Belfast International-2
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Belfast
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mere warning shots across the bow. Every handler gets those just to keep you on your toes. Now 30 days notice thats the biggey. Thats the clear off lads and let someone else have a go... for cheaper again.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe up to 6 were finally opened..
Not sure if the CEO question is genuine or not?
G4S runs security at BHD, ICTS at BFS. So not an option, even if it was ICTS at BHD the process to get someone up in short notice and to get the relevant passes isn't easy / fast.. especially at the weekend.
The CEO question wasn't. Gi
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: N. Irish Sea
Age: 74
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by milleriom; 7th May 2018 at 06:53. Reason: Correcting a small typo
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having travelled through many airports over recent years. I find the security at BFS to be the slowest and most frustrating even off peak. So this is no surprise that the system collapses. They would need to get their act together. It's a no brainer I mean the more time spent in security the more pissed off passengers become and for every minute that a passenger is delayed in security is one minute less they will have time to spend money in the airport!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
So, when I said the airport had planned what was needed and the contractor let them down (very much at the 11th hour btw) what part of the fact that such provision is covered by an SLA that will allow the airport to roast the contractor after the fact means that the blame falls on the airport at 0400 when a number of people have reported sick for provision that is put in place for 0430?
I don't know if any of you know anything about the marketplace for provision of security at an airport but it is not plentiful. Nor is it something that can be changed at the drop of a hat. So while you are correct, the airport will review the events of the day with the contractor (and I expect these talks to have been full and frank to say the least) there are limited short term options as to what can be done.
Sure, all you guys who think you know all about aviation think you could do better/know better. Well, I call claptrap. Airport mgmt is entirely blameless when they have given instruction and it hasn't been followed. I also feel sorry for the contractor btw (or at least the decent staff) who get dealt a ****ty hand at best and who actually pulled things around on Saturday morning in a way which I cannot be bothered explaining because you guys would still run them down.
There are lots of ****ty comments about the security in BFS and how 'it is the worst anywhere'. I would say that some of the knowledge behind some of those opinions is flimsy at best. Did you ever think that some of the other places you go to aren't doing it right? I am fully aware that there are issues to overcome but they do not amount to the carnage you guys have described.
This will be my last post on this topic as we seem to go round in circles but such is your right to rage and mine to rebuff. C'est la vie, et la vie est belle.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly we work in a country where in excess of 70% of employees are not engaged with their employer. It is just a job, no loyalty. What can the contractor or airport do if , at the last minute, some not very committed staff call in at the last minute sick? You might say improve the package, not that easy when the pax going through security are the same people demanding lowest possible fares.
All sorts of issus, all linked, not quickly or easily resolved.
All sorts of issus, all linked, not quickly or easily resolved.
Airport mgmt is entirely blameless when they have given instruction and it hasn't been followed
Join Date: May 2011
Location: antrim
Age: 63
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can remember many years ago going through Harbour and all the staff were employed by Harbour Airport. There was a definite interest in making sure the passenger experience was happy as a complaint to management was going to be actioned. I believe Aldergrove may well have been the same perhaps? As far as I know now Harbour use Mitie for security?
Then along came the bean counters, suddenly outsourcing was the way forward. They knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Contracts were pared to the bone and beyond, workers terms and conditions were eroded, old company pensions are now just the bare legal minimum that a company can get away with. Result? Simple, you now have a workforce that couldn't give a toss, its just a job. They have no loyalty whatsoever, and who can blame them, as they can simply get another minimum wage job elsewhere. You have local management that couldn't give a toss, if 10 of your minimum wage staff workers walk away just pop down to the local recruitment agency and get a few more. Meanwhile, the security company wants a huge profit on the contract, the recruitment agency wants a cut on supplying workers, the snag is the airport wants the same service and better than it had when it employed the workers directly. But, it wants to pay less than it did originally because the bean counters said outsourcing was the future!
Or am I just being cynical?
Then along came the bean counters, suddenly outsourcing was the way forward. They knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Contracts were pared to the bone and beyond, workers terms and conditions were eroded, old company pensions are now just the bare legal minimum that a company can get away with. Result? Simple, you now have a workforce that couldn't give a toss, its just a job. They have no loyalty whatsoever, and who can blame them, as they can simply get another minimum wage job elsewhere. You have local management that couldn't give a toss, if 10 of your minimum wage staff workers walk away just pop down to the local recruitment agency and get a few more. Meanwhile, the security company wants a huge profit on the contract, the recruitment agency wants a cut on supplying workers, the snag is the airport wants the same service and better than it had when it employed the workers directly. But, it wants to pay less than it did originally because the bean counters said outsourcing was the future!
