment the airport needs to make to ensure that their security searches are conducted according to the DfT rules and guidelines. The simple fact that they slashed security staff numbers and reduced the terms and conditions of those that were left in order to show a much healthier bottom line to their shareholders rather than generate their income through a better quality product for the airlines and the pax is just one more example of poor management and accounting. These top level executives are supposedly employed, with generous recompense, for their 'expertise' in getting the business to generate better profits. What we appear to have is greedy 'fat cats' whose only ability is to show improved profit at the expense of their most valuable assets, their employees rather than any ability to generate more income. As has been pointed out on these forums many times in the past, these managers/accountants know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Todays example of the security staff working by the book will probably have cost the airport dearly in penalties for flights that were ultimately delayed due to congestion at security. Assuming that the security staff will continue to work according to the book for some time to come, will we see the airport recruiting enough security staff at a wage that will attract the right sort of people so that they can avoid paying the penalties because of their original management blunder in slashing their costs by reducing the required numbers of security staff and demoralising the remaining ones by reducing their terms and conditions? Somehow, I seriously doubt it. They'll probably just not bother to repair the few remaining walkways and try their luck on the cleaners instead. :rolleyes:

The BBC program, whilst padded out, did reveal some serious flaws in the way the security at Manchester was was conducted. Whilst the security leaves a lot to be desired in the first place even if it had been at the required manning levels, proper security needs to be far more in depth than the cosmetic approach we have at the moment, it served to highlight shoddy management practices that start at the very top and filter their way down through the system to 'team leaders' and even to the individual security personnel in many cases.

As a crew member, often subjected to nonsensical searches when, as the presenter highlighted, it is very easy to get aboard a parked aircraft overnight and there is already a number of items, including the crash axe, why did we see smuggled video footage from the CCTV system of security personnel and even cleaners bypassing the very system that is supposed to protect us? It is all a sham and that is possibly why the Manchester Airport management thought they could slash their costs by reducing the number of security personnel and and screw the rest out of those that remained. Perhaps their decisions have returned to bite them on their backsides after all! :hmm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3629336.stm

Does anyone recognise the a/c interior?

The build up to this piccie included some external shots of a MYT DC10 (I think) and a couple of BAL B767s - one in old clothes & the other in new strip.

Looking at this photo, however, it would appear to be taken in a single aisle cabin with a heck of a lot of lighting:

ERGO

1. Not on the aforementioned DC10, nor 767s.

2. Did Michelle Cox necessarilly have to open the door, or was the a/c in the early stages of dispatch? This could explain her comment about leaving the a/c quickly? :confused:

Just as a matter of interest (mine not public), why was the name on the side of the MYT DC10 blanked out, yet Britannia, BMI, BA were shown in all their glory? :confused:

Cargo boy, i went through t1 this morning and also encountered queue's out of the door, i hope the security force all stick together now and don't fiddle ought, and do the job right, if it takes along time due to lack of staff, well there ya go, better that than a 'paperwork exercise'.

Bet if i go through next week there won't be any queue's !!

The only thing that they really missed was to hang out to dry the incompetent prats who run the place.

In the case of MAPLC aren't the shareholders the local authorities who 'own' the airport? Wasn't it those local councils wanting more profit from the airport (to subsidise council tax which in some cases is close to the UK's highest anyway) that caused the cut-backs a couple of years ago?

Or the "Stand there in frustration as crew after crew shoves past you lane" which would be a more accurate name. Totally off topic, but as an enhanced "product" MAN :mad: ed that one up big time.

There were no surprises in this and I was bored rigid by it. The total amount of information would have filled 20 minutes but they had to make a drama out of a crisis. I agree with the PPRuNEr who mentioned the trainer that sussed something wasn't right with the journo. The BBC certainly picked the wrong kind of person to use for this, as she was so atypical of the kind of people that do the job. I cannot think why they used her, she was a greenhorn at undercover work and life in general. Breathily telling us that she might have trouble getting the camera gear in was a waste of time. Either she would or she wouldn't and odds-on she would. Whichever happened would be worth reporting but the programme had to make news as well.

The programme simply showed how modern companies operate. If you squeeze the staff, they will squeeze you back! If you ensure that their livelihood depends upon certain numbers - then certain numbers are what you will get! The Govt proved this with the NHS and schools. No doubt, if someone went undercover in the BBC, they would find numerous ways in which they fail at their stated aims and objectives.

People will say "This is different because lives are at stake" but No it isn't. The folks at MAN see it as an 'overhead' not a core asset, so they will respond as if lives are not at stake.

Having worked in a wide range of commercial companies/groups and local govt for 26 years, I could have predicted all of this. As indeed, could just about anyone in the country - because this is what is happening in thousands of workplaces in the country. That said, telling the story is the only way to get the story told!

The reply from MAN staff was the biggest 'win' for the programme, as it was a SOP of what management thick they ought to say and says 180 degrees the opposite. It undermined them more than the prog itself. :rolleyes:

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Big Tudor, I too had mused the same thing. Was there a bit of advanced warning to BAL and MYT do we think? And MYT decided a bit of an incentive to the cashstrapped BBC execs might save a bit of face?

To my canine compadre Scottie Dog: I agree about the BBC programme. If I had wanted lessons on documentary making I could have gone to drama school. I reckon that the BBC could have slaughtered MAN and let them off the hook. Worrying nonetheless.

RD

If an airline looks after its passengers, the passengers will look after the airline, or in this topic, airport.

This simple concept is not taught in beancounter school.

At beancounter school, all the students are stripped of any religious denomination and taught instead to worship the mighty dollar (pound / euro / etc).

Staff are then treated badly, wages are cut, work hours increased, facilities not maintained and passengers inconvenienced.

All in an effort to worship the mighty dollar.

False promises are made about caring for workers, caring for the environment, caring for the community, caring for the customer. The promises are made to harvest greater wealth so they can even more fervently worship the mighty dollar.

Little do the beancounters realise, that if they invested in sufficient staff numbers, invested in staff training above minimum acceptable standards and rewarded staff with reasonable incomes and lifestyles the results would generate wealth beyond their beany - dreams.

Sufficient security staff and equipment (properly maintained) would eliminate the snaking queues of passengers. It would catch the jounalists and terrorists trying to smuggle guns, knives and nail clippers onto aircraft. It would give the security staff a feeling of worth - that what they are doing is valuable and necessary. This would give them the encouragement to do a good job.

Imagine how you would feel if you were the security staff told to pretend to check passenger's bags using a u/s X ray machine. Would you not feel like the whole thing was a joke, your contribution was irrelevant and no one really cared ? Passengers must think of them as little more than a bloody nuisance and at best a necessary evil. What quality of life ? What job satisfaction ?

So they don't do a good job. Who can blame them ?

The beancounters could do something about it.

But they are too busy worshipping the mighty dollar.

It looks like the BBC have gone some way in showing that they are worshipping false idols.

Cheers