[MartynSinclair]

“That is the truly scary fact and no doubt people are working very hard to tighten that up”.

DS – u r 100% right, people are working to tighten security up – so let then get on with thier jobs without stupid comments casting doubt in people’s minds by the ignorant few or those with other agendas.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

“So you were refused entry becasue you had a tool, which if it was that clear, would have been resolved by asking to see a supervisor.”

Did you read my post? I wrote “I was carrying a tool that complied with BAA rules and the security supervisor did not understand her own company rules. “

“Show me Mr Broughtons credentials to make these comments about airport security and I will withdraw my critisicm.”

Chairman of one of the largest airlines in the world, with access to people who know.

By the way, what is your qualification to pontificate?

Thank you for your patronising comment about the English language. I live in a country where English is an official language and am a native speaker of the language.

And I can spell.

[VintageKrug]

1. It is getting rather tiring to have to repeatedly state that I have never and do not have any connection with British Airways. Please stop suggesting it is the case.

2. Broughton’s comments were certainly made with a profit-seeking motive (there’s nothing wrong with that!) but there was also the wider point about improving the passenger experience which should be of benefit to ALL UK PASSENGERS not solely those travelling British Airways. To suggest they were narrowly profit-motivated misrepresents the statement.

3. The latest bomb scare has nothing whatsoever with Broughton’s comments, and everything to do with the US mid-term elections being held this week.

4. Broughton’s comments were in no way related to discussion of cargo flights, a completely different issue.

5. No amount of extra security electronic screening would have found these bombs.

6. Ramping up security to unreasonable levels plays directly into the arms of terrorists, and is almost as effective for the terrorists’ agenda as an explosion itself.

[MartynSinclair]

excellent stuff DS, please research airport security.

My credentials for speaking on airport security is that I am security cleared to work airside in all US and UK airports and have attended numerous security briefings and attend continual training courses, both in the UK and Asia (but interestingly i am excluded from US briefings).

Next time you get stopped for no apparent reason, think more carefully.

End of subject!

Martin Broughton is a skilled business man with no security training. Provide factual information please on who briefed him for those stupid comments otherwise, change the record!

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Perhaps we should also remember that the airlines collect a security charge from the passengers and pay that on.

So Mr Broughton was seeking best value for his customers.

Nothing to do with reducing security and he undoubtedly knows that a BA plane falling victim to a bomb would have severe consequences for their business.

As I posted earlier, he is a highly intelligent man, with plenty of qualified advisers.

[Potakas]

Binman62 i was thinking that too, it is a huge coincidence, but i cannot support it ..

[Deleted User]

VIntagekrug item (5) of your post is incorrect.

Item (6) is a very irresponsible post suggesting that increasing airport security could be “effective for the terrorists agenda”

Item (3) can you provide any sort of factual evidence to suggest your comment about the mid term elections and the recent bomb scare are indeed or could be related.

[JohnPhelanAustralia]

Martyn, please refrain from the personal abuse – the comments about Disgusted’s “ignorance” and his English language skills are both insulting and pompous. Just because someone has a different opinion from you does not make them ignorant or unworthy. Their comments are just as valid as yours. And you have been on this site long enough to know that VK has no official connection with BA, so your attempt at bringing up that old red herring to seek to denigrate his contribution says more about you than it does about him. Please desist.

The majority of people on this site travel very frequently and understand the need for security at the highest level. We also know the various rules very well. If Disgusted says his tool was within the rules but the security staff didn’t know that, I believe him. I have certainly seen – first-hand – a number of instances of security staff not understanding the rules of exactly what is and what is not allowed. As you say, this should be easily rectified by asking to speak to the supervisor.

Of course, there are also instances where security staff make mistakes – yes, they are human too!! I have had an instance in South Africa where a screener told me he saw a pair of scissors in my bag, which he could not have done as I didn’t have any. He went through everything in the bag, took everything out, emptied all the small bags within the bigger bag, and found nothing, of course. My main complaint was the amount of my time this wasted and the fact that, at the end of the process, he didn’t even apologise for being wrong!! His attempt at repacking all the stuff was pretty poor, as well.

