Call me a cynic, but....

I can't see any of these hand luggage restrictions being lifted any time
soon, 'cos BAA will be making a killing from their 'airside' shops until
things get back to normal.

 

We had this discussion in the office today. The cynic in me suggested
that as a longer term measure, the only items to get through security
are purses and medicines and the only stuff allowed on the aircraft is
that purchased in the secure side of the terminal. I bet the retailers
are lobbying hard already.

 

You'll find that BAA are a company who own a few airports. They do
not decide aviation law. Hundreds of flights being cancelled will
reduce the quantity of people travelling to their airports which means
less money for them. Cancelled are tickets get the tax refunded so
their fee (as part of the tax) is never handed to BAA.

You're talking bollocks, luvvie.

It's like saying "Ooh, I bet BA will make LOADS of money selling
newspapers on their flights now!!!" when they're offering refunds to
passengers who wish to cancel their flights which costs them a little
more than 50p.

 

*sigh*

It won't just be BAA, then. Airport owners / authorities / airlines and
everyone else involved in the 'security' of passengers who also has a
financial interest in the revenue raised from airside shops will see
what's happened to takings over the next few days and find every reason
in this world not to lift the ban on hand luggage.

As a short term measure, due to the delays etc. at the airports.

Once that settles and they analyse the amount of extra profit they can
make from flogging overpriced crap to people on flights I'm sure they'll
also lobby to keep the measures in force.

 

I bet it looks something like this:

Money made from people re-buying books at airports today that wouldn't
normally re-buy a book: £1,000
Money lost from people who would have travelled but didn't so lost
profits on duty free fags/alcohol: £200,000
Money lost from people who have cancelled their flights and got a
refund: £500,000
Money lost from people who will not travel again for two years:
£3,000,000
Money lost by my company today because of cancellations: £200,000
Money lost by the government in airport tax/VAT: *LOTS*
Money lost by the government and airport authorities in extra staffing
costs + security + police: *MUCHO CASHIBO*

But at least they've made an extra grand on books, eh?

No.

 

Stop thinking short term.

Think about the results of a permanent ban on hand luggage.

How much extra cash will be made?

As it appears you've never worked in retail, you have absolutely no idea
how much extra cash the airside retailers stand to make out of this.

Profit margin on a bottle of water - say 50p. Now multiply this by just
about every single customer that takes a flight from a typical UK
airport and you start to see just how much money the retailers and / or
airport authorities stand to make out of this.

See above.

Of course, you work in the travel industry so are only seeing this from
the current, internal perspective.

Look at the bigger picture over a longer term and you'll see how it
could well work out to be a nice little earner for the airports.

 

Dunno. Maybe this is the case short term.

In the longer term, I can see you only being able to take stuff on board
that's been bought from 'secure' airside shops.

 

Won't happen. HTH.

Not much. Making extra cash from a ban on hand baggage will be short
term. I imagine a few months rather than a few years as it's not
workable.

Steve, I have worked in retail at management level for quite some time
in places far more exciting than Iceland so do know what I'm talking
about, thankyouverymuch. Oh, and I bet you've never worked in the
travel industry and don't understand the *huge* losses something like
this makes. Most US airlines are in Chapter 11 still from 9/11 and
that was years ago.

Short term, luvvie. An extra bit of profit + tax on a few fancy books
doesn't offset the huge amount of cash the government loses on the VAT
from flight tickets.

I've thought about this from the exciting world of retail and the
exciting world of travel and am quite happy to work on the basis that
you've no idea what the **** you're talking about. YMMV.

 

It does, greatly.

The losses today were unavoidable.

Long term profiteering from the situation cannot yet be ruled out.

 

**** it, I wasn't going to reply to every point, but I will.

It doesn't take *any* extra security staffing to ban all hand luggage
long term. There's no extra scanning to do - all the airports and
airlines have to do is to issue a policy statement saying that you can
only take 'essentials' on as hand luggage until further notice. All
other security measures can be returned to normal levels.

With so much exciting experience, why aren't you working in a well paid
job that you like, rather than moaning on here about a lack of
disposable income and a job you hate?

Yes, and?

How does that relate to a decision by UK airports and airlines deciding
to effectively ban anything that hasn't been purchesed from a secure
airside source?

Which is a short term loss.

See above about taking security back to usual levels but still
maintaining a ban on anything other than travel documents and wallets in
hand luggage.

See my other post.

It's very easy to see this could easily become a profit boosting
opportunity.

 

Thank you - that's how I had read it too.

I'm still completely confused as to why books, magazines and newspapers
seem to be banned - even from clear plastic bags. Anyone got a clue?

