UK Borders - Shaming

[Capot]

The immigration area at Gatwick (S) was, I thought, as bad as it gets outside a third world undeveloped State. Shoddy decor, low ceilings, bad lighting, constant rebuilding in progress, and long queues with surly Immigration staff sitting in front of notices saying that if you abuse them they'll lock you up.

(These notices are a way of saying to the public "This is a place where we will treat you so badly that you will eventually start shouting and swearing at us".)

But last night I had to come back through Heathrow T4, first time for some years.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SHAMEFUL, DISGRACEFUL WAY THAT ARRIVING PASSENGERS ARE PROCESSED THROUGH UK BORDERS MUST BE SACKED!

4 staff on duty for UK and EU passports. 8-10 desks unused. A queue of hundreds of passengers from all over the world, extending for at least 100m down a long corridor, even before getting to the absurd maze that they put in front of the desks.

As a UK citizen, I was cringing in shame at the comments being made all around me. When I got to the desk, after 30 - 40 minutes, I asked who was in charge, fairly politely, and got the reply "Don't have a go at me, I'm only doing my job".

This sad, sick farce has got to be stopped. BAA and its Spanish owners don't give a damn of course; people arriving are not potential customers in their effing shops, apart from the stupid shop they make people walk through in the arrivals hall. But they are responsible for what happens in their airports, and should be going to the Prime Minister if necessary to force an imporvement.

I am sending photos of the chaos to the Press, and will post them here if I can get them off my mobile. They remind me of Russian airports before they improved things, and of Gulf airports in the 1970's when they were overwhelmed by their sudden traffic growths.

[T250]

BAA is not responsible for the staffing levels/operation of the UK borders at UK Airports.

They are: UK Border Agency | Home Page (http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/)

[strake]

Try most of the major entry points to the USA. Mainly ill-educated, non -culturally aware staff, given uniforms and pistols and trained on the basis that: "You are the first line of defence against the evil hordes...."
I remember, just after 9/11 being agressively questioned by one of these people in Miami. When I said we were both on the same side, Miguel became quite perplexed.

Despite your bad experience, I think on the whole, the UK is much better. I have colleagues travel in from the US and Canada every week and they comment on how much more polite UK Border is compared to theirs..and they are citizens!

Me, I use IRIS which, if it is working, means I don't have to talk to anyone...

[Out Of Trim]

I was going to say; at least they don't make you stand just behind a yellow line and treat you like a member of Al Qaeda when it comes to be your turn for interrogation like they do in the good 'Ol US of A. :suspect:

[Seat62K]

Capot,
What has "Spanish owners" got to do with it? Sounds like cheap xenophobia if you ask me.
By the way, BAA is owned by a consortium. Why not add French Canadians whilst you're at it? After all, they, too, own a chunk of BAA.

[manintheback]

Capot

I have to query how often you travel throught LHR and T4 in particular? What you you describe is the norm, has been since I complained in writing in 2001 - and I dare say long before that too.

However, much as BAA should be blamed for most things - Immigration and staffing is a government issue.

[Hartington]

To give Capot his due I read his post as saying that the BAA should be putting pressure on the Government department responsible for manning our borders to improve the number of people on duty.

To which I say "hear, hear".

BAA should be hanging their heads in shame over the decor and general maintenance of the area in which we have to wait and the immigration officers have to work. Actually, thinking about it, although my experience of regional airports is limited, maybe quite a few of our airport operators need to pull their socks up and if they all had a go at the government maybe things would improve.

[dubh12000]

You guys should try Dublin at the moment. The Gardai manning the desks are on a work to rule over losing a meal payment (or something of the sort). Its an absolute disgrace. At least 45minutes queing time.

[Capot]

BAA is not responsible for the staffing levels/operation of the UK bordersI know; but they are responsible for how things are done in their airports, as I was when I ran an airport. If I thought that any agency, public or private, was lowering the standards of treatment of passengers (= customers) in "my" airport I would go to the top of that organisation and raise hell until things improved.

Me, I use IRIS which, if it is working,What I believe may have been an IRIS channel was closed. A few hopefuls did queue there, but were eventually sent to the back of the 100m queue. It was actually labelled "Groups", but it looked a bit like an IRIS channel.

What has "Spanish owners" got to do with it? Sounds like cheap xenophobiaThey control it, don't they? The point is not anti-Spanish, it's that foreign owners - by definition - don't give a toss about the fact that their airport shames the UK. If you want to include French-Canadians in that, be my guest, but watch your back.

I have to query how often you travel throught LHR and T4 in particularI have to travel through one of the London airports, on average, about once a month, more frequently up to about 6 years ago; strangely not often through T4 since it was opened. Of course it's always been awful and getting worse, but the night before last I finally cracked.

You guys should try Dublin at the momentI know, I've been there a lot in the last few weeks. But with all due respect to Dublin (hub for 4m people) , I would hope that the UK's main hub (for 70m people) would set its sights slightly higher!

[Load Toad]

The last time I entered UK through Heathrow (I'm a British Citizen) I was with a foreign visitor. This was two years ago.

It was a shambles and I was ashamed of it.

I go through Shanghai / Shenzhen apts quite often and through the borders 'tween China & HK every week. In comparison Heathrow is a disorganised appalling mess that herds people along like cattle at an abattoir. It's embarrassing.

If I go to UK now I try to go into MAN or such - at least it won't be so busy - but quite honestly in comparison to border controls in Asia then UK is getting very 'developing world' stylee.

[Seat62K]

Capot,

Three points:

You assume that before its sale to Airport Development and Investment Ltd. BAA was "British owned". I'm reasonably confident that like most privatisations, a considerable proportion of shares were in foreign hands.

What makes you convinced that before the sale, BAA was any more concerned about the degree to which its airports "shamed" the UK? Were Heathrow, Gatwick etc. markedly better before June, 2006? Of course not!

I think ADI's plans for the redevelopment of the "Central Area" (as well as modernising T4) show commitment to improving Heathrow. You could, therefore, equally argue that it's taken "Spanish ownership" to start to put things right. Now I know that Ferrovial does not own Barajas, but T4 there shows what a modern terminal should look like and I've no reason to doubt that the new terminal at El Prat will be similarly spectacular. The difference? Most Spanish airports (and all the major ones) are in the public sector.

I repeat, there was no legitimate reason to refer to BAA's "Spanish owners".

[Capot]

Seat62K

You're being disingenuous to an extreme; prior to the sale of BAA to Ferrovial etc etc, the company was not controlled by any one shareholder or group of shareholders acting together. Now it is.

BAA's Board prior to the sale was so focussed on retail so that no other aspect of the operation was of any interest to them. They were shopkeepers by trade and inclination, not airport operators. I experienced this regime. I would be the last to argue that the company's management then was better than now. But they were bad because of what they were, not because of where their national loyalites lay, for the most part.

But now there is the added factor that, because they are not British, the company's owners have no interest whatsoever in whether or not their airports are a credit to the UK. Why would they care tuppence if the first glimpse visitors have of the UK is a shambolic, badly run, "disorganised appalling mess that herds people along like cattle at an abattoir".

If you want to characterise that statement of fact as zenophobia, go right ahead. But it is not.

I just don't want to have to stand in a queue for 40 minutes again listening to people, in a number of languages that I understand and I suspect in many others that I don't, commenting, in effect, "God help the UK if this is what the rest of the country is like."

[Capot]

Interesting, this question of BAA ownership.

As most people know, BAA was bought by Airport Development Investment Ltd, which was in turn wholly owned by a company called FGP Topco Ltd, registered at the BAA address in Wilton Road, London.

It's actually FGP Topco Ltd which is owned and controlled by Gruppo Ferrovial (56%), and two other companies, one called Caisse de depot et Placement du Quebec (26%), and Baker Street Investment Pte Ltd (18%). (Figures rounded).

This was the situation at December last year, at least, and I'm indebted to the Competition Commission for confirming that.

Now either Companies House database is out of date, or neither ADI nor FGP Topco are UK-registered companies, although they claim London addresses.

A company called Baker Street Investment Ltd is registered in the North-East of the UK, but that's not exactly Baker Street Investment Pte Ltd.

Now, ADI and FGP Topco operate in the UK, and would pay tax on their BAA-derived income less their costs. I wonder how much of those costs is "Consultancy fees", "administrative services" and the like, invoiced by these companies' Head Offices overseas, and washed through the books to BAA itself, to remove tax revenue from the UK?

[LH2]

I don't see what's so wrong with having third world immigration desks. They are just setting the tone so that visitors will know what to expect should they decide to go past them. :cool:

Incidentally, the man who denies to hate Zenon ("it is not zenophobia", he claims) is failing to grasp the small detail that customs and immigration are not the airport's responsibility. The airport provides the facilities as required, if then the Home Office decides not to use them, that's hardly the airport's fault. Complain to the Home Secretary, if you know how to write a letter.

[qwertyplop]

Capot - interesting points but why so angry all the time? I'm surprised you've not keeled over yet from a heart attack. :eek:

Did nobody stop you taking photographs in that area? A quick review of schedule 2 of the Immigration Act seems to allow the immigration officer to set the conditions under which they implement and run an immigration control, my experience is that they usually insist you don't use phones or camera's near them. Mostly on the basis that private conversations and interactions could be recorded as a consequence of usage. Not sure that they would be too happy either being identified doing the work they do. I read somewhere that such staff have been identified and attacked outside of the workplace. I also think that the same act requires a port operator to provide certain facilities to the Immigration Service, so what you see at most ports is all they would appear to be entitled to.

Immigration staff have recently had to take on extra screening duties on behalf of customs, with whom they were recently merged. This has had the effect of making the transaction time ergo the queues, longer. Not sure you'll find too many Immigration Officers all that happy about it either.

HM Government insist that all arriving traffic is screened against wash lists, this has changed the nature and speed of such work too, they did this without increasing the staffing either. These controls operate 24/7, peaks and troughs will exist all day and every day. Most operational managers would happily invite you to make your comments known to senior management, they might listen to you I've heard. :ugh:

Without the cow pen system in the hall that you've alluded to, your queue would have ended in Crawley by the sounds of it. Be happy that it was there, you were provided with some theatre by the sounds of it. :ok:

Most here would happily queue an hour for a theme park ride at Alton Towers yet they won't queue to cross a border so some checks can be done - can't say it has ever bothered me - the old refrain that 'I live here' won't do either as it would seem they can speak to Brit's now to do the customs checks. I've never been treated rudely or inappropriately by anyone from immigration, the job can't be easy and they're looking for wrong un's not Joe Schmoo coming back from Alicante. I choose to make it easy when I go through and not draw attention to myself because of some indignant mistaken belief that I can behave how I wish. That's not aimed at you but at the drunken idiot in front of me who fell over in the queue in Birmingham a few months ago and wet himself. Would I go into his place of work and behave in the same way? No.

Try getting into America whether you are an American or not. Then you'll know what pain is.

[multycpl]

JEEEEEZZZZ
Talk about shoot the mesenger.
I think s/he was only pointing out that things could be done a little bit better. :ugh:

Ps. It seems that all(most) every goverment office in the UK is just short of being a slum. :hmm:

[backseatjock]

A little off thread but just to add that it's not much better on the outward leg either. T5 security early Saturday morning is just unacceptable and I note, with interest, that we don't see any happy ads playing up how quickly you can transit through security, these days.

For pax who are FF trying to navigate your way to the Farse track (sorry Fastrack) lane is a challenge and it ain't that fast anymore. Yesterday, passengers were being prevented from going through security unless their flights were due to depart in 90 mins or less. If you wanted lounge access that was a debate you had to have with the duty security personnel.

Makes a mockery of the fact airlines suggest you turn up 2-3hrs before a long haul departure as there is not exactly much to occupy your mind until airside!

As always, we see a sloping of shoulders when it comes to accountability. BA which trumpets its 'new home' when things go well, blames BAA when things do not. And BAA which is mighty proud of the T5 success, blames UK Border and Security whenever it suits. Once again, those who pay out for tickets are those who loose out.

[Capot]

the man .... is failing to grasp .. that customs and immigration are not the airport's responsibility... if .... the Home Office decides not to use them, that's hardly the airport's fault. At the risk of being repetitive, but necessarily, it IS the airport's responsibility to make sure that everything that happens under its roof is as good as it can be. In the unlikely event that you are interested, I know that because I have done it, when managing an airport in the UK. It is not the passengers' job to "write to the Home Office", it is the airport manager's job to do something a lot more effective than that.

why so angry all the time? Not all the time; only when I see people being treated like cattle by a bunch of other people who don't care a damn about what they do and how they do it.

Edit

PS The only other place I've seen those "cow pens" like the ones at Heathrow and Gatwick, was at the Erez crossing into Gaza; they were reserved by the Israelis for Palestinians using the crossing, as a deliberate method of ritual humiliation. Other nationalities did not receive this treatment at Erez, so BAA is less discriminating; we all get treated like that. Take a PC bow, BAA!




Did nobody stop you taking photographs in that areaI was waiting for that one! The answer is no, no-one took me to task. When you are at the far end of a very slow queue over 100m long you could make a film without anyone noticing, if you want to.

The comparison with queues for theme park attractions and so on is false. The point about the immigration queues, and awful facilities, is that it does not have to be like that, and is like that only because someone is not doing their job properly and does not care that tens of thousands of people are messed about as a result.

