Too Obvious a Suggestion?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if security check delays are the one of the biggest problems, why don't BAA do the following;

1) Put comprehensive DECENT sized signs everywhere in security queues saying exactly what it is they are expecting everyone to do; Get their laptop's out, dump bottles in one of the many (right!) receptables provided etc. and WRIT LARGE so people can read from any distance. How many times have we all waited at the x-ray machine behind people who handn't or couldn't be bothered to read the miniscule inconsistent signs in security.[V]

2) Crucially, get any trainee/oik (who could be trained to do this in minutes) to constantly, walk the security queues telling people what to do, checking they're not carrying back-pack nuclear weapons etc. etc.
3) Get some trainee's/Oiks who can communicate in languages other than the obvious one's to help PAX whose first main language may require a little help. BAA know what the nationality mix is and should staff up accordingly. Oh I forgot, sorry, that might impact profits - can't have that can we...

At the end of the day, BAA can employ as many security staff as needed, they simply have to be prepared to take the hit on their cost line. If they're not prepared to do this, then the government should legislate to ensure they do - if BAA (or their owners) don't like the legislation they can of course bugger off and do something more productive.[y]

What chance the government cracking the whip though? ? Not much I'd have thought - but don't worry we paid through taxes nearly £1Bn GBP for a nice tent in Greenwich... shame the government of the day doesn't show the same convictions when it really matters.[n]

[Neil]

Unfortunately we live in a world were profit is king, and whilst everything you have said makes perfect sense, extra staff = extra costs. BAA need to address the bigger, longer issue which is continued investment into security, a takeover never looked so appealing.

Ultimately, I think Government legislation is king as shown by any number of things governments have chosen to do whether it's liked or not. Whether the government has the b***s to the right thing is another matter ENTIRELY I think...[n]

Of course, the US answer to this question was to take passenger and luggage screening out of the hands of the airports and airlines, and lo, the TSA was born.

Whether this is the right or wrong thing for the UK, I cannot be the judge, but I'm sure someone in Thames House (MI5 HQ) has thought about it at least once in the last week.

Mike

Originally posted by mike-smashing
Of course, the US answer to this question was to take passenger and luggage screening out of the hands of the airports and airlines, and lo, the TSA was born.

Whether this is the right or wrong thing for the UK, I cannot be the judge, but I'm sure someone in Thames House (MI5 HQ) has thought about it at least once in the last week.

I understand the plans were much more than a 'thought' in Thames House. It appears a number of people in King Charles St were jockeying for position to be the PPS for the new department. Unfortunately for them, Michael O'Leary pipped them at the post.