Originally Posted by
SecondDog
This just shows how the general view of it being a shambles is based on no knowledge of what was planned or what the scale of the let-down was.
That was the reason I suggested above that people are taking the problem out of context.
Trust me, the airport had scheduled enough lanes from early enough to manage the high volume of Sat morning departures. That these lanes were not available was the problem (and as has been made pretty clear already, this was from a contractor not being able to staff adequately to meet the requirement)
I realise the plain and simple nature of the problem is not quite juicy enough for some of you but there you have it.
I think that is far too complacent a view, SecondDog.
The fact is that you cannot simply point the finger of blame at ''
a contractor not being able to staff adequately to meet the requirement''. This is a key aspect and responsibility matter of airport management and it is to them that pax should look in the event of any issues at all.
The fact that there is an outsourced contract for security - as is normal at airports - does do not let the airport off any hook whatsoever. There are contracts in force which will specify in minute detail the service standards required of the provider and the penalties for not meeting them. Such matters are called ''Service Level Agreements'' (''SLAs'').
Instead of defending or trying to excuse the Airport in regard to the indefensible (when it has quite rightly been called a shambles - and on a number of occasions too) the appropriate thing for you would be to accept that there is an important issue which requires to be addressed. I believe that the key thing would be to ask what the airport has done and is doing about enforcing the service level agreement standards with the contractor. Service Standards which must be at all times WHOLLY suitable and adequate.
To try and excuse the airport is ridiculous.