Who does O'Leary think he is, Prime Minister?

The second part of your sentence only covers a part of the story though, the other half being that the airport operators have shown a woeful unwillingness to provide appropriate levels of staff to cope with the increased number of searches. Now maybe you understand where Michael O’Leary is coming from.

At EDI, there is PLENTY of staff willing to come in for the overtime to help with the extra searches (and they have been). Unfortunately though, there is just not the space to do it. 6 staff on a gate is all that can be done.

I wasn’t nit-picking at your post, just giving a different look on it.

would you like a 18kg bag to land on your head?

No, but I wouldn’t like a 6 Kg bag to land on my head either. I can see the point you’re trying to get at, I just can’t fully understand the way you’re trying to make it.

Paul

[What on earth does getting your items of hand baggage out during the flight have to do with anything? My laptop and camera will NEVER go into the hold of an aircraft, but that doesn’t mean I HAVE to have either one of them out during the actual flight.

What’s your point exactly?]

My point is,,, some people insist on taking far too many articles onto an aircraft as handbaggage. The result is 1/longer queues at security 2/longer to board the flight
3/individuals taking up complete lockers 4/safety , would you like a 18kg bag to land on your head?
As I said originally, not so long ago handbaggage was precisely that,,,your travel documents,a reasonable amount of reading material,camera, etc not a small branch of
Marks & Spencer!

As for the 3″ reduction in hand baggage, perhaps it is easier for the security personel to search, which in turn leads to getting people through easier with less hassle.

Ah, at last we’re getting somewhere! :rolleyes: Its got nothing to do with security, as you say its just “easier for the security personel”. Well done! The second part of your sentence only covers a part of the story though, the other half being that the airport operators have shown a woeful unwillingness to provide appropriate levels of staff to cope with the increased number of searches. Now maybe you understand where Michael O’Leary is coming from.

Andy

I don’t think calls to taxi drivers are a true measure of the ongoing viability of the airline industry! 😮 And neither are the number of people going on holiday for that matter. What really matters is the week-in-week-out travellers, the numbers of which are down at the moment due to the holiday period. Business bookings ARE down. The longer this crap goes on, the more risk there is to the travel that really makes the airlines money.

Andy

I may be just a mere taxi driver in your eyes, but MY BUSINESS has contracts with some very well known blue chip companies, transporting there employee’s to and from airports, and i havent seen a decline in there bookings. Also i have a good business in transporting families on there happy holidays. I work closely in conjunction with my local travel agents, who are reporting booming (sorry for the pun) business. Now in my eyes, bookings like for like going up 25% on the last month is a good indicator. There hasn’t been a decline nor have i had any cancellations since the problems arose. But hey what do i know, as im just a mere taxi driver! 😡

As you say perhaps business bookings are down, maybe because many european nations have a national two week break in August. Also perhaps because many people who do travel business are on holiday, spending time with the kids while schools out and having a family holiday. There can be many factors involved, and just shouldnt be based on events of last week.
If you can get figures on passengers numbers for this time last year and compare them to this year, then i will listen to your points of view more closely!

As for the 3″ reduction in hand baggage, perhaps it is easier for the security personel to search, which in turn leads to getting people through easier with less hassle.

Perhaps i’m just a cynic and say while MOL has the right to sue the government if he believes that the current measures are too draconian…But one part of me still cant help to think, that this is all aimed getting his charge for hold baggage and excess charges back on line, which he can’t do at the moment, because if he did, it would look like profiteering :rolleyes:

On every flight you see individuals struggle to get their belongings into the lockers, but how often do you actually see anyone go into their hand-baggage during the flight to take out one of these oh so precious items that they just cant do without?

What on earth does getting your items of hand baggage out during the flight have to do with anything? My laptop and camera will NEVER go into the hold of an aircraft, but that doesn’t mean I HAVE to have either one of them out during the actual flight.

What’s your point exactly? :confused:

Paul

“Great attitude from someone who works in the industry! Keep it up, take more punative measures that make air travel less convenient and more hassle, and I predict that in a few years time you won’t be working in the aviation industry because it will have downsized significantly and won’t need so many people working in it.”

It is not attitude Skymonster,,,I am just stating facts,,why would anyone need 3 pieces of hand-baggage weighing a combined total of 18kgs on a flight lasting 1 hour?

