I really do not understand these idiots that object to random searches. They should apply to everyone, whether you wear a base ball cap, turban, kippah, t-shirt, sikh robe or a burqa. Age should not matter, sex should not matter.

Well I must be an idiot then, because I object to RANDOM checks.

But then you go on to say “they should apply to everyone…” – now that’s hardly random, is it? And I agree – the checks SHOULD apply to everyone. Not everyone they happen to chose, but to everyone who travels.

The thing I strongly object to is RANDOM checks – the very nature of random implies some people get checked, others do not. That equally implies that sooner or later something will get through, because the something will fall into the random group not selected.

My issue – complaint if you like – is that either (a) the NORMAL checks are good enough in which case no one should be randomly checked, or (b) the NORMAL checks are not good enough in which case random is no use either – everyone should have the extra checks.

Recently at LHR in fact I had a rather strong debate with one of the security goons about just this thing:

BAA Goon: “Excuse me sir, you’ve been selected for an additional random check. Do you mind?”

Me: “Yes I do mind – either the checks that have already been done are good enough, or if they’re not then seeing as I’ve had the same checks as everyone else then everyone else should have the extra checks”

BAA Goon: “But we have to randomly subject a percentage of passengers to extra checks for things that the normal checks might not have detected”

Me: “If there’s things the normal checks can’t detect, then everyone should have the extra checks. In fact, I don’t feel safe if you’re telling me that the regular checks don’t pick up everything and yet you’re not doing extra checks on everyone”

BAA Goon: “But randomly checking discourages people from trying to bring things through”

Me: “But the nature of random is that sooner or later someone with something will not get randomly picked and could get through. Again, if there’s things that the regular checks can’t detect then I don’t feel safe unless everyone is subjected to the extra checks”

BAA Goon: “We can’t check everyone”

Me: “Oh? Why not? Are costs and resources being put ahead of passenger safety”

BAA Goon: “It’d take too long”

Me: “Ah, so time is being put ahead of passenger safety”

BAA Goon: “No, but we have to randomly select people”

Those folks are a bunch of f**king idiots. Either the [standard] security works and is 100% reliable, in which case no need for extra random checks, or the [standard] security isn’t 100% reliably in which case everyone should be subject to additional checks. Honestly, I really believe that if there really is an additional threat over and above what the standard checks can detect, then by not applying the additional (currently random) checks to everyone then they are putting lives at risk for the sake of cost, resources or time.

Andy

BA use 747’s to Egypt and Dubai.

Indeed… And these are probably the shortest regularly scheduled 747 flights ex UK on UK airlines. The other possibility that comes to mind is Tel Aviv – either directly on El Al or Lufthansa do flights from London to Tel Aviv via Frankfurt with a 747 on some FRA-TLV-FRA sectors with prices starting at around £370.

Andy

As far as Manchester is concerned, I see it as more a climbdown by Scumbag O’Riley (who threw his toys out of his pram when he couldn’t get his way) than MAN – sure, old Scumbag has got a deal but it isn’t as good as the one he wanted when he got all bent out of shape with MAN before.

As far as Pau and Girona are concerned – well done for standing up to the Irish thugs. Your airports end up being better places without FR.

Andy

Ryanair spokesman Stephen McNamara hit out and said Which did not know what they were taking about.

‘Before making ‘super-duper complaints’ the clueless clowns at ‘Which, Who or What’ magazine, should do some basic research,’ he said.

‘Ryanair does not levy any credit or debit card payment ‘surcharges’. Even our administration fee is avoidable by passengers who use our recommended MasterCard Prepaid.’

The airline launched a scathing attack on Which?, branding it ‘useless, irrelevant and inaccurate’.

Sounds like McNamara is in training to replace Scumbag O’Riley! 😮

I wonder why there is no “administration” involved in processing their preferred card but there is for all other cards? :rolleyes::confused:

Andy

Words fail me at this point. How you can call an airline “irrelevant” is beyond me

Get real – in the overall scheme of the industry and where it’s going, those were largely irrelevent airlines. They were not trend setters or market makers, and they did not bring anything new or unique to the industry. There are trend-setters and market-makers in the airline industry, and the demise of these would cause shockwaves across the industry – e.g. the BAs, AF/KLMs, Lufthansas, Southwests – and sadly Ryanairs – of this of this world. Then there are “hangers-on” or “more of the same” brigade like the airlines I mentioned. Whilst the demise of these airlines would undoubtedly have been frustrating for the individuals booked with them and the staff who worked for them, the collapse of these airlines has been largely irrelevent to the direction and state of the industry.

Andy

Afirm – no Canadian reg yet, but the rumour was that the next one to go (i.e. this one) would become a parts-ship after it arrived in Canada. Still to go is the other Reeve Electra (to join its fellow ex-Reeve a/c at Buffalo at Yellowknife sometime soon), leaving as you say just two!

Andy