HEATHROW
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Minneapolis MN USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my trade of fixing engineering cockups, it is often more difficult to persuade management to bring in a fresh mind than it is to fix the bloody mess. And I have never heard the lot who invented the mess admit their mistakes.
So Airbusses ignored TOGA unless you pushed the magic button, and machines eat luggage placed in their care. I think DEN had the same situation when they fired up their computerized system, only they discovered the problems while they were testing the system.
So Airbusses ignored TOGA unless you pushed the magic button, and machines eat luggage placed in their care. I think DEN had the same situation when they fired up their computerized system, only they discovered the problems while they were testing the system.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HK, Tokyo and Singapore
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
lhr airside
re getting waterworld groupies to load bags - they don't possess airside passes and at the moment in nothing works UK it is taking 6-7 weeks for new cabin crew to be processed through the checks to get an airside id. So no chance for the latte mob in an emergency.
As an aside, whilst i pray t5 helps solve this baggage problem, a chat with a TRM recently revealed that the a trial where by 2000 bags were checked in and delivered to the aircraft failed. NOt one bag made it in time for the fictional departure.
As an aside, whilst i pray t5 helps solve this baggage problem, a chat with a TRM recently revealed that the a trial where by 2000 bags were checked in and delivered to the aircraft failed. NOt one bag made it in time for the fictional departure.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: cork
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The easy "Ryanair" type solution is make the passengers carry their luggage to the aircraft. Indeed I can remember in the late 70's or early 80's having to pick up my hold luggage at the steps of the Cork to London BA trident and hand it over to be loaded. This was due to "the troubles" in northern Ireland. Only difficulty is how do you security check the baggage....! Maybe all the people not handling the bags cos of the belt breakdown cud do it. They have airside passes etc.
I travelled through T4 just once on my way from YVR to CDG and I will never, ever do that again - the journey from T3 to the T4 gate was simply the poorest managed, ill-staffed, unfriendly I have ever experienced anywhere, anytime at any airport including transfers at Toronto. Huge long line-ups with only two security lines open, no toilets, hallways festooned with cast-off "illegal" plastic whatevers and one set of security staff talking about shutting their booth/detector until they thought the better of it when "word" spread down the line... It is an atrocious assault on the traveller who simply wishes to pay his/her little all for a journey from here to there.
Frankly speaking, I know people now who are actually willing to board a ship on the North American east coast to make a civilized crossing to Europe than take an airliner into such cauldrons, and that isn't even "lo-cost" treatment. I know...you're "buying time" and business is important isn't it, not convenience, and even half a day in line like cattle is better than a day at sea being served comfortably and civily....
Hmm....
Frankly speaking, I know people now who are actually willing to board a ship on the North American east coast to make a civilized crossing to Europe than take an airliner into such cauldrons, and that isn't even "lo-cost" treatment. I know...you're "buying time" and business is important isn't it, not convenience, and even half a day in line like cattle is better than a day at sea being served comfortably and civily....
Hmm....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual BAA prove how incompetant they are
Just like their handling of PAX following BA38 crash BAA couldn't handle a p..s up in a Brewery! Interesting that many of the people bemoaning BAA this time are the same people that said the PAX from BA38 should be just thnakful to be alive and not complain about the treatment post the crash. How things change!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2,
I sympathise with your views.
Unfortunately London Heathrow far from being our showpiece airport has been a hotbed of union discontent/bloody mindedness exacerbated by incompetent management for many years. Our dithering government don't help any either.
It might be preferable to plan to close Heathrow eventually and start again with an international interlining airport elsewhere on the Thames if we can ever get the flora and fauna groups to agree that commonsense must prevail? I don't hold out much hope of that!!
I sympathise with your views.
Unfortunately London Heathrow far from being our showpiece airport has been a hotbed of union discontent/bloody mindedness exacerbated by incompetent management for many years. Our dithering government don't help any either.
It might be preferable to plan to close Heathrow eventually and start again with an international interlining airport elsewhere on the Thames if we can ever get the flora and fauna groups to agree that commonsense must prevail? I don't hold out much hope of that!!
