Problems at Manchster
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yer, Manchester and Leeds bosses cannot come out with...... they're low cost BULL SH!T rubbish because Leeds has JET2 and Manchester has BMI Baby!!! So if LOW COST Stansted can do it?
and (Luton) can afford it Why not up north. Otherwise securty will remain poor with a high turnover of staff, standards will never get better and moral will remain low.Not good enough if they have to protect the airways from terrorisum.
Will anything be done before its too late. What does Manchester do to confront terrorisum....cut wages. I'd think seriously about the long term implecations of their actions.
and (Luton) can afford it Why not up north. Otherwise securty will remain poor with a high turnover of staff, standards will never get better and moral will remain low.Not good enough if they have to protect the airways from terrorisum.Will anything be done before its too late. What does Manchester do to confront terrorisum....cut wages. I'd think seriously about the long term implecations of their actions.
Last edited by LBAir; 21st Nov 2003 at 23:45.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: THE BIG SUNNY SANDPIT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LBAir
I am glad that you mentioned that the low experience level of staff caused by high turnover being the problem in your second post.
I thought that you were suggesting that low pay = poor quality staff, which is not always the case.
I do wonder where the security tax gets spent at LBA, it does not seem to be on 'visible' security.
I am glad that you mentioned that the low experience level of staff caused by high turnover being the problem in your second post.
I thought that you were suggesting that low pay = poor quality staff, which is not always the case.
I do wonder where the security tax gets spent at LBA, it does not seem to be on 'visible' security.
Guest
Posts: n/a
NIBOR cheers for your responce.....
Aviation security, although technology has advanced a great deal, at the end of the day it is people that make the final decision as to wether an item, package or person(s) should be allowed on an aircraft. If the investment is not made in the people making these decisions, it does not matter how much money is spent on equipment to prevent potential security breaches.
Recent investment on scanners at LEEDS has not been matched by PEOPLE investment. I expect, given the mentality of managers at Manchester, the same applies there.
I suspect it will take an act of terrorisum, or a government act to improve the prospect of improved PEOPLE investment and subsequent SECURITY improvements. I guess its down to money again, but the question is MONEY or LIVES? I hope something is done as soon as possible before it is proved to be too late.
Forgot to mension, LEEDS' bosses sacked their security manager....... probably ultimately to save money, more than anything. MONEY MONEY MONEY.
Aviation security, although technology has advanced a great deal, at the end of the day it is people that make the final decision as to wether an item, package or person(s) should be allowed on an aircraft. If the investment is not made in the people making these decisions, it does not matter how much money is spent on equipment to prevent potential security breaches.
Recent investment on scanners at LEEDS has not been matched by PEOPLE investment. I expect, given the mentality of managers at Manchester, the same applies there.
I suspect it will take an act of terrorisum, or a government act to improve the prospect of improved PEOPLE investment and subsequent SECURITY improvements. I guess its down to money again, but the question is MONEY or LIVES? I hope something is done as soon as possible before it is proved to be too late.
Forgot to mension, LEEDS' bosses sacked their security manager....... probably ultimately to save money, more than anything. MONEY MONEY MONEY.
Last edited by LBAir; 23rd Nov 2003 at 02:59.
