LONDON, 26 August 2006 — The low-cost airline, Ryanair, is suing the British government for 3.3 million pounds for losses it says it incurred because of tighter aviation security that was imposed Aug. 10 after police foiled an alleged terror plot to blow up nine trans-Atlantic flights.
Michael O’Leary, Ryanair chief executive, yesterday said the figure was based on the number of refunds the airline had to pay to customers because of canceled flights between Aug. 10 and Aug. 16 — the first few days of the terror alert, and compensation for a 50 percent drop in bookings as a result of the security clampdown.
The action has far-reaching implications for the airline industry and, should the government lose, would oblige it to introduce new legislation to pre-empt similar legal action in the future. O’Leary last week gave the government one week to normalize security procedures at major airports of the UK or face the consequences of legal action, which he stressed was not for financial gain but for a point of principle. Indeed, yesterday he confirmed that should Ryanair win the case, he would donate the money to a charity of his choice.
Passengers are currently limited to taking one small piece of hand luggage and are being subjected to frequent searches. Liquids other than those bought in the duty-free lounge are still banned in hand luggage. On US routes, no liquids of any sort are allowed.
Ryanair has called for larger briefcases to be allowed as hand luggage and for the current policy of searching every second passenger passing through X-ray security to be relaxed. He wants airport security to go back to its “normal” procedures as before the current emergency that he said has kept British airports safe from terrorism for more than three decades.
O’Leary said the measures are “a shambles and a cock-up and we are giving terrorists and extremists a victory. The government has, two weeks after the events of Aug. 10, still failed to get UK security back to normal. It is time the Department of Transport showed greater focus and leadership. What is the wisdom in searching 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds as suspected terrorists?”
Millions of Britons are faced once again with long queues and security measures as they jet out to short-haul holiday destinations for the August bank holiday weekend.
The UK Department of Transport believes that Ryanair or any other airline operating out of UK airports have no legal grounds for the action.
It holds that the 1982 Aviation Security Act gave it the power to implement measures for the safety and protection of the traveling public.
As such Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has reiterated that the government would not ease travel restrictions until the terror threat level has significantly receded. “We continue to face a serious security threat and we will not compromise security,” he explained.
Ryanair, in contrast, is basing its action on provisions under the 2000 Transport Act.
British Airways too has confirmed that it is seeking compensation not from the government but from BAA, the airports operator, for failing to handle airport security efficiently during the emergency. BA Chief Executive Willie Walsh has warned that it has repeatedly complained that security arrangements at Heathrow have been inadequate for months.
Meanwhile, Umair Hussain, 24, from east London, was remanded in custody until Sept. 1 at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in connection with the alleged plot to bomb the airliners.
He is charged under the under Section 38b(1)(a) and (2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2000 with failing to disclose information which could help prevent an act of terrorism. This information is reported to be about his brother Nabeel Hussain, thought to be among eight people still being questioned by police.
Eleven other suspects have already been charged — eight of them with conspiracy to murder and preparing terrorism acts and three others with failing to disclose information which could help prevent an act of terrorism.