It doesn't take computer sytems and complicated handling equipment to lose baggage. My son was working airside at T2 last week and, in 1 hour, he saw five seperate incidents of baggage falling off trolleys on the way out to aircraft. Presumably this will get even worse with more passengers and baggage being bussed longer distances during the rebuilding work on T2
Paxing All Over The World
Whilst we are all give BAA a good kicking ...
EagleStar
Interesting, a teenage boy wearing a hooded sweat shirt shows more of his face than a Roman Catholic nun. Better bar the nuns. 
lowlypax
It is my view that BAA cannot be blamed for this, neither it's previous or current owners. The Conservative Party sold off LHR saying that it would then regulate through the CAA. The CAA have singularly failed to do so.
By whom? As long as the money comes in, their shareholders don't care. The CAA? The govt?
EGLL is a license to print money and it was sold off as a short term financial gain. Let's identify the politicians who sold it off but, wait, they are no longer on the scene and will blame the CAA. Can we identify the people in CAA who have let it slide in the past 20 years? I doubt it very much.
So, will pax go elsewhere?
Some will and many transit pax will, but those who live within a 75 mile radius? And that is why it is a license to print money.
EagleStar
BTW - No hoodies allowed in T5 aka Bluewater 2
lowlypax
bearing in mind that it is the first thing new visitors to the UK see, it is a disgrace that it has been allowed to become so shabby
As far as BAA performance goes people have to be held accountable
EGLL is a license to print money and it was sold off as a short term financial gain. Let's identify the politicians who sold it off but, wait, they are no longer on the scene and will blame the CAA. Can we identify the people in CAA who have let it slide in the past 20 years? I doubt it very much.
So, will pax go elsewhere?
Some will and many transit pax will, but those who live within a 75 mile radius? And that is why it is a license to print money.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Milton Keynes
Age: 62
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes... I'm sure T5 will be superb!
I am an unfortunate who has started working on T4, it is ready to be closed down for the transfer of BA to T5 and ready to accept the star alliance crowd including US carriers.
There are many jobs to do and it will be a much better terminal when it is finished.
Nuff Said. Give us engineers a break.
After all, we don't call you pilots useless wan**rs every time a plane crashes.
No one died, no one was injured. In fact it was in the interest of everyone to shut down operations to ensure that no unscreened baggage was passed clear to go on the aircraft.
Suppose there was a bomb and they resorted to manual handling, would you be happy with that ?
Contrary to popular belief, all hold baggage MUST pass a 5 level process of screening before it is allowed anywhere near an aircraft. If that system fails in any way and the baggage cannot be screened then they cannot be allowed on an aircraft.
Blame the terrorists for forcing the airports to have such stringent checks. But for gods sake don't complain when those systems go wildly wrong and just cannot perform. With the best will in the world things do go wrong and with the complexity of baggage systems you should count yourself lucky this is not a once a month occurrence. As it is the redundancy built it can cope most of the time, but every now and again it will fail big time.
Deal with it, these systems are for everyone's safety. Remember that when you call in and complain that you cant take off because a bulb that tells you someone's smoking in the toilets isn't working in the cockpit.
Last edited by blackace; 21st Feb 2008 at 00:47.
blackace;
I suspect every professional pilot on this forum will grant the respect engineers rightly deserve - it is upon the engineering professions' knowledge and expert skills and experience that we rest our substantial trust and we hope that they all got good marks at university!
I don't think it's the "workability" of the design but the infrastructure design in which work must be done, the "people management" aspect, and, frankly, trying to do a huge and complex job under-resourced: on-the-cheap. One can have a mausoleum, a monument-to-ego such as Toronto's Terminal One which Lou Terpen built, for whom we do not know, or you can have a run-o'-the-mill terminal which does not yet look like yet another ugly shopping mall and is actually an airport terminal - it is the design and subsequent management of resources and appropriate services for passengers which separates outright hatred of airline flying from mere strained tolerance. People will put up with a great deal if they know their needs are being respected and cared for even if it falls short. Many arrangements however, virtually shout disrespect for the traveller and it is that diffidence towards the very sources of revenue which makes such mausoleums and what-have-you's possible, that is making people actually consider POSH again...
