Are airports ruining aviation?

[iwhak]

I ask this question out of an increasing sense of perceived frustration among airlines, airline staff and passengers (airport customers) arising from their airport experiences with some potential passengers saying a short break is not worth the hassle, having to transit two airports in as many days. The point is generic and I realise there are some good airports.

1. From a commercial perspective airports charges are excessive with some airports collecting direct pax charges in excess of €30, yet you still have to pay to use the runway, and then more charges to handle the aircraft. The airport experience can cost €50 before you leave the gate.

2. Security - despite the excessive charges most airports do not deploy sufficient resources to cope with demand, resulting in pax having to turn up at the airport 1 -2 hours prior to departure. In fact some airports now charge to transit security in a reasonable timeframe. There are European airports that invested in new technology that take most of the pain out of security, why don't the others follow suit? I suppose if you made flying easy and passengers could turn up 30 minutes before their flight they would spend less money in the shopping malls.

If you are flight crew at a non based airport why does your security pass from your based airport not get you through at other airports (can they not have a central data base). Some are better than others but it can be tiresome.

Ever had an AOG away from base, and try and get an engineer to the aircraft with his tool box, or worse still a wheel? After persuading them that you are genuine, oh we don't have anyone to escort you!

Why does security have to be rude?

3. Why do some airport operations treat airlines as 'the enemy'. Just sitting there waiting for them to make a mistake. And when they do it's akin to winning the lotto. How many reports can I file on this one? Don't get me wrong there are times when reports must be filed, but there are others and you know who you are just waiting to pounce.

4. A lot of airports to me seem over burdened with management and are inefficent.

It is a recession, yet unlike most airlines most airports will continue to at least break even. Were airports to look at the efficiency of their operations, become more passenger friendly, become more cost effective, and reduce charges, would the industry collectively drive more business - even in a recession?

[HXdave]

I told this idiot that it was me, 30 minutes ago, 30 feet away in our old crew room. I said 'it's not a bomb, it's a desktop Windows computer!'


now come on Rainboe, you of all people should know never to use the 'B' word at an airport, even if it is only in jest.

perhaps you got all you deserved. after all, you would probably say the same if it had happened to a passenger at check in.............

Those in glass houses.............. etc.

[pee]

From a commercial perspective airports charges are excessive with some airports collecting direct pax charges in excess of €30, yet you still have to pay to use the runway, and then more charges to handle the aircraft. The airport experience can cost €50 before you leave the gate.
The most prominent person sharing this opinion is Michael O'Leary and he's damn right in this regard. Unfortunately his airline forcing the airports to be more efficient (it's OK!) at the same time gives them too little means to be profitable :uhoh:.

[judge11]

Airports, and by that I mean that generically from the airport management to the national authority, have lost sight of what they are there for nameley the provision of facilities for the arrival and departure of aircraft. It is all too apparent that at many airports this is a massive inconvenience to its other commercial efforts and is relegated to a secondary priority.

Security - well, we know that its a pantomime; and an interesting and wholly accurate obseervation, Rainbow, about those who are actually manning the security points given where the suppposed threat is coming from. I'm sure there has been thorough vetting:suspect:

[10 DME ARC]

Most airports are driven by the low cost boom, people want to fly for next to nothing. Very few airlines pay full landing charges or passenger handling charges these days, unless it’s a one off charter even then most airlines ring ahead and negotiate reduced fee these day. Your average low cost airline pays airports around £1 to £2 per passenger some less, I even know of some airlines ask to be paid by the airport to do some routes! This leaves most airports having to raise income from shops, car parking etc and hence contracting out the likes of security to reduce costs, you pay peanuts etc etc. Handling agents are under the same pressure, if you look at the UK a major agent recently refused to bid again for low cost handling contract as they were losing too much money on it!
So next time you want to complain about your local airport think again......