Bu***r, now I've got worked up, again. I'll have to kick the cat. Again.



But you're right......I'll have to become one of the stupid cattle and take no notice, for my own health. I'll learn to say things like "He's only doing his job, dear", "'twas ever thus", and "it'll be alright, they're well-intentioned, dear",and lie down peacefully with my paws in the air, like the other 99% of the UK's population seem happy to do when they are treated so badly by Banks, Government and waiters.

[qwertyplop]

Capot, in your rush to get a response in you've overlooked the fact that I agree with you mostly. :)

What I cannot agree with, and never will, is an uninformed opinion masquerading as FACT. What is the solution to the queues? More staff? Yes, possibly but they'll never invest in staff now they are committed to electronic clearance with the e-Borders scheme, chances are in a few years and providing they can get the IT solution to work, you'll never see an immigration officer again. Good thing or a bad thing? I don't think there's a substitute for a Mark 1 eyeball but I'm old school. Other countries generally employ a police force to do border control, the UK does not and maintains border controls outside of most of Europe's rules, it therefore follows that more people who come through will be subject to more scrutiny and as you failed to acknowledge, they are now doing customs profiling work too. Political decisions that have a bearing on operational capacity usually mean that no increase in resource is ever forthcoming. Sad but true but the disconnect is further up the chain and not within the gift of the officer doing the line work in front of you.

They could turn a blind eye to everyone coming in and wave them through - politically and in terms of security - not really an option.

And the comparison for a theme park is not false as you imply. Perhaps people are corralled for a reason, perhaps it assists with profiling, perhaps it allows a camera to have a look, perhaps it's down to the fact that the airports sell every spare inch of space for shops rather than for your comfort and dignity, perhaps it's a bit of everything I've mentioned. Perhaps it allows other agencies to take a look at you as well, after all the police work quite closely with the UKBA too.

When your blood pressure calms down perhaps you will understand that this one small part of the international travellers experience is not about customer service but rather about law enforcement and that any choice you think you do have in such matters can only be exercised before you embark on your journey, that is, you choose not to travel because I suspect that your notion of customer service is not a concept that applies to this area of an airports operations. You simply comply with immigration and customs requirements as these are not negotiable - if you feel you cannot do that then it might be expedient for the health of your cat and you, if you avoid the places that are so distasteful to you. Our expectations in this area are not something that concern the powers that be I suspect, as long as no-one was rude to you or applied legal powers towards you inappropriately, what's the issue? The officers will be no happier working in an area that causes stress and makes interaction problematic will they?

And I mean that with no malice or sarcasm.

[qwertyplop]

JEEEEEZZZZ
Talk about shoot the mesenger.
I think s/he was only pointing out that things could be done a little bit better.

Ps. It seems that all(most) every goverment office in the UK is just short of being a slum.

Perhaps we just don't pay enough tax to ensure their upkeep? :ok:

[Capot]

qwertyplop

I did appreciate that you were mostly in agreement!

But where you and I disagree, I think, is that you accept that it is all for our own good; a bit of profiling, to allow other agencies to have a look etc etc. And I do not accept that. The 100m queue I was in was in no way planned, nor was anyone using 1-way mirrors in that corridor. It happened because the number of Borders staff on duty was half or fewer than it should have been. And that is simply bad management, with some lame excuses.

And especially I do not agree with you that "any choice you think you do have in such matters can only be exercised before you embark on your journey, that is, you choose not to travel because I suspect that your notion of customer service is not a concept that applies to this area of an airports operations. You simply comply with immigration and customs requirements as these are not negotiable -"

What is negotiable is not the requirements themselves, it's the way they discharge them. Trust me on this; I know it can be done. Not by one grumpy old passenger shouting, but by BAA doing that when 100,000 grumpy passengers start protesting that they have had enough. And by BAA I mean someone in the organisation senior enough to have an effect in the right offices, who is determined that no-one, no-one will be subjected to such appalling treatment in an airport run by BAA.

It has been done and it can be done again. But it won't be so long as passengers simply accept poor treatment as inevitable, non-negotiable, and move on.

And, to come back to my original point, it won't be for so long as the airport operator doesn't care a toss about the image his company is projecting of the UK.

And finally, I don't travel by air from choice every couple of weeks, I travel because I have to. That does not mean that I have to put up quietly with appalling treatment from the airport, the airline or any Government agency.

[qwertyplop]

They are not negotiable though Capot - like I said - your ability to influence anything within the context of this interaction is limited to how you were treated by an officer and not by the system. You'll have to trust me on that one..!! :\ Moreover, those working within the system would agree with every word you say but their hands are tied by the checks they are tasked with conducting. It is the checks that slow the process down. The average transaction time has risen by a factor of 4 in the last two years. Staffing has not kept pace with that. And it will not. It takes two years to get an Immigration Officer up to the point where they are effective - UKBA are two to three years away from the IT solution ergo nothing will change.

Suck it up mate. :ouch:

The airport authority have nothing whatsoever to do with the discharge of lawful authority by UKBA, they are subject to that authority should they wish to handle flights arriving from outside of the UK. They can moan that you are not getting through to the shops quickly enough but that's about it mate.

I suspect that e-Borders will provide you with a solution to your issues, that solution is some way away. In the interim, what I have alluded to will continue and anything we have to say on the matter will go largely ignored.

Why do I know this?

One look at the nonsense one has to put up with at security should tell you everything you need to know about the issue - what has changed to ease your passage through since people began moaning about this?

Not one thing.

Then factor into the equation that most forged passports are detected on flights originating from EU countries, rather than from outside the EU, and then you can begin to understand the issues UKBA has to deal with in addition to it's responsibilities to other law enforcement bodies etc. Usual M.O of too many chiefs and not enough Indians, the same happens in the police, the army so on and so forth.

None of us are so simple as to believe that what you see on the desks at a UK airport constitutes the whole of the UKBA effort are we? There will be all sorts of dark arts going on in the background I'm sure.

Good debate though, this link may interest you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article4588060.ece

[Capot]

Qwertyplop

The difference between you and me, er...mate, is that I have, as an airport manager, done exactly what I'm advocating BAA should do, rather than accepting that nothing can be done.

In that case it was the entire HM Customs team being slow, aggressive and unhelpful in the Arrivals area, at a regional airport, while doing absolutely nothing they were not supposed and entitled to do.

And we got it changed, along with the transfer to a non-public facing post of the man in charge.

We did not say, "Ah well, that's Customs, not our business, nothing we can do". For sound commercial reasons we wanted people to think highly of our airport, and we were not going to let any Government agency or officials get in our way. We had to go quite high up to do it, but that's never a problem..

BAA have got sufficient clout with DfT to get things changed tomorrow if they choose to. But they do not choose to.

[qwertyplop]

Why's that then Capot?

1) Why won't they do anything?

2) Why is the issue limited to BAA? They don't own all the airports and there are queues at all airports not just BAA airports.

3) Perhaps the UKBA told them the answer and it was an unassailable point they made?

4) I submit you influenced nothing - I suspect it was simply expedient to move the aforementioned person on and the reason suited. Poor form to mention this as well in an open forum. I bet you don't care to tell us which airport you managed?

You said;

We did not say, "Ah well, that's Customs, not our business, nothing we can do". For sound commercial reasons we wanted people to think highly of our airport, and we were not going to let any Government agency or officials get in our way. We had to go quite high up to do it, but that's never a problem..

Astonishing - so why is there a 'problem' if people like you exist?

I've read some old cobblers in my time - but this is right up there. You work to a commercial imperative - these people do not and why on earth should they. There is no profit per se in denying entry to criminals and smugglers - when you understand that not everyone thinks like this, then you will understand the issue at hand. I submit that for far too many years, the interests of business have undermined the interests of the state with obvious ramifications for us all as seen in the unfolding financial mess around us.

You may have customers Cabot - they have the travelling public and offenders. And until they've been spoken to and looked at, then no-one get's waved through simply because there is no profit in holding them up, I suspect that this is miles down their list. I also suspect you understand the cost of everything but the value of nothing. You clearly do not understand what border control is, the risk they work to and the peaks and troughs of traffic that determine staffing and cover. So a few flights arrive at once - do you deploy all your staff for those flights and leave nothing for later when it's busier? Or is it the fact that you were just pissed off because you had to wait for a bit?

1) I take it you've had access to the UKBA duty lists and flight schedules for the day in question?

2) I take it that you were fully aware of the target selection for the day that UKBA had tasked staff with?

3) I take it you are familiar with case load being conducted behind the scenes?

No, no and no.

Perhaps they started the shift with full staffing but cases were picked up that had to be investigated? Is it fairer to keep you waiting for 45 minutes or is it fairer to lock someone up for half a day that they might ultimately admit to the country, to get you through ASAP? What on earth do you think goes on? You sound like you managed a farm strip frankly.

I assume you have a some rudimentary knowledge of the work of the border control authorities? I'd be all for keeping people waiting for hours while they checked them out, their antecedence in terms of crossing a border is everything, their inability to get into an airside shop is utterly meaningless in that context.

Your ability to argue this point effectively is limited by your inability to answer my last 3 questions.

e-Borders will help you I suspect.

[Capot]

Protesting a little too much aren't we?

I see nothing in all that irrelevant rant that tells me why it's either necessary or acceptable not to man their controls with the right number of staff, or why BAA can't create and manage a better place to do it.

You are using their problems, presumably as an insider, to justify doing their job badly.

That was never a valid excuse, in any context.

In the case I quoted, the aim was not to move on an individual, although that was necessary. It was to get a better service for our customers. Of course Government agencies don't give a toss about good or bad service, that's why they have to be forced into doing it.

As for "You clearly do not understand what border control is, the risk they work to and the peaks and troughs of traffic that determine staffing and cover", what a silly remark. Guess what; those same peaks and troughs apply to everything the airport does. It's really isn't so difficult to get the manning right, given the will as opposed to relying on excuses for not doing that. As for the "risks they work to", do me a favour; there's more risks in manning an information desk.

However, you and I obviously are never going to agree, so I'm calling this a day. Good night, and sleep well.

[qwertyplop]

Capot - what on earth are you on about? I really think you don't know and getting into a dick swinging contest with you is not on my agenda.

The commercial world is full of people like you.

The 'risk' I alluded to is the movement of people due to war, famine, disease, the spread of organised crime networks facilitating people around the world so on and so forth, if you are what you claim to be, then you'd know that. The 'risk' is the movement of goods and services unchecked for all the wrong reasons. The visible part of the UKBA is all you see, you have not answerd a single question I put to you have you?

What they do is nothing like the what happens in the rest of an airport - like I said you see the cost of everything but the value of nothing. You might lose a few customers, what about the children being trafficked for organs or terrorists moving across borders using duff identification? Let's not lose them shall we? What about weapons and firearms moving around unchecked? There might be profit in it but is there a real public interest? So lets make sure that all these risk areas are covered shall we? If you have to queue for 45 minutes, then so be it.

Moreover, which bit of the e-Borders project don't you understand? The bit that says all the money is being chucked at that and not at staffing?

When you understand and acknowledge this, and you begin to understand the true nature of the differences between fluffy customer service and serious law enforcement, I'm happy to have a chat with you again. Some of your points have merit - the rest is an uninformed rage against the machine.

The last word and all that...

Yours aye,

QP

[Hartington]

As a simple passenger I've noticed how processing times have gone up recently resulting in longer queues. If this means that the possibility of a "bad guy" getting into the UK is reduced then I have to support the changes. But that doesn't mean that I feel that the current situation is acceptable or that waiting for e-borders is acceptable either.

The changes may well have been introduced more quickly that staff can be recruited and trained. Politicians have to be seen to do "something" and, by jingo, we can all see they have done "something".

I'm doubtful whether e-borders will be efficient or delivered on time. Quite apart from experience with other UK government IT projects I find that it is quite often the case that IT doesn't speed up processes at the point of delivery, simply reduces the back office staff needed to support the front office.

As a non member of the civil service or a political party, it seems obvious to me that the changes already introduced would have a negative effect on processing and that e-borders would not be delivered quickly enough so extra staff should therefore have been recruited.

They weren't. I don't believe they will be until we all make a noise about it by writing to BAA, MPs etcetera.

I'll be coming through T1 in about three weeks (after 2 months out of the UK) and I may feel a few letters coming on.

[Chica]

I arrived at T4 on a TAM flight last week and was met at the gate by at least 6 immigration officers doing "spot checks". If you looked Brazilian you had a good chance of being stopped and questioned. What is the point of this? Why not deploy these people at the immigration desks and save the questioning for there? I fast-tracked through IRIS but did notice the huge queue at the immigration desks.

[Final 3 Greens]

qwertyplop

Whatever the merits of your postings, the fact is that the unattractive security and immigration experience at UK airports is costing the country a lot of money, that frankly it needs given the parlous state of it's economy.

I am expat and will not suffer the experience, unless I have to (i.e. I get paid for a job and then I'll accept it as part of the cost of doing business.)

But use any UK airport to change flights for long haul? No way.

As a frequent traveller, I meet a lot of others and the word on the street is change at FRA, CDG, AMS, ZRH, MAD, anywhere but the UK.

But if you wish to live in your little dream world, where you see monsters that other countries don't, or perhaps more accurately other countries are equally aware of but seem to be able to manage more efficiently, then good luck to you.

