Manchester Airport Tribunals
Manchester Airport Group Alliance www.magalliance.com

Tribunal Hearings


The first steps in the legal challenge were made on 8 November 2002 when a Directions Hearing was held at the Employment Tribunal Offices in Manchester.

Because of the complex nature and number of claims submitted, the tribunal is expected to run for 15 days between the 8th and 26th September 2003.

The claims fall into several categories.

The Transport & General Workers Union are pursuing:

A Protective Award* for 590 Security Staff employed by Manchester Airport Plc.

15 claims for Unfair dismissal

15 claims for Breach of Contract

13 claims for Unlawful deductions

11 claims for Sex discrimination

3 claims for Trade Union Activities

*Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 outlines the legal duty on an employer to consult. Failure to comply with these requirements can be challanged under a protective award

Hope to see the Airport directors there !

As a flight crew member, who always takes it on the chin without complaint, when an individual ( and yes it is an observation ), in some official security uniform of dubious intellectual quality asks me the same inane childlike questions in halting english, I was little surprised to see the names of the security staff who were yesterday convicted of the Heathrow heist.

Of course it is politically uncorrect to say what I actually feel.

Our lives and careers are being directly affected by the current PC surrounding airport security.

:mad:

I have to say that I consider this thread and poll to be ill-considered and irresponsible.

People like the Daily Mail's Transport Correspondent specialise in making stories which are heavily anti-aviation from the slightest bit of information or smallest occurrence. The man had three front-page headlines in one week back in September, all of which I felt were scare-mongering in the extreme.

And so here we are.

"AVIATION PROFESSIONALS CONSIDER AIRPORT SECURITY INADEQUATE"
58% of respondents to a poll on the influential Professional Pilot's Rumour Network website, an internet chatroom frequented by pilots and aviation professionals, said that they did not think airport security was adequate. Several respondents cited plastic cutlery - introduced in place of metal cutlery after the September 11 attacks - as potential weapons which could be used in a hi-jacking. The effectiveness of airfield perimeter security fencing also came under question as a means of deterring unauthorised access at some UK airfields."

And you seriously expect people to keep getting on our aircraft to keep us all in a job after this? Frankly, it's no wonder the industry is in the mire. Security needs to be taken 110% seriously but all this thread is doing is loading the ammunition into a gun for the aviation industry's detractors to pull the trigger!

It seems to be common belief here that profiling is better than random searches. In fact, if you have any profiling at all then random searches are essential. Otherwise Mr. Al Bad'Guy just sends volunteers on as many "test flights" as it takes until he finds the two or three he needs, that never get stopped and searched.

Unfortunately, that means that *everybody* going on the aircraft is subject to the random search.

If you want the first paragraph in more detail, try this page:
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/stu...apers/caps.htm

Since when did a student's term paper become the definitive reference ? Ignoring factual errors in the opening (the terrorists did not hijack 'moments after takeoff', nor did any of them board at Providence, RI) the rest is pure sophistry, based on a flawed precept. When you have already decided the desired conclusion, constructing a 'model' to support it is a relatively simple exercise.

Have to do better than this for supporting documentation I'm afraid.

PaperTiger - what is the "flawed precept"?

Meanwhile I'll try to improve the standard of my supporting documentation...

Are Operating Crew subject to Pax Security Measures?
 

Has anyone out there any thoughts on whether Pilots/Cabin Personnel should be subject to the same security measures as passengers. I am talking only in terms of operating crews.?? Has anyone experienced difficulties since 9/11. Have you been stopped by security and why. Are you more aware of what you may be carrying with you through Security. Should security be across the board or can it be selective, with total security not undermined.??


RaydarHeadin

:confused:

Aircrew are subject to the same security measures and are stopped and searched!!

Interesting article in the Telegraph today (27NOV02) about the regional airports being a 'soft underbelly' of UK security - privately chartered light aircraft bringing in lethal material to GA or remote airports. This according to Lord Carlile QC reporting on the effectivness of Govt anti-terrorist laws.

Are we too focussed on another 9/11 style attack and missing the point??

counting pounds missing pennies!!
 

Does anyone think that Crews should be allowed to carry on board items such as pocketknives/tools as part of there personal equipment.

ray

:confused:

As a result of the new upgraded airport security, a total of zero hijackers have been caught, but we still see crazies taking over or attempting to takeover airliners, and they don't seem to have any trouble taking weapons on board.
This could mean we are NOT doing it right, despite the effort put in. What it DOES mean is that we are doing the terrorists' job for them and destroying aviation.
But what I don't understand is what is in it for the various governments that are buying into this stupidity. Sure they get to grow their power and thus the money they take from us, but if they end up with nobody flying, and the airlines out of business, what will they gain then?

Ray - in a word - yes.