Mistakes get made on the other side as well – a colleague has just returned from Rome. During her trip, her carry-on baggage went through five scans – and only on the fifth did someone pick up that she had a pair of scissors in the bag! The item had been there on the earlier four scans, but no one noticed!

To me, what all of these examples show is that there is a need for better training for security personnel. It should NOT be regarded as an ‘unskilled’ occupation staffed by casuals, as it is in much of the world (the TSA staff in the US I have found to be much better),

Of course, in Australia we have some different rules as well – for domestic flights, there is no restriction on liquids/gels/creams in carry-on. And shoes stay on, though laptops come out (which is often NOT the case in Asia).

It is natural for travellers to be annoyed by these inconsistencies, but I agree there is some benefit in being unpredictable.

[FlyingChinaman]

Bravo!!!! JohnPhelanAsutralia

You have given a very neutral input and it resonate with my personal travel experiences with inconsistant airport security offcials worldwide. I usually co-operate as safety is paramount to me even though I don’t always agrree to it.. I want to arrive in ONE piece!

I love read this forum aqndf have picked up many useful information and benefited from the knowledge BUT there is just far too much personal attacks between certain readers to make it into a real joyful reading. What a shame!.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

JohnPhelan

Thank you for your reasoned posting.

My main problem with the ‘incident’ at Heathrow was because it was the security shift supervisor who did not know the rules and that the whole performance was theatrical, as opposed to safeguarding the security of the passengers.

Whilst they were ‘making an example’ of me, what real threats might they have missed? As you rightly say, all sorts of objects get through security points, including plastic explosive in an exercise that went awry earlier this year (in Slovakia, on to Dublin.)

The scanner staff were unsure (I have no problem with that, better safe than sorry) and refered to the supervisor, who then made an incorrect decision and was unwilling to consult the BAA rules to check out what I was saying. I found that attitude completely unacceptable and I certainly was not abusive or rude in making my point. From a customer service point of view, I have paid for the security check and the least she could have done was to consult the rule book. It’s pretty galling when you have made the effort to check and comply and then encounter such a person.

The rules say a knife blade over 6cms is prohibited, as is any tool with a shaft length over 6cms. My mini tool has a blade of 4cms and a Philips screw driver of 4cms.

The supervisor agreed about the knife blade, but refused to accept that any tool whatsoever could be carried and refused to check the rule book, which I thought was intransigent. To quote her exact words ‘BAA says any tool is not allowed and I am not risking my job over that.’

The reference on the Heathrow website is

http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EAirport+information%5EHeathrow+security%5EHand+baggage/1ef63ca169907210VgnVCM10000036821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/#banned

This is derived from EU regulations published in 2008 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:221:0008:0022:EN:PDF (page 7)

You are right to say that most people here understand the need for effective security and I am all for it, as I take around 100 flights per year.

The latest developments are no surprise to me, as I have worked in the airline business as a consultant on varous ground processes and systems and was aware of the potential weaknesses in the cargo transfer area.

I believe that, in some locations, the cargo transfer is very similar to the baggage handling system that allowed Lockerbie to happen.

More concerningly, with the advent of PETN (which is difficult to detect) and martyrs, I am not too convinced that the checked in baggage screening is as effective as it should be, but am hoping that there are some new checks that are being run very quietly to deal with this threat.

[VintageKrug]

I think a lot of the reason why the forum becomes very personal is the inability to “quote” people’s posts. As a consequence if you want to make a reference to a point made, you have to reference the name of the individual who made the post, rather than the post itself.

This leads to the misconception that it is the poster, not what is written by them, which is under discussion.

In my view, naming a member should (rather as is the case in the House of Commons) only be done as a welcoming gesture, or as an extreme censure.

So here’s my attempt at rebuffing CMB’s post, but not the individual him/herself:

————————-

CMBurchhardt – 02/11/2010 00:58 GMT

Vintagekrug item (5) of your post is incorrect.

Item (6) is a very irresponsible post suggesting that increasing airport security could be “effective for the terrorists agenda”

Item (3) can you provide any sort of factual evidence to suggest your comment about the mid term elections and the recent bomb scare are indeed or could be related.

—————–

Point (5) related to the fact that PETN is not electronically detectable; it wasn’t even detected by sniffer dogs. It does help to back up an assertion with a fact (e.g. setting out what electronic scanning capability exists to detect PETN).