One of the main reasons I left the UK was because too many people accept poor service and it becomes the norm.

Capot

IMHO you won that exhange hands down.

[UniFoxOs]

It is the checks that slow the process down. The average transaction time has risen by a factor of 4 in the last two years. Staffing has not kept pace with that. And it will not. It takes two years to get an Immigration Officer up to the point where they are effective - UKBA are two to three years away from the IT solution ergo nothing will change.

Arrived at EMA a couple of weeks ago. The check consisted of the officer comparing my face with the passport, then shoving my passport in to some sort of reader. Took about 5 seconds. Exactly how does it take two years to train someone to do that? Or are they really that thick?

UFO

[davedog]

UFO,

What i cannot undertand about this website is that if you are not a pilot then you are thick or dumb:=.

How long does it take a Pilot/Teacher/Doctor to train? an Immigration Officer has to learn about every passport and national ID card in the world, the security features of these documents, plus the application of immigration law. You may think it is not hard to stick a passport into a scanner but all that is telling the Immigration Officer is if you are a wanted by the Police (murderer or kiddie fiddler) or that another government agency has an interest in you. The Immigration Officer true skill is his application of passport knowledge to ensure the document is real or not. So in my opinion you are the thick one for not knowing what there function/role is:{
I cannot understand why everyone has to slate everyone else, they do a job in a tough environment and on a whole do a reasonable good job. I would hate to behind you in the queue at check-in, Sainsbury's traffic jam or anywhere else you cannot be arsed to wait.

Improvments can and should be made but sometimes it is a necessary evil. I am sure UKBA are on the whole not interested in 98% of the travelling public but as is most cases the majority suffer because of the minority.

[UniFoxOs]

OK Dave, I see that it takes two years to train an officer to the stage where he can tell that a passport is genuine with a glance lasting about half a second. I freely admit that I couldn't do that with any amount of training.

UFO

[Load Toad]

I'm sure the staff have a hard job and are well trained etc.

Right - now why aren't there enough desks open and why is the area that people who are entering the country have to que up in such an obnoxious, disorganised crap hole that is an embarrassment to take people through - never mind being an insult to British Citizens that just want to get home?

I don't care if other places are worse Heathrow should be better.

[qwertyplop]

It's disappointing that some here think this is about winning or losing an argument because it is not, it is more about having an understanding, where demonstrably none exists, of what different people do in different ports and why things sometimes happen.

I have agreed that, on the face of it, the staffing can be rubbish, I have commented that the immigration staff are likely to be no more happy about it than Capot but I have simply offered the possibility that there may be mitigation to which we are not party. Ongoing casework, other targets, other priorities. It does not mean anyone was neglectful of their responsibilities but simply that perhaps they were juggling a number of priorities. It highlights the juxtaposition between the commercial world and those engaged in law enforcement unfortunately.

It is disappointing that the OP does not understand what 'risk' is in the context of the work of those agencies and his comments seem to show how he regards the work engaged upon by the UKBA as nothing more than a mere irritation, moreso as he claims to be an airport manager and therefore should know all about the facilities that the airport is supposed to provide to the control authorities, it is disppointing that another poster thinks that the work is nothing more than looking at someone passing through in a second or two and feels that he/she is justified to then call them thick. It is disappointing that law enforcement professionals have to work in such an environment where a lack of respect and understanding of what they do is so evident. I understand that most IO's are either graduates and/or linguists, so to call them thick is a rather odd suggestion to make.

It's all very PPRUNE actually. :ugh:

[malc4d]

Wow.
I think the original point was about why the building decor has to be so utterly disgusting, and that most of the desks were unattended......not how bright or stupid anyone is.

[qwertyplop]

Yes, you are correct.

And an airport manager, as Capot says he/she is, should know that the facility is down to the airport authority as a consequence of the Immigration Act and it's requirements as set out to the port operator. That requirement is along the lines that the airport provide and maintain an area for the purpose of conducting an immigration control. HMRC have the same requirement as do the Police if the port is designated. There is not a port in this fair land that do what they should do in respect of this legal requirement yet they are the first to bitch when things don't flow the way the want them to flow, as I understand it trying to take them to task over the facilities and their responsibilities is a nightmare. As with everything, the devil is in the detail.

How traffic arrives into the hall is nothing to do with the UKBA - you'll have to speak to the airport on that one - you'll have to speak to the schedulers who schedule 10 flights to arrive in an hour but then nothing for the following two hours - anyone seen BHX in the summer?

Is anyone seriously therefore saying that the time spent in an immigration hall, complying with the law I might add, is the one single thing that ruins the experience of the international traveller? Or is it possibly more to do with the attitude of the port operator who restricts the space people work in so it can flog another airside shop? Or who does not refit and refurb the airside areas? Or who blames everyone except themselves for the apparently horrible experience that just the UKBA part of the airport causes for everyone? Most UK airports are dumps, who's that down to? The operator? :ugh:

Who'd even want to then work in such an apparently unpleasant environment? I should think the UKBA would support anyone who wanted to moan about such an unpleasant place. It's in their interest.

[MartinCh]

If you looked Brazilian you had a good chance of being stopped and questioned. What is the point of this?
Cheeky checking (out) chocolate chiquitas.

Hm, me being male I do notice Latin girls, too. Ehm, I do notice most of the girls worth looking at. I'm biased. I myself take security checks and clearance, incl long waits at check-in desks as necessary evil. So be it. Pull your mp3 player and try to chill out.

[Final 3 Greens]

qwertyplop

I had the great pleasure of arriving at LHR last night and say that I can understand how it takes two years training to learn to be as miserable as the person who ignored me when I said 'good evening', scanned my passport and then handed it back without comment or eye contact - that is just plain rude.

Busy international travellers have better things to worry about than which incompetent organisation(s) are the most guilty party in providing a bad experience.

They just vote with their feet.

At the end of the day, the UK loses business.

But I don't care, I don't live there, do not have to pay UK taxes and will receive very good fees for working in the second world.

[Runway 31]

Arriving into T5 and going though the immigration checks, not too much trouble. Then you get to the bottom of the stairs and are herded like cattle with someone shouting various messages at you before being let up the stairs to the security scanner queues. Whoever designed the top floor putting the scanners so near the top of the stairs needs their head looked at.

[rothin]

Hats off to qwertyplop (http://www.pprune.org/members/215874-qwertyplop) for trying to support HMRC but it's a lost cause, they are institutionally cr*p. Combining the arrogance of the customs with the ignorance of the inland revenue was genius.

[qwertyplop]

It's worse than that - they've merged HMRC detection (a contradiction in terms) with the the UK Immigration 'Service' now. So you can barked at for having your passport in a cover and then get your 200 fags taken off you while 5kg's of coke slips through nicely thank you very much. I hang my hat with the Immigration Service though not HMRC.

Can it get any worse?

Please fill in the gaps. :}

[groundhand]

I am fascinated to know at which UK airport Capot's customer focussed skills made any difference to what was, I suspect in his days as an airport manager, HMI's staffing or service levels.

I've worked at just about every UK airport handling over 1m passengers a year (exceptiond might be SOU and Newquay if they are in those figures); and can say that border control has been a problem for years and years.
However, I have also worked at numerous US airports and had the misfortune to land at several more and believe we have some way to go to get to their inhumane standards.

I actually agree that an airport operator has responsibility to take poor service, be it private or state, to the respective management.

I agree that the staff on border control have an unenviable job and one that I would not want to do.

I concur that many travellers, including myself, will do almost anything to avoid transfers through LHR or LGW; even CDG is better.

Despite long queing times I have always found the actual officers of UKBA very pleasant and courteous; heaven knows how they remain so polite with the never ending throng waiting for their turn to pass past their desk.

What makes my blood boil (sadly, I have no cat to kick to relieve the tension) is the lack of willingness of our politicians and UKBA senior management to invest in the staffing levels required to ensure that a good service is provided as part of 'product UK'.

Rant over.
GH

[larssnowpharter]

A word in praise of the immigration peeps at LHR.

We were flying back a couple of years ago and Senora Lars was - as they say - large with child. Queues were long, especially to the non EU passports area.

An immigration officer took us to the front of the queue and saved a fair amount of discomfort. Sikh chap he was.

I was so impressed I wrote to the immigration people at LHR to thank them. Was a tad worried I might get the chap in trouble but got a nice letter back saying they had passed on our thanks.

For my money, they do a difficult job in less than ideal conditions and do the job pretty damn well.

Lars

[Capot]

at which UK airport Capot's customer focussed skills made any difference to what was, I suspect in his days as an airport manager, HMI's staffing or service levels.None; what did change was the attitude and behaviour of the (then) Customs & Excise staff towards our customers. Arrogant, studied rudeness turned into polite and considerate manners without diminishing their effectiveness in any way.

Going back to the start of the thread and the staffing levels at T4 UK Borders; another day, another dollar and there I was coming through T4 again last Friday, this time a bit later at around 2030 - 2100; terminal virtually deserted with just 3 arrivals on the baggage reclaim unit indicators.

Got to UK Borders ahead of the main group of passengers and went through more or less without stopping; one of the staff on duty detached himself from the group of at least 8 who were gossiping idly behind the desks to wave me through..

Funny old world, isn't it? Lots of arrivals; far too few Borders staff and queues 100m+ long. Very few arrivals; far too many Borders staff.

"Management" course, anyone?

[qwertyplop]

Capot wrote:

Got to UK Borders ahead of the main group of passengers and went through more or less without stopping; one of the staff on duty detached himself from the group of at least 8 who were gossiping idly behind the desks to wave me through..

That's inaccurate Capot - all arriving traffic into an international arrivals hall is 'looked' at and screened.

I would counter by saying it was the efficiency of that operation that you witnessed as they made it look like they were simply waving folks through......

:E

What were they discussing that made you think they were engaged in idle gossip? Or is it more likely that you'd already made you mind up about what you were going to say and designed a back story around it to fit?

Interesting that you bugged out of this thread but as soon as someone spoke up for Border Control you pipe up again.

Oh dear.

[Out Of Trim]

I have to agree with Qwerty' If you look at the larger picture; and realise that the Authorities have to make sure they subject all their attention on making sure they do not admit persons that might provide a threat to the UK.

How the infrastructure for this, is provided is down to the Airport Operator. It would appear, that they supply less resources to this, than
providing a shopping mall experience for departing passengers. ie. no profit for them!

If X amount of flights land and need those amount of passengers to be processed at such and such a time; who is responsible for that!

[qwertyplop]

Capot - how many flights were scheduled for arrival in the course of that day at that terminal?

Were they all on time?

Were any diverted in or out?

What was going on behind behind the scenes?

How many staff were allocated to that duty on that day?

Were there any 'jobs' going on that you had knowledge of?

Or is it possible that something was about to happen of which you had no knowledge?

How would a 'management' course answer any of those questions?

What's surprising is that some of the people here who are involved in running bits of ports don't know about or understand the KPI's that are agreed with the port operators in the UK and the control authorities. These agreements are in place everywhere.

Queuing times for example - they are monitored and the port operator is invited to measure these times themselves. They are also invited to comment upon these times as well. As it's a Key Performance Indicator, the results are taken seriously and a dialogue is established if it falls short.

Which brings me back to the point about the way the flights coming in are scheduled and the space given to the control authorities to do their job. The requirement is clear in law - the answer more often than not is with the port operator themselves - a commercial organisation who is there to make money.

No space for the essential work of state but plenty for Thomas Pink to flog shirts.

Go figure.

[Final 3 Greens]

Qwertyplop

Queuing times for example - they are monitored and the port operator is invited to measure these times themselves. They are also invited to comment upon these times as well. As it's a Key Performance Indicator, the results are taken seriously and a dialogue is established if it falls short.

But the acid test is do things improve as a result?

No space for the essential work of state but plenty for Thomas Pink to flog shirts.

When all the desks are occupied, you might have a valid point, however there are plenty of times when they are not.

Once again, I need to bring you back into reality by pointing out that frequent travellers don't care which part of the total experience causes it to be painful, we judge the whole and vote with our feet.

Ultimately, people like me have a choice where to connect; for example, I have to book a trip to the middle east next week.

Should I (a) connect at Zurich, where the system always works smoothly or (b) transit via London? Well that was an easy one, looks like another opportunity to buy some duty free Toblerone.

And I think that you should also recognise that Capot started this thread by pointing out the deficiencies of the port operator, not the border authority.

[Boss Raptor]

As above - I now do most business inter-european travelling out of UK at London City via Zurich-Swiss or Amsterdam-KLM - not generally because of HMRC/Borders but because the whole 'experience' is much better even against the option of a Gatwick or Heathrow direct flight (and for £25 more on the ticket...not always...I save double that in petrol)

However on an economy flight LON going via Prague (CSA) outside the EU to Kiev have a look at the new EU? stealth taxes - on a flight to Kiev this is £106.80 + the former security/pax taxes £21.20 + £40 (yes a total of £168 of tax?!) - my ticket was only £288 including those taxes! - so just what the hell am I paying for as one would assume exactly the ongoing subject, Borders/HMRC et. al.

The Govt. taxes are 58% of the ticket price...

[qwertyplop]

All I can say is that the KPI's are an assurance given to the port operator.