On every flight you see individuals struggle to get their belongings into the lockers, but how often do you actually see anyone go into their hand-baggage during the flight to take out one of these oh so precious items that they just cant do without?

I work part-time at Stansted and saw all of the chaos of cancelled flights last week (and the ridiculously long security queues which continue this week). Now, say you were a family going on their holiday to France or Spain (as an example) and you had booked your flights on Easyjet or Ryanair because you deemed it to be the quickest and least stressful way of reaching the continent. Then, you turn upto the airport last Thursday, to see your flight cancelled and a terminal full of un-organised and confused passengers and staff. Then say the next day you had re-booked, hoping to get on holiday asap, and flights are cancelled again. A few days later, once a majority of flights are back up and running, you finally get to travel. And then you have to go through the hassle of meeting the ever-changing security and hand-baggage requirements. You may finally get to your destinaton, that’s if you haven’t given up….

The following year, you go to book your holiday to the Continent again. And immediately you’ll think “stuff flying – lets not even bother with the difficulty we had last year” and you’ll end up driving via the Eurotunnel or the Ferry. That’s just one example out of many I could think of, which could lead to the current situation causing air passenger numbers to fall quite considerably.

Don’t mean to be cheeky, and sorry if it is, but is this scenario based on the concept that the said family never turn on the news or read a paper and hence don’t have the savvy to recognise that the first instance was due to the fact that terrorists wanted to blow them and their families up and that the following year all they had to do was listen to the news days/hours prior to see if there would be any problems at the airport.

Sorry, I see the point you’re making but I don’t agree that a justified disturbance (by security) to air travel one week would put people off flying the following year.

Im with you on this one Dan. Although I don’t have a lot of experience in the industry, I am working in it every day. Everyone is making the best of what the Government is giving them. Over the past week and especially in the first few days after that first Thursday, Airports were given ever changing information on changing regulations. One minute hundreds of passengers were let through with a certain item, then 30 minutes later a phone call would be received from the DfT saying that that item was now banned. It causes as much hassle for the staff as it does for the passengers as they are coming in after a couple of days off and are having to be briefed on new procedures.

However, I do agree with the point about the bag sizes. I’m not sure what taking away those extra 3″ is going to achieve. All I can think of is that by keeping the bags smaller, it restricts the volume and/or size of items that can go inside it and hence making the scanning process easier on security. From the onset, BAA have done all they can to make things easier for passengers. From issuing printed sheets of what was and was not allowed a couple of days after that Thursday, to bringing in more staff to help them.

Can I ask again if anyone knows what BAA did badly compared to other large airport operators, as I do not know?

Although obviously not everyone is going to have the same opinion or outlook on things, unfortunately I think this argument does have either a right or wrong answer but I can’t see how it can be decided which is which.

Paul (PMN), Sorry you are right, having re-read your posts I realise I misinterpreted what you meant. Apologies.

1L.

No problem! 🙂

Paul

You Said…
The current restrictions aren’t even logical based on the threat to which which was discovered last week

So now you are privvy to information on the police and security services investigation on the alleged terrorists being held? :rolleyes:

Nope, but I still challenge you to explain why a bag that measures 21″ along its longest size is any more of a threat than one that measures 18″ along its longest size. That’s what’s illogical, and MO’L is simply asking that things like that get put back to how they were before – even MO’L has got over the challenges of last week (which may well have been necessary, short term, as I said previously), and is now focusing his attention on getting things as they stand now sorted out.

In my own business, taking people to and from the airport, since all this happened, im getting more calls about people booking to go on holiday (the crap august weather is helping too), they realise that this will happen from time to time, and they wont complain about what they can or can’t pack in hand luggage or the size of it.

I don’t think calls to taxi drivers are a true measure of the ongoing viability of the airline industry! 😮 And neither are the number of people going on holiday for that matter. What really matters is the week-in-week-out travellers, the numbers of which are down at the moment due to the holiday period. Business bookings ARE down. The longer this crap goes on, the more risk there is to the travel that really makes the airlines money.

Andy

Passenger numbers will fall, they did after 9/11 and lockerbie, but they quickly recovered. You dont give the great british public enough credit. In my own business, taking people to and from the airport, since all this happened, im getting more calls about people booking to go on holiday (the crap august weather is helping too), they realise that this will happen from time to time, and they wont complain about what they can or can’t pack in hand luggage or the size of it. On the news or radio programmes you never heard one passenger complain about the measures in place to protect them, they simply (old cliche) had the british stiff upper lip and got on with it.
Because in a few hours time, they will by the pool sipping a cold San Miguel watching the sun go down.

