Feel sorry for the guy,. but........

Sam Quentin · 01-01-2019 04:39PM #1

https://www.thejournal.ie/security-man-fired-flight-attendant-dublin-airport-wrc-4419224-Jan2019/

To be fair I actually think his sacking was harsh..
Relocation or retraining would have been a better outcome!?

Ten of Swords · 01-01-2019 04:41PM

He breached security procedures in an international airport

No, I think sacking was appropriate

TheValeyard · 01-01-2019 04:42PM

Think sacking was harsh. No one should ever be punched in the balls.

AndyBoBandy · 01-01-2019 04:46PM

Ten of Swords wrote: »

He breached security procedures in an international airport

No, I think sacking was appropriate

Never nice to see anyone lose their job, but I’d have to agree.

ikeano29 · 01-01-2019 04:54PM

Maybe they need to train there staff better also in future.

Guy:Incognito · 01-01-2019 05:02PM

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

. No one should ever be punched in the balls.

Strongly disagree.

Ficheall · 01-01-2019 05:58PM

No good deed goes unpunished.

Masala · 01-01-2019 06:05PM

Bit harsh.... error was spotted anf flight attendant sent back through correct gates etc.

I would say that there are other breeches Of airport security every day (lost tools, no ID showing, liquids Getting thru etc) but no one getting fired.

hynesie08 · 01-01-2019 06:12PM

Crew have their own fast lane at USPC anyway, so not like it was life or death. But bringing someone through a back door to avoid US customs? Shouldn't have gotten as far as court, sacking on the spot completely justified.

dan1895 · 01-01-2019 06:25PM

Masala wrote: »

Bit harsh.... error was spotted anf flight attendant sent back through correct gates etc.

I would say that there are other breeches Of airport security every day (lost tools, no ID showing, liquids Getting thru etc) but no one getting fired.

Worked in the airport for 3 years back in the day and there were no exceptions made for forgetting your i.d. or bringing a bottle of water through.

uck51js9zml2yt · 01-01-2019 06:57PM

Apart from the breach. He didn't know her. She could have been anybody.

01-01-2019 07:41PM

Bigger heads should have rolled for this one- the fact that it happened in the first place means someone on-high, didn't predict this could happen- lowest rank official takes the fall for some management mistake as usual.

Dave0301 · 01-01-2019 07:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Bigger heads should have rolled for this one- the fact that it happened in the first place means someone on-high, didn't predict this could happen- lowest rank official takes the fall for some management mistake as usual.

Hardly.

It was part of his training on what the proper procedure was in this situation and he acknowledged it himself.

When the airhostess flagged up as having reached the gate she was sent back to go through pre clearance, which would suggest that there are systems in place, and as such it has been predicated it could happen.

01-01-2019 08:11PM

Dave0301 wrote: »

Hardly.

It was part of his training on what the proper procedure was in this situation and he acknowledged it himself.

When the airhostess flagged up as having reached the gate she was sent back to go through pre clearance, which would suggest that there are systems in place, and as such it has been predicated it could happen.

He's a fall guy-plain and simple. It was accepted that there was no malice intended by all parties.

Change the process if such a thing happens- but sack someone for this? Please. :rolleyes:

MrMusician18 · 01-01-2019 08:13PM

Kaliyah Tender Violet wrote: »

Apart from the breach. He didn't know her. She could have been anybody.

There was no risk to flight security, from the story, he only bypassed US Customs and Border Patrol. If it was regular airport security, I doubt this would have even have been disciplined, let alone fired.

The US border preclearance is the unique selling point of Dublin Airport (and Shannon), and DAA will do everything to keep the Americans happy, least they decide to end it. You can bet they had a good old whinge about it.

Therefore the draconian response to this breach.

Dave0301 · 01-01-2019 08:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He's a fall guy-plain and simple. It was accepted that there was no malice intended by all parties.

Change the process if such a thing happens- but sack someone for this? Please. :rolleyes:

Irrespective of there being malice or not, his actions potentially led to a breach of US border control.

As another poster has pointed out, the US will not have been happy about this, and the heavy handed response is probably a result from pressure from them. I do agree that it is harsh, but it is also understandable.

01-01-2019 08:23PM

Dave0301 wrote: »

Hardly.

Dave0301 wrote: »

Irrespective of there being malice or not, his actions potentially led to a breach of US border control.

As another poster has pointed out, the US will not have been happy about this, and the heavy handed response is probably a result from pressure from them. I do agree that it is harsh, but it is also understandable.