It's all barking mad anyway. Still if it remains in place in a few weeks
when it is my hols then I doubt I'm going abroad - no way am I standing
in a queue for 10 hours to get on a plane. Hopefully the railways will
exploit this chaos for all they can get [1] and people will see that
train travel is damn sight more civilised for a proportion of journeys
within the UK and Europe.

[1] clever of Mr Branson to say that Virgin Trains will accept any plane
ticket for an equivalent journey by rail for today.

 

I was expecting a huge rattle throw but good on you for replying.

Wrong. If hand baggage was banned forever then more security
equipment would have to be purchased to scan every single suitcase as
all of the bomb-related items would just be placed in the hold. More
staff will be needed to throw every case through the security
equipment, monitor the equipment, take it off the other end and then
sort it. And if machines are there to do it instead of people then
some bugger needs to be there to fix it. How often are baggage
carousels out of service? It would be the same kind of thing.

So your boast was based on me never having worked in retail and now
you know I've worked not just in travel, but retail at your level of
management and I therefore have more scope to make such statements you
choose to ignore my viewpoint preferring to redirect the conversation
into a personal attack?

I've never 'moaned' about the lack of disposable income and I've
certainly *never* stated that I hate my job. You're making bad
assumptions. If you're referring to Verdi's thread up there somewhere
then you will note that he was on about looking forward to going to
work. Looking forward to going to work, going to work, not wishing to
go to work and hating your job are different things and just because
one doesn't approach work full of the joys of spring every morning
doesn't mean one hates the job. If I hated the job then I wouldn't do
it.

The decision to ban hand baggage does not belong to UK airports or
airlines. It is with the CAA and important people like the
government. I am certain that should all UK airlines would lose
money.

Let me explain why. A potential client has a 24 hour flight ahead of
them from the UK to Australia. If they fly with British Airways out
of London they will not be permitted to bring any form of reading
material or entertainment with them in the cabin through the entire
flight. If they fly with Royal Dutch Airlines from London to
Amsterdam they will not be permitted to bring any form of reading
material or entertainment with them in the cabin for two hours until
they reach Amsterdam. KLM then let them quickly reclaim their baggage
and operate a FastConnectionCheckIn(tm) service. They've been in
Amsterdam airport for half an hour, had a walk around, got their
entertainment back, had something to eat and then hop on to the flight
for another 22 hours until they reach Australia.

If you had two youngsters with you for the above flight to Oz would
you prefer the BA flight without entertainment or would you prefer the
Royal Dutch flight without entertainment for 2 hours, a bite to eat,
and then 22 hours with entertainment for the rest of the journey?

I bet you'd select Royal Dutch which means BA, who have a far bigger
stake in UK airports than Royal Dutch, will be losing your custom.

Having an aircraft full of jumpy people likely to get bored and angry
isn't an effective way to run a flight. Passengers are better when
they have their own possessions to play with and it keeps them from
getting pissed out of their skins and falling down the toilet or
murdering the nearest person.

The long term losses from things like this would far outweigh the long
term gains from people spending an extra fiver at the airport per
person and I bet airlines would provide various 'essential
entertainment' options for free if that meant they could get your cash
over another carrier.

 

Can't swing one a week? I do like the turn of 'cost of freedom', though.

 

SteveH wrote:

Now, you've managed to find a job you like now... but wouldn't this
have applied to you not too long ago?

 

I think this whole thing is bollicks. The reasoning is for me is thus;

We check luggage and if we don't have a passenger we remove the luggage.

We X-Ray/Examine/scan hand luggage because no one in their right mind
would blow themselves up.

So, now we put the luggage in the hold and assume no one will board the
plane in the sure knowledge they will die.

Yeah right. But I've had a few beers!

I can't wait for the next Lufthansa business flight when they give me a
steel knife and fork for eating[1]. I *am* going to nick it and return
it on the next flight, after all, it belongs to them >

[1] They thoughtfully stamp it 'Lufthansa'.

 

I managed to avoid bringing up his longing to run a Heine Gerkin
franchise and just counted it as a minor rattle throw. I do have to
admit that throwing something personal like that into a conversation
was a bad call on my part and I probably shouldn't have done it as it
wasn't called for. But at least I'm not Welsh.

 

Buy stuff at the airport? How very pikey!
Surely you just use the club lounge where it's all free?

 

I may have had jobs I've hated, but I've never moaned about lack of cash
on here.

HTH.

 

Well, yes, I do.... but a lot don't.

 

I've never moaned about it either. You're mistaking me saying
something to wessie as moaning. Moaning is very different to a
statement or comment.

I don't mind the fact that you couldn't hold up your end of a weak
argument. It's not the first time you've been wrong and I doubt it's
going to be the last time, but try not to make it personal as I'm a
bigger bitch than you'll ever be.