[Skipness One Echo]

Actually it's more nuanced. Once the powers are granted to men with little sense or discretion this is what happens. Traditionally these powers are abused, think of the council using Anti Terrorist Legislation to snoop on people suspected of dumping rubbish, simply because they can. People collect power. Legislation flew threw Parliament last week that gives the Council powers to force it's way into your home without the Police being involved. There are numerous examples of agencies of government being granted powers with little thought, no discretion and ZERO support in the country.

Britain as a nation is becoming increasingly disfunctional as more and more rules ( Labour has legislated more than any Government in history ) with less and less repsect for these rules.

Aviation is simply a more visible aspect of this madness.

[Fly Through]

Airports charging for airlines to use them???? How ridiculous.

[Crusher1]

It's not just pax/crew that have to battle security, as a non DHL employee (no gripe with them, always get good service) trying to get airside at EMA is a nightmare! Only tried once, it's quicker to wait for the delivery driver!

I agree about airport security in general though, it's the lack of consistency that gets up my nose - do the airports themselves have their own additional rules? I just wondered as no two seem to apply quite the same criteria. Or is it just the individual behind the desk that decides what can pass and what can't?

[pax britanica]

I know security have a hard job but it can be done with a smile.I go through Bordeaux a lot and the security staff are firm and thorough but also very freindly most of the time .

I was there last week and they insited a woman took her boots off which slighlty irritated her but one of the team made a big play about trying to pull the boot off her foot while sitting her on the search area desk-made her laugh and everyone being held uo a little thing but it does make it al abit more human

[The SSK]

Airlines and airports have at best a love-hate relationship, at the moment it's closer to hate-hate.

What's happening now is the same as what happened after 9/11 - passenger numbers down, movements down, therefore airport receipts down. obvious remedy is to push up fees.

In Europe the worst excesses will be dealt with by the EU Airport Charges Directive. You would not belive how hard the airports have been lobbying to block it or have it watered down.

[BOAC4ME]

Some good points in there, one which I particularily sympathise with is in relation to 'Express' or 'Premium' lanes at security, which many UK Airports have now adopted with varying costs. When all is said and done PAX already pay for security or at least heavily subsidise it, and for Airports to allow the Security Operation to be 'inneficient' (in terms of resource) in the first place, and then charge someone to bypass the resulting queues beggars belief.

I must say that this is not the fault of security staff, it starts much 'higher' than that, the solution is obvious, suitably staff and equip search areas, this however is not going to initially save and ultimately make money, sad but true. Are Airports ruining Aviation? Well, that may be harsh, but in SOME circumstances they are certainly not helping.

In terms of the relationship between Airlines and Airports, that is exactly what it should be, a relationship, Airlines must be prepared to pay a reasonable amount and Airports must remember that Airlines are their customers.

[Sikpupi]

Well said 10-DME.

All teh Security HAssles at airports are mainly as a result of RED TAPE being forced on them by Governement / EU agencies. Discretion in frown on and security atsff have to be seen applying rules that they do not have any say on.

Airports provide a service...why can't they charge for same. Doctors charge up to €50 per visit....don't hear anyone complaining!!!

If you ask me ...it's LOw COST who are killing the current travellers with 'willy-nilly' charges that change daily. Who can go on a City BReak with just the clothees on their back???? Buy a airline ticket...but then pay to sit near teh front / near a window??? Don't mention cocking up your name or departure date....that'll set you back twice what you originally paid. OOOHHHHH and don't buy anything when away....cost a 2nd Bag will cost €30 to carry on board....!!! Tell everyone to avoid turning up -2 hrs and check-in on line and then meet the other 189 pax in the security queue at -40 cos they all think teh same way...and now you won't make the flight.!!!

Jeez....yea...all the airports fault.!!

[BOAC4ME]

Sikpupi, you are quite right in relation to low-cost carriers, however Airports should not follow their example, two wrongs dont make a right.

[EastMids]

Nope, airports are not ruining aviation - low-cost airlines are ruining aviation.

