UK
Terror Scare: Airlines
Threaten Legal Action
Against British Government
By Steve James
22 August 2006
World
Socialist Web
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 government’s
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 UK’s airports handle more than
217 million people annually, 67 million of whom go through Heathrow
Airport—the world’s 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 London’s 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. Easyjet’s 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 BAA’s 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 Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary, have begun targeting the
Blair government.
Ryanair is one of the world’s
most profitable airlines, having risen to become Europe’s 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.
O’Leary 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, O’Leary 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. We’re not adding to security, we’re
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 media’s otherwise unquestioning acceptance
of the alleged terror plot and accompanying security measures.
Reflecting widespread and
growing public scepticism as to the government’s 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.