They dictate, if memory serves, what the operator can expect in terms of queuing times. If someone is held up for more than the allotted time, then there will be a knock on effect but can anyone here say that this is not acceptable? Or is it proper to keep within the allotted time frames and allow someone to proceed simply to stop the queue being held up? I don't think so. Interviewing someone entering the UK about their intentions is a nightmare if there are language issues and simply accepting the first answer that comes into their heads when ones experience shows that they're up to something that will require time to get at is necessary. This is when officers start to disappear off the control. Duty of care to the detained person becomes a prime concern as does making sure that due process is followed in lawfully administering that power.

There are many juxtapositions in doing this work - most notably the commercial and law enforcement imperatives.

Which comes back to the business of flight scheduling and the space allocated to the port control authorities - none of which the port control authorities have any control over. If desks are empty - there will be a reason for it. Casework is usually the answer - other flights generated cases to be dealt with and you will not see any of this - it's understandable to believe otherwise that something is amiss. Most places don't have enough space behind the scenes for all the staff to even sit down and work. What you see out front is not the sum of all activity obviously.

What is really clear is that much of the issue relates to the port operator themselves and the space they allocate to the business of state at the port - they provide a hall with 5 desks but then proceed to land ten flights an hour into the port.This is not uncommon but they're the first to make a fuss about queues even though we all know it's a smokescreen to pass the buck. They caused the problem.

Blame should be rightly attributed where blame exists - the port operators have to take this on the chin but it's all too easy to blame those who don't always answer back. These are tough times for airlines and operators - they will take any money coming their way with gleeful abandon but to woefully ignore the needs of the travelling public and then blame it on one small part of the international travellers experience is simplistic and frankly disgusting.

I agree, these passengers will vote with their feet and go to airports that treat them with respect. It will not be because of how UKBA and the Police operate at that port though - it will be how they were forced to queue for 3 hours to get through security, it will be how they were ripped off buying a beer airside, it will be how the airline treated them like idiots and cancelled a flight with no information to the pax, it will be because they were ripped off for parking.

It won't be because there was a requirement to not smuggle fags or use a false passport.

That is the case here.

I agree with the tax bit too - robbery.

[Final 3 Greens]

Qwertyplop

What part of this are you having trouble with?

I don't care why the experience is bad.

I choose to go where the experience is better.

Simple.

That many like minded travellers behave as I do is costing your country a lot of lost revenues.

[qwertyplop]

It's a debate - I've listened to you and concluded that you have a narrow and two dimensional view of the issue. Nothing more.

Leaving/going somewhere else is your choice FTG. It's called the free market is it not? As for it costing this country business - not likely. The regulatory system for that free market has seen to that. It's why we are bankrupt and on our ass now.

If it's any consolation, I'm off out of the UK too as soon as I can sell my house. Might be a while though. Want to buy a house?

Before the ship finally sinks. :)

[Final 3 Greens]

Want to buy a house?

No thanks, sold my UK property in summer 2007, unfortunately yours has a way to go down before it would make sense to buy, when they drop another 25 to 30%, I may decide to do a little 'inward investment.'

Good luck with the move abroad, but from your comments in this thread, you may have to do some adjustment of your thinking processes to fit in wherever you go to, for example free markets do not have regulation, so what is causing the depreciation of your asset is the mismanagement of a mixed economy.

That means government and the private sector both messing up, which brings up back neatly to the subject of the thread.

And you can make comments about two dimensional narrow views until the cows come home, but that it how frequent travellers think and it is costing your country a lot of lost revenue in airline tickets, taxes and other income arising from transfer pax - if I am two dimensional, you are in denial.

[qwertyplop]

I'd only be in denial if I did not understand the issue at hand. Having spent most of my adult life in various border control locations, I believe I'm qualified to comment. I also go on holiday by air and I travel on duty by air, I am subject to all the same issues that you describe.

For example, I'm properly vetted regularly, why should I go then through security like you when I travel? I can't fart without having to declare it sothat makes me a better person than you right? Of course not. I am no different to anyone else and I must comply with the law. Is the law an ass because it can't differentiate between those who should be looked at and those who should not? Wow - imagine the database the government could create - every civil servants wet dream. Straight off the aircraft,into your car and away. No shops, no immigration and no police and no customs. Could you cope with that level of oversight in your life because let me assure you it ain't even close to that right now.

What's that got to do with the desks being empty? Nothing I guess but you simply can't comment about something on the basis that you THINK you know. I'm here to tell you that you do not know and that your comments reflect a commercial mindset in a area of life where there is not, and should not, be a commercial consideration.

Most people see a mere snapshot of the issue when they pass through - the do not see the peaks and troughs, they do not know what goes on behind the scenes and they're quick enough to be usually the same person who moans about illegal immigrants as they are to moan about being kept waiting for half an hour when they come through the border. It's an emotive issue, it always riles people and everyone can do a better job than those who actually do it.

HMG are minded to go down this route;

All travel plans to be tracked by Government - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4987415/All-travel-plans-to-be-tracked-by-Government.html)

Chances are you'll be able to sail right through with no interaction. Sound good? Or would you rather that someone did actually speak to those coming through should you find yourself here? Just because you don't like it here and choose to live somewhere else, should the citizens of this country not be afforded proper protection now from those who might seek to harm them? It's not negotiable on any level I would argue. The airport might be a ****-hole but this little bit of compliance is a pre-requisite.

Law enforcement is not compatible with the commercial world - if you are going about your business lawfully then absolutely you must pass through with the minimum of fuss. So how do you go about that if it's a passengers intention that must be decided upon?

Computers can't do that and neither should you just be waved through.

And while you may disagree with what I say, you need to know that most of us in this area of work want to do the best work we can with the minimum of fuss and minimum of harm to the communities from which we also come and in which our families and friends live. If you had to wait half an hour because staff held up a wanted criminal or fraudster or terrorist I personally would make NO APOLOGY.

We'll see on the property front - loads more interest in the last few weeks.

As for anything else though - happy to agree to disagree. The exercise of border controls is not likely to change but the idea that the commercial world is correct about everything is changing though................;)

We'll see what we see. :)

[Final 3 Greens]

Qwertyplop

You just don't get it, so I'll say it one more time.

The UK authorities and airport management, in combination, provide an experience that is poor compared to the alternatives for travellers changing planes.

Many, many people like me avoid changing flights in your country because of this.

This is costing your economy a substantial amount of money and giving other contries airlines competitive advantage.

I don't know why you huff and puff about the supremacy of the state controls over commerce, because the other countries are rigorous too, in fact the UK does not have a stellar reputation abroad for it's ability to control it's borders.

My point is simply that people like me can shop around for where we change flights and we do.

You can jump up and down and wave your fists and shout until you are red in the face and it will do no good, because we can't hear or see you from 37000 feet as we bypass your tawdry airports and long queus.

[qwertyplop]

Just because I do not agree with you it therefore does not follow that I am wrong. I do understand the issue you raise, I just don't agree.

Prove to me that the airport experience in this country is costing UK PLC money?

Avoiding changing flights in this country costs the airport operator money at the terminal in question I suppose but BAA's profits for example don't seem affected by this issue and you don't interact with border control when you transit the same airport more often than not unless you have a DAT visa so it can't be that part of the experience.

BBC NEWS | Business | Passenger fall hits BAA profits (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7909397.stm)

This seems to suggest that it's a credit crunch issue actually and that just about every airport in the world is concerned with similar issues. So long as the UK is the centre of the world for certain issues, people will continue to come. When that changes, they will not. It's as simple as that.

As a matter of interest, does the US border experience put people off going there? Credit crunch notwithstanding, has it affected US ability to attract inward investment? Or does a more connected & on-line world mitigate such problems?

The UK's reputation for Border Control is just what drove the formation/creation of the UKBA and more rigorous border controls so not sure where you are going with that either. It was simply waving people through up until 10 years ago or so that led to some of the problems we have may appear to have socially today, so fixing that by operating differently now is not likely to be part of the problem either. You either submit to a more rigorous regime of questioning and profiling when you enter the UK or you avoid it by not coming. Not so sure I have a problem with those that would seek to avoid questioning not coming here.

I have not asserted that the state is better than commerce, all I've said is that it is different and not that compatible. And on commerces current performance, thank Christ for that. :E

Huffing and puffing, waving my fists etc. It's all very emotional FTG, calm down and take a deep breath, it an interesting debate, that's all.

Like you said, you are well out of it old chap and all power to you.

And smile when you pass over us at 37000ft and raise your G&T to us.

:}

[Final 3 Greens]

I can see a moving dot throught window, I'm sure I can ...

[qwertyplop]

...throught window....

Are you from Yorkshire?

[Final 3 Greens]

No, about 2,500km further south.

[Capot]

Qwertyplop

F3G failed, so I'll try. (Why? Dunno.)

The problem is not about immigration control, or how assiduously or otherwise the UK polices its borders.

It's about the places it is done in, and the management of the people who do it.

The places are awful, especially, but not only in BAA airports, which is not the fault of the UKBA. It is up to the airport to supply the place in which UKBA personnel work. It can supply a pleasant, cheerful, well-lit, spacious environment, capable of handling large variations in flow without seriously incoveniencing the airport's customers provided that UKBA does its job well and supplies sufficient staff when required.

Both parties have a clear role to play, and the problem is that in some airports and at some times the management of both is bad, as evidenced by the outcome of long queues in dreadful surroundings. That is what is so shaming; the UK looks and feels like an impoverished third-world failed State on those occasions. The controls themselves are neither here nor there.

For the airport, it is a long-term issue of better design, and a shorter-term issue of good planning of effective building maintenance. Forgetting about its shops would be a good start.

For the UKBA it is a matter of better staff management.

For both, it is a matter of pulling their fingers out.

[qwertyplop]

Capot wrote:

The places are awful, especially, but not only in BAA airports, which is not the fault of the UKBA. It is up to the airport to supply the place in which UKBA personnel work. It can supply a pleasant, cheerful, well-lit, spacious environment, capable of handling large variations in flow without seriously incoveniencing the airport's customers provided that UKBA does its job well and supplies sufficient staff when required.

UKBA does do it's job, it is legislatively bound to it's role and there's no getting out of it with all the oversight that it is applied from the Agency Inspector, the IPCC and prison inspectors amongst others. Where it does not do it's job, it is a matter of public record and that record is easily searchable by anyone who cares to look.

Here's one for you:

Heathrow Detention Facilities Criticised (http://www.airport-int.com/news/2007/12/18/heathrow-detention-facilities-criticised)

Here's something else from an open source in direct response to a queuing criticism;

Manchester Airport aims to reduce passport queues (http://news.cheapflights.co.uk/flights/2008/02/manchester-airp.html)

Such articles and reports are easily available, they show the oversight and response we are required to give and submit to. The example are endless.

What they do not cover is the lack of communication from the operator to the UKBA, new routes introduced with minimum notice, an ongoing lack of attention to the working environment that IO's work in and a general level of contempt towards the apparent inconvenience that the lawful execution of an essential national security strategy seems to cause to the commercial operation of the port.

There are things that should be self evident to some of the port management 'professionals' that purport to know what they are doing;

1) Nothing from international can land without a border control facility in place.
2) The law says you need to provide a space in which to do border control.
3) And this is separate to every other bit of your operation, your operation fails without this in place ergo you build your operation around it.

I've lost count of the number of times people have tried to re-enter immigration halls I've worked in to complain to us that baggage has yet to appear an hour after they've passed through. All your apparently 'overqualified' management course attendees have legged it. The contempt with which airports treat their 'customers' is obvious to us.

You keep mentioning better management and management courses, to what end though?

We know what we must do lawfully, we know how to do it, we are more than happy to work with you but you need to engage honestly and for the long term. You need to be mindful of our REQUIREMENTS.

This is an ongoing issue.

*The responses that purport to show a lack of tolerance with my position are becoming rather tiresome too, I have debated this in good faith and all I get is several people alluding to the fact that I must be stupid not to understand the points several people have made here. Let's be very clear here, I work in this field and all I've given is a subjective view. If you can't handle the opinion then don't bother to engage with me and crack on with your view, tolerance is a two way process and I'm still trying despite some of the nonsense being written here.

[DCS99]

qwertyplop

Please Bookmark this thread.

When you've lived abroad for a few years, you might end up agreeing with capot and Final 3 Greens. I promise you!

IMO, it's wrong to accept and it's almost as bad to Excuse poor service such as that received by capot.

[Re-Heat]

qwertyplop

You seem to fail to realise the distinction between managing individual cases, and the known customer flows through the airport.

Aside from the disgraceful appearance of the airport (having read your quite clear description of how the commercial operation fail to accomodate your operation), disgraceful patronising signage that assumes that passenger have no manners (or the that matter the fanciful notion that signage will change plebs into mannered people), the problem that is clearly paramount is that you don't have sufficient staff working on the desks.

You know approximately when planeloads of low-risk US flights arrive, and high-risk Colombian flights arrive. You don't know how many individuals will take up more time exactly, but on the law of averages, you will (if properly planning your manning) have a reasonably idea of what you will have to cover.

However, the evidence is to the contrary - little planning, and always over-extended at known peak hours.

Granted, you see the peaks and troughs, but that does not cover for the fact that every single time I arrive from various destinations without exception at Heathrow over the past 3 years, there has not once been sufficient staff on duty.


Recession aside, I can quantify a large number of US, Asian and non-EU European colleagues who actively avoid transiting through or entering the UK due to hassle factor (again, granted, BAA add to this as well).

