Anyone know where the responsibility lies here? A colleague travelling in a party of 6 has just been offloaded from an EZY flight from LTN because the security queue was so long that they missed the gate close out, despite checking in (with hold baggage) well within the minimum time. EZY have said it's not their problem - which is no doubt technically correct - so they're now somewhere on the M1 in a hire car with a long overnight drive ahead.
This nearly happened to me at LGW south once on Flybe, with hand luggage only and I had arrived at the terminal well over an hour before the departure time and checked in at the kiosk. The security queue was so long that I had to sprint to the gate along my beloved pier 1.
Would LHR T5 with sole BA occupancy be at any advantage in such a case? Or could BA just play the card that it's BAA?
I've never understood at what points the responsibility changes back and forth from airline to airport, especially with baggage delivery to the carousel, in multi-airline terminals which account for the vast majority.
LondonCity - 20/08/2011 22:17 GMT
Jim - sorry to hear about your colleague's plight.
But you did you say how long he/she waited in the regular security queue or whether or not he/she had paid an extra fee to access LTN's fast-track security lane.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1327827/Whistleblower-accuses-airports-keeping-queues-long-cash-5-fast-track-lanes.html
As frustrating as it may be, I understand that the responsibility lies for the most part with the passenger.
Although we tend to concentrate on the check-in deadline, the gate-presentation deadline is just as critical.
For the responsibility to pass from the passenger to the airline or airport security provider, it would essentially have to be the case that it was not possible to reach the gate between the earliest check-in time and the gate closure time. There's no specific link between the latest check-in time and any guarantee that it's possible to reach the gate before closure - beyond a general assessment that under 'normal' circumstances it should be possible.
It's one of the common failings of the global norm that separates the many processes and service providers involved in airline travel - the passenger is never party to any of the negotiations surrounding the services that they, ultimately, are the critical users of.
Single airline terminals do present a slightly different dynamic, in that a systemic issue with terminal ops is likely to come to the attention of airline ops much more quickly. Personally, I probably witnessed this most obviously in the wake of the Detroit Christmas Day incident a few years ago, when the increased security measures suddenly-imposed meant that very many passengers were gate-late for US departures.
The whole of T5, from agents to PA announcements, was mobilised to encourage passengers to get to gates early, and the airline delayed most flights in the first days, while the system readjusted.
Of course, more generically, the concept of 'conformance' at T5 was developed to try to cultivate the idea that check-in is only the first deadline, and that passengers need to be moving towards the gate immediately therefrom. It also provides useful data to prove when a passenger enters Security, and therefore whether it would have been possible to get to the gate in time, or whether in fact the passenger has gone shopping and missed the flight. This may affect the level of 'charity' rebooking, perhaps!
The fact that conformance also gets passengers into the spend areas more quickly, gives the airline a useful breathing space to offload without delaying flights and has had a huge impact on punctuality and therefore overall customer satisfaction and costs, means that more and more airports are likely to adopt it in some form or other, I suspect.
Ultimately though, and in JimBannerman1's colleague's case, unless it can be proven that check-in/bag-drop did not open early enough or that security could not be passed-through in a timescale less than that between check-in opening and gate-closing, then it's likely that the passenger will indeed shoulder the full responsibility. The fact that it might 'normally' be possible is irrelevant, sadly.
Of course, airports can be stressful enough, and anything that's felt to be outside the individual's control tends to raise the temperature yet more, especially the slow-dawning that a queue is moving so glacially that a deadline may/will be missed - and when there's no-one around or in earshot to hear pleas of increased need. No-frills airlines and the airports that serve them are likely (though far from exclusively) to be the very ones with minimal staffing, whereas I've seen other terminals employ queue-walkers who are adept at plucking those with imminent deadlines out of the line and fast-tracking them through.
PatJordan - 21/08/2011 07:23 GMT
Jim,
sorry to hear of your colleague's experience.
I'm not an expert in law by any means, but surely if they had been checked in by the airline within the specified time, then the airline is obliged to fulfil their contract: ie fly your colleagues to their destination.
I assume your colleagues will be pursuing this disgrace with EZY. I'd be very interested to hear the outcome.
Oh, and is this the same EZY who is trying to attract business travellers???
