Letter: Airport safety

The allowance by the government for the review of UK airport security procedures (your report, 28 October) has come in a climate of "what cuts, where?".

Comments that some security checks are now "completely redundant" appear to have assumed validity as they have come from the chairman of BA, a company that in May posted a record annual loss of 531 million before tax. Is the motive really for the benefit of passengers, or is it to save money?

With the prospect of a more financially prudent flying customer base, together with a political regime that is counting on the health of large private sector institutions such as BA, the government should be very careful when the time comes to consider this security review. A report should be carried out with passenger safety and threat deterrence - not cost-cutting - as the top priorities.

David Grant

Monroe Drive

Glasgow

In my experience, Heathrow is much worse than any American airport and BA chairman Martin Broughton was absolutely correct to speak out against pointless security searches.

It is possible an al-Qaeda cell could be disguised as a three-generation family on holiday but surely it is absurd that officious staff should insist that elderly grandparents remove shoes and belts. Aviation experts argue passenger profiling is far better, in spite of the fact that the politically correct would throw a hissy fit.

(Dr) John Cameron

Howard Place

St Andrews