Furthermore, I have had specific examples of inappropriate and condescending behaviour of UK immigration officials recounted to me by colleagues, who not only have appropriate visas and right to reside and work in the UK, but have lived in the UK for many years. This actually does hinder business and economic growth in the UK.

Customer service, common sense and politeness do not need to be compromised in the course of conducting a rigourous border check.

[qwertyplop]

Re-Heat,

I agree on the signage, it is patronising and fails to deal with the fact that those it's aimed at don't give a toss one way or the other about anything approaching normal and reasonable behaviour. Totally agree, I well remember dealing with the consequences of airlines flogging booze to already out of control people that required action in our work area. Signage also tells you how to complain if you are not happy to something called the 'Customer Service Unit', it also tells you how to claim asylum amongst other things.

In answer to paragraph 3 - no it's impossible to say. (take it or leave it but it's true...). e-Borders will help in that respect. Immigration rules are subjective, no two flights are ever the same. It's the person in front of you that counts. Your idea of what constitutes risk is not what I constitute as risk based upon the information I access in relation to risk indicators.

Staffing is based, ultimately, on national priorities. There is a tasking and command process, and at this process, the boss's sit down and go through all the jobs that have to be done nationally in addition to the core tasks that don't go away. A simplistic explanation but this is then passed down to the same process on a local level. Resources are scarce and the overwhelming priority is the staffing of the immigration points. When I did such work,we almost always started the shift with a full compliment but things happened over a duty that knocked out the numbers, managers were very clear on the KPI's for queuing. See para 2 of this answer.

For every legitimate person you recount as having been troubled by an officer on-entry, I'll give you ten, that despite having a visa, lied about what they were doing to get it and only through robust questioning were we able to overturn the visa and remove. This is not a customer service environment - yes I will treat you with dignity and respect but I also have a duty to uphold the law. I've never met any of the people I have to deal with as they come through, so their backstory and credibility in recounting that story are the tools with which I start to form opinions in addition to comparing what they said today to what they told the visa officer a month ago, and I have to be mindful of language and cultural differences, all this takes time. It requires a degree of co-operation from the passenger and one get's better results, in a faster fashion, if the exchange is polite and to the point. Where it is not possible, more rigorous questioning may be required. I think you may be confused in thinking that this is a customer service environment, it is not. Straight to the point please and away, that is how it is.

The directness of the questions is what seems to get most peoples back up in my experience. I'd love to make you a cup of tea and sit down for a chat about why you've got $200,000 in cash in your bag and letters from your mates wishing you good luck in your new life when you just told me that you were coming to see a relative for 6 months but that won't happen will it?

This has been an interesting exchange, it's clear that there needs to be a bit more give and take on both sides, but it's clearer that law enforcement does not communicate what it does very well either so that you or your customers expectations can be met. I'll certainly give this some thought as it's worth considering. Like you, I agree that hassling 99% of the travelling public is probably pointless so doing it in such a way that makes the experience of having to go through a bit more painless is no bad thing.

Not sure what the answer is though because staffing really is not the problem on the basis that some locations might have a few empty desks but not the space behind the scenes to allow more staff to work. The problem may be housed in policy type questions and how do you get the port operator to make more space to work in.

Thanks.

[TightSlot]

A fascinating thread - the issues being argued out by people who are intelligent and informed.

There's a lot of info to summarize - let me know if you disagree, but I see this as being...


Airport Operators - Tend to treat UKBA in much the same way as they treat airlines i.e. as an adjunct to the Airport Retail business - a necessary evil to be tolerated but to be minimally resourced.

UKBA Staff - Face a work environment that may lack space and facilities and a workload that is flexible and hard to predict. That said, there are areas in which the service could be improved.

Airline Passengers - Must learn to accept that queues are inevitable for clearance, but also have a right to expect that every effort is made by Airport Operators and Authorities properly to resource and manage the process: There is some evidence that this is not happening.

[Final 3 Greens]

Airline Passengers - Must learn to accept that queues are inevitable for clearance, but also have a right to expect that every effort is made by Airport Operators and Authorities properly to resource and manage the process: There is some evidence that this is not happening.

Also to add.

Frequent Transit Airline Passengers - Constantly seeking and using the routes that are most convenient, taking their ticket revenue, taxes, shopping and food outlet spend with them

UK Airports - known to be low convenience places to transit

[qwertyplop]

DCS99 wrote;

Please Bookmark this thread.

When you've lived abroad for a few years, you might end up agreeing with capot and Final 3 Greens. I promise you!

IMO, it's wrong to accept and it's almost as bad to Excuse poor service such as that received by capot.

There are elements of their pieces that I am in agreement with, I have stated this. :ugh: Equally, there is stuff in it that is just fiction frankly, and fiction because it is not a situation or circumstance that was not explainable by an understanding of the reality of the issue. Much of this lies with the port operator and their financial imperatives.

Customer service standards apply where you have customers, we do not have customers. In the same way the Police and HMRC at port don't have customers, in fact anyone suggesting that they did would be laughed out of the country in most cases.

In my line of work, it's down to a number of factors, most notably the fact that people object to being examined when they arrive in the UK in anything less than an expeditious fashion. You've paid for a service to get to you to your location and your expectation is that you paid your money therefore you can behave and do as you like. Ask cabin crew about this, it rings true I assure you. I was travelling last week and I watched a man verbally destroy and physically threaten a female member of staff for a well known train company, his words and actions implied I've paid my money so I can act how I like, he is not in the minority of people and how they seem to have been conditioned to behave in such circumstances. I see it regularly if I'm honest, it is a regular part of modern life in this country more and more. I've seen it in airports more than I'd care to repeat.

If you live here or not, and have a passport that says you are a Brit Cit or otherwise, should you be subject to controls on entry?

Yes or no?

1) What if you are wanted?

2) What if you are involved in criminal enterprises that may need reporting upon?

3) What if you trafficked people?

4) What if your passport is false?

I could get to about number 70 on this one issue alone, 'what if' and how do measure and determine 'what if'. The questions need asking and someone needs to ask them. Does the idea of paying money for a ticket get you away from such controls and questions? Not in my opinion or through any examination of the moral implications of the principles of natural justice applied lawfully by appropriately trained and warranted officers. It's a very different and separate part of the airport experience.

This is as far removed from the business of commerce, IMHO, as it is possible to get. Your expectations are skewed I'd argue. Yes, do complain if the seat pitch was not to your liking, yes do complain because your veggie meal has a bit of mince in it, yes do complain if the bloke next to you in business class was odious and thus ruined your Veuve Cliquot.

And importantly, do challenge things properly that you don't like about border controls but think about it before you do it and;

Bear in mind that there are things happening of which you have no knowledge.

Bear in mind that the chances were they started the day with a full compliment.

Bear in mid that they are no happier than you about the squalor you are passing through that they have to work in.

Bear in mind that you will be dealt with quickly and expeditiously if you warrant no further examination and don't confuse it with rudeness or indifference.

Bear in mind that it is they that often get it in the neck for the shortcomings of everything from baggage delays to shortcomings in the way the airline dealt with the Derby and Joan clubs annual trip to Malta.

Bear in mind that most representatives of the airlines tend to leg it landside as quick as they can possibly leg it.

Bear in mind they have no say over scheduling or how you are presented to them.

Bear in mind that they work for you and more often than not, in the best interests of the population around them.

:ok:

QP

[Shack37]

QP

Thank you for the clarification provided in your posts, especially the previous one. I found it very informative and I hope to have someone with an attitude similar to yourself on duty when I pass through border controls in the future. It does help to see the situation from the other side of the fence.

s37

[Final 3 Greens]

Qwertyplpop - you do not get it - FQTV like me don't care about you internal constraints or problems, as the reality is that the equivalent authorities in other countries provide a far higher service level.

I do not know whether it is a function of poor facilities, poor education of staff, lack of motivation, sub standard management or what, but the only time I will use a UK airport is when I am being paid to deliver an assignment there.

Then I accept the experience as part of the cost of doing business, bill for the work and export the money.

If I have to transit, its a case of anywhere but the UK.

That is my reality, the difference is that people like me can be net contributors of a substantial income stream for the UK in taxes on airline tickets, security and airport charges and corporation tax on airlines, whereas employees of the system are net withdrawers.

Call it narrow minded thinking if you wish, but unless your system offers a better experience, your country does not deserve the income stream when you cannot provide an equivalent serivce to Zurich.

If you have the time, look at Michael Porter's 'Competitive Advantage of Nations.'

[qwertyplop]

FTG - I do get it, I agree with part of it but I don't agree with all of it. I do not defend the airports either, they are mostly poo-holes.

I think you make some good points and it's these I said earlier I will think about to tailor my own interactions with the public wherever necessary. Having travelled fairly extensively myself, I'm at a loss as to where the border control experience is any better than the UK but hey ho.

I will search out the 'Competitive Advantage of Nations.' You never know, perhaps I'll make it to the dizzy heights within my organisation and it will help form some of my thinking around the strategic and tactical problems faced by my service.

Thanks,

QP

[Final 3 Greens]

the border control experience is any better than the UK but hey ho.

Listen mate. I do really appreciate your attitude - full marks :ok:

[DCS99]

Hello qwertyplop

I have no problem with Border Controls and my Passport being checked.

I do have a problem with poorly maintained airside infrastructure which creates a bad impression for visitors to the UK, and just a handful of staff on duty together a 30 minute wait to enter the UK with a British Passport whilst >50% of desks lie unmanned.

Meanwhile, back in Whitehall, I notice this bombshell is being prepared:

All travel plans to be tracked by Government - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4987415/All-travel-plans-to-be-tracked-by-Government.html)

:)

[qwertyplop]

The infrastructure thing is spot on - the airport provide all that and are required to by law to all the control authorities. What can I say, you've clearly noticed the shabbiness too, the desks being unmanned though? All I can say is sorry for your experience in that part of the port. In mitigation, perhaps something else was in the offing and resources were diverted to cope. I can assure you it will not have been by design that you were forced to wait.

e-Borders.....

Hard to say where I sit on this one, I am not a proponent of such databases, especially given the governments IT record but there are a few plus's I guess in intelligence and intervention work upstream. The downside is the issue of 'mission creep' but I've not heard of anything to suggest it would be used for anything other than looking at border stuff and I would not unfairly characterise it's use without knowing for sure. It's been operating for a while now anyway in another form.

UK Border Agency | How we tested e-Borders (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/technology/eborders/testingeborders/)

Saw the following elsewhere about e-Borders - makes really interesting reading.

A UK Border Agency spokesman defended the e-borders scheme. "It allows us to secure the UK's Borders by screening people as they travel in and out of the UK.

"The e-Borders scheme has already screened over 82m passengers travelling to Britain, leading to more than 2,900 arrests, for crimes including murder, drug dealing and sex offences. e-borders helps the police catch criminals who attempt to escape justice."

Here's the response I read:

OK so that means that 0.0035% of travelers get arrested for crimes committed.

That is 3.5/100000 travelers.

Taking a look at other stats it transpires that 1.5/100000 Brits are in jail, caught and convicted.

Let's be charitable and say that the current policing and judicial system has an efficiency of 20%; i.e. 1/5 crimes gets solved and someone caught, convicted and sent to prison. That means that potentially 7.5/100000 Brits have committed a prisonable offence.

If e-borders manages to identify 3.5/100000 only it means that it is slightly less effective than tossing a coin.

Hmm, maybe not the best way to spend a few billion.

Cheaper than buying a bank I suppose. :hmm:

Great post though. :cool:

[Hartington]

re the Daily Telegraph story. I'm currently sitting in the San Francisco Bay area. My sons know where I am and which hotel I'm in (we stayed here several times when they were younger). More of my friends and relations know I'm in San Francisco, but not where and others simply know I'm out the country. This is a vacation but it could be a business trip.

From the business angle there is a "Health and Safety" (supposedly) implication about your employer having a responsibility for you and I know for a fact that several (if not most) companies run systems to track the whereabouts of their employees. This is particularly relevant to some of the more violent parts of the world but it's also relevant to places like San Francisco which can be the site of natural disasters. If something happens "somewhere" and your employees are in that place the system may help in tracking them, at worst it provides information about where to look for them.

I also know that at least one attempt was made prior to e-Borders to build a system to track everyone who left the country. It wasn't about immigration but this Health and Safety angle.

Now, my own view is that if I do get caught up in something (like the revolution in La Paz Bolivia I once walked into) it's up to me to look after myself and advise my family etc. But an awful lot of travellers (dare I say it) aren't that resilient and their relatives even less so. Therefore, having a database of where people are (supposed to be) might help in times of emergency. It might also help if someone in the UK needs to contact someone who is overseas because of a problem in the UK (remember those messages that used to be broadcast on the BBC Long Wave?).

All of the above doesn't mean I'm in favour of such databases and systems. I believe they are to open to abuse and they also induce a dependency condition in the populace at large.

Coming back on thread I can understand your arguments QP and I would hate to have open borders. Yes, we need controls for all the reasons you have stated. That said (and accepting your right not to be harrased etc) as a passenger I feel I need to be looked after. Prior to a few years ago I felt quite happy about my entry to the UK when I returned home; despite the tatty facilities the process was quick. Now when I get home the whole process has become gummed up.