Pat
JordanD - 21/08/2011 11:33 GMT
I'd be tempted to suggest that the contract of carriage exists between passenger and airline. That the airline has decided to sub-contract or accept the services of another provider to conduct security checks is not the issue - it is the airline with whom you have booked and with whom you have met the mandatory cut off time for presenting yourself at check-in.
I would take this up with EZY strongly.
It all comes down to one factor: Speed up the security process!
1. strictly enforce hand bagage limits
2. seperate line for passenger with "walk through" hand bagage, i.e. no laptops etc
3. end the nonense of belts, shoes off
4. Utilise security staff better. I am fed up seeing staff sitting/standing around chatting, whislt the q's get longer.
The public has been trained to check in within time limits, the airports need to be trained so passengers can receive an acceptable level of service within the airport structure.
I know security are there for our benefit, but they still have a resonsability to provide the service within acceptable timeframes.
drflight - 21/08/2011 13:43 GMT
A week ago I was flying out of London Gatwick, an airport I have not used for some time. Being August, and the height of the holiday season, I was expecting the South Terminal's security queues to be a nightmare - like certain airports north of London!
Accordingly I allowed a good two hours for getting through the queues and to the departure gate on time. It came as a shock, and a delightful revelation, to discover the security area on the first floor has been redesigned
drflight - 21/08/2011 13:43 GMT
A week ago I was flying out of London Gatwick, an airport I have not used for some time. Being August, and the height of the holiday season, I was expecting the South Terminal's security queues to be a nightmare - like certain airports north of London!
Accordingly I allowed a good two hours for getting through the queues and to the departure gate on time. It came as a shock, and a delightful revelation, to discover the security area on the first floor has been redesigned
drflight - 21/08/2011 13:43 GMT
A week ago I was flying out of London Gatwick, an airport I have not used for some time. Being August, and the height of the holiday season, I was expecting the South Terminal's security queues to be a nightmare - like certain airports north of London!
Accordingly I allowed a good two hours for getting through the queues and to the departure gate on time. It came as a shock, and a delightful revelation, to discover the security area on the first floor has been redesigned. There is plenty of space, free plastic bags and - best of all - automatic boarding pass scanners. You just put the boarding pass to a scanner and, bingo, pass through the turnstiles into the search area. There were plenty of scanners, all manned, and to my enormous surprise I was through into the departure lounge in about three minutes flat. Amazing!
On the few occasions I have been cutting it fine I have asked those in the queue ahead of me - very politely - if I can go ahead of them. Show them your boarding card, apologise profusely, and most people will let you go ahead. It looks better if you have say 15 minutes left to get to the gate and if you are (a) alone and (b) unencumbered with huge amounts of luggage, but actually, whenever I have tried it (which is not often) I have always been let through.
I have to say I have not tried it outside the UK so I don't know what the social etiquette is like in other cultures. Does anyone else?
At Riyadh last year, my incoming BA flight was rather late (over 2 hours) and it ate well into the transfer margin.
I went to the front of the queue to ask the agent if there was any chance of making the connection and one of the locals must have understood English, as there was a lot of (kind) muttering in Arabic, smiling faces and hands pushing me back to the front of the queue as I returned to the back.
That was very touching and I made the flight.
jet72uk - 21/08/2011 19:36 GMT
Yes that new security area upstairs at Gatwick south is very good (and much welcome).
LondonCity - 23/08/2011 12:45 GMT
Interestingly, it's not always airports which are at fault.
A recent letter in The Times (print edition) revealed how many Eurostar passengers booked on the 1813hrs Eurostar train Paris to London on a peak travel date last month also missed their train owing to slow clearance by the relevant authorities at Paris Nord station.
craigwatson - 23/08/2011 13:14 GMT
PJordan and JordanD - in regards to your comment on "conditions of carriage" I would say in this case that the customer had already broken this agreement. The check in AND gate closure times are limiting factors to that contract, and are well advertised.
IMHO I would have to say that this person was at fault for not arriving at the gate by the designated time. If security was slow I would have made myself known to security and shown my boarding pass, if they didnt fast track me at that point then you may have had a case agaisnt the airport authorities, but again i stress "may have".
craigwatson
I don't think it is as simple as you write.
The passenger has no contract with the security personnel and pays the airline a security charge for this service, which pays the organization contracted to deliver the service.