[BOAC4ME]

EastMids, I like you have no time for the distructive policies of low-cost carriers, but it must not be forgotten that Airports are complicit in the low cost boom, if they were not seduced by the likes of Mr O'Leary into allowing him to operate for next to nothing, then Airlines like his would not have got to where they are now!!

[Sikpupi]

...In the beginning.....there was a 2-Way relationship!!!! MOL had some hairy days in teh beginning and it was the small airports that rowed in behind him to keep him going etc but then the 'child' became a monster and the ol' days were quickly forgotten.

I have to agree - that travelling by air has lost its gloss. But - all the 'problems' that pax are facing and experiencing are not airport-made.
Airports are NOT charging Ryanair huge prices......they are fair and transparent and non-discrimatory. No-one asked MOL to sell a product at 1penny....the market will handle a hgher price than that and if he decided to sell his product at 1p - he shouldn't expect the airport to subsidise this action. His ideal is that eventually all his flights will be free....well then God Bless him BUT don't expect all the providers down the line should provide all their services for free.

[BOAC4ME]

Sikpupi, I am with you, I dont agree with most things that Mr O'Leary does, but at the end of the day, regardless of what he charges for a seat on his aircraft, he has to negotiate with the Airport in relation to what he pays them, and some airports have accepted his miserly terms, and more fool them! Also, I appreciate the history, BUT dont think that Ryanair going into regional bases is some sort of coinsidence or that regional's were doing him a favour, it has been said in the past that Ryanair were directly influenced by airlines like Southwest in the states, who 'targeted' Airports with limited traffic so that they could build influence and effectively bully themselves into profit.

Just look what happened when they tried a similar thing at MAN, the airport said?? "We Will not prostitute ourselves to Ryanair in order to trash the marketplace", and good on them, but that's the difference, some Airports can afford to say no, and some airports have made their bed and have to lie in it, ie most of those regionals where FR operate.

The fact that some airports have been short-sighted enough to put all their eggs in one basket is not an excuse for charging for things that they really shouldnt be. If Ryanair charge £0.00 for a return flight to Dublin, you stilll have to pay £30 odd pounds in Taxes, these taxes amongst other things are to go toward paying for security at Airports, so I am afraid it is morally unnaceptable (in my opinion) to then charge people to bypass understaffed security queues, when they have already paid for it in the first place, and that is the case regardless of what MOL charges his pax. As I said before, just because people may consider FR to be 'immoral' doesnt mean everyone else, including Airports have to follow suit.

I am the first to be hard on the 'trashing of the marketplace' as MAN airport said, but the fact is that some Airports have allowed it to happen to them, and they shouldnt just roll out the usual airport authority line of 'Not us guv, speak to the airline', and take some responsibility.

[Sikpupi]

BOAC... I don't know of any airports charging 'extra' charges for access airside and or through security?? Where is that happening?????

I do know of a number of Airports who charge a Development Fee to passengers (Knock) over and above the airport charges. I do have some symphathy for this scenario....Ideally they would like to put this into airport charges BUT they would find it impossible to discuss same with the low-cost operators!!!!! So...alternative methods must be employed!!

Costs do increase....and low-cost has to accept that his charges must be subject to increases. If they don't play ball with airports.....they must deal with same themselves!! If they wants to ring-fence =their 10-yr agreements and shake it in the face of airport management during discussions on airport charges - then airports have to take seek alternative means of financing same.

The day is coming when airports (like Shannon) have to take a stand ...otherwise they are out of business. Will FR care...don't think so!!

