Hand luggage in 7 days - or we sue

[Salu]

Ryanair has issued the government with a seven-day ultimatum to restore airport security measures to normal or risk being sued for compensation.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5261908.stm

Are Ryanair right to do this? Are they putting business or convenience above security or are the Government being too cautious or gaining politically?

[Flobajob]

Ryanair are always threatening something or other, not too long ago they were threatening a regional airport that they'd cease all services unless they extended the main runway. They won't win and neither should they.

[Gareth]

This quote sums it all up...

"If Ryanair passengers travel with large pieces of luggage, which have to be checked into the hold "that's a real impediment to his business".

Mr Cellan-Jones explained: "He depends on getting away fast, no baggage in the hold and a quick turn around at the other end.

"If he is kept behind schedule his whole business starts to suffer."

I quite agree. If Michael O'Leary was doing this because it was in the passengers' best interests then I might have a different opinion, however it is obvious that he is only thinking about RyanAir's profits with his intention to sue.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Gareth

This quote sums it all up... I quite agree. If Michael O'Leary was doing this because it was in the passengers' best interests then I might have a different opinion, however it is obvious that he is only thinking about RyanAir's profits with his intention to sue.

Err, he's the Chief Executive of the company. It's his job to only think about the company's profits.

When Tescos do 'buy one get one free' offers, do you get in all a huff about it because they're probably just doing it to sell some slow moving products and make a bit of profit, rather than out of the goodness of their kind furry little hearts?

[hatedbythemail]

the new security measures could bankrupt ryanair as their entire business model is focused on getting planes on and off the apron in double quick time, so he's right to be worried as a businessman. as for other issues.... he is a big gobs---- and has precisely no chance of getting compensation. suspect he just wants to add pressure in order to secure normality and save his business.

he might ask how, if security is now so tight why not only did a 12 year old get on that monarch flight at gatwick, but another child on a flight at liverpool. the liverpool incident was a week ago thursday when the security threat was classed as "severe".

[bringerofnoise]

erm safety over money any day if passengers are complaining then they should not fly.

if i was the government i'd say no cuz if they relax security and there is a "incident" the people would sue the government which tax payers would "feel"

[Rob]

There is a problem here with the tightened security and the chaos it is casusing. Simply put terrorism is about creating fear and disruption. Yes life needs to be protected, but if we are putting in place measures that are so disruptive to what we the general public want to do, who is winning the war on terrorism, them or us?

[Rob]

Of course there is another aspect to this. For years the principle has been check your luggage into the aircraft hold, and we don't need to worry about that quite so much because the passenger must travel on the same plane. We know these nutters are quite happy to blow themselves up, so why aren't they putting their stuff in the hold luggage?

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Rob C

Of course there is another aspect to this. For years the principle has been check your luggage into the aircraft hold, and we don't need to worry about that quite so much because the passenger must travel on the same plane. We know these nutters are quite happy to blow themselves up, so why aren't they putting their stuff in the hold luggage?

I'd imagine that it would be easier to spot a preassembled bomb when they x-ray it. Where as with hand luggage they can seperate and disguise the components and then reassemble it on board.

[handyman]

Whilst I do think on one hand security should be tighter on the other hand had I planned a back to back training assignment (as we frequently do) for our Director we could have lost 1000's when his flight was cancelled.

Can we the risk that our trainers lap-tops are damaged and we can't deliver the training course to our clients? no.

We are already incurring costs because of this. If I wanted to detonate a bomb with an electric device then having it in the hold would not pose any problems. (For the fbi/police listening I would never build a bomb) Whatever security is in place can be bypassed.. fact. They need to think of other ways to improve security rather than ongoing hand baggage restrictions.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by gazzae

I'd imagine that it would be easier to spot a preassembled bomb when they x-ray it. Where as with hand luggage they can seperate and disguise the components and then reassemble it on board.

From what I've heard, they use different types of scanners for hold and hand luggage. The hold luggage scanners are more expensive and will pick up more items. I'll try and find a link.

[Angua]

At the end of the day it will be Ryanair's passengers who will make or break things as many will not fly if they do not feel safe.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Angua

At the end of the day it will be Ryanair's passengers who will make or break things as many will not fly if they do not feel safe.

It's not just Ryanair though. I read an article on the BBC the other day which stated that all 'no frills' airlines will be hit hard by the hand luggage restrictions. It applies to easyjet, bmibaby etc. They all rely on quick turnarounds and low baggage handling fees to reduce costs. They will be hit hard by restrictions on hand luggage.

[Damien]

I think there must be more to this. If all the terrorists were caught then why the security and the overreaction when that woman had a panic attack the other day? (although she then did trun out to have banned items)

Yesterday they think they stopped a woman boarding with plastic explosives. They must have intel saying there are more out there

[Mr Angry]

People really need to get things in perspective.

What, exactly, is "safe" about hurtling through the sky at several thousand feet above ground at over a hundred miles an hour with nothing between you and almost certain doom bar roughly several tonnes of high octane aviation fuel and a one inch layer of aviation grade Trent aluminum?

Terrorists, if they were minded to do so, are in a position to kill far more people queuing in airport departure lounges with rudimentary explosives than they could ever hope to do by going to the bother / risk of smuggling devices onto planes.

Add to that the fact that the in flight composition / manufacture of a binary liquid explosive, as suggested in the current "plot", is nigh on impossible and it's evident to any sane / rational individual that there is no logistical advantage to be gained from attempting to explode a device on an aeroplane when fear alone is enough to wage an economic war of terror costing millions of pounds an hour to the international / internal travel aspirations & needs of a nation.

Put simply all this talk of a possible mid air explosive "spectacular" being required by terrorists is rubbish.

Terrorists, by their very moniker, have no further need to stage mid flight explosions - they have already proven they can do this and, post 9/11, the world is no longer quite as shocked by the fact that a rogue Hollywoodesque firework display involving planes and humans can be played out in a constant play / rewind / repeat, play / rewind / repeat fashion on their tv screens.

O'Leary has a point, if even purely from a business perspective. If you were to walk into a bookies and ask for the odds of a flight crashing as a result of mechanical or human error versus terrorist actions you would be surprised at the response.

As far as aviation is concerned the terrorists have now won that battle - thanks, in no small part, to a statistically irrational fear / paranoia on the part of the UK & US Governments.

The bottom line is that statistically you are no more likely to die as a result of a terrorist airplane incident tomorrow than you were during the IRA launching mortars at Heathrow, 9/11 or any other airline / airport incident. The difference, of course, being that many people are now more frightened of travel by plane and, in that regard and despite what Governments and security forces might put in place, the terrorists have already "won".