Flybe v Michalke

Poor old Reiner Michalke. In an incident, featured in the Press last week, Flybe somehow managed to fail to get him and his family onto their flight out of Guernsey to Gatwick, after his frustration with Flybe's inane hand-baggage restrictions escalated via baggage searches, swabs of his 'explosive' eau de toilette and a comment about exposives in his boarding cards, to confrontations with special branch officers, threats of arrest, passport confiscation, interviews and denial of boarding.

It's worth reading his version of events verbatim. However, I wasn't there, so for all I know Mr Michalke might have been belligerent and obnoxious. And it seems there may be some confusion about what was actually said - in particular the airport notably omits the details of the eau de toilette swab in their precis quoted in the Press.

But whatever actually happened, the Press saves the best bit till last. These comments from Ian Taylor, Flybe General Manager, have left a jaw-shaped imprint on my coffee table:

'We have absolutely no apology to make to this passenger. There has to be a general recognition that anyone claiming to have explosives on them in an airport, for whatever reason, can expect themselves to be refused boarding to a flight.

'I think it is irresponsible of media to highlight this kind of incident because they will only end up encouraging people to do it more often.

'It will inconvenience other passengers and could well lead to even more security than is already in place.'

The astonishing implication is that Flybe thinks it is irresponsible for the Press to report the inconvenience which can be felt by innocent, upstanding, professional people as a result of airport security measures. I think that's bull.

Security policies are there to deter and prevent terrorism, but they will never be completely unbreakable. We have to make sensible trade-offs between safety, convenience, respectful treatment and civil liberties (and, as the airlines are always quick to point out, low cost). There is always a debate to be had about where the trade-offs lie, so knowing about incidents like this is clearly in the public interest.

Flybe also tells us 'there has to be a general recognition that anyone claiming to have explosives ... can expect themselves to be refused boarding'. Well, in his version at least, Mr Michalke didn't claim he had explosives. The flippant comment he did make about explosives only came after being accused (or at least believing he was being accused) of having explosives in his baggage. And remember this conversation was being conducted in his second language.

The term in Flybe's conditions which Ian Taylor is referring to is 7.1.1.13 - 'we may refuse to carry you if you have made a hoax bomb threat'. I hardly think Michalke's reported comments constituted a 'hoax bomb threat', but by that stage it seems Flybe were trigger-happy enough to leap on that excuse to chuck him off the flight anyway, whether or not they really had good enough grounds.

It's already bad enough that the aviation and security industries have turned security into security theatre, in which people like Reiner Michalke become the fall guy. We are awash with rules and regulations which seem designed just to create frustration and inconvenience for innocent travellers, and turn security staff into overbearing jobsworths.

But, for the moment, let's assume that we are stuck with all this for the time being. So if Flybe wants respect and compliance, then perhaps their staff should show a little more respect for the plight of their customers and sympathy with their concerns. And perhaps their management should show some respect for the public's ability to reason about what is and is not a sensible security measure.

On the other hand, if Ian Taylor's attitude is the best they can give, they deserve every obnoxious and belligerent passenger they get.