[call100]

Hey lets think of another thread title you can all turn into a security bashing thread.:ugh::ugh:There's more to airports than them. If you have a problem with it sort it. Don't just whine.
(No I don't work on Security!!)
Low Cost Airlines are ruining aviation.....Airports (Stupidly) don't make any money from aircraft. They make it from Outlets and Car parking. A large amount of Low cost pax spend on neither. The rest have to make up for it! I suspect that those who fly LoCo would be perfectly happy with the tin barn principle that FR etc. want to see as a terminal. I wonder if they would settle for such in other areas of their lives? I suspect not.
Sorry!! Rant over.....Watching out for incoming.:ouch:

[pottwiddler]

A DME cost £60,000 to buy, a primary radar cost around £2,000,000 and would sir like a secondary to go with that? £1,000,000 please. Oh and you want a display system to watch the blips on, £400,000. NDB £30,000. ILS CAT III or Cat I? How about £1,500,000 for the pair one for each end of the tarmac. Voiceswitch £250,000.VHF Transmitters and Receivers to hang off the VCCS £70,000. Plus electricity, Headset Chair Interfaces' (ATCOs') salaries and some HNC or more qualified engineers to connect it all together in a safe system of work not including the further training etc.
It not all magic, how you get up there or land safely you know. It 's a lot hard work, dedication, sweat, toil, lost tempers(sometimes but I'm getting better!) oh and safety cases. :ugh:
That is why airports charge airlines money! We're a business too, it wouldn't surprise me if IWHAK is MOL in drag.

[Barnaby the Bear]

pottwiddler :D :ok:

Do you fancy explaining that on the flyer forum now? :ugh:

[TSR2]

I don't know of any airports charging 'extra' charges for access airside and or through security?? Where is that happening?????

Liverpool Airport for one. The 'Fast Lane' costs £3 per adult, child or infant.

[pottwiddler]

Airlines like Ryanair actually request that the number of security chekckers and the number of baggage handlers be cut down and use this as justifying reduced fees.

So if you are wondering why a 787-800 load of people trying to get though ONE lane of security now you know why... and what really gets my goat is that they blame the airport and call them names in their propaganda releases such as this one...
Ryanair - News : Ryanair calls for break up of DAA Monopoly as Gatwick is sold (http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=09&month=oct&story=gen-en-211009)

"DAA Monopoly" is not a registered trading name of the Dublin Airport Authority, but then again we all call Ryanair something derogatory due to their "Would ja loike yer droive tarmacing" approach to business.

[call100]

Liverpool Airport for one. The 'Fast Lane' costs £3 per adult, child or infant.
That's not charging extra to get airside!!! That's just charging you extra if you decide you want to get there quicker...:)

[Sikpupi]

Call100.....good reply!!!!

Seems they are playing the MOL Game....no more than "do you want to be the 1st to board the aircraft" - well thats £5 per person (man/woman or child!)

Bit of Pot/Kettle/ Black if complaints coming from FR. It is (as in their own words) 'Not Compulsory' and 'Discretionary' and the pax could avoid same by turning up on time for his flight!!

Am sure FR would charge for same if the security queue came unter their remit!!!!

[Anansis]

That's not charging extra to get airside!!! That's just charging you extra if you decide you want to get there quicker...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

That's true, but there are times (particularly during the peak summer period) where the normal queue for security is over an hour and a half long. I have actually been told by check in staff that I must use the fast lane or I will miss my flight, even though I turned up 2 hours before departure! Sometimes its kind of like the Ryanair card handling fee- optional in theory, but in practice...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Not too concerned when I have a checked bag and I know that the airlines would probably rather wait for me to pass security than offload my bags but its a different game altogether if you are traveling with hand-luggage only...

I did hear that Liverpool Airport actually intended to make it compulsory for everyone to pay for security, but backed down following pressure from Easyjet. Anyone know anything about this?

[iwhak]

When I posted originally, ironically I was not considering low cost airports, with low cost airline customers it was more the legacy type airports, and the topic is on the back of a lot of discussion among aircrew/passengers as previously stated.

pottwidler

Thanks for the comments, I don't do drag, and I don't have any association with FR. Suggest an anger management course, if ATC is casuing you so much stress. But in a way you have reinforced my point. The initial capital investment in Navigational infrastructure is well and truly offset by Eurocontrol, terminal nav and landing charges over the lifetime of the equipment. Yes, there are peripheral airports that are dominated by low cost airlines whose primary source of revenue is driven by non core activities. My point is not really relevant to those. It was more aimed at primary airports, and focuses on driving efficency and customer focus to directly reduce the cost to the customer (airline and passenger). These airports have a higer margin per pax than most airlines, and I believe that is wrong.