I’d just like to add a bit to what Andy (Skymonster) hadsaid further up, about making air travel more hassle, less people wanting to fly, flying becoming less convenient, the industry becoming smaller etc. I think I have to agree.

I work part-time at Stansted and saw all of the chaos of cancelled flights last week (and the ridiculously long security queues which continue this week). Now, say you were a family going on their holiday to France or Spain (as an example) and you had booked your flights on Easyjet or Ryanair because you deemed it to be the quickest and least stressful way of reaching the continent. Then, you turn upto the airport last Thursday, to see your flight cancelled and a terminal full of un-organised and confused passengers and staff. Then say the next day you had re-booked, hoping to get on holiday asap, and flights are cancelled again. A few days later, once a majority of flights are back up and running, you finally get to travel. And then you have to go through the hassle of meeting the ever-changing security and hand-baggage requirements. You may finally get to your destinaton, that’s if you haven’t given up….

The following year, you go to book your holiday to the Continent again. And immediately you’ll think “stuff flying – lets not even bother with the difficulty we had last year” and you’ll end up driving via the Eurotunnel or the Ferry. That’s just one example out of many I could think of, which could lead to the current situation causing air passenger numbers to fall quite considerably.

Willie Walsh is going after the BAA rather than the goverment. It amounts to the same thing. Both he and Michael O’Leary recognise the damage that’s being done to their business and want recompense for it.

Andy

Yes because it was BAA that kept half the BA fleet grounded, not the Government. But you cannot escape the facts that the Government acted in the best interests for public safety. They dont get many things right, but on this issue, i believe they are spot on. We elect them to do a job, and most times it is not popular or glamourous, but they do it.

Micheal O’leary was once quoted that only two things could ruin Ryanair, one is a crash arising from poor safety standards, the other is a Terrorist attack on his airline. He is a smart Business man, His record speaks for itself over the last 10 years, i think we can all agree on that. Then he should be dynamic enough to realise that the situation has changed, and re-organise his business model to suit when a crisis situation arises!

You Said…
The current restrictions aren’t even logical based on the threat to which which was discovered last week

So now you are privvy to information on the police and security services investigation on the alleged terrorists being held? :rolleyes:

I never claimed or said i worked in the airline industry!

Neither did I suggest that you did. If you actually read what I’d said, you’d have noticed I was referring to someone else up there.

But at the time there was a threat, to which the government acted upon at very short notice to the information availble at the time!, Yes it did cause chaos, but its not like the terrorists let people know what dates they are going to do it. 1hours notice to drag in extra staff, brief them on the situation, inform them on the new restrictions. and if you combine it with Europes busiest airport to boot NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IS IT!

Michael O’Leary isn’t talking about what happened last week which was in many respects justified for the very short term, he’s talking about the rules and restrictions that are NOW in place – “Ryanair has issued the government with a seven-day ultimatum to restore airport security measures to normal or risk being sued for compensation.”

i’ll repeat, how many of you truthfully thought that terrorists could operate in groups, and each carry a piece of bomb, which on there own single parts would look harmless, but combined would be devastating?….please answer this honestly!!! SIMPLE ANSWER YES/NO

Its an irrelevent question. For everything we could think of that could be done by terrorists, there will be hundreds that we couldn’t think of that might ultimately threaten aviation. That’s the real crux of the issue. The current restrictions aren’t even logical based on the threat to which which was discovered last week, let alone any new threat that might emerge.

You dont hear Willie Walsh,Richard Branson or Sir Micheal Bishop queuing up to sue the government, and there businesses were probably affected more, because of the Heathrow factor.

Willie Walsh is going after the BAA rather than the goverment. It amounts to the same thing. Both he and Michael O’Leary recognise the damage that’s being done to their business and want recompense for it.

Andy

Great attitude from someone who works in the industry! 😮 Keep it up, take more punative measures that make air travel less convenient and more hassle, and I predict that in a few years time you won’t be working in the aviation industry because it will have downsized significantly and won’t need so many people working in it.

Well done, at least you’ve got one thing right! :rolleyes: The terrorists have indeed moved on – hence the pointlessness of what’s being done now.

