Message to government from elections

DublinWriter

Actually, I never had a bag go astray in Dublin Airport in all my years of regular flying. Baggage handling is one of the things done well. I wouldn't have a complaint about that at all. Maybe I’m just lucky.

But regarding baggage reclaim, the thing I would have a complaint about was the shoddy state that Aer Rianta allowed the Baggage Reclaim hall to remain in during the refurbishments.

I was flying in and out on a weekly basis for most of 2002/2003 and for a nearly a nine-month period the place resembled a building site with the entire suspended ceiling stripped out.

Yes, I do realise that when there's work in progress things can look messy, but there is no excuse for Aer Rianta allowing their contractors to leave the place in such a state for almost a year.

Not only was this a great welcome for tourists, but also a *massive* security risk. Wasn’t there some incident during that period involving people hiding up in the crawlspaces until the airport was closed and then climbing down to knick stuff from Duty Free at night?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we don't do 'service' well in this country, especially not in semi-state organisations who basically see their customers as problems to be managed, rather than opportunities.

My 'gripes', as you put them, are actually legitimate customer complaints because I pay Aer Rianta royally for the privilege of arriving in and departing from Dublin airport as part of my ticket fee.

…and remember, the airlines are your customers too. If you have gripes, sorry, complaints about the misuse of your facilities by the airlines then it’s up to Aer Rianta management to write up and enforce an acceptable usage policy.

Personally I think the Air Corps should move west of the Shannon and Baldonnel should be opened up for commercial traffic as Dublin’s second airport.

Monopolies are never good things, especially semi-state ones.

therecklessone

Originally posted by DublinWriter


My 'gripes', as you put them, are actually legitimate customer complaints because I pay Aer Rianta royally for the privilege of arriving in and departing from Dublin airport as part of my ticket fee.

…and remember, the airlines are your customers too. If you have gripes, sorry, complaints about the misuse of your facilities by the airlines then it’s up to Aer Rianta management to write up and enforce an acceptable usage policy.

Not too sure who you're responding to here. The airlines aren't my customers any more (not in this sense anyway) since I am an ex-Aer Rianta employee, and it was Zener who referred to your "gripes"...

If you're too stubborn to accept that there are a number of aggrevating factors outside of the airport authority which affect service standards at Dublin Airport then there's little I can do to change your mind.

Interestingly I agree with you regarding Baldonnel. I don't see a 2nd terminal at Dublin as the answer to competition, and I don't see any reason why the infrastructure which exists at Casement should go to waste. Open it up to commercial traffic, and use the money we make to provide necessary equipment for the defence forces. Its win win all round.

MadsL

I asked once at Dublin why I had to take my laptop out of it's case. No other airport does this. I was told that it was 'procedure'. Time to upgrade the machines methinks.

Also they often turn the metal detectors up full blast, this means even your fillings sets it off and everyone has to be searched...big queues naturally.

Also they constantly do the "having to walk round and round the queuing barriers, even tho' there are only three people queuing" thing.

Security suck at Dublin.

therecklessone

Originally posted by MadsL
I asked once at Dublin why I had to take my laptop out of it's case. No other airport does this. I was told that it was 'procedure'. Time to upgrade the machines methinks.

I'll accept correction on this, but I'm told this happens in the states as well. Can anyone confirm/deny? I did find myself having to take my new para boots off a while ago to be put through the x-ray machine which I thought was strange, but what ya gotta do...

Originally posted by MadsL
Also they often turn the metal detectors up full blast, this means even your fillings sets it off and everyone has to be searched...big queues naturally.

Personally I find the detectors at Dublin go off less often than at other airports. I have a belt with a metal buckle that always sets off machines in the UK, but never in Dublin...

Originally posted by MadsL
Also they constantly do the "having to walk round and round the queuing barriers, even tho' there are only three people queuing" thing.

Security suck at Dublin.

The same is used in Stansted, and I waited 40 minutes four weeks ago to get through theirs. Stansted is run by BAA.

DublinWriter

Security at every aiport has it's own quirks and foybles. Once at Manchester I was asked not only to take out my laptop, but to boot it up and show it working. This was just after Canary Wharf bombing.

Marzipan has the same consitancy as semtex, so there used to be lots of fun in Heathrow when the X-Ray machines lit up likes Christmas Tree when old biddies used to bring over cake when visiting their relatives.