I never said it wasn't "understandable"- what I said was that bigger heads than his should have rolled as a result. He's taken a fall for something that was easily predicable. Simple entry/exit technology would have prevented this from happening.

I still don't understand your "hardly" response to my original post.

spurious · 01-01-2019 08:24PM

Did she not also know she should have gone through security? Did she pipe up at any stage?

Dave0301 · 01-01-2019 08:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said it wasn't "understandable"- what I said was that bigger heads than his should have rolled as a result. He's taken a fall for something that was easily predicable. Simple entry/exit technology would have prevented this from happening.

I still don't understand your "hardly" response to my original post.

Deleted User wrote: »

Bigger heads should have rolled for this one- the fact that it happened in the first place means someone on-high, didn't predict this could happen- lowest rank official takes the fall for some management mistake as usual.

The "hardly" part of my response was for the bolded bit above. It was made clear that what to do in this situation was part of his training, and this was confirmed in the investigation. I also pointed out that there appears to be procedures in place for when a person appears to have bypassed pre clearance.

Why should "bigger head" have to roll for what was the worker's own mistake?

As I have said, it is very harsh, and probably a result of some pressure from US Broder Control.

01-01-2019 08:30PM

spurious wrote: »

Did she pipe up at any stage?

I'd say that's what he was looking for alright.

01-01-2019 08:36PM

Dave0301 wrote: »

The "hardly" part of my response was for the bolded bit above. It was made clear that what to do in this situation was part of his training, and this was confirmed in the investigation. I also pointed out that there appears to be procedures in place for when a person appears to have bypassed pre clearance.

Why should "bigger head" have to roll for what was the worker's own mistake?

As I have said, it is very harsh, and probably a result of some pressure from US Broder Control.

If you "know" that X point can be by-passed, why leave it that way? Why not ensure X point can't be by-passed. Simple :-)

Reati · 01-01-2019 08:38PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There was no risk to flight security, from the story, he only bypassed US Customs and Border Patrol. If it was regular airport security, I doubt this would have even have been disciplined, let alone fired.

Yes, he only bypassed the US border in Dublin Airport with a stranger. Fired is more than justicified.

Dave0301 · 01-01-2019 08:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If you "know" that X point can be by-passed, why leave it that way? Why not ensure X point can't be by-passed. Simple :-)

Is that not what his job was? To check that, or at least ask...like you know, he was trained to do? Simple.

Gerry T · 01-01-2019 08:38PM

Was she sacked, she would have known she had to go through the security check. She's as culpable as he is. Seems unfair or discriminatory treatment to me.

colm_mcm · 01-01-2019 08:39PM

Wow, that article says “Security Man” 11 Times.

Hoboo · 01-01-2019 08:40PM

Obviously a TNA required for all personnel, and continuous training provided. The quantity and quality of training should reflect the attention required to procedures and outcomes, and is clearly insufficient. Id be interested to hear what continuous training they receive.

Sirius Boner · 01-01-2019 08:42PM

Reati wrote: »

Yes, he only bypassed the US border in Dublin Airport with a stranger. Fired is more than justicified.

Maybe so......but was it justified?

MrMusician18 · 01-01-2019 08:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said it wasn't "understandable"- what I said was that bigger heads than his should have rolled as a result. He's taken a fall for something that was easily predicable. Simple entry/exit technology would have prevented this from happening.

I still don't understand your "hardly" response to my original post.

Presumably the flight attendant was escorted through the code locked doors by the security man who would have "access all areas" clearance. This kind of clearance would presumably be required for him to carry out his duties. It would be hard to guard against this failure, but to force everyone, including staff to enter the secure area through the customs post.

01-01-2019 08:44PM

Dave0301 wrote: »

Is that not what his job was? To check that, or at least ask...like you know, he was trained to do? Simple.

It's not the issue. Just because you're trained to do X doesn't mean Y won't happen. Simple :-)

MrMusician18 · 01-01-2019 08:51PM

Reati wrote: »

Yes, he only bypassed the US border in Dublin Airport with a stranger. Fired is more than justicified.

Which is more serious? Bypassing physical security or bypassing a clerical check? I'd say the former is more serious than the latter, but because it's the Americans we're talking about, it's the latter that will get you fired.

To be quite honest, they shouldn't even be here.

Dave0301 · 01-01-2019 08:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not the issue. Just because you're trained to do X doesn't mean Y won't happen. Simple :-)

And if you are trained so Y shouldn't happen, but you do let it happen you get fired :pac:

I think MrMusician18's post probably provides the reason for why he was fired. He enabled the flight attendant to get somewhere in the airport she should not have been able to get.

Feel sorry for the guy,. but........

Comments