People complained about US immigration. They may not be perfect but they have tried to improve. The last two times I've entered the USA (Baltimore and San Francisco) the process has been quick and relatively painless. A couple of days ago it took no more than 20 minutes from aircraft door to landside.

I would like the BA to take a look at itself from the point of view of the passenger and ask itself "are we providing a good (not the best - just good) service?". If it's honest I believe it will answer "not always".

[SLF3b]

First impressions count. Would you want a foreign friends first experience of Britain to be immigration at Heathrow? I would not.

Every time I travel through Heathrow it embarasses me. I have no excuses to offer my foreign friends when the topic comes up.

I am ashamed that as a nation we are prepared to tolerate Heathrow and Gatwick.

[Foxxy]

Hi there I am new to this forum but need to really let off steam after my recent experience at Heathrow this week.

My son recently returned from a trip to LA visiting friends and whilst there met a young lady who was planning to come to UK for holiday. They actually developed a lovely relationship whilst in LA and he asked her to return with him so he could show her our so called wonderful country but to also take her over to Europe.

She booked her flight via the internet to coincide with his. She had her bank card, cash relevant to her stay and a return ticket.

All in order? You would think so yes!

Anyway the customs officer decided that as she hadn't printed off her return ticket (which by the way isn't always possible as you can only do this within a set period prior to flying online) he needed to re-check her passport. This proved her return flight and was in order. They then decided to take her to one side to go through all her cases and asked my son to wait in the arrivals hall and they would ring him. That was at 1.20 by 3pm we had heard nothing. This continued until 4.45 when my son was finally called to answer some questions which he did and the customs officer told him they matched everything his girlfriend had told them. OK you think??

By 6.40pm (and a short stay car park bill of £30.60 later) he was told that she had been denied a visa. The reason? They had not been in a stable relationship long enough for her to support herself in the UK???? She had a bank card with her with funds and several thousand dollars in cash???

Now thats set the scene - sorry if I am boring you but the worst is yet to come!

She had just done the longest trip of her life a 10 hour flight across the Atlantic. She then faced interviews for another 6 hours absolutely terrified by this time. She then got told that all the money she had saved and worked hard for to pay for the flight was about to be wasted because she was now going back. She was then put in a small room with about 11 others and was made to sit on a chair all night until her flight the next day at midday? No bed, no access to her cases, a pay phone which she had no UK money although my son was allowed to call her but worst of worst she was put in a metal truck that had a locked cage with the 11 other passengers closely packed together and transported to another part of the building where they were all tested for TB then put back into the locked cage and taken back to the very small room. She managed to make herself a bed up from a childs air cot but when she woke the next morning from a very depraved sleep she saw 5 new faces all staring down at her!!!

Can somebody explain what this young girls crime was that she should be treated like this??? I would understand if she was drug dealing or a terrorist but she was coming to the UK for a holiday for heavens sake?? Is this the face we want to show to visitors/tourists? These appaling conditions? What happened to the hands across the sea bit? Allies in war? Trust me I know exactly how intimidating US customs can be they are terrifying but I am talking about the degrading way in which she was treated. Its perfect for real criminals but what about people who got a piece of paperwork wrong? And where does the responsibility of the airlines who are encouraging us to book online lie in all of this?

I am so angry and felt very responsible for this poor young girl who had been so excited talking to me on the phone just a few days earlier and who then faced another 10 hour flight back to LA on her own and was terrified of flying enough as it was! My son was not allowed to see her and for a grown lad of 23 was absolutely shattered by this experience and was beside himself in grief.

My two concerns are this. Why are our border agencies spending so much time on a young girl who had money and a return ticket when there are far more undesirables getting across our borders? Why was she treated so badly and on the same level as someone who had actually committed something much worse??

By the way Capot I agree with you as well. I travel a lot and in the main it is my passion but in recent years I actually find myself getting depressed worrying about going to the airport just to check in ~ it is my worst nightmare!! Again it is this "making you feel like a criminal" element. The officers who are really well trained in their jobs are the ones that are pleasant and have a sense of humour but can be firm and authoratative when it is necessary. The ones that are rude are the very unprofessional variety that have usually been under the thumb at home either by their spouses or parents and enjoy every minute of taking out their frustrations at work whilst in uniform!!!

Any response or similar experiences would be welcome. I feel the need to make a complaint about this. I don't think anyone knows what is happening to unsuspecting visitors who are denied entry. This must be against Human Rights surely?? Criminals actually do get treated better!!

Thanks for listening!

[A2QFI]

FOXXY. I am apalled at the content of your post. We aren't even 3rd World in our ability to handle people with dignity and respect. It is not just Borders Agency; relatives of mine were recently taken into custody. A dawn raid by 12 police in 3 cars. House searched, they were taken away in a van with 2 cages in the back;:yuk:15 hours in custody without food. One with a heart problem needing medication with food was allowed neither. This was for an tax matter, not drug dealing or kiddy porn.

UK is becoming worse than China and the former Eastern Europe in its repression of its citizens and visitors.

[Foxxy]

Hi there fellow East Midlander!!

I am still feeling sick to my stomach over what has happened. I really don't like transiting through the US but my son was made to feel so welcome over there. This is a nice girl from a good background and they haven't given any other reason for her to be sent back. The crazy thing is she was planning to come here anyway prior to meeting my son so I cannot understand their decision based on an unstable relationship??

Her return ticket was for 8 weeks. Australians are really good at accepting their kids go off "travelling" for at least a year, so are the Americans! Why was she under suspicion for wanting to be here for 8 weeks?? My son was going to take her off to Europe, he wanted to show her London such a wonderful dream for a 20 year old girl. I would understand if something bad had come up on her passport but that wasn't what was on the written document handed to her as reason for non-entry. We feel they suspected that she'd come here to work. I've watched lots of border control programmes on tv. Yes that's understandable when someone comes without funds but she had funds. She had a return ticket.

How sad is this? I sat and tracked her flight back to LA last night because I felt so responsible for her and it made me feel better knowing she had arrived home safe. I have yet to meet her but she has made my son very happy in a short space of time and as a mum I know this lady is very special to him and he is heartbroken. Nothing he could do or say to the immigration officer changed anything. Even though the answers they gave when questioned seperately matched up the officer told him that it was up to a (faceless) chief to make the final decision. I say faceless because by all rights this person doesn't get to meet the passenger in question. Doesn't get to talk to them just makes a decision based on the written word and the initial reason for stopping them which was that she wasn't carrying the return portion of the e-ticket which as I have already said airlines don't always offer until so many days or hours before the return journey!!

Aaaaagh! I feel so frustrated with everything about this dam country right now. Proud Brit? No way! Third world - you've got it!

[Tim00]

That's terrible, & here's a similar story from today's Independent newspaper letters section:
Letters: British embassy in Moscow - Letters, Opinion - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-british-embassy-in-moscow-1649492.html)

"My daughter, a British citizen and an Oxford University graduate, is currently teaching English in St Petersburg. She decided to invite her partner, Mr Alexei Sibikin, a Russian citizen, for a week's trip to the UK to show him the places where she grew up.
Mr Sibikin duly applied for a tourist visa to the UK. As requested, he provided his fingerprints, proof of his employment, payslips, my passport, my personal payslips from Glasgow University (is it not a breach of data protection that the UK visa authorities demand this?) and my invitation, where I expressly stated that I would fully finance the week's trip.
The application was turned down, allegedly because the Russian applicant "had not proven that he can finance the journey". The justification was a blatant lie, considering that I offered to pay for everything. Subsequently, I spent almost a day trying to phone the UK embassy in Moscow. It was a nightmarish experience. No one will give you a name. No one will put you through to a higher authority. The telephone exchange puts you through to extensions which ring out without anyone answering them. There are long minutes of meaningless pre-recorded messages. People who wish to enquire about the fate of their application are expected to phone a premium line which costs 70 roubles (£1.50) per minute. The first several minutes or so are taken up with pre-recorded gobbledygook.
You may conclude that no one in the UK is interested in how arrogantly and inefficiently the British diplomatic service behaves to non-British citizens."
Tim.

[SLF3b]

The experience you describe is neither unique nor new, though it is shameful. A friend had a very similar experience at Heathrow many years ago, though in the end they let her in. The best part was WE had to sign a form saying that she had not been maltreated in any way BEFORE we were allowed to speak to her or they would release her.

[montag]

I frequently get a firm interrogation from an unsmiling official at US immigration, but I have never experienced anything like this. Sadly it is not unique at UK ports of entry. A few weeks before Poland joined the EU, a Polish friend was refused entry and sent home. He crime was to speak poor English and when interviewed to say that she was staying for a week when she meant a month. We promptly got her turned round in Poland and back into the UK through another port, accompanied by an English speaker within twenty-four hours.

You have to wonder what sort of person denies someone entry, merely because they can. Or what sort of person would choose to make a career out of treating people like this merely on grounds or their race, nationality or justified by some minor paperwork error. They behave like this because they answer to no-one - often there is no-one in the UK to speak up for their victims.

The actions of the UK Border Agency and its employees make me deeply ashamed to be British.

[DCS99]

Foxxy

Was your son's friend Colombian with US Green Card by any chance?

I'm not stereotyping, just I have some personal experience.

[rothin]

Foxxy's story is shameful. Why on earth would a Californian want to live in the UK? It would explain why the immigration desks are empty though, the staff are all in the back office chatting up west coast girls.

[Foxxy]

DCS99 she was in fact Canadian now living in LA.

Ha ha ha Rothin I never thought of that but I think thats exactly what my son was probably doing before he met "the one"!!! Well, not in the airport back room offices but possibly on the wonderful beaches!!!

He too was questioned at LA border on arrival earlier this year simply because I suppose he is young and he is a boy and probably because .....well as you said who would want to live in England really if you've got the chance to be there with sun sea and.....enough said!!! They would have more reason to question him but it was over with very quickly and allowed to pass through. His return ticket was for nearly 3 months but that wasn't really questioned because as I said before they accept that when someone has just flown all that way they want to make the most of it. She was only going to be here 8 weeks and they weren't even going to be staying in the UK for most of that time!!

Are we just old fashioned here? The UK border agency whilst questioning my son after interviewing his girlfriend asked him why he was able to stay in LA for that amount of time?? Are they mad?? Most young people take time out - so do some of us oldies come to think of it - what is so bad about that???

It doesn't surprise me some of the answers I have had back that others have experienced this. I just wish there was something that could be done about it - any ideas anyone?? I read a thread further up where someone said we all sit back and say yes sir, yes please, bring it on and never do we complain - well, we do but its usually on forum's like this or in the pub but where do we actually go to bring this to the attention of the people that matter???

I can't get over the fact that this poor girl saved long and hard for the air fare of which was $600!!! What a holiday!!! 20 hours of flying and another 15 hours of passing through and waiting around airports - Bargain!!!!! Surely the airline should be bought to task over not giving enough information. Maybe the safety of booking through Travel Agents will start to come back into fashion!! Then you've got someone real to blame instead of a computer screen!!!

Maybe its time more checking was done on passengers at the start of the journey. At least that way if something was wrong it could be corrected and you could travel knowing you would reach your destination and be able to stay there. If these customs officers are so highly trained they should surely be aware of what is required for every entry port?? So, if documentation was missing or health requirements not adhered to you would know before you started your long journey? Why would that be so difficult?

Hey ho more comments would be appreciated!!

Off to the pub to put the world to rights!!!

[Hartington]

However much sympathy I may feel for the young lady and whatever my own issues with UKBA I feel that we can only receive a one sided view of the incident here. As such any judgement about the rights and wrongs of the case will be flawed.

I would, however, take issue with one statement:

as she hadn't printed off her return ticket (which by the way isn't always possible as you can only do this within a set period prior to flying online)

That is plain wrong. It is ALWAYS possible to get a copy of the ticket at any time after it has been booked and issued. If you don't know how then phone the travel agency or airline. With the possible exception of domestic travel or travel within Schengen it is a requirement that you carry a copy of your ticket (not the itinerary - the ticket showing the ticket number, fare, flights, endorsements etc). In the end this is the only immediate "proof" that the immigration officer has of your intention to leave the country you are trying to enter.

[montag]

And if the Immigration Officer had been in a better mood he could have called the airline, confirmed the return ticket was booked, given some advice on the paperwork to bring next time and welcomed her to the UK. It would have delayed her about 10 minutes. What happened instead is despicable.

[Hartington]

I'll say it again; we only have one side of the story. I, for one, refuse to condemn UKBA based on what I've read here.

[Capot]

Hartington

I strongly suspect that the document that the lady couldn't print off except within a certain time before the flight is her boarding pass, and that this is being confused with the booking confirmation, which is in turn being confused with a "ticket".

Noting that the UK is outside the Schengen area, and that all you get from most airlines' websites is the booking confirmation with a reference and information about what you paid and why, T&Cs etc etc, you are not entirely correct in your assertions about "tickets".

And, do you know the downside of always looking for the "other side" of a perfectly clear story, and thus being permanently perched on a fence?

Your testicles atrophy. (Well, they do if you're a male.)

The lady was treated appallingly badly. There is not "other side" to that fact.

Whatever the reason for her detention and deportation, the UKBA's behaviour and treatment of her should result in criminal charges aganist those involved. If the detention and deportation were not justified, that would make it all a whole lot worse.

Unfortunately the UKBA's track record leads us to assume that it was probably not justified; but that is not the issue here.

