Jump to content

Airport.


Billy kettlefish

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

I remember that time quite clearly. It almost seemed to happen over night. At that time I was flying across two or three times a week and as you say it used to be turn up and get on. Then the queues began. Wasn’t it around the time of the ‘cardboard box bomber’? (Or maybe I just imagined that). I do remember all the new rules. Shoes off, belts off, coats off etc, all of which seemed to take an extremely long tine with check after check. I don’t fly at all now - is it just as bad? 

I went through in early December - yes. Coat, shoes, belt off, empty pockets. Something in what was left set off the walk through scanner so I got further scanning with the hand held. Something in my sock then set that off, maybe a bit of swarf or something from work. Then it got serious, more stuff off including socks and shirt undone. Eventually they ascertained that I wasn't laden with Semtex and let me through but it must have taken 10 minutes.

I'm in two minds about it all. On the one hand it's all "In case?" On the other, we're a flight full of locals leaving a small regional airport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I'm in two minds about it all. On the one hand it's all "In case?" On the other, we're a flight full of locals leaving a small regional airport.

A long, long, time ago, when I had longish hair and 20 inch hip jeans, I went through departures at Tel Aviv.
There were a series of small wooden boxes, like sentry posts, in which everyone got interviewed. The lad who interviewed me did not seem older than me, and there was no coercion, no intimidation, no bright lights, just polite conversation.

I concluded that he was well trained and well motivated (there were a lot of aircraft bombings in those days). As I walked away I recall trying to work out exactly how he was analysing me - which he certainly was. But I have never encountered that kind of thing again.

The ones at Ronaldsway are selected on account of being cheap. Which is not to criticise them, but it is a completely different objective. Cost (and therefore someone else's profit) versus real security.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I went through in early December - yes. Coat, shoes, belt off, empty pockets. Something in what was left set off the walk through scanner so I got further scanning with the hand held. Something in my sock then set that off, maybe a bit of swarf or something from work. Then it got serious, more stuff off including socks and shirt undone. Eventually they ascertained that I wasn't laden with Semtex and let me through but it must have taken 10 minutes.

Because it's privatised, low-wage work with a high turnover of staff, the people you get will likely be new and just finished training, which means they will be both be naturally slower and more meticulous because they don't want to make mistakes.  And they won't be used to the machines they are using and the individual quirks that those machines have.

And that's if it's all working properly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Two-lane said:

There was the "Shoe Lace Bomber"

You're probably thinking of the "Shoe Bomber" which happened soon after 9/11 and set off a whole new era of security theatre.  It would have made the next 20 years a lot simpler if only he had been the Hat Bomber.

5 hours ago, Two-lane said:

Can you imagine any company where someone says "Hey boss, there's I problem. I have no idea what it is, but I want to spend a third of a million solving it". And the boss says "Crack on, in fact have three-quarters of million".

All too easily - large private companies are full of schemes dreamt up by some blue-eyed boy (it's usually a boy) on very little evidence.  But the civil service is supposed to have all sorts of checks and balances to stop this happening.  Once really ridiculous stuff only got through when it had been explicitly pushed by a politician, where at least there would be some sort of democratic mandate.

Most of the problems in recent decades in public administration have actually been caused by them trying to behave like the private sector, often by those imported from the private sector such as Longworth and Reynolds.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

You're probably thinking of the "Shoe Bomber" which happened soon after 9/11 and set off a whole new era of security theatre.  It would have made the next 20 years a lot simpler if only he had been the Hat Bomber.

All too easily - large private companies are full of schemes dreamt up by some blue-eyed boy (it's usually a boy) on very little evidence.  But the civil service is supposed to have all sorts of checks and balances to stop this happening.  Once really ridiculous stuff only got through when it had been explicitly pushed by a politician, where at least there would be some sort of democratic mandate.

Most of the problems in recent decades in public administration have actually been caused by them trying to behave like the private sector, often by those imported from the private sector such as Longworth and Reynolds.

Germany saw through Reynolds a lot quicker than we did ! Perhaps tells you all you need to know about performance related scrutiny here !

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, asitis said:

Germany saw through Reynolds a lot quicker than we did ! Perhaps tells you all you need to know about performance related scrutiny here !

This is a quote from the German press at that time:

"Bad news from London: The Plane Station Group, owner of Lahr Airport, suffered a loss of 20 million euros on sales of 17 million euros. First consequence of PSG boss Martin May: He fired his airport expert Ann Reynolds - but on the stock exchange the PSG shares fell by more than ten percent. Lahr / London"

Of course that gives no background on the reason, but whatever, the airport was not a success.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

Who the hell actually thought that emplying this muppet would benefit in any shape or form the Airport. Seriously our recruitment and personel handling it need binned.   

I genuinely read that as "emptying" and had a second's hope.

A lot of us pointed out when he was appointed that he seemed to have no valid qualifications or experience (and the fact he hasn't been made interim Director rather confirms the lack of qualifications).  As with so many other DoI appointments, you can only assume they wanted to recruit a proven bullshitter who could be guaranteed to  lack even the minimal competence in the actual job that might show up the rest of the management.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...