I suspect every professional pilot on this forum will grant the respect engineers rightly deserve - it is upon the engineering professions' knowledge and expert skills and experience that we rest our substantial trust and we hope that they all got good marks at university!
I don't think it's the "workability" of the design but the infrastructure design in which work must be done, the "people management" aspect, and, frankly, trying to do a huge and complex job under-resourced: on-the-cheap. One can have a mausoleum, a monument-to-ego such as Toronto's Terminal One which Lou Terpen built, for whom we do not know, or you can have a run-o'-the-mill terminal which does not yet look like yet another ugly shopping mall and is actually an airport terminal - it is the design and subsequent management of resources and appropriate services for passengers which separates outright hatred of airline flying from mere strained tolerance. People will put up with a great deal if they know their needs are being respected and cared for even if it falls short. Many arrangements however, virtually shout disrespect for the traveller and it is that diffidence towards the very sources of revenue which makes such mausoleums and what-have-you's possible, that is making people actually consider POSH again...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Milton Keynes
Age: 62
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2
The system that failed today is nothing to do with passengers. It is a faceless system they never encounter. However, I do understand your comments when applied to Heathrow. As a passenger there myself I can see the concrete shoulder, hard nosed, wish I could have been a policeman crowd rule supreme there.
Infrastructure is rank, knock it all down and start again.
But while we cant do that we have to make what we have work. Some decisions are good, some are bloody terrible.
But be sure, there is a lot of complexity in the baggage systems that is never seen by most on this forum. Everything is done not to ensure baggage loss, but to make sure one of you guys doesn't get a rude awakening in the cockpit one day.
We are not immigrants on low pay (Baggage handlers excepted), we are highly paid engineers who take pride in our job. But every now and again things go wrong beyond the capacity of the systems. We are not talking about the VP or passenger scanners here, this is some hard nosed sophisticated equipment.
And when it goes wrong, I would rather cancel flights than let them take off with unscreened baggage. Wouldn't you ?
Geez, Just read GG's post number 2.
Not a friking clue about the real world.
There is a manual back up system in place, get yourself a £500,000 scanner. Validate it to BAA with at least 10,000 bags that all pass or fail correctly, build a conveyor system around it to handle multiple check ins terminals and airlines and one that accepts transfer baggage from other flights or early flight baggage that needs to sit in the system for 2 or 3 days, then purchase a level 3 and 4 scanner at £1,000,000 each and get that validated in a similar fashion and then convince the government that you are trustworthy and there is your manual system. Eventually I might just come and work for you.
Either that or get a train instead.
I am well paid and love my job, I make sure bombs do not get on planes and spend hours throwing semtex through scanners to make sure the worst never happens.
Manual System, Sheesh, yea right.
The system that failed today is nothing to do with passengers. It is a faceless system they never encounter. However, I do understand your comments when applied to Heathrow. As a passenger there myself I can see the concrete shoulder, hard nosed, wish I could have been a policeman crowd rule supreme there.
Infrastructure is rank, knock it all down and start again.
But while we cant do that we have to make what we have work. Some decisions are good, some are bloody terrible.
But be sure, there is a lot of complexity in the baggage systems that is never seen by most on this forum. Everything is done not to ensure baggage loss, but to make sure one of you guys doesn't get a rude awakening in the cockpit one day.
We are not immigrants on low pay (Baggage handlers excepted
), we are highly paid engineers who take pride in our job. But every now and again things go wrong beyond the capacity of the systems. We are not talking about the VP or passenger scanners here, this is some hard nosed sophisticated equipment.And when it goes wrong, I would rather cancel flights than let them take off with unscreened baggage. Wouldn't you ?
Geez, Just read GG's post number 2.
What's wrong with people reading the labels on the bags and putting them on the correct plane.? Gross incompetence in my opinion not to have a manual back up system in place.
There is a manual back up system in place, get yourself a £500,000 scanner. Validate it to BAA with at least 10,000 bags that all pass or fail correctly, build a conveyor system around it to handle multiple check ins terminals and airlines and one that accepts transfer baggage from other flights or early flight baggage that needs to sit in the system for 2 or 3 days, then purchase a level 3 and 4 scanner at £1,000,000 each and get that validated in a similar fashion and then convince the government that you are trustworthy and there is your manual system. Eventually I might just come and work for you.