[davedog]

Capot,

Your views are based on assumptions. What facts can you bring to the arena. What first hand information do you have access to? I will answer that for you none. If she did not satisfy the immigration rules you do not get in, or what is the point of having them. It was a bit harsh that she was detained pending the removal, but one again the facts are not available for us to make judgment. Why should UKBA's behaviour and treatment be questioned when exercising the law.

Capot says "My lord we should bring criminal proceeding against the UKBA?" Why asked the Judge. Capot says 'It is not right!' The Judge asks present your evidence Capot. Capot replies "What evidence!"

Things are not perfect at the border, but at least give them the opportunity to be fairly judged. People in public office who then do break the law should then be punished.

Montag,

The onus on the passenger to provide the relevant documentation when seeking entry into the UK.

Regards

Davedog

[herman the crab]

On everyone of my numerous trips to the US - roughly once a month on average some times over the past 12 years I have without fail been treated with politeness and respect and mostly cheerful INS/customs staff.

I wish I could say the same about my returns to the UK...

HTC.
British citizen, non green card holder/alien

[Hartington]

Capot, I'm not sitting on the fence. If I had both sides of the story and refused to make a judgement then you could accuse me of fence sitting, etc. I have one side of the story and without the other I simply refuse to make a judgement.

As far as documentation is concerned I think you are probably correct to the extent that people in general fail to distinguish between a boarding pass, a ticket, a confirmation and an itinerary (there are probably more terms/documents but I can't think of more right now).

What you seem to fail to understand is that if you are travelling with an IATA airline (and she almost certainly was) then resolution 722 requires the agent/airline to provide a paper copy of the e-ticket. It very carefully lays out what data items that document shall contain. I don't have the exact wording to hand because I'm currently in the US.

There is always a way of getting hold of a copy of that document before you leave and I strongly recommend you do so. I have recently entered Hong Kong, New Zealand and the USA. Hong Kong and New Zealand didn't ask for my ticket, USA did. Because I had my copy I had no hassle but I'm aware of people who, because they did not have the paper copy were deported from the USA. The story I was told was that the sole reason for refusal of entry was lack of an e-ticket piece of paper - I have no way of knowing the truth of the statement.

In the past I have been asked for tickets in several countries. It used to be easy; to travel you had to have a ticket ergo (unless you lost it) you were able to produce it to immigration. Nowadays with e-tickets problems such as the one we are discussing do occur. Although the airline has to provide you a copy it is your responsibility to make sure you have a copy of the document to present on request/demand.

If you want me to speculate I would guess that the inability of the young lady to produce the e-ticket was simply one item in a chain that caused UKBA to refuse entry.

[Capot]

Davedoq and Hartington,

You've missed the point I was making.

Here it is again......

Whatever the reason for her detention and deportation, the UKBA's behaviour and treatment of her should result in criminal charges The detailed description of the lady's treatment rings true, I am afraid, and is sufficient evidence for me.

It is the treatment meted out to her (and all other detainees and deportees) that is so appalling, not the fact that she was detained and deported. Although my suspicion is that this was not justified under the law, I'm happy to wait to see if someone can prove that it was.

Incidentally, I enjoyed the way that your admonishment for making assumptions is followed by What first hand information do you have access to? I will answer that for you none.

[qwertyplop]

Hi Foxxy - you really lucked out - fancy coming to a pilots forum for a moan about immigration.....:ooh:

So, and with respect, some questions for context if you don't mind?

1) Which part of a passport contains the details of return ticketing?

2) As you clearly had access to the officers contemporanous notes from the interview he/she conducted, your sons friend will have signed them to confirm they were accurate as well, was she asked similar questions to those that your son was asked and that were also recorded for the record?

3) Did those answers match? You say they did but where is your evidence? That's a rhetorical question.

4) Your assertion that some officers are 'under the thumb' at home is based on what exactly? (Have you met my wife for example?) :hmm: That part of your argument is rather amusing and true of my wife. :ok: But seriously, we are subject to the same complaints procedures as the police, it's just not worth the aggro of an investigation.

5) HMRC Officers do not conduct 'refuse leave to enter' casework.

6) The 'caged truck' is nothing of the sort. I presume you saw it and rode in it? Or was it what you were told? The cage is where the luggage usually goes. It is locked but that's because its used in an airside environment and around the aprons.

7) The overnight facility at LHR is what the prisons inspector (who sadly has responsibility for this part of the detention estate) has deemed suitable for such purposes, it is reviewed regularly and sometimes it is criticised and remedial work has to be undertaken. 'Detention' was authorised because apparently she was in breach of the immigration rules and not admissible to the UK and her return to her point of embarkation was imminent. Therefore, are you suggesting that there should be a tiered system for sorting out detention for some and hotels for others? How would that work? Who would pay for it?

8) Is it not reasonable for her to have sought advice on what the entry requirements were for the UK for someone in her position, where any doubt existed, is it reasonable that she obtained a visa before she left? Because this is possible. I've done it myself in my gap year many, many years ago.

What happened, if it happened and feel free to read between the lines, was unfortunate for her. Her credibility, the basis of an immigration officers work in such cases, was questionable from the sounds of it. But what happened is fully auditable if you have her permission and she wishes to follow up on it. If you are unhappy abut the officers conduct, you should complain. If you want an explanation of the decision, you are entitled to it with her help, if you have issues with what happened to her post refusal then you have the right to take it up. I have to be honest though, it sounds all a bit far fetched and I still don't understand why you've ended up on this website given your limited posting history. C'est La Vie though. :)

Your last paragraph is interesting;

Any response or similar experiences would be welcome. I feel the need to make a complaint about this. I don't think anyone knows what is happening to unsuspecting visitors who are denied entry. This must be against Human Rights surely?? Criminals actually do get treated better!!

1) Who have you complained to within UKBA? (other than to the users of a specialist website - PPRUNE)

2) I think people are well aware of what happens to those who are inadmissible to the UK, does anyone else think they go to 5 star hotels? Or do they get held in situ and removed at the first opportunity? Or is it easier to not think about it?

3) Which Human Right are we talking about?

4) Criminals are treated within the rule of law as would have been your sons friend - if not - you know what you must do.

Best,

QP :)

[qwertyplop]

Montag wrote;

You have to wonder what sort of person denies someone entry, merely because they can. Or what sort of person would choose to make a career out of treating people like this merely on grounds or their race, nationality or justified by some minor paperwork error. They behave like this because they answer to no-one - often there is no-one in the UK to speak up for their victims.

The actions of the UK Border Agency and its employees make me deeply ashamed to be British.

Balderdash Montag, cockwaffle in fact.

No-one can be refused entry on the grounds that the officer can and simply will.

It has to be authorised and each decision is checked and double checked and it has to comply with the immigration rules. If it is wrong, it is overturned and decisions do get overturned. My colleagues and I are answerable to EVERY court in the land in additon to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, internal regulation and external scrutiny.

How much oversight do we need?

More?

Exactly what?

Over to you.....

Best,

QP

[montag]

Obviously there is some discretion because it is possible to be refused entry at one port and admitted at another twenty-four hours later, with exactly the same account and documents. In the case of Foxxy's son's girlfriend that discretion was used to refuse her, unless you disbelieve Foxxy's account, for failing to bring a paper copy of an e-ticket; even though the return booking could be confirmed by the airline.

That a decision may be checked within UKBA can give no confidence whatsoever, and the right to make an application to a court is of little use to someone who has already been removed and can not find the costs of instructing a solicitor in London. At least if you are in the UK you can make an court application in person (assuming you are not languishing in one of our ever increasing number of immigration prisons, about which Ms Owers is frequently rightfully scathing), have access to legal aid and to a number of organisations which can assist.

The only oversight which I could see being effective is for UKBA to have no powers to refuse, detain or remove anyone without the consent of a court hearing, at which the subject would be represented, at the taxpayers expense where necessary. Of course it would then be necessary to admit arrivals and summon them to get them into court, but that would give them time to take advice and prepare their cases. The magistrates courts seem capable of getting people to turn up when summoned, and one imagines that failure to wouldn't help any subsequent application for leave to remain.

The real problem is that the great British people are non too keen on immigration, and perceive the 40 minute queue at Heathrow, surly immigration officers and the ever increasing number of immigration prisons as the Government being tough on immigration, without seeing the human cost or the cost to the UK's international reputation.

I do hope that Foxxy and her son's girlfriend pursue a complaint or litigation against the UKBA and the individual officers involved in her son's girlfriend's mistreatment, with appropriate legal support. She may well want to put this behind her and never visit the UK again, but if faceless officials are not held to account for their actions there will be nothing to discourage them from acting in this way again. A successful action would be a small step in the right direction.

[qwertyplop]

Montag,

When I read your initial post, I suspected that there might be some underlying agenda to it and your clear response (thank you) makes me think I was right. It all sounds very 'No Borders'. Your proposal to cause a massive blockage in the criminal justice system makes your proposition unwieldy and unworkable.

The only oversight which I could see being effective is for UKBA to have no powers to refuse, detain or remove anyone without the consent of a court hearing, at which the subject would be represented, at the taxpayers expense where necessary. Of course it would then be necessary to admit arrivals and summon them to get them into court, but that would give them time to take advice and prepare their cases. The magistrates courts seem capable of getting people to turn up when summoned, and one imagines that failure to wouldn't help any subsequent application for leave to remain.

This one paragraph is interesting to say the least. As a taxpayer myself, I would not be happy to fund such an arrangement and where the case justifies the action, temporary admission is already an option that is used now to great effect. Some comply and some do not. Why would your proposal be any more effective? If you were minded to come here and work, then so long as you don't get caught, you don't have a worry. Court or port absconder, the details of the offence committed by not returning to port or court are circulated in the same way. I'm unsighted as to why you think your way is any better other than to remove the mark one eyeball at the border that would stop an on-entry issue becoming an in-country issue.

And if you think granting everyone entry on the basis that they'll turn up in a court at a pre-determined date in the future to hear that they will be refused entry and removed that day would work, then please can you explain why there are so many absconders from our controls who were asked to do the exact same thing as a condition of their entry to the UK by returning to port on the day their ticket expired? Why did I spend 2 years of my formative early career working with the police to round up such miscreants? By that stage, many, NOT ALL OBVIOUSLY, had become involved in criminality and a burden to the community around them.

I think that a healthy debate around the issue of how we conduct our duties is correct incidentally. I also like to think I'm pretty open minded about my work, but I can't get my head around the practicalities of your post. You mention that UKBA's work shames you, I'm sorry you feel that way. I could mention the good work we do in terms of rescuing victims of trafficking, child exploitation and all of the myriads of criminal activity we disrupt and report upon but I suspect you would not be interested though. C'est la vie.

Yours aye,

QP

[Hartington]

I'd like to come back to the original point, if I may.

Yesterday at 1000 hrs I entered the UK through T1 at Heathrow. I was very pleasantly surprised. It's maybe 2 years since I used T1 when the queue was long and slow and the environment cramped. Yesterday the queue was non existent and what have they done with the immigration hall?

Now for the caveats.

1) We were first off our flight and I can only assume that there was no flight immediately in front of us.
2) Despite the fact that we got through quickly there were only 2 officers dealing with EU/UK entries and I can't help wondering what happened to the queue as soon as the bulk of the load on our aircraft arrived.
3) Despite the fact that the hall felt new the signage on the front of the inspectors desks looked like a "scratcher" had been at work (you know - delete a letter from a standard word to make a rude one).

and on a different note

When is the baggage hall at T1 due for improvement? (Maybe that's the subject of a separate thread).

[qwertyplop]

Life's inponderables eh Hartington?

YouTube - Border force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9ZDGHcufXE)

Our glorious leader speaks. :}

[Hartington]

Politicians? Imponderable? Never!

[Steviec9]

Out of idle curiosity – why do all arrivals from domestic or Irish flights have to be funnelled through the single file bypass corridor? At around 2.15pm daily, there are two Ryanair arrivals from Ireland and occasional Flybe/other domestic arrivals, disgorging around 300-400pax within 20 mins or so (it happens at other times of the day too). There is then a HUGE queue to go through the single manned domestic/ROI arrival channel whilst the UK Border Control desks lie empty, with staff even re-directing passport holders back to the domestic bypass channel and then sitting (smirking) watching the queue build up. There is always a holdup as many people have passports ready for inspection, rather than the remnant boarding card. It seems a ludicrous situation and I’m tempted to ask why UK/EU citizens showing valid passports are being denied entry to the UK via the main Border Control point. Many people have taken to ‘losing’ their boarding cards so they have to go via Passport Control and skip the queue.:ugh:

[qwertyplop]

It's called the Common Travel Area (CTA) - there is no immigration requirement or need to carry a passport as you are deemed, if you are a foreign national, to have already been seen by the Guards or a UK IO, either or can authorise onward travel to the UK. If you are a Brit Cit, why would you go through immigration if it is a journey conducted within the CTA anyway? Moves are afoot to review this arrangement though.

UK Border Agency | Strengthening the common travel area (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/consultations/closedconsultations/strentheningthecommontravelarea/)

The checks in the part of the port you describe are conducted by the Cop's, pax do not go through the main hall as they may become mixed up with arriving international passengers.