(6) is not irresponsible at all. Terrorism is not just about explosions, it is about changing behaviours, frustrating the exchange of ideas and creating added cost and diminution in the day-to-day lives of people.

Explosions are just the culmination of that threat, and we are most affected by that threat when we have to change our behaviours to accommodate the changed environment.

(3) the fact that the bomb was directed to a Jewish centre in Chicago, Barack Obama’s home town, and the fact that had they been delivered they would have arrived yesterday, the very day before polling opens for the mid term elections would suggest there was indeed a link.

Of course you and I can never know the minds of terrorist bomb makers, but they would have known that the elections were occurring months in advance, whereas Martin Broughton’s speech would not have been widely trailered, and is frankly insignificant in the scheme of things.

I would re-iterate that Broughton’s statement was not about making SECURITY less effective or less of a deterrent to terrorists, It was about reducing the double standards, REDUNDANCY and wasteful busybody attititude, such as DoS experienced, which does nothing to increase our real security and everything to add unnecessary layers of complexity and time-wasting to an already stressful process, while doing little to deter those actually determined to harm us.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

“I think a lot of the reason why the forum becomes very personal is the inability to “quote” people’s posts. As a consequence if you want to make a reference to a point made, you have to reference the name of the individual who made the post, rather than the post itself.”

A very good point and one i shall consider in future.

[MartynSinclair]

read through this post top to bottom, there are personal comments all the way through. Fot one poster to call another poster the King of illogical thinking is just one example.

Quoting refereneces and then saying what those references mean – the poster refereing to what Martin Broughtons quote meant – has about as much credability as saying the sky will be blue tomorrow, it all personal opinion.

A lot of you a far too sensitive, this is an open forum, OPEN NO MODERATOR. If anyone interepets comments as personal, well tough, go to a closed forum or one that has a moderatory.

Me asking the question to DS whether English was his first language was not derogatory or insulting, it was a question, asked becasue I was asked if I had read his the post as I f i did not understand English.

For goodness sake, this is a discussion forum, why on earth does everyone get hot under the heals. There has not been one post of mine intended to be a peronal attack, but remember when you are talking to people using strange names, one cant but help wondering or imagining who you are actually communicating to.

There is a difference between a personal attack and an opinion.

Posters have often made racial and politicl attacks, some who have posted here (not about this issue) as just as guilty,

VintageKrug contributes a tremendous amount of information as others contribute controversial issues – but as far as I am aware, BT (although occasionaly makes posts) who run this forum have not commented on any of my posts as being out of order. Therefore, I will not accept any individual poster attacking my subject manner on the basis that they do not like what I have written.

Read your own posts before critisizing other.

My 14 year old son often comments that this his BBM and facebook pages are tame compared to these pages !!!!

Lighten up everyone and stop thinking the world is against you. This is discussion and until there are rules it is an open forum AND A DAMN GOOD ONE at that………………………………………………..

ALso just for the record, VK, whether you are a binman, Martin Broughton, Willy Walsh or Elvis Presely Martyn SInclair does not care two hoots, others may, I dont! This is not a personal comment or attack, just an observation.

If I ever make comments to anyone on this forum that are interepreted as offensive, please email me directly on

<a href="mailto:[email protected]“>[email protected]

I have no issue in my ID being known, I have an issue though with people making accusation directed at me, when they hide behind false identities. If you want to take a pop at my posts you are welcome, but do not take it personally.

Have a great day everyone and turn to your neighbour and SMILE!

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Martyn

Just to be clear, the reason I asked you if you had read my post was because you said that my situation could have been resolved by asking to see the supervisor, when I had stated clearly in the post you referenced that I was dealing with the supervisor.

That suggested to me that you had not read the post, perhaps just skimmed it, thus my comment.

No insult to you language skills was intended.

[MartynSinclair]

Can I suggest a Group Hug and BT, can we use icons on this forum, perhaps then with the potential of a little bit of cyberspace emotion, we can all get along a lot better.

ps. – this was taught to me by my son as a way for BBN ./ email / texts to include a little but of emotion and a lot more politentess 🙂 – I hope that means a smiley face.

I love you all!!!!!!!!!!!!

>

DS – you are great and I love your posts………..

[Author]

Posts