I have an axe behind my seat. I would do much more harm with that than my (banned) leatherman. My Headset now needs engineering attention when it a screw comes loose.

Anyway the good old boys from the US will soon have handguns.

Whilst I am sure the larger international airports have decent security, I tend to think that some of the smaller ones are lacking.

I am a charter pilot in Broome WA. It is a smaller international airport accepting nothing bigger than the 737-800 for now at least. For those of you who dont know, we are the closest international Australian airport to Bali. We have a number of corporate jets coming through each year.

The other day, I had to go around due to children running around on the runway. Perhaps they thought the name "runway" implied something for them however, if children can find their way onto the operational runway un noticed who knows what could find its way out there. To get to the operational runway from the direction they entered from, one must pass directly past the RPT apron. It is all too convenient to make a quick diversion past the 737 sitting 100 metres away.

Terrorism wouldnt be too hard hitting in Broome as their is sod all here to blow up however, how many other more popular destinations around Australia have a similar setup??

When terrorists decide that its too hard to hit the big stuff, there is nothing to stop them from going na na in a smaller yet popular tourist destination such as Broome or any other such place.

How far do we need to take Airport security?? And should it be to that extent at every single aerodrome around the world??

My point is in short, Airports such as Sydney or Melbourne are very secure, but we are ignoring smaller destinations like Broome. These smaller destinations are not the most likely places to cop a dose of terrorism however, like Bali, they are an easy place to kill alot of people.

I hope Im not giving anyone any ideas. ;)

Had a commuting 777 pilot on my jumpseat last week who warned she had heard rumblings that security services around British and US airports were becoming increasingly worried about the number of people on aircraft claiming to have access to a fire axe. The solution to this, they say, may be move the fire axe/jemmy to a less accessible position so that no one could get at it to use it as a weapon :rolleyes:

Remember I am just the messenger - this is just the sort of thing that is going on in the brain of the type of person who confiscated my needle form a hotel sewing kit, leaving me with just the thread and spare button, because I "may use the needle to try and take control of the aircraft."

On a final note - 2 of my colleages had to use the jemmy recently for the reason it was put on the aircraft - to assist them in fighting a fire. Top marks to the smily boys all round - if you're reading, you know who you are :)

I find it very hard to accept that many of the security measures put in place at airports since the 11t Sept, or even Pan Am 103, are necessary or effective.
The current regime requires, unquestioning acceptance, of the most rediculous procedures. The end result is, or will be, that those of us who work on or around aircraft become fed up with the whole security issue & do our best to get around it.
I am not a pilot, but the the onboard security procedures at the airline who employs me are not far short of crazy.
Events today in Kenya show that inconveniencing everybody at airports, in the name of security, is no guarantee of safety. Thank goodness the terrorists in question were incompetent.

It always amazes me.

6839 views, 1125 votes.

All you have to do is click on the most appropriate radio button.

Do 5714 folks have no opinion on this? Or 5714 folks haven't been through an airport since (you know when)?

Don't blame security staff!
 

Ghostflyer...

Even Security Staff have to have the same checks as everyone else, they have there forks, knives, penknives etc removed by their 'workmates'
Every time they go from Landside to Airside, which in the course of a Long Day,10 or 12 hr shifts, can be a lot!
The D.F.T are the one's to have a go at, they set out the rules that the Poor Security Guards have to follow or their jobs are on the line.:(

Not Everywhere.

I go through a special entry for crew/staff. My Restricted Area Pass is inspected to make sure that my face matches the photo. I swipe the Pass by an electronic reader to confirm current validity. We are not subject to searches or questioning.

In any job you either pay people a small wage and tell them to follow rules, or pay them a decent salary and require them to use their initiative.
The problem with security in the UK is that they have chosen the former and driven the wages right down. But then people in uniform always give the punters confidence.

Two incidents in the last two weeks cause me grave concern about my base airport. I'd tell you which one it is but the terrorists might be reading.
As crew we are subject to much greater scrutiny than the passengers.

The TSA...first hand experience
 

Took my 1st trip with my girlfriend and her son (11) since the TSA took over control of security at US airports this past Tuesday. You think it was bad before.

At Newark, we were signalled out for a complete bag and body search at the gate prior to boarding which is fine with a couple of glaring exceptions. I quote here: " We don't need to search the boy and you can give him his bag too"...say what !! Secondly, when the inspector, maybe 22 or 23 searched my girlfriend's toiletry bag, a couple of tampax / pads fell out onto the floor and table. After fumbling with them and subsequently re-dropping them, the inspector turned beet-red and said everything looked fine. All he did was search her toiletry bag and nothing else.