We are once asked at Charleroi airport to 'place all our guns and bombs on zee belt pleeeese'

therecklessone

Originally posted by DublinWriter

We are once asked at Charleroi airport to 'place all our guns and bombs on zee belt pleeeese'

ZENER

So people weren't being screened properly before? Tsk tsk!

No, I'll thank Aer Rianta for not pulling enough security staff on duty to handle the screening at peek times.

Simpler still why not blame the passengers who choose to ignore the warnings not to bring scissors, knitting needles, cutlery etc. who then have to be searched and cautioned about the infringements.

Yes I know it costs more money, but maybe they should have used some of the €6million they recently flushed down the toilet on consultants reports for the failed T2 propopsal at Dublin Airport?

Links ???

@ therecklessone: Some people have a preconceived and moulded idea of everything semi-state on several occasions I've addressed the MONOPOLY issue but dublinwriter does not want to acknowledge or address this issue - O'Leary's brother/cousin perhaps ??!!

But regarding baggage reclaim, the thing I would have a complaint about was the shoddy state that Aer Rianta allowed the Baggage Reclaim hall to remain in during the refurbishments.

There were various reasons for this - top of the list is that to do the work at the time would have interfered with the operation of the baggage hall causing delays due to some belts needing to be closed. Secondly - being a Government agency Aer Rianta are required to adhere to the rules re payment to contractors. A common occurrence in the private sector is the lack of responsibility - have you any idea how difficult it is to get a contractor to come back and sort out his f****d up job ? Obviously not !!

Not only was this a great welcome for tourists, but also a *massive* security risk. Wasn’t there some incident during that period involving people hiding up in the crawlspaces until the airport was closed and then climbing down to knick stuff from Duty Free at night?

Folklore ! Determined contrabaan smugglers devised an idea whereby they would hide their smuggle fags above the ceiling for later collection from a strategic point landside, this plan was discovered and terminated and it had more to do with airlines leaving security doors wedged open with baggage than the absence of ceiling tiles near belts 1 - 5 in the baggage hall.

…and remember, the airlines are your customers too. If you have gripes, sorry, complaints about the misuse of your facilities by the airlines then it’s up to Aer Rianta management to write up and enforce an acceptable usage policy.

Aer Rianta introduced a bylaw regarding the "manning" of checkin desks for a period of time prior to departure of the aircraft - Guess who the biggest objector was - Ryanair - they even went as far as appealing it to court - how is that for customer service - the purpose of this bylaw was to reduce the congestion you spoke of earlier !! We just can't win it seems !

Monopolies are never good things, especially semi-state ones.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~johncasey/irlwairport.htm - work it out and move on !

I asked once at Dublin why I had to take my laptop out of it's case. No other airport does this. I was told that it was 'procedure'. Time to upgrade the machines methinks.

A common comment from passengers - the fact is the newer X-Ray machines in use at Aer Rianta airports use a lower intensity xray emitter that previous machines due to concerns of cancer by operators. The reason the computer is removed from the case is so the computer and the case may be screened seperately. The x-ray machines are capable of discerning very small wire gauges in baggage - removing the computer from it's case improves the detection.

Also they often turn the metal detectors up full blast, this means even your fillings sets it off and everyone has to be searched...big queues naturally.

The lesser of two evils - which would make you feel safer flying. The metal detectors detect across 4 different zones from the feet up to the head which has the effect of reducing nuisance alarms compared to the earlier machines single zone.

Also they constantly do the "having to walk round and round the queuing barriers, even tho' there are only three people queuing" thing.

heh heh always reminds me of that scene from Shrek !!;)

We are once asked at Charleroi airport to 'place all our guns and bombs on zee belt pleeeese'

. . and did you ???:D

ZEN

de5p0i1er

Originally posted by therecklessone
This one's been done to death, but here's a quick reminder...

YOU CAN'T DIE OF CANCER FROM SECOND HAND BEER FUMES!

Now move on...

But you can't kill someone by having to many cigarettes and driving afterwards. And for the record there is no scientific proof that second hand smoke is harmfull, until someone can show me some proof that second hand smoke can kill someone I'm not going to listen to ppl saying its endangering there health its not.

pete

Originally posted by de5p0i1er
...for the record there is no scientific proof that second hand smoke is harmfull, until someone can show me some proof that second hand smoke can kill someone I'm not going to listen to ppl saying its endangering there health its not.

random googling:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=303046&in_page_id=1797

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=244515&in_page_id=1774

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=181139&in_page_id=1770

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2844703.stm

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=111&sid=4963380



on the other hand, maybe it's just all a coincidence.

edit: more?