If the airline accepts the passenger for the flight (i.e. they drop their bags at the desk), then as far as I can see (and if the pax can demonstrate that they failed to make the gate by the cut off point due to the slowness of the security queues alone), then the airline has (in my non legally trained opinion) failed in it's general duty to ensure that the passenger could reasonably comply with the contractual terms.
I would feel comfortable arguing this at the small claims court in the UK, where my track record is played 4 won 4.
craigwatson - 23/08/2011 14:23 GMT
i think people are making this more difficult than it needs to be. Are you really going to just sit in the queue twiddling your thumbs as your flight departs or do something about it.
As ive said in other posts this society is going to the dogs! its not my fault, it's always someone elses fault! everyone knows that the gates close at a certain time before departure (it's on your boarding pass).
so make sure you are there or accept the consequences of your action. what if its not security, but long queues waiting for your duty free purchase that makes you late to the gate, should the airline be held accountable for that as well?
As well, there is no way for an airline to know you were stuck in security and not shopping. Unless they go to the CCTV to see when you left checkin to when your clear security, and i dont think anyone would advocate this, so what are they to do? just accomodate everyone who shows up late?
craig
I normally agree with your thinking, but in this case I don't.
The contract either applies or it does n't apply.
If the airline wishes to rely on the entitlements of the contracts, it must also fulfill its obligations.
Duty free is clearly a different case and is a meaningless example to give.
Passengers suffer queues, crew suffer from queue jumping!
In the main the check in on time, has been resolved as Airlines have implemented a plethorea of options, from online check in, kerb side bag drop, desk check in, increased staff. The likelihood of now having to q for more then say 15-20 minutes for check in, unless there is an exceptional casue, such as bad weather etc, is minimal. Most people know and can judge check in times.
The security lines though are a different story. It is impossible to prejudge. As I was caught at DFW for over 2 hours recently at US immigration, there were reports that at another airport, US immigration took a mere 10 minutes.
Getting through security is currently guess work and I dont think the answer is to try to push forward as that will be down to an indivuduals personality as to whether they feel able.
We all know security is important, but as has been said on numerous occasions, it is open to abuse, failures and unacceptable delays.
If the airlines are paying for a service i.e. the airport authoirty to screen passengers for security, I think it is down to the airlines to demand service standards from the airport authority. Passengers have timings to be at check in and I think it is only reasonable that if a passenger is in a security line within X minutes of departure, they should be processed in sufficient time.
Getting passengers processed through airports smoothly and efficiently is the main focus. One possible solution would be to provide a passenger with a guaranteed maximum process time by bringing in an earlier check in time.
For example, take Easy who allow a 30 minute check in. For passengers who check in 90 minutes before boarding and enter the security line - or a seperate security line, up to 75 minutes before boarding, in return, they should be given a guarantee that they will be proceesed through security in time.
Whislt I sympathise with Jim at the top of the post, what he doesnt mention are the timings of when check in was and how long before boarding the security line was entered.
I think most of us know that minimum check in times will be a challenge for some security lines.
Martyn
You mke an interesting point about guranteed processing time.
Here is an extract fm easyJet's carriers regulations concering check-in
"Check-in at the Airport
Passengers should present themselves at the appropriate check-in desks, which will normally open two hours before the scheduled time of departure.
Passengers who present themselves later than 40 minutes prior to scheduled time of departure will not be accepted for travel, and will forfeit their seats. It is recommended that you check in two hours before the scheduled time of departure. Passengers must be able to quote their booking reference. "
Recommended is an interesting word. easyJet might also recommend that they print the booking reference out or wear sunglasses on a bright day, but once 'accepted for travel', if the sub cotracted security service prevents the pax making the gate dealdine, I don't see anything excusing the airline from liability.
Maybe a judge would reduce the claim if the passenger did not turn up at -2 hours, but even then I am not sure about that, as s/he may well say that recommending, not guaranteeing is passing the buck and is unreasonable.
DoS
Whilst we all (myself included on numerous occasions) look towards the courts, it would be appear far simpler and far better customer service if a guaranteed processing time could be implemented.
On the numbers your post provides. Agree check that if your boarding pass has a check in sticker dated prior to 90 minutes before departure, then there is a guaranteed processing through security.
There are other advantages for the airport besides speedier processing times. The airside shops will get the benefit.
I also think that the 40 minute check in time is missleading becasue as this disucssion is showing, it does not provide a gurantee that you will still be able to travel.
Over to the airlines to discuss with the airports.