If you thought this was bad, you have no idea what occured in Las Vegas. This time, we checked our luggage as opposed to carrying it on because we had no desire to see a sniffling nosed kid checking out our dirty clothes. All we put through the x-ray machine was a M&M bag full of gifts. We sailed through security. For those who don't know MaCarron, we were taking Continental out of Terminal A which is a good jaunt from the check-in terminal. It's interspersed with slot machines and smoking lounges on the way to the gate.

As we had time to spare, we stopped in one of the smoking lounges / gaming areas for that one last elusive jackpot. Shortly after, a couple of TSA employees came in and started looking in the garbage cans. There were 2 rather large ones...the cans and not the employees. We thought they were looking for explosives, incendiary devices etc. which is a good thing. But NO. They were looking for discarded empty boxes of Marlboro cigarettes. When the 1st lady found a "buy 2, get a 3rd one free carton", she almost came unglued once she found she would acquire double points by cutting off the bar-code on the wrapper. She became positively giddy when she found an additional 2 empty boxes in the 2nd trash-bin.

God Bless her though, she tore off the bar-codes, and then put the remaining trash back into the bins and sat down with her friend for a well deserved smoke break. No exaggeration as God is my judge. While I'm not trying to duplicate Danny's security theme topic (and feel free to move this if need be), I thought you might all want to know that sometimes new isn't necessarily better and sometimes it's far worse than it's predecessor.

Sharm-El -Sheikh Int AP
 

Having had a late hols for a week on the Red Sea I was discusted at the airport orocedures.
Not a million miles from Isreal, Jorden and a host of other dodgy areas to say the least, the security and the normal procedures where non existant.
Arrival was a do it yourself thing with baggage from 5 flights spread all over two halls.
Departure was even worse.
Arriving 30 mins prior to the transfer coach, antisipating delays, we arrived to a security check whith a long cue. Money however allowed bypass and entry into the departure hall.
Once inside it was obvious it was goinig to be anything but smooth.
For a fairly old airport it obviously had the technology with new air traffic tower and the lounges had large plasma screen notice boards etc but on no occassion were these used to indicate anything other than the previous flight pr even before.
Massive cues are fairly normal but these where not moving due to baggage not moving through the conveyor belts. This problem was solved by the whole line of passengers leaving their baggage in a pile in front of the check in desk and proceding to the passport control. Who knows what could of been placed on the aircraft not accompanied by a passengers bum in seat.
This was evident on about five occassions while we waited to check in and also happened to ourselves also.
This s not over reacting and I have photos to boot.
The actual check in was a pharse at which a passenger list was passed to us and we where asked to tick off our names. (DIY)
If indeed you where not sat next to each other then a small contribution would secure this pleasure to the disruption later to JMC crew who thought they wnew who was sat where for meals. minor I know but just goes to show a plan (OR PROCEDURE ) is only good if followed.
Thats my whine and as a an aircraft captain in the rotory world I feel very sorry for the fixed wing boys and girls out there who have to put up with this every day to allow the big companies to make cash.:mad: :mad: :mad:

2 incidents -

first, flying Mid-East airport to LON via Bucharest. Held up for an hour at transit while they tried to get an x-ray working. Finally took us to another X-ray to check our carry-ons ("what on earth for - we've already been checked first sector?")

A few days later I found a "Stanley knife" (box-cutter) in my laptop bag that I use as a carry-on, which had been in a side pocket since I bought it ages ago and forgot to transfer it to my tool box. Very startled, to say the least - I know the X-ray profile of these things must be quite small, with most of them being plastic, but I got it through X-ray twice! And that's what, I understand, was used on Sept 11th.

second, flying from UK to USA and last in the line to board. Most of the pax had their bags physically checked but I was just asked "anything sharp?", or words to that effect, and let on board.

Was that because I was holding a "staff ticket"? or because they were running late geting the plane boarded?

Still an awful lot to do before we can be sure there's no "bad boys" getting on with us I'm afraid.

Airport Security - Where Are the Good Ones ?
 

I've just been reading Danny's straw poll thread that seems to have had a lot of us identifying places where security is not of the standard we would like.
I always like to "light a candle rather than curse the darkness"
so...

Are there any airports out there that are getting it right ?
(As far as security goes)

I don't mean things like not taking eye lash curlers out of ladies handbags - a security guard has orders to remove them even if thinks it's a silly order.

I'm talking about the entire system at the airport ;
Access to airside is genuinely secure.
Airport staff are actually 'security aware' in all things they do.
The Security guards are doing it right (how ? why ?)
And so on.

I would like to offer Hong Kong as a place that seems to be getting it right. Perhaps also Singapore.

Hong Kong's hand baggage checks really impress me. No guards chatting with their friends instead of looking at the X ray monitors. They have have supervisors right there checking the security guards to see they do their jobs properly, politely and thoroughly. The guys with machine guns also give the impression that they mean business.