Either that or get a train instead.
I am well paid and love my job, I make sure bombs do not get on planes and spend hours throwing semtex through scanners to make sure the worst never happens.
Manual System, Sheesh, yea right.
Last edited by blackace; 21st Feb 2008 at 01:49.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operational incompetence at BAA
It is little wonder that BAA is a shambles. If you look at their "senior management team" not one of them is an aviation professional, plenty of retailers and financial people. How can you run a business when you nothing about it? Ferrovial have destroyed BAA's finances by taking on huge debts to pay for the company in the first place. I have heard that the penny pinching going on is quite incredible! Anyway maybe Mr Nelson will go and recruit some people who know what they are talking about.
ps used LHR 3 weeks ago it was awful!
ps used LHR 3 weeks ago it was awful!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case anyone from BAA is reading this, I'm Brit-born, resident in NZ. I will now do almost anything to avoid Heathrow, aka sh1tehole of the universe. Specifically, we're making a trip to Europe in a couple of months. It would have been significantly cheaper to fly via LHR, but no way, Jose. Just a few hundred dollars to avoid that place -- a bargain.
Once upon a time, Air NZ operated into Gatwick. They complained at having to be made to move there, but even though Gatwick's taxi monopoly is a disgrace, I'd gladly choose an airline that flew there (or Stansted) rather than LHR.
Yes, blackace, it's difficult to run an airline and systems fail, but LHR is a pestilential hellhole even when everything is working normally, and no-one seems to have been given the idea that helping passengers is part of the deal. It's a relief to get on a bus.
Once upon a time, Air NZ operated into Gatwick. They complained at having to be made to move there, but even though Gatwick's taxi monopoly is a disgrace, I'd gladly choose an airline that flew there (or Stansted) rather than LHR.
Yes, blackace, it's difficult to run an airline and systems fail, but LHR is a pestilential hellhole even when everything is working normally, and no-one seems to have been given the idea that helping passengers is part of the deal. It's a relief to get on a bus.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, today BA is saying:
On Thursday 21 February, ALL transfer passengers through London Heathrow Terminal 4 should not bring luggage to be checked in as they will not be able to travel
On Thursday 21 February, all passengers starting their journey and checking in at London Heathrow Terminal 4 can check their luggage in as normal.
On Thursday 21 February, all passengers starting their journey from or transferring through London Heathrow Terminals 1, 2 or 3 can check their luggage in as normal.
So, if I arrive in T4 on KLM from AMS and want to transfer to BA long haul with checked bags, I will NOT be allowed to travel. However, if I arrive in T1 on BD from AMS, for instance, and want to transfer to BA long haul from T4 with checked bags, I WILL be allowed to travel?
By the way, if you want the above information from BA you have to log on or register for their site, it's not freely available news for all, and if you go on to the BAA site they say that everything should be OK today!
You couldn't make it up really, could you?!
Some questions:
I also seriously question why the UK actually wants it to be a premier hub for Europe. As emission regulations really begin to bite over the next few years it is likely to become a major liability to have large numbers of aircraft polluting one's country's low-level airspace. We should recognise this and be grateful that the Dutch and the French and the Germans seem both more willing and more able to shoulder this burden on Europe's behalf! If we accept that then there should really be no need for the "second Heathrow" being proposed for north of the A4, should there? Spend the money on a high speed monorail linking LHR, LGW and STN and run them as a single "virtual" airport I say........
(Edited to add website information above)
On Thursday 21 February, ALL transfer passengers through London Heathrow Terminal 4 should not bring luggage to be checked in as they will not be able to travel
On Thursday 21 February, all passengers starting their journey and checking in at London Heathrow Terminal 4 can check their luggage in as normal.
On Thursday 21 February, all passengers starting their journey from or transferring through London Heathrow Terminals 1, 2 or 3 can check their luggage in as normal.
So, if I arrive in T4 on KLM from AMS and want to transfer to BA long haul with checked bags, I will NOT be allowed to travel. However, if I arrive in T1 on BD from AMS, for instance, and want to transfer to BA long haul from T4 with checked bags, I WILL be allowed to travel?