I have no problem getting on an aeroplane now, I had no problem getting on one the day before the incident, and I’d have had no problem whatsoever getting on an aeroplane tomorrow even if people were allowed to carry liquids or their bags measured 21″ across instead of 18″ across. Honestly! Most regular air passengers feel the same way.

Don’t get hung up on this laptop thing – you really don’t get it do you? Its not just that. The issue is that anything that makes air travel more difficult, especially when the difficulties are perceived as being too great, severely damages the industry because people won’t accept the difficulties, they won’t travel. There are risks involved in air travel, regular travellers accept that fact, and last week the balance swayed too far towards supposed “security” and too far away from the interests of the industry.

Michael O’Leary does get it, and so do many more in the industry. They know that there’s a balance between security and travel, that last week it went too far, and even now it may be still like that. The current arrangements do not solve the problem in aviation security – they merely solve one problem from which, as you say, the terrorists have likely moved on. Thus the current restrictions are, as I said previously, merely a placebo designed to calm the nerves of the ignorant irregular passenger.

The solution is not to address problems with punative measures such as restricting the size of hand baggage, but to address the real problem. Passenger profiling is necessary to achieve this.

Andy

1. i never claimed or said i worked in the airline industry!. FYI i own an airport transfer company taking people to and from all uk airports, and the general consensus between well travelled business men and the normal ignorant holiday maker is that the goverment made the right call on the information it recieved. and they quite happy that a high visibility active stance was carried out. It also doesnt seem to be doing much damage, seeings that since this happened, bookings are up 25% and improving!

2. The terrorists have probably moved on by now. But at the time there was a threat, to which the government acted upon at very short notice to the information availble at the time!, Yes it did cause chaos, but its not like the terrorists let people know what dates they are going to do it. 1hours notice to drag in extra staff, brief them on the situation, inform them on the new restrictions. and if you combine it with Europes busiest airport to boot NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IS IT! 😉

3. That wasnt the question.. i’ll repeat, how many of you truthfully thought that terrorists could operate in groups, and each carry a piece of bomb, which on there own single parts would look harmless, but combined would be devastating?….please answer this honestly!!! SIMPLE ANSWER YES/NO

4. I’m not hung up on the laptop thing, i was merely using it as a generic example.

5. as for Micheal O’leary. There was a radio interview with Tim Jeans (Monarch MD) and the MD from Virgin along with many credible people who work in aviation security. And they all agreed that O’Learys stance is the wrong one (to sue the government) and instead of pulling in different directions, they should work together in making air travel is as safe as possible. You dont hear Willie Walsh,Richard Branson or Sir Micheal Bishop queuing up to sue the government, and there businesses were probably affected more, because of the Heathrow factor.
But as MOL said the current arrangements dont help air travel, but will sueing the goverment help?
Nope, just help the bottom line if he wins his case!

Having worked in the aviation industry for many years,the new restrictions are the best thing that has happened in a long time. I have seen the hand-baggage situation get totally out of hand , there was a time when hand-baggage was exactly that, “items you required during the flight”. Airlines are mainly to blame for increasing the allowance for fear of losing business if they dared to say NO. If you have an item which is expensive then take out the necessary insurance and pack it properly , do not assume you can take it onboard.

Great attitude from someone who works in the industry! 😮 Keep it up, take more punative measures that make air travel less convenient and more hassle, and I predict that in a few years time you won’t be working in the aviation industry because it will have downsized significantly and won’t need so many people working in it.

The Terrorists have moved on….

Well done, at least you’ve got one thing right! :rolleyes: The terrorists have indeed moved on – hence the pointlessness of what’s being done now.

Before this security alert happened, how many of you truthfully thought that terrorists could operate in groups, and each carry a piece of bomb, which on there own single parts would look harmless, but combined would be devastating?….please answer this honestly!!!

I have no problem getting on an aeroplane now, I had no problem getting on one the day before the incident, and I’d have had no problem whatsoever getting on an aeroplane tomorrow even if people were allowed to carry liquids or their bags measured 21″ across instead of 18″ across. Honestly! Most regular air passengers feel the same way.

Now because a business man can’t take his laptop on a plane for 5 days, all handbaggage to be placed in the hold.. is no great hardship. I’m sure that everybody that had to endure these “hardships” are actually very pleased about the steps taken, and i’m sure there families are too.

