[Reader-list] airport scare was British govt.'s rumour
Yousuf
ysaeed7 at yahoo.com
Tue Aug 22 22:14:49 IST 2006
UK terror scare: Airlines threaten legal action against British government
By Steve James
22 August 2006
A bitter row has broken out between the government of British Prime
Minister Tony Blair and companies operating airports and airlines in the UK,
following the officially driven hysteria over the alleged plot to blow up
aircraft en route from Britain to the US.
Facing multimillion-pound losses caused by thousands of cancelled
flights, tens of thousands of inconvenienced passengers, and increased levels of
highly intrusive security measures, a number of airlines have openly attacked
the governments anti-terror measures and are investigating compensation
claims.
Tensions have risen as it has become increasingly clear the measures
imposed were motivated more by the political exigencies of the British and
American administrations than by any real and immediate terror threat.
No evidence has been presented to back up claims that a major terrorist
threat was only narrowly averted on August 10. It is questionable as to
whether any terror plot existed in the first place, given that none of those held
without charge had even purchased air tickets and no bombs had been assembled.
Yet, in the early hours of August 10, British airport operators were
told by the government to impose an unprecedented security regime, supposedly aimed at thwarting the alleged suicide-bombing plot.
Without prior warning, passengers were informed that only travel
documents, sun glasses and urgent medications would be allowed on board as cabin
luggage. All other luggage had to be checked in, and all liquids, except baby milk,
were banned, as were magazines and books, and every passenger was subject to
be searched.
Despite claims that the police had been investigating the alleged
plotters for up to one year, none of the airports or airlines had even been informed
that a potential threat existed. The instruction to impose new security
measures was so unexpected that airports and airlines did not have the staff
available to effectively implement the new measures.
Airports were brought to a virtual standstill as check-in, luggage
handling, and security staff and systems were overwhelmed. The UKs airports handle
more than 217 million people annually, 67 million of whom go through Heathrow
Airportthe worlds busiest international airport.
Even when hundreds of staff were called in to deal with the emergency,
tens of thousands of travellers were forced to queue for many hours simply to
pass security, only to be told repeatedly that their flights were delayed or
cancelled altogether.
On August 10 itself, British Airways (BA) cancelled all short-haul
flights, and Easyjet cancelled all flights from Londons three airports, citing
airport congestion. Ryanair cancelled around 50 flights.
The security measures immediately backed up traffic around the world.
Lufthansa cancelled or diverted 28 Heathrow-bound flights. Air France, Iberia and
Alitalia made similar cancellations, while all UK-bound flights from
the Netherlands were cancelled. Many other airlines were forced to take
similar measures.
The British Airport Authority (BAA), the privatised operator of two
thirds of British airports, imposed a 20 percent flight reduction on all carriers
to reduce congestion. By August 16, nearly a week after the new measures
had been introduced, BA had cancelled more than 1,100 flights, and other major
UK operators were only just returning to a schedule free of forced
cancellations, while a reduced volume of passengers faced much-increased delays and inconvenience.
Even though the government and police claim they have arrested the
main players involved in the alleged plot, the security measures have
remained in force and there are suggestions they could be made permanent. Eight
days after the initial arrests, the Department of Transport said there would be no
rapid reductions in security, whilst one source briefed the media that the
way we travel will never be the same again.
Estimates of the losses faced by the airlines vary. BA is reported to
have lost £30 million on August 10, thereafter £5 million per day. Some reports
suggest that in total, airlines will have lost up to £250 million.
The cut-price airlines have been especially hard hit. Easyjets estimated £10
million losses will reduce its profit figures by between 5 and 10 percent,
while Ryanair faces a 5 percent cut in profits.
A spokesman for Heathrow Airport told the Sunday Herald, The longer it
goes on the harder it becomes for people. Unless the passengers are treated
more reasonably we will not have an industry left.
Initially, the airlines turned on the BAA, recently purchased by the
Spanish group Ferrovia. BA, Virgin Atlantic, Easyjet and BMI British Midland
all supported calls for £250 million compensation from the airport
operator. The BAAs Heathrow CEO, Tony Douglas, and his BA counterpart, Willie Walsh, had a public confrontation at Heathrow over the airport authorities threat
to ban all flights from airlines that did not follow cancellation orders.
Walsh had previously complained, BAA had no plan ready to keep
Heathrow functioning properly. He added, The queues for security have wound
all round the terminals like a bad dream at Disneyland...
But in recent days, the airlines, led by Ryanairs Michael OLeary,
have begun targeting the Blair government.
Ryanair is one of the worlds most profitable airlines, having risen to
become Europes largest short-haul airline on the basis of fast turnaround
times, cheap web bookings, standardised aircraft, low pay for cabin crews, and
flights to out-of-town air strips.
OLeary is just the kind of successful entrepreneur that the
government has been keen to court in recent years. In 2005, Ryanair was criticised for
negotiating salary increases only with non-union staff in what a
spokesman for the European Transport Workers Federation said was tantamount to
blackmail against unionised workers.
At a press conference last week, OLeary posed beside an actor dressed
as Winston Churchill, under the slogan Keep Britain flying. He demanded
that security be reduced to the usual levels set down by the International
Air Transport Association (IATA) within seven days, or the airline would
take legal action against the government. He complained, We are now body
searching five-and six-year olds flying to Spain for a vacation with their parents.
Were not adding to security, were adding to public hysteria.
Describing the security measures as insane and ineffective, he
ridiculed the idea that Britain was at risk from lethal toiletries, and queried
why, if the terror threat was so grave, similar measures were not being imposed on
the London subway and bus network, which has previously been targeted for
attack.
In a later statement, he queried whether there had, in fact, been a plot to bomb
aircraft. We may not have seen any attempt to blow aircraft out of the
sky, he said. Where is the evidence?
Ryanair, along with Easyjet and BA, are considering legal action under
the terms of the British 2000 Transport Act. Traditionally, airlines and airports
have borne any costs associated with increased security, but the 2000
Transport Act, Section 93, leaves open the possibility of operators being compensated for increased security measures. The airlines are hoping that the threat of
a lawsuit will either force the government to abandon its clampdown or
compensate the airlines for the costs of imposing it.
The airlines complaints have caused a breach in the medias otherwise
unquestioning acceptance of the alleged terror plot and accompanying
security measures.
Reflecting widespread and growing public scepticism as to the governments
claims, airport workers have been quoted on the idiocy and oppressive
character of the new rules.
One pilot, for example, explained that he had been barred from taking
his spectacle case onto a flight deck, but noted that there was a fire axe
already on board. While my glasses were deemed potentially deadly dangerous
items, I once again took my seat at the controls of 185,000 kilos of aeroplane,
people and fuel and managed to restrain myself from taking the crash axe to
all and sundry prior to rolling, inverted and diving, into the Channel, he
said.
Other pilots told how they had been barred from taking their contact
lens fluid onto flight decks, despite the potential impact this could have on
their vision.
In a move designed to placate the airlines and silence further
criticism, Alistair Darling, trade and industry secretary, said security
restrictions would be made more manageable in the coming days.
See Also: An officially induced panic: UK terror scare sparks wave of mini-scares
[19 August 2006]
European Union ministers use terror scare to justify more
anti-democratic
measures
[19 August 2006]
The US media and the London terror scare
[16 August 2006]
The politics of the latest terror scare
[15 August 2006] Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it
now!
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20060822/661f09c2/attachment.html
More information about the reader-list
mailing list