[AndyH52]

Anansis whilst the queues are sometimes long they move steadily and I have never heard of a pax taking anywhere near 1 1/2 hours to get through security - that sounds like one of the numerous urban 'myths' that were spread by a couple of individuals who had a grudge against the airport and the Fast Track principle. It certainly isn't the norm!

[BOAC4ME]

"BOAC... I don't know of any airports charging 'extra' charges for access airside and or through security?? Where is that happening?????"


Well, Sikpupi many Airports now charge a pax to bypass a security queue and actively sell this service to people whilst in the queue, whether it be directly or through 'in your face' advertising, I am not an expert on every UK station but know this to be the case at LPL, EMA, MAN and I think BOH and HUY along with a few London Airports I think. Nevertheless, it does exist and is a growing trend, and only an example whereby the Airport are in my opinion completely wrong to follow the example of the 'low cost' model, Airports should act more responsibly than that, as stated before "Two wrongs do not make a right".

[Higher Archie]

No additional charges for Security at MAN. Just a new 14 lane search area at T1, costing several millions to transfer pax passengers airside quickly and easily. Over 80% of pax are through in less than 8 mins to 'enjoy' the shopping experience which is where airport revenues now come from.

Airports today, most, understand the low-cost airline model, but has been expressed here before, some are not prepared to 'trash the market', and will provide a realistic product to their airline customers.

To some lo-cos, airports are being asked, like a Sainsbury's customer when taking a pack of minced beef to the check-out saying, "I want a steak for the price of this, otherwise I'll go to Lidl".

[Anansis]

Anansis whilst the queues are sometimes long they move steadily and I have never heard of a pax taking anywhere near 1 1/2 hours to get through security - that sounds like one of the numerous urban 'myths' that were spread by a couple of individuals who had a grudge against the airport and the Fast Track principle. It certainly isn't the norm!

I'd probably think it was an urban myth too if I hadn't experienced it first hand. True its not the norm, but it happens far more frequently than it should, especially during early mornings in the summer months.

[RoyHudd]

I'd happily queue for an hour and a half to get out of Liverpool and its dreadful airport. (And Manchester, come to think of it).

Incidentally, how are retail sales progressing at the "malls" at LPL and MAN? Both seem remarkably quiet. Idiots have managed these 2 airports for years, and the financial results are certain to be dreadful.

[conflier]

For the last 5 years I have used lpl early am in July and have had no problem with sercurity. One time had a free fast lane voucher from the airport for using the car park but never had to use it. Maybe it is a urban myth.
Oh, Hudd, could you quantify what you mean by " a dredfull airport" (lpl & man) ?

:)

[EGGP]

At Liverpool they have a priority lane for security that you have to pay to use see the link below;

Liverpool Airports Fast Lane Service (http://www.liverpoolairport.com/airport-information/fast-lane.html)


It's like priority boarding with lo-co's;except that I believe that this doesn't work all the time.:ugh:

[PAXboy]

Sorry to bust the happy thread line of "It's security" and "It's the LoCos wot dunnit" I think it is neither of them, although they are symptoms of the problem. Once again, I am going to be the Voice of Doom ...

Without going into a lecture on the history of human commercial endeavour and the way in which men constantly reinvent the wheel and make the same mistakes ...

A change in management style swept across commercial life in the second half of the 1980s. The theme was to 'empower' individual departments to make their own decisions and (to a limited degree) control their own budget but to a greater degree instruct them to control making more money.

The idea was that, if each department in a company/organisation tried to make more money and see themselves as contributing directly - rather than just as part of a large company - that they would bring in more for the company. Bonus' were offered.