Don’t get hung up on this laptop thing – you really don’t get it do you? Its not just that. The issue is that anything that makes air travel more difficult, especially when the difficulties are perceived as being too great, severely damages the industry because people won’t accept the difficulties, they won’t travel. There are risks involved in air travel, regular travellers accept that fact, and last week the balance swayed too far towards supposed “security” and too far away from the interests of the industry.

As for Micheal O’Leary, Get a f-cking life mate, these actions were intiated in YOUR best interests in the long run, or would you rather have a Ryanair 737-800 being salvaged from the Bay of Biscay?

Michael O’Leary does get it, and so do many more in the industry. They know that there’s a balance between security and travel, that last week it went too far, and even now it may be still like that. The current arrangements do not solve the problem in aviation security – they merely solve one problem from which, as you say, the terrorists have likely moved on. Thus the current restrictions are, as I said previously, merely a placebo designed to calm the nerves of the ignorant irregular passenger.

The solution is not to address problems with punative measures such as restricting the size of hand baggage, but to address the real problem. Passenger profiling is necessary to achieve this.

Andy

security

I was caught up in the alert. My camera gear had to be transferred to my hold baggage when I returned from overseas and still had a UK internal flight .
The staff at Manchester were all very patient and trying very hard to keep cheerful which in turn was helping keep passengers calm,well done to them.

As far as putting stuff in the hold like cameras and laptops,now that all are aware of the situation there should not be a problem. You need a sturdy suitcase and can protect items using bubble wrap. Of course all your kit needs insuring. A memory stick can be used to back up critical laptop contents.And as a professional photographer I will have a back up plan if my suitcase goes missing.

And I would agree that the cabin baggage being carried on under old allowances had reached a size and weight that is really not safe in overhead containers. I did see a person injured when a bag fell onto his head.

Paul (PMN), Sorry you are right, having re-read your posts I realise I misinterpreted what you meant. Apologies.

1L.

The Terrorists have moved on…. Airport checks and scanners will detect Guns and explosives located on the person or in checked baggage, and with cockpit doors now reinforced, a plane takeover is less likely!

Before this security alert happened, how many of you truthfully thought that terrorists could operate in groups, and each carry a piece of bomb, which on there own single parts would look harmless, but combined would be devastating?….please answer this honestly!!!

The Goverment has to act upon inteligence recieved and gained from its security services, which they did so accordingly. How many warnings did the American CIA and FBI get for Pan Am 109 (lockerbie) and 9/11 but didnt give it the credability?…look at what happened!!!!

I believe our security services are the best in the world (MI5 and MI6), This isnt James bond movie stuff, many ordinary people, like you and me, put there lives on the line every day, gathering inteligence to keep our hard fought freedom and democracy intact!

Now because a business man can’t take his laptop on a plane for 5 days, all handbaggage to be placed in the hold.. is no great hardship. I’m sure that everybody that had to endure these “hardships” are actually very pleased about the steps taken, and i’m sure there families are too. This isnt a publicity victory for Al Qeada, it is a kick in the groin. It shows that are security services are on the ball, and not afraid too act in similar situations.
I’m sure the airlines operating out of Heathrow,Gatwick,Stansted,Luton,East Midlands,Birmingham,Manchester,Leeds Bradford etc etc are also happy that the goverment has the balls to act upon this, as it is far better than one of there planes being shown on tv as wreckage.

As for Micheal O’Leary, Get a f-cking life mate, these actions were intiated in YOUR best interests in the long run, or would you rather have a Ryanair 737-800 being salvaged from the Bay of Biscay?

Sorry, no, we have to minimise those risks. With all due respect 9/11 was able to happen because the American people felt that “accepting those risks” was preferable to having security checks and airside restrictions that infringed freedom of movement.

With all due respect, if you had taken the time to read and digest my post thoroughly, you’d realise my point was that air travel, as is the case with any mode of transport, will never be 100% safe. If you’re trying to suggest it will ever be, you may want to look at the world around you and realise it really doesn’t, and never will, work that way.

My closing statement addressed the need to minimise risk and try keep people safe, while ensuring those who create the problems in the first place didn’t win by essentially closing or severely disabling one of our country’s principle modes of transport. I did not, in even the most remote way, imply I considered accepting terrorism as a part of everyday flying. There, Sir, you have mis-interpreted my words in the worst way possible.

Paul