Please, there will be loads of you ready to bad mouth Hong Kong. Don't lose the premise of this thread.

Lets find the good airports, see what they are doing right, and then try to get the other airports to change for the better.

Cheers

Thasnksgiving Booty
 

The Government reported today that over Thanksgiving Week, they confisicated over

15,000 knives
9 box-cutters
6 guns
1 Brick

as well as over 20,00 items including

knitting needles
nail-clippers
ammonia
and Meat Cleavers !!

The icing on the cake was the confiscation of a toy cannon in O'Hare made out of live ammunition!! They are still studying why anybody would need a brick on a airplane !!

Don't these people who fly over a holiday weekend ever watch the news?


Andy

Its rather obvious, but as no one has pointed it out on this thread, then please let me!
Airports are large, complicated facilities. Access to them is neccessarily unrestricted in order for the public to make use of them. There are a great many of them.
It is not possible, by ANY means to raise Airport Security to a level which will stop very determined men from doing what the want to do.
The only way to achieve this is by removing the very real grievances, by political means, which drive the terrorists to such extreme acts.

Unpalatable I know. But fact.

Thankyou. Now feel free to return to stories about the time you went through security and they didn't spot your pen knive.;)

My Daughter and I flew PHX-LHR on Sunday and found the very heavy duty TSA presence polite, cheerful and professional. This despite my daughter having scissors in her hand luggage (again!!) and my failing to remove my laptop from my briefcase, evidently a misdemeanor that requires explosive sniffing and re-xray.

We just have to live with it and these guys had a good attitude. But I wonder what they do when their sniffer gets a false alarm?

Upgrading US security
 

Well what do you think of this:
Under the headline "Retarded Immigrant Strives for Independence," reporter Arthur Bovino notes approvingly that 21-year-old Kareen Dupervil, a mentally retarded Haitian woman "with a first-grade reading level," has applied for a job as a baggage handler at La Guardia Airport in Queens, N.Y.

The Times writer tells us that Dupervil "took a test at the airport with two other mentally retarded adults . Though Ms. Dupervil did not pass, the trainer who gave the test called (her job counselor) to encourage her to study and try again." Thanks to help from the Brooklyn Bureau of Community Service, a government-funded charity that provides disabled and "undocumented" persons with employment assistance and is supported by the Times's Neediest Cases Fund, Dupervil will be tutored "for the test twice a week. She will take the test again in a few months."

And she will take the test again and again, presumably, until she passes -- or sues under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act to get the job. Only the best and the brightest security professionals at our nation's airports . http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20021204.shtml

As a passenger, I was distinctly underwhelmed by the security at Hong Kong earlier this week. Before checking in for my flight just before 7 am on Dec 2, I noticed a large suitcase standing unattended by the seats near the Cathay Pacific counters. Twenty minutes later, it was still there, in solitary splendour. I pointed this out to one of the CX staff, who inanely responded that it probably belonged to a passenger who had been called away. I agreed that this was the likely explanation but asked her if she didn't think it still should be pointed out to Security. She then said she would do so. I went through to my gate, so don't know if she did.
I passed through CLK several times during the last two weeks and don't recall ever hearing announcements concerning unattended baggage.
Rockhound

Announcing unatteded luggage.
 

Rockhound,

Does it make sense to be announcing unattended luggage over the terminal loudspeakers to already nervous travlers?

Is this the normal procedure for airport staff to be alerting security services to the fact that baggage has been left unattended?

Apollo,
What I meant was regular admonitions over the loudspeaker to not leave baggage unattended and warning that such items would be removed. Such announcements are common in airports (eg Toronto), train stations, bus terminals, etc.
Rockhound

American airport security was a "Connected Crime" scam before 9-11; and a very profitable one, at that. Huge cashflow - low overhead.

In the year prior to 9-11, the American security companies were merged into three, then sold to European investors at a discount; implying a foreknowledge of 9-11.

As it now stands, American airport security is programmed to go back to private hands in 3 years; per the American Nazi-like "Patriot Act."

The scammed American "Homeland Security Act" (complementing the "Patriot Act") provides the funding for the alleged airport security.

For those who don't know the story, the original "Homeland Security" law was known as H.R. 5005, containing 230 pages. In the background was H.R. 5710, containing 484 pages. The difference was billions of dollars in corporate "pork."

At the last second, the numbers on the two bills were switched; the "pork" version was passed. The White House advertised only the smaller of the two bills. Thus, an example of neo-American corruption.

For a decent account on American Airport Security, see:

http://home.attbi.com/~skydrifter/asn.htm

Look toward the bottom of the page for the "9-11 REDUX" account. It's quite interesting. Especially when you note that no viable measures are being taken, as opposed to the obvious sabotage of 'government' security, versus "privatised."