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html

http://www.no-smoking.org/nov97/11-21-97-4.html

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/conduct/html/tobexpld6.html

http://www.heartfoundation.com.au/downloads/passive%20smoking.htm

therecklessone

Originally posted by de5p0i1er
until someone can show me some proof that second hand smoke can kill someone I'm not going to listen to ppl saying its endangering there health its not.

Are you not?

US Environmental Protection Agency:

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html

http://cfpub1.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835

In 1992, the EPA completed its risk assessment on The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders and concluded that the widespread exposure to ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke] in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. More specifically, EPA concluded that ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. Furthermore, infants and young children are especially sensitive to ETS. In children, ETS exposure is causally associated with: 1) an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. (EPA estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to ETS.), 2) an increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and small reductions in lung function, and 3) additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. (EPA estimates that up to 1 million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.) ETS exposure may also be a risk factor for the development of new cases of asthma.

Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council:

http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/advice/nhmrc/

The review of the scientific evidence found positive associations between passive smoking and the following diseases: asthma in children, lower respiratory illness, lung cancer, major coronary events and other illnesses.

ABC News:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/ABCNEWSSpecials/smoking_010705_passive.html

according to JAMA, women living with smokers are not the only ones at high risk. At bars and restaurants, for example, cigarette smoke is in the air. According to the journal, women in the study exposed to as little as two hours a week for over six months had a 50 percent greater risk of developing lung cancer than non-exposed women.

And its all off-topic, so thats my final contribution on it.

ZENER

Some people just can't see the woods for the smoke I guess !!!

The smoke that you don't inhale contains all sorts of chemicals - check this out - enter your brand and find out what it contains.

Anyway this is totally off topic for this thread !!:(

ZEN

BUMP!

Few comments...

Smoking ban: Fair enough people should be allowed to go out without smoke blowing in their face but there were alternatives that wouldn't have been such a burden...

- Set minimum air-conditioning requirements: This would ensure that there is no appreciable ETS and that it is at least no more detrimental than standing in town on a busy day (exhaust fumes).

- Tax breaks for non-smoking pubs: If there were significantly cheaper pints at a non-smoking pub you would wean people off cigs more effectively and without the drama. Also you would get the younger people in (they've less money) which would stop the problem before it starts...

Trouble is these dont carry the prestige of a smoking ban...

Airport terminal: USE SHANNON!!! Much better and quicker if it supports your destination. Nothing flash - just a bus stop with a bar...

DublinWriter

Oh no, this is turning into a discussion on the smoking ban!

All I'll say it that in the same week in 2003 when Tim Allen didn't even receive a suspended/custodial sentenance for the possession of child porn during his court case, a guy in the circuit court in Dublin received a one week prison sentance for throwing a ciggie butt out of a car window on the Quays.

This basically tells you all you need to know about the mindset of this country these days.

We're now more English than the English themselves, with all our little red tape, rules and regulations.

LFCFan

Originally posted by ZENER
The lesser of two evils - which would make you feel safer flying. The metal detectors detect across 4 different zones from the feet up to the head which has the effect of reducing nuisance alarms compared to the earlier machines single zone.

Last year when I was going through Dublin Airport the Lower zone on the Metal Detector picked up on my metal plate in my leg. Same coming home from the Canaries. This year it didn't and even going through Boston and Baltimore nothing was detected even though in Boston we had to remove our shoes and get manually metal detected.

thejollyrodger

Also, every cig not smoked in a pub loses McCreepy 25c. That's 25c *per* cigarette folks, which by some quick back-of-cig packet maths I estimate will be a shortfall of shortfall of between €1.5bn and €2.5bn annually

The thing about the smoking ban was that ecomically it was better that the government generate less revenue from the fags since it cost more than the €2,5bn in health care associated with smokers than the actual revenue generated from smokers I used to smoke before I realised it was costing me a packet and I was always suffering from colds and nasty coughs, thankfully I quit.

Dublin Airport needs at least one or two terminals. It wouldnt cost the government anything extra so they should get on with it. Im in favour of making 3 independent airports. I think Shannon will be very profitable if it gets that European freight hub thing they are going for. Cork will do fine also. Many smaller airports around Europe can be operated on a profit, no reason why these cant.

The metro could also be built by a private company so they could start with that also. The construction of the LUAS looks like it has stopped with only 2 lines... bit of a joke if you ask me.