I take the point that the immigration hall may be empty though but this is a Police requirement and that's that. The immigration component of UKBA has no requirement to see you as a consequence of the existence of the CTA, if you are directed back to the other channel it's because it's a Police requirement.

[Steviec9]

Thanks for the clarification. I am aware of the proposed change to the CTA and this may alleviate this situation at LGW if we all have to go through the main Border Control. Most (all?) pax have to travel with passports now anyway between UK/ROI when travelling by air to satisfy airline security (certainly using online checkin which most now do). In the meantime, I would hope that

(a) airlines could warn arriving pax they need their boarding card ready rather than a passport (although occasionally they check both, just to confuse everyone a bit more)
(b) LGW could go mad and put a second person on the domestic/ROI arrivals channel when it's busy....:rolleyes:

[qwertyplop]

Personally, I've seen as many photo driving licences as passports in the CTA channel.

Don't know/care what airlines do with boarding cards TBH and it's up to the Rozzers how many officers they choose to place in the channel rather than the airport. Sometimes they attend and sometimes they don't. Depends what's on Sky Sports I suppose. :oh:

(That was a joke before anyone get's their knickers knotted and rants about taxpayers, value for money, expenses, pensions, no-one getting sacked in the public sector when everyone else in the private sector is because everyone in the know knows the cops only have Setanta Sport in their office)

:cool:

[Foxxy]

OMG!!!! I have caused a major uprising!!! I have been away (through Geneva which was a delight by the way) and come back to this!!!

The information I gave came through the party it happened to. I past it on exactly as it was said to me. I have nothing to gain from lying as I wanted to get some advice. I have nothing personal against what our immigration officers do and I am glad they are beginning to do the job they should have done 20 years ago then this country wouldn't be in the mess it is in today!! Its just a shame it seems to be towards the wrong people because only last night I was watching a programme about 3 men over here illegally dealing in drugs and fraud....guess what they got in through Heathrow....was that because the UKBA were too busy sending young girls with bikini's in their cases and a dream in their hearts back to their country of origin??? I find it quite laughable!!!

However to answer: A teired accommodation system for illegal immigrants (remembering of course this young lady was coming on holiday and didn't see herself as illegal) . So you think it is ok for a young girl who isn't carrying drugs, firearms and is not of any threat to this nation whatsoever to be detained in a room without any facilities, overnight, expected to sleep upright in a chair having just done 10 hours on a flight with all the stress involved with that and then interviewed on and off for another 7 hours, terrified, tired and hungry! I don't think being given a bed for the night would be out of the way?? Even someone "banged up" in a police station gets the privilege of one phone call, a solicitor, food, drink and a BED!!

The truck was metal with a locked cage and all 11 were transported standing up in it to be tested for TB - good job no one coughed she might have gone back home with more than a mark in her passport!

My son did answer the questions exactly right and this was cofirmed to him however he told the officer that his girlfriend had picked her clothes up from her house in one part of the city where she lives but it turned out she told them she picked up her clothes from her mum's. Actually she did both but the officer told my son this constituted a lie. Excuse me did I get this right....what the hell does where she pick her clothes up from have to do with the security of our borders????

This was after they hadn't produced the paper ticket, however their flight information was electronically tagged to their passport. Please don't tell me its not because my son entered the States with no paper return ticket just the reservation document which he wasn't asked to produce because the officer read out his return date to him so that must have been picked up when his passport was scanned. They also told my sons girlfriend at Heathrow that they needed her passport again just to re-check her return flight.

"qwertyplop" if you weren't so damed hell bent on proving your amazing use of the queens English in your stiff upper lip manner you might actually see it from the point of the common man who is trying to say that this young girl did not deserve this treatment. She was treated exactly the same way as some drug dealer about to try and enter our country to distribute his/her wares to our unsuspecting children ~ NO actually she was treated worse because if someone had arrived to do that they probably would have been "Banged up" in a cell overnight that had a dam bed in it. That's what I mean about Human Rights there is a difference between illegal immigrants who come here with intent and illegal immigrants who come here not knowing that they are!!!

She is now stuck with this mark in her passport and it is going to cause her great trouble where ever she travels and I cannot help but feel so sorry for this poor young girl because at her age thats exactly what she should be doing. Exploring this great world of ours and feeling the freedom of youth to be able to do that - now she is labelled a criminal because she picked up her clothes from the wrong home and relied on the great powers of our technology to get her to into a country without a piece of paper which we are all being told to save on these days thats why we are all told we are going electronic................:ugh:

Why can't we go back to being issued with proper airline tickets? They were so much nicer. They made you feel like you'd purchased something very special and at least you got all the right information with them as well. Paperless - huh what a load of Green twaddle at the end of the day they still ask for the paperwork:confused:

Still, maybe the best thing happened to her in the end - I don't think Britain is so great anymore I wouldn't come here given the choice knowing what I know - there are much nicer places in the world and actually she lives in one of them - so yes, why on earth would they think she would want to stay here?????

YES why did I come to this site for pilots just to almost be called nothing less than a liar?? The only one that actually makes any sense is CABOT because he obviously understands the art of seeing both sides even though only one side is offered.

I give up, all I wanted was some simple advice to find out if this has ever happened to anyone before and if so where can I go to complain? Instead I just get shouted down for no reason so I will leave you lot to keep arguing, it seems that's all you come on here for and what you do best I'm glad I gave you something more to argue about ~ do you ever run out of subjects?? - Obviously when you are not flying you have nothing better to do than get down to a good old banter with each!! :D

Thanks to those that did help.

Foxxy

[qwertyplop]

I'm not disagreeing with you Foxxy, I would have been very happy to have a chat about general principles but I don't engage with people who seemingly are content with throwing insulting names around and have a default position of 'Rude'.

:rolleyes:

[Capot]

Since starting this thread I have been through T4 twice and, last night through LGW South Terminal at 1720 or so on the way back to UK. I've also used Bristol, Exeter and Glasgow.

T4 remains the badly-organised, badly-run mess that caused me to rant on in the first place.

LGW South Terminal, yesterday, made T4 look like the epitome of a well-run airport.

Six or seven hundred people herded into a wide, poorly-lit corridor, surrounded by scaffolding and plastic. At the end of this queue, slowly shuffling along, there was a sharp right turn. One channel, it turned out, was for people from CI and Ireland, who appeared to be being let through a doorway, one by one, by an official. But it was difficult in the crush to see what was really going on. However, those trapped in the mass of people had no way of knowing that they should be trying to go that way if they came from those places, so they simply stayed in the general mass and shuffled towards the passport check, only to be sent back to square 1 when they got there.

There were 2 out of 8 or 10 channels manned for people arriving from the EU and the rest of the world.

Chaos all round. Welcome to broken Britain.

The main hall was also held up by scaffolding, and was poorly lit.

The person in charge from UK Borders was simply telling people that he had not got enough staff and what was he supposed to do about that. He had 3 stripes, whatever that means.

As at T4, the fault lies equally with the BAA for thinking that such disgraceful facilities are acceptable in one tof the UK's supposedly gateway airports, and with the Borders agency for such appalling manning. The excuse of "not enough money, not enough staff" doesn't wash. The agency gets enough money; it uses it incompetently and then produces the mantra of "we need more" when told to perform better. But then the whole of the UK Civil Service does that.

[Steviec9]

Couldn't agree more - absolute bl00dy shambles at LGW South, typifying the UK public service attitude. Welcome to Broken Britain indeed.

Check out what's being said here:

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/369167-gatwick-passport-control-2.html

If they make it any easier for ne'er-do-wells to get in whilst refusing to have a joined up airline/airport operator/immigration agency policy towards arrivals, they might as well start selling vats of hydrogen peroxide at the duty free shop after customs.

[qwertyplop]

Fiction based on nothing in particular I'm afraid. Could either of you give me the benefit of your detailed understanding of the arrangements and laws governing the layout and execution of the controls based upon your little window of exposure to those controls?

I'm fascinated as it's nothing I've ever seen. :}

[Capot]

Nothing if not predictable, qwertyplop.

For the umpteenth time, can you not get in into your head that I and many others are not complaining about, not even talking about the laws that govern the immigration process. They are like death and taxes, inevitable, even if they actually achieve very little.

It's the absolutely filthy, badly maintained, badly laid out and badly managed premises in which the process is carried out that are so unnecessary, as is the bad management of the manning of these facilities.

Can you ever understand that? You do NOT have to go on and on about how necessary the process is. That is not the issue.

And don't you dare to assume, you arrogant .............whatever, that you know more about it than another poster. You have shown clearly that you have a very limited perspective.

Afterthought; what really riles me is that even in an arrivals channel at BAA airports, after you have endured the c**p that's thrown at you on the way through, they still put one of their stupid shops in the way as you exit from Customs. WHY? Who the hell thinks, "Ah, I'll just pick up some over-priced alcohol, just what I need after taking nearly an hour to get through Immigration and collect a bag". Jeeesus.

[Capot]

Another afterthought....

A few years ago I gave a friend I happened to run into in the chaos at LGW before Immigration my boarding card from Jersey, as he was in a hurry having just landed from the Middle East. He went through that Channel, and I went through the passport channel.

Can you still do that? Or is it prevented by qwertyplop's magic and mystical one-way mirrors and invisible controls? I do know that many of the passengers from Ireland last night simply showed their passports to get through that channel rather than confront the scrum to go the other way, because I was in the middle of a group that did just that, so I guess it still works the other way round as well, if you have a boarding pass. It would be useful to know.

[qwertyplop]

Capot, all very interesting but lost on me the second you go into 'rude' mode. If this is how you behave towards total strangers in a public forum then perhaps you reap a little of what you sow.

I happily do assume I know more about it than you, I understand everything you say but your misinformed diatribe and wide of the mark insults see to it that I can't take you all that seriously. I conduct the controls and I also travel internationally, therefore of course it follows that I know more than you. No-one is that misinformed surely but hey, the little world of you is a very pleasant place to spend time I guess?

Like I said before, everything that's said here is informative and worthwhile so far as I'm concerned. Travellers like you are of no interest to me professionally and I'd rather not have to look at you at all if I'm honest, there are bigger fish to fry. I hope e-Borders gives you the relief you seek.

What a shame that we could not have an informative and enjoyable narrative running through this thread, we agree on so much actually.
Good day to you. :)

[Steviec9]

I hope e-Borders gives you the relief you seek.


It will (well, for me anyway - I just want to get to the station asap).

When?

I'll make no further comment on immigration issues generally as I'm not interested in the policy. I know that UKBA are not responsible for the CTA arrivals scrum at 2.30pm every day and I would raise it with a police officer if I'd ever seen one, unless the very polite, elderly gentlemen, in mufti who normally mans the channel is undercover..;)

[qwertyplop]

Sometimes things happen for good reasons and those reasons are not always accessible to the general public I guess and it's something that I take for granted and don't really give a lot of thought to. There's stuff you just don't need to know. Same in all our professions I think....

Personally, I always read these types of threads as they are informative and I'm never to old or long in the tooth to learn where appropriate, may I thank everyone who debated in that spirit.

Happy Easter. :ok:

[Capot]

Qwertyplop

I accept your admonitions with as much equanimity as I can muster; you seem a little fragile about criticism but aren't we all.

What I simply do not buy is the idea you are trying to put across that the dreadful treatment meted out to arriving passengers in T4 and LGW South, to name but two BAA airports, is explained by some higher purpose that we are not allowed to know about, as the little people who should simply endure it and shut up.

All this nonsense...

things happen for good reasons and those reasons are not always accessible to the general public There's stuff you just don't need to know.is just patronising horse**** on a puerile level ("I'm in the know and you aren't, so there"), and in no way whatsoever accounts for the fact that the premises are worse than most third-world airports and the management, by BAA as well as UKBA, of their staff and the process is awful.

There simply is no plausible excuse fror the scenes which are enacted daily in these places. I take it that you are a UKBA employee, and see it as necesary to defend the indefensible, but please spare us the dark hints about unspecified things that "we don't need to know", which simply insult our intelligence.

PS I really would appreciate your advice as to whether one can still swap boarding cards before confronting Immigration controls at LGW South; it seemed very possible to me the other day, watching the way the scrum was mixing passengers from the EU, C.I. and Ireland, and - I guess - other parts of the world.

[TightSlot]

Keep it cool please guys...

[Final 3 Greens]

Seem to me there are two things here.

- stuff that affects passengers, such as poor service

- stuff that falls under the category of 'need to know'

The second should be of no concern to pax, but neither should it be used as an excuse for the appalling service delivery at the London airport, by all the players.

[qwertyplop]

FTG, I agree wholeheartedly.

I do not recognise all of Capot's perspective, although some of it rings true and despite constant reassurance that I agree with some of his/her points, he/she still fails to grasp the rudimentary principles of human interaction - I listen to you and you listen to me. We may disagree but we do it with respect.

I've tried to surmise, through engaging with him/her, just what the issue is but unfortunately he/she just reverts to bad language, rudeness and insults and telling me I know nothing while continuing to blame my employer for the poor state of every aspect of every airport he/she ever enters.

In all seriousness, I tolerate unpleasantness and rudeness no more in here than I would if we were sat in the same room together.

The fact that he/she cannot accept that things go on of which he/she need have no knowledge and may go some way to explain why staffing looks amiss to the travelling public is to demonstrate a level of ignorance and self importance that ends my interaction with him/her forthwith.

Some people.....:ugh: