[quote]Can someone tell me why the Captain (short or long-haul) should have his ID - and livelihood - removed by Security because a cabin-crew member circumvents the system and manages to smuggle a 150 ml bottle of shampoo into the cabin?[quote]
I suspect that this would be totally unenforcable in a court of law.

At Heathrow are all security employed by BAA?

I thought BA managed T5 exclusively with G4S i.e non airport staff. Is this correct and are they any better?

LCY have by far the best UK security that I have encountered. Everyone else seems to have impairment to mental faculties.

wee one
 

As you say the unusually large tackel might be the root of the problem however life is usually a balance and for each inconvinient situation there is some form of compensation.

Here in France, a number of pilots are getting sick of the harassment to the point they're about to get up a petition demanding the government to turn the way crew are treated into a more reasonable yet efficient way. Things have gone to a way point where they make no sense anymore and can even prove counterproductive. That's why the French are starting to say "enough is enough".

I love the previous comments about how a harmful load of 100ml liquid can suddenly become harmless when left in the hold...

Are they taking the piss or what ???

Allez france! A little 'non' is long overdue from our Gallic friends.:ok:

And yes - 100ml at a time, though.

Our company does a lot of positioning of our crews on airlines. I have virtually given up traveling in uniform from the UK. I have found that when in uniform I am always picked to remove shoes, belts, etc but when traveling out of uniform this happens 1 in 5 times. I have also never seen security staff pass through having to remove jackets, shoes or belts

Outside of the UK security attitude to crews in uniform is polite and helpful, I believe they see crews as on the same side as themslves. Was a measure not passed by the US congress over this issue?

We are being asked to sign up to ID cards by UK gov. I would support tight background checks, even paid for by us, that means all crew have to meet the same standards as armed police, if we could then be treated as part of the solution to security and not the biggest threat.

Bang on, African drunk !

I find all this disgusting and counterproductive, let alone disrespectful (see MAN...)

this BAA guys are the most stupid beings in the world, it´s 1000000 times much easier to set a bomb in a catering container than on a perfume bottle!!!! another reason for not flying into LHR.

I still can not comprehend a number of things:

1. why is 1x200ml more dangerous than, say 2x100ml, or 3x100ml ?
2. why did we let this happen?
3. who was the politician ultimately responsible?
4. why isn't anyone doing anything? Media, newspapers etc?
5. why are arrangements for confiscating things different between airports (why did my shaving foam get nicked by some 17yo last week, but not the 5 times before)?
6. what effect is this having on pax? Its one thing to have stressed crew, but 200 stressed pax doesn't help either....yes I needed a drink after last week's nonsense!
6a) have people stopped flying because of security abuse and nonsense?
6b) have security nonsense contributed to illfeeling amongst pax?
7. why the arbitaryness of the list of things that are banned? Hell, some of them aren't even liquid...?
8. why can I buy the same or more "dangerous" after "security" ? And in larger quantities too?


I honestly believe that the next terrorist attack will be because of security staff taking a 200ml bottle of water off someone instead of noticing something far more serious.
Anyway, did all this above crap stop Plane stupid getting onto a runway (did this happen more than once?)

Anyway, I have to go buy a new toothbrush after it was confiscated....

fc101

The quite obvious answer for pax that can (due to their particular travel arrangements) avoid travel from/to/through any UK airport, and as crew myself, sometimes asked to position through the UK as a uniformed crew member, decline to do so, on a regular basis...as quite frankly the UK security staff have become so obtuse, I simply will not put up with it....nor will about twenty other crew members that I know of, who often travel on the same general schedule.
This also positively eliminates any travel on any UK airline...it's, hello CDG/FRA/AMS and AirFrance/Lufthansa/KLM.
Much better cabin service on the latter, anyway.

411A - it's a great idea but making it work would require mass co-operation on the part of both passengers and crews to bypass UK airports. What is required is a kind of organised strike in protest at their behaviour. I can see no way of making that happen, and until it does nothing will change. Even once BAA is forced to sell off some airports (which will not include LHR) there may be no improvement.

Nicholas49

Being one of the pax mentioned by 411A as being able to choose where I transit, I think you misread his comments.

He is not suggesting protest action, rather just pragmatically saying that avoiding London airports makes a lot of the pain go away.

And it does.

At the risk of being jumped on by every polarised view.....