If they increased health care from €3bn to €12bn and there is no measurable increase in service then obviously there is something majorly wrong with the health care. They need structural reform BADLY!!

The stadia in Portugal also outlines the general RIP OFF IRELAND that prevails in this country... how many stadia have they built for the Bertie Bowl?? Even construction times in this country are pathetic.. the new landsdowne road wont be built till 2009 (the latest estimate) that WAY TO LONG..

Broadband is another joke, something that should be available to everyone for 512k@ €20/25 a month, like in the rest of Europe..

DublinWriter

Originally posted by thejollyrodger
The thing about the smoking ban was that ecomically it was better that the government generate less revenue from the fags since it cost more than the €2,5bn in health care associated with smokers than the actual revenue generated from smokers I used to smoke before I realised it was costing me a packet and I was always suffering from colds and nasty coughs, thankfully I quit.

Arrgghh!!! Didn't I explain this? Listen, and listen carefully - Non-smokers die too.

Sometimes they die from cancer and heart disease.

They arguement about saving money on healthcare is complete rubblish.

We all need extensive primary healthcare in the last years of our lives.

bonkey

Originally posted by DublinWriter
They arguement about saving money on healthcare is complete rubblish.

No. Its not complete rubbish. Its a simple application of logic combined with well-established fact.

Smoking-related illnesses are just that : illnesses related to smoking. They exist.

Reduce the amount of smoking and you reduce the amount of smoking-related illnesses.

Reduce the amount of smoking-related illnesses and you reduce the overhead that these specific illnesses place on the Health Service.

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that it will be a net gain, but your argument is like saying "there's no point wiping out illness X. After all, people get other illnesses too, so there's no net benefit."

jc

DublinWriter

Ok, here's how it works. Let me explain very simply how that statistic works.

All smoking related illnesses are terminal illnesses.

People generally don't recover from severe heart disease or lung cancer.

When smokers contract smoking related illness, they usually have a year of their lives left after the initial diagnosis.

Towards the end of *all* our lives, we consume 80% of the resources of hospital primary care that we will use in our entire lives.

Smokers are no different in this respect.

Non-smokers will require the same basic levels of primary healthcare in the last 1 to 2 years of their lives.

A leading actuary (yes he was a non-smoker) was interviewed on Radio 1 just before the smoking ban. He said that smokers actually cost the health services less as smoking related illness kill very quickly, unlike alzheimers and non-lung cancers which sometimes require 10+ years of intensive healthcare.

I'm not making the case for smoking, I'm just making the case for getting the facts straight.

The smoking ban was interesting because the non-smoking lobby were prepared to jump on any statistical band-wagon as long as it supported their view.

therecklessone

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Ok, here's how it works. Let me explain very simply how that statistic works.

All smoking related illnesses are terminal illnesses.

People generally don't recover from severe heart disease or lung cancer.

When smokers contract smoking related illness, they usually have a year of their lives left after the initial diagnosis.

Now I'm no expert in the field of medical science, but I'm relatively certain that people don't go from rosy health to spitting up lumps of nasty-coloured phlegm overnight.

The accounting doesn't start when the news come through that the patient has X number of years to live. There is usually a series of doctor/hospital visits involved before then, possibly treatment to control less serious medical conditions.

I'll take the example of my heavy-smoking mother. She hasn't been given the dreaded news, but she has cost the state (or taxpayer if you prefer) a fortune in visits, treatment and minor heart surgery. Will she only become a drain on the health service when a doctor tells her she has a year to live?

therecklessone

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Ok, here's how it works. Let me explain very simply how that statistic works.

All smoking related illnesses are terminal illnesses.

Not so.

The first link I found after Google search for "smoking related illness": http://www.cpmc.org/services/women/health/smoking.html

Direct smoking increases the chances of heart attack, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema and is associated with many other cancers. It will worsen symptoms from asthma, chronic bronchitis and allergies. It increases risk for peptic ulcer disease and it causes premature wrinkling of the skin and periodontal disease.

For women, tobacco has additional risks. Exposure to tobacco increases risk of infertility and results in health risks to the fetus and infant, through spontaneous abortion, pre-term birth, low birth weight and fetal or sudden infant death. It increases a woman's risk of menstrual irregularities, early menopause and accelerated osteoporosis.