By the way, if you want the above information from BA you have to log on or register for their site, it's not freely available news for all, and if you go on to the BAA site they say that everything should be OK today!
You couldn't make it up really, could you?!
Some questions:
- If T4 is going to be closed for conversion soon once T5 opens, why on earth change the baggage handling system there NOW?
- Normal good practice for any mission-critical IT system is to test, test and test again to ensure that any possibility of failure is reduced to negligible proportions; so what went wrong here?
I also seriously question why the UK actually wants it to be a premier hub for Europe. As emission regulations really begin to bite over the next few years it is likely to become a major liability to have large numbers of aircraft polluting one's country's low-level airspace. We should recognise this and be grateful that the Dutch and the French and the Germans seem both more willing and more able to shoulder this burden on Europe's behalf! If we accept that then there should really be no need for the "second Heathrow" being proposed for north of the A4, should there? Spend the money on a high speed monorail linking LHR, LGW and STN and run them as a single "virtual" airport I say........
(Edited to add website information above)
Last edited by Seloco; 21st Feb 2008 at 07:24.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes I think what separates Albion from Albania is the whinging.
Yes, airport management sucks. And, these days, when something fails groundside, the whole system has lost elasticity, so that the results are rather inconvenient for the people involved.
That doesn't make LHR any less of a pit, to be avoided at all costs.
Okay. So you've got some expensive scanners and even more expensive v&v.
Figure how much that costs. Now go figure out how much the current failure is costing every day in terms of load factors, compensation and lost business. Those scanners and red tape are chump change. So perhaps you could explain why the claim of "Security" is anything but a red herring?
On the other hand, there's the conveyor system and the sorting system. Now here's the technological marvel, and this is the one that cost DEN so much money. It is conceivable that these things are designed extremely efficiently, such that it would be prohibitively difficult in terms of training, cost and maneuvering space to keep enough people around in case it fails. And if it fails, it costs a huge amount of money. That makes it a system that "cannot fail".
So what have I missed? Either you have a system that can fail, in which case some backup should be in place, or you have one that cannot fail, in which case it doesn't.
Yes, airport management sucks. And, these days, when something fails groundside, the whole system has lost elasticity, so that the results are rather inconvenient for the people involved.
That doesn't make LHR any less of a pit, to be avoided at all costs.
There is a manual back up system in place, get yourself a £500,000 scanner. Validate it to BAA with at least 10,000 bags that all pass or fail correctly, build a conveyor system around it to handle multiple check ins terminals and airlines and one that accepts transfer baggage from other flights or early flight baggage that needs to sit in the system for 2 or 3 days, then purchase a level 3 and 4 scanner at £1,000,000 each and get that validated in a similar fashion and then convince the government that you are trustworthy and there is your manual system. Eventually I might just come and work for you.
Figure how much that costs. Now go figure out how much the current failure is costing every day in terms of load factors, compensation and lost business. Those scanners and red tape are chump change. So perhaps you could explain why the claim of "Security" is anything but a red herring?
On the other hand, there's the conveyor system and the sorting system. Now here's the technological marvel, and this is the one that cost DEN so much money. It is conceivable that these things are designed extremely efficiently, such that it would be prohibitively difficult in terms of training, cost and maneuvering space to keep enough people around in case it fails. And if it fails, it costs a huge amount of money. That makes it a system that "cannot fail".
So what have I missed? Either you have a system that can fail, in which case some backup should be in place, or you have one that cannot fail, in which case it doesn't.
By the way, if you want the above information from BA you have to log on or register for their site,
"Essential information for longhaul passengers departing from or transferring London Heathrow Terminal 4"
It takes you to the relevant information without any log in or registration.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wessex
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackace: I am well paid
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near the top of BA's website there's a link headed:
"Essential information for longhaul passengers departing from or transferring London Heathrow Terminal 4"
It takes you to the relevant information without any log in or registration.
"Essential information for longhaul passengers departing from or transferring London Heathrow Terminal 4"
It takes you to the relevant information without any log in or registration.