I work in the industry for an global operator presently based overseas and travel very regularly mainly via LHR and T5. On my last trip I filed a complaint with BA due to the processing of some VIPs?? and what I took to be a BA short haul crew. It was about 8am and large queues at the security checks, the queue was held to let some perceived VIP into line ahead who were by no means ready for security and held the line for a while. The crew who were also in line had far more than normal handbaggage to get through the 'xray' scanners, and then several crew were rejected passsing through the 'arch' for metallic objects or shoe checks. All the pax that day were held, some who were short on time, to cater firstly for VIPs to jump the queue (who I later saw in the lounge) and then for staff who probably pass security more than most not complying with the rules.

The airside rules are clearly defined and we are all expected to comply with them. Those of us that travel regularly should be able to cope with them without any particular effort. As a note, also in the queue that morning was a BA Engineer going airside to satellite B. He managed to move through in good time following the rules including subjecting his inspection equipement to scrutiny in the same manner as everyone else.

Personally I do not find the present rules user friendly, but they are in force and if we wish to work we have to abide by them, it is/should be the same for everyone. Local variations are hard to understand apart from possibly covering temporary failure of equipment. Just avoiding the checks by routing through hubs with less scrutiny is not possibly comparing eggs with eggs when the whole service and/or safety case are taken into account.

Were the VIPs Members of Parliament ? Did they need to get to the lounge quickly in order to finish filling in their expenses ?

a few candles, a bit of music, a security guard, a well hidden 100ml of liquid..

my kind of night

giggety giggety goo...


alll riiiight...

It's all well and good saying, "These are the rules, they may be nonsensical and ridiculous but they are the rules, so bite your tongue and just accept them".

Unfortunately the human mind does not work like that, intelligent people always question what is put before them, and if what is in front of them is completely ridiculous and pointless and very inconvenient then of course they will rebel against it.

The whole situation is farcical, everyone within the industry can see this. It's about time that action is taken to sort this mess out, the complete opposite of accepting it.

UCLogic - your brand of logic doesn't seem to register that your aeroplane doesn't go anywhere until the crew are on board (and ready to go fly). Bear in mind, there is just a legal allowance of 1 hour for all of crew briefing, various bussing around, security, aircraft preparation and boarding - So you want crew to stand in a queue for the best part of that? - I do hope you dont have any pressing engagements at your destination, because you will be very late!

and if you think crew compliance with the rules will always lead to a swift passage through security, you really haven't been paying attention.

Absolutely yes. Long haul it probably doesn't affect, but for short haul / internal flights it can and does tip the balance in favour of other means of transport.
As I read your comment, I am acutally on a train for a journey I could have flown, and almost certainly would have done 3 years ago. Today, the added "security" adds too much time and hassle.

It starts before you even get to the terminal when you find that you can't be dropped off any more (or maybe you have to pay - paying obviously increases security:rolleyes:). Then you either have very limited toiletries, or you have to take hold baggage (adding time at both ends) where previously you'd just carry it on. And that's all before we even get to the security queues, the laptops/phones/everything out, shoes off, belts off and other random variants.

All the extra time is also just wasted. This train is still going to take maybe an hour longer for the whole trip, but for most of the journey time I am able to be sat at a table with laptop powered and connected to the net - so the time can be productive (note: can be :)). Even with the state of the UK rail system, the train is winning the decision more and more often - and I don't think just for me.

Total "security" hassle on the train remains 10 secs at a ticket barrier - because obviously no one blows up trains....

Yet.....

But what about Madrid, Bologna, etc etc. Thought these were trains?

I have switched about 60% of my former domestic air travel to rail because it is centre to centre and you can work and don't have to put up with some munter's elbow fighting for the armrest. Refreshments are served regularly and you can get up and walk around. Departure is departure not just a push back and a 20 minute hold and even though the journey takes a bit longer you can travel with more than a laptop, shirt, socks and boxers including shampoo, toothpaste and any other toileteries in volumes unimaginable by BAA security.

Ok so you don't have the luxury of the queue for Security, belt off, jacket off, shoes off, laptop out, laptop in, belt on, shoes on, jacket on "oops sir, I'll need to rescan your bag as you appear to have more than 100ml of liquid not properly displayed in this ere plastic bag". Nor allow the extra 20 minutes just in case you're late to the gate, queue to board, (oh why do aisle passengers always get in first?) belt up, wait for ATC , pushback, wait for slot. Have perfectly enjoyable flight only to have to wait again for a gate, wait for the doors to open, queue to get out, miss the first train, wait 15 minutes for the next then 15-30 minutes later find your self broadly speaking where you want to be - partially frazzled and having to do the same again tomorrow. Phew - aircrew have it easy!

I think you guys are missing the point. This is not about preventing terrorist acts but about placing the blame for such acts anywhere but on the security services/screeners! :(