Or am I just being cynical?
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. You're not.
An idea. We all know that managing fluctuating demand is expensive. Airlines do this by dynamic pricing - if you must travel at a peak time of the day/week/year you will pay for that. Why don't the airport and its subcontractors do the same? If you schedule your aircraft at a time when the airport is quieter, then your fees to the airport and the handlers will be lower. If your pax insist on flying on a bank holiday weekend, then some of the expensive fare will go to the airport.
An idea. We all know that managing fluctuating demand is expensive. Airlines do this by dynamic pricing - if you must travel at a peak time of the day/week/year you will pay for that. Why don't the airport and its subcontractors do the same? If you schedule your aircraft at a time when the airport is quieter, then your fees to the airport and the handlers will be lower. If your pax insist on flying on a bank holiday weekend, then some of the expensive fare will go to the airport.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
While the major problem lies with the contractor, the airport have a role to play as they were the ones who set the contract (Terms etc) and the ones who will get the brunt of the public's anger, airline pressue and reputation damage.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poorly worded on my part. My lanes comment was taken out of context and I was not referring to the airport not allowing enough lands to open but more general view had prehaps 4 been opened all along they would of not needed to eventually staff 6.
While the major problem lies with the contractor, the airport have a role to play as they were the ones who set the contract (Terms etc) and the ones who will get the brunt of the public's anger, airline pressue and reputation damage.
While the major problem lies with the contractor, the airport have a role to play as they were the ones who set the contract (Terms etc) and the ones who will get the brunt of the public's anger, airline pressue and reputation damage.
I fully understand that the airport will bear the brunt of the public ire but in a forum such as this I should be able to explain to people what actually happened, rather than have people rail on the airport mgmt, as if they were unprepared or something. That just wasn't the case.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue of security screening is a complex problem with a number of factors contributing. We have already discussed the airport's responsibility and the role of the contractor. Then we have staffing issues. Add to that, airlines that have priced checking in a bag at a level to seriously discourage checking in a bag, passengers who will never learn how to be efficient, rules that are taken over the top by jobs-worths. Now Ryanair has created their own problem, carrying carry on bags for free in the hold, the very thing they have tried to price us out of doing!
A toxic mix that makes air travel now far from enjoyable. I travel through airports in Turkey a lot, never have these issues, even at very busy airports.
A toxic mix that makes air travel now far from enjoyable. I travel through airports in Turkey a lot, never have these issues, even at very busy airports.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
edited to say that this is a general comment as opposed to your quotation
Last edited by SecondDog; 7th May 2018 at 22:08. Reason: Adding text
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SecondDog
Believe me, I have no unrealistic picture. I have been passing through airports for many years now, maybe up to 30 times a year. It is fair to say I think UK airports in general do a bad job, part of that is an over-the-top approach to screening. Gatwick has improved a lot over the last few years. But I do not agree that it is correct to label Bfs a shambles. We were returning from holidays via Manchester about 4 years ago. The queue for security stretched right outside the terminal to near a car park. Mrs and myself went to check in bags with Ezy and sent our daughters to book a place at the end of that queue. I have an Easyjetplus card and the check-in lady suggested that I ask if all of us could get through the priority queue for security. They kindly agreed to this request and we had to telephone our daughters to come back in, they were so far outside we couldn't see them. I reckon it could have taken 2 hours to get through security that day and all lanes were open as far as I can remember.
But are the powers that be thinking about these issues? Because as airports get even busier, many will not have the space to create even bigger search areas.
Believe me, I have no unrealistic picture. I have been passing through airports for many years now, maybe up to 30 times a year. It is fair to say I think UK airports in general do a bad job, part of that is an over-the-top approach to screening. Gatwick has improved a lot over the last few years. But I do not agree that it is correct to label Bfs a shambles. We were returning from holidays via Manchester about 4 years ago. The queue for security stretched right outside the terminal to near a car park. Mrs and myself went to check in bags with Ezy and sent our daughters to book a place at the end of that queue. I have an Easyjetplus card and the check-in lady suggested that I ask if all of us could get through the priority queue for security. They kindly agreed to this request and we had to telephone our daughters to come back in, they were so far outside we couldn't see them. I reckon it could have taken 2 hours to get through security that day and all lanes were open as far as I can remember.
But are the powers that be thinking about these issues? Because as airports get even busier, many will not have the space to create even bigger search areas.