Also, http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigarette_Smoking.asp?sitearea=PED (which is linked to by Philip Morris)

But not all of the health problems related to smoking result in deaths. In the year 2000, about 8.6 million people were suffering from at least one chronic disease due to current or former smoking, according to the CDC. Many of these people were suffering from more than one smoking-related condition. The diseases occurring most often were chronic bronchitis, emphysema, heart attacks, strokes, and cancer.

Victor

DublinWriter, do you have any statistics for that? Of course, people living beyond 65 doesn't suit a certain part of the actuarial profession employed by pension companies, who would 'like' people to die before 65.

I think that interpretation is a bit skewed. Smokers are less productive due to not only spending time smoking, but also spending more days off work and a shorter working life span. While they might be severely ill for a similar amount of time as non-smokers, they also contribute (much) less to society.

And who are you to (in my opinion) suggest 'Hey, lets kill off the old people'. If, and I am not accepting your argument, if does cost money to keep older people alive, that is a judgement that society wants.

And to get back on-topic, I haven't heard of anybody saying they voted against the government because of the smoking ban, if anything it gained some respect for them among voters.

DublinWriter

It would be nice if we all lived to a ripe old age and died in our sleep, but it doesn't work like that anymore.

Non-smokers will die of heart disease and cancers, but at a later stage (and will no-doubt cost more to society in terms of pensions!!!).

As nasty as wrinkly skin and periodontis (gum disease) are, they are not complaints currently covered under Ireland's national health system. Most people get periodontis sometime in their 30's anyway.

Yes smoking is horrible and wrong, but I do object to the anti-smoking lobby leaping on any junk-science statistic when there are far greater problems in our society today.

therecklessone

Originally posted by DublinWriter


As nasty as wrinkly skin and periodontis (gum disease) are, they are not complaints currently covered under Ireland's national health system. Most people get periodontis sometime in their 30's anyway.

No, but the diseases in bold above are. Way to try and avoid the facts though, I like your use of smoke and mirrors...

DublinWriter

Originally posted by Victor
DublinWriter, do you have any statistics for that? Of course, people living beyond 65 doesn't suit a certain part of the actuarial profession employed by pension companies, who would 'like' people to die before 65.

Are you seriously looking for proof that smokers die younger?

I forget his name, but he is one of Ireland's leading actuarys. He's a non-smoker BTW.

I think that interpretation is a bit skewed. Smokers are less productive due to not only spending time smoking, but also spending more days off work and a shorter working life span. While they might be severely ill for a similar amount of time as non-smokers, they also contribute (much) less to society.

Unlike, say....drinkers?

Have you any idea of the absenteism in this country on Monday mornings due to drink? Not to mention the crime. Taking your arguement to its logical conclusion, we should ban alcohol too.

I know plenty of non-smokers who spend a great part of the day playing Solitare on their PC. I bet you do too.

...and you say that smoker's don't contribute anything towards society? Hello? Every cigarette smoked in this state nets McCreevy 25c. Not every pack...every *cigarette*! Next time you meet a smoker Victor, shake his hand, he's funding your state pension.

...and guess what, ironically enough, Belgium, the most productive country in Europe per capita, is also the one with the highest percentage of smokers (EU statistics, 2002).

And to get back on-topic, I haven't heard of anybody saying they voted against the government because of the smoking ban, if anything it gained some respect for them among voters.

You obviously weren't listening to a lot of the FF candidates being interviewed on RTE post-election west of the Shannon...those far away enough from party HQ that were prepared to break ranks and talk about the hostility they got on the doorstep.

Victor

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Are you seriously looking for proof that smokers die younger?

Yes

Originally posted by DublinWriter
Have you any idea of the absenteism in this country on Monday mornings due to drink? Not to mention the crime. Taking your arguement to its logical conclusion, we should ban alcohol too.

I have an idea of how much absenteeism there is and I do think we have a severe alcohol problem (among others). Banning is likely to be impractical, reform however would be welcome.

Originally posted by DublinWriter
I know plenty of non-smokers who spend a great part of the day playing Solitare on their PC. I bet you do too.

Actually no, I browse boards all day, but in a way that doesn't affect my productivity.

Originally posted by DublinWriter
...and you say that smoker's don't contribute anything towards society?

Ah, a politicans answer to the question that wasn't asked. I said smokers contribute less to society, not that they don't contribute to society or contribute less tax. Although, when you look at it, if they are less productive they are likely to contribute less tax.

Originally posted by DublinWriter
...and guess what, ironically enough, Belgium, the most productive country in Europe per capita, is also the one with the highest percentage of smokers (EU statistics, 2002).