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!

O’leary and Ryanair are pissed off because, with these new strigent security checks, it basically screws up there business plan. Airplanes are not being turned around quick enough, taking longer to check people in and there losing money from not being able to charge for hold luggage, let alone excess baggage.

O’leary constantly spouts off about how great Ryanair is at making money…He should use his motormouth and say…”look we are still cheaper than X,Y and Z”, do a sales promo, get people flying despite whats happening.
He should also be cute enough to see whats happening and adapt the business plan to suit the market conditions, Just like British Airways and every other national non state owned airline did after 9-11. Not whine like one of his CFM’s when the playing field no longer suits his buisness

I cant believe what i am reading…..

The Goverment clearly believed there was a clear and present danger to the traveling public flying from UK airports. If as many cells were operating as we are lead to believe, just cracking down on flights to the USA, could of forced other cells operating to switch too the non checked flights.

The Dept of Transport gave BAA and other airport operators an hour at most to impliment these procedures. So extra staff have to be called in, that takes time (not all of them live next door), the staff would have to be briefed on the security alert too..

All in all, mistakes were made, but you show me in any emergency situation were it does follow the game play book step by step, because in the real world it doesn’t!!

As for O’leary, perhaps the government should say to Ryanair, Compensation…sorry me old mukka, we dont do compensation (ring any bells??) as these were circumstances beyond our control.

It was reported on the news today that Ryanair has lost upwards of £2million in revenue for not charging for hold luggage. (perhaps that is the real motivation?)

Unfortunatly the Moslem community will be targeted by airport security after 9/11 7/7 etc. The press doesnt help with some of its reporting. pinpointing that a certain person follows this or that religion.

I think that 99.9% of the uk’s muslim population do not condone the actions of the few. But i still think it’s time for less talk and more action from there communities. Banish the Mullah’s and Immans that preach the Death to the west stuff.

As for airport security checks, everytime i step through a metal detector, i set the bloody thing off, sometimes the staff that search you are friendly and will talk to you in a pleasant manner, unfortunatly there are others who are built like geoff capes, and when they have finished you feel like you have knocked over by a freight train.

The only time i was truly shocked by a security search was at Geneva airport, set the alarm off, escorted to room and made to take shoes, belt buckle, wrist watch wallet to go through scanner..then asked to remove shirt and jeans to leave me standing there in nothing more than a t-shirt and a pair of jockeys…And this was pre 9/11 by about 3 years.

Could this then be “loss of situational awareness” case then?

Yes…., but the fact remains, the crew had enough fuel to reach any number of alternates, were the weather was better, just a shame that they had to have “1 last go” at landing

One of the Ex US-Airways JS41’s was parked up at Humberside this morning (G-MAJV?), still in its original black and grey US colourscheme, but with the name and flag scrubbed out…and the new registration look like it has been applied with gaffer tape

Quite a lot.

Both Boeing & Airbus benefit from plethora of grants, tax breaks, free provision of building land and/or infrastructure, etc. from city, state, province, & national governments. Selection of suppliers for some components of the 787, for example, was done partly on the basis of the supplier companies taking part of the risk, & in at least two cases (the above-mentioned Japanese & Italian examples), the local governments have covered that, as well as giving other assistance, which cuts the price the supplier charges, so directly benefits Boeing. Sounds to me very like Airbus launch aid – risk being ameliorated by state guarantees. The Chicago example is far from being the only case of a city or state government in the USA financially assisting Boeing – or, for that matter, any other big corporation looking to make a big investment. Airbus selected its proposed US assembly site for A330 tankers (depending on it getting the sale, of course), partly on the basis of how much local governments would pony up.

Everyone plays the game, unfortunately. Personally, I think they should all be free of subsidies, but until that comes to pass, I wish nobody would pretend it’s all on one side, or pretend only one type of aid counts.

Back on topic, there’s a report on the BBC that SIA has signed for 20 A350 XWB, plus 20 options (& some more of those big Airbus thingies). Anyone know anything?

[EDIT] Sorry, just saw the other thread on the SIA deal. But I’d appreciate any comments which are on topic here, despite contributing to the derailing – which I won’t do any more of.

To add…The singapore A380 order is not new airplane orders, or cancellations from other airlines. but a firming up of existing early delivery slot options

Here we go… a thread based upon whether or not subsidies have driven advancement now turns into a bashing thread.

No its not a Bashing thread, i was adding another point of view across, let me put it more simply

Yes Airbus will recieve launch aid for the A350/370. but so far on every product Airbus has payed back everysingle £/$. So far the British Govt has made 10 times on its investment on the A320 family.

Boeing may not recieve direct aid from its govt, but it gets assistance in other powerful ways, to which other companies may not be privy too, which in the real world will add up to millions/billions of $ in consultation fee’s.

Im neither an Airbus/Boeing fan as i believe there is room in the market for both. But i don’t like seeing a one sided argument all the time. If thats taken as thread bashing, then the Mods can ban me.