Bring in more money - give better service - get bonus - get promoted. It seemed like a win-win. All well and good until human nature takes it's usual lead!! Departments that had been working harmoniously with each other to provide a united product of the company - now started competing with each other for the attention of the senior mgmt. Slowly, across the next 15/20 years, the focus changed and departments were not so keen to help their neighbouring department by lending staff and support (for an hour/week) or having meeting to solve the collective problem of helping their customers. No, they wanted to charge more money to the client/customer, cut their staff, outsource their staff, cut back on documenting the changes and decisions after all, if it's not written down - no one can argue it. Then appear to be the good guys by showing dubious customer satisfaction surveys.

In cutting staff, it was particularly important to cut the older staff, who had seen it all before and could point out the error of their ways. This is not a rant about young managers as many have great ideas but against the old mgmt for installing them (they were cheap and appeared to have good ideas) but when you throw out the staff who have been dealing with your customers for 30 years, you throw away your corporate memory, and much else besides.

Senior mgmt had then delegated so much that they could easily fire people (they had after all, taken responsibility) and the CEO and Directors never had to resign, unless there was a criminal investigation.

Does any of this sound familiar?

I saw this start in 1989 when I was working in the City of London for an American Merchant Bank. During the early 1990s, I saw it spread to almost every large company. In the late 1990s, I saw this spread to govt. The Tories did it well and the Labour party did it supremely well.

Now we have companies and govt that are fractured and broken up into little pieces. It's going to be a long time before it knits back together again and will have to get a LOT worse before there is enough pressure to do so. Probably 50 years and a lot of civil unrest.

So, griping about an airport/LCC is pointless!! Have a nice day. :E

[TJW]

At the risk of being slightly off-topic, I can say that what PAXboy describes does sound familar, because I have seen it happening in academia too.

Mid-noughties, I was working at a research institute at a major UK university. We were leading in our field, and had worked on several industrial projects, which meant that the institute had some money in the bank (some of which came from work for a large UK airline). This should have helped us through a transition phase, when the focus of research changed and we had fewer industry projects. However, the rector, who had been CEO at a multinational, decided that all departments should work as independent business units, but that all profits would be skimmed away by the university to fund the administration. So we first lost our savings, then were told that we apparently didn't have enough funding to carry on, and the institute was closed down.

Managers should realise that in any enterprise, the whole must be more than just the sum of the parts. But I fear that this is not taught at MBA schools.

[PAXboy]

Interesting, TJW and as it happens, in the course of my regular work this week, I have found two other examples of the significant change in management approach, I shall be brief but include them to show, I think, that the problems we see in airports and carriers are no different to the rest of the modern world (so called!)

Here is part of the story of Drexel Burnham Lambert, an American financial company that crashed in 1990. One of their employees was Michael Milken. I quote from Wikipedia. Drexel Burnham Lambert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drexel_Burnham_Lambert)

Organizationally, the firm was considered the definition of a meritocracy. Divisions received bonuses based on their individual performance rather than the performance of the firm as a whole. This often led to acrimony between individual departments, who sometimes acted like independent companies rather than small parts of a larger one.

According to Dan Stone, a former Drexel executive, the firm's aggressive culture led many Drexel employees to stray into unethical, and sometimes illegal, conduct. Milken himself viewed the securities laws, rules and regulations with some degree of contempt, and often condoned unethical and illegal behavior by his colleagues at Drexel's operation in Beverly Hills.

Then there is a report this week in the UK paper The Independent,
City pay culture has spread to charities, union says - Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/city-pay-culture-has-spread-to-charities-union-says-1817725.html)
Research shows that more than 50 bosses earn in excess of £100,000
By Robert Verkaik and Eleanor Harding
Tuesday, 10 November 2009

The leaders of Britain's charities face accusations that their six-figure pay packets are excessive and part of a culture of greed polluting the voluntary sector.

Research seen by The Independent shows that more than 50 charity chief executives received between £100,000 and £210,000 last year. In one case, a charity paid its chief executive nearly £400,000. Unite, the union which represents 60,000 charity workers, said too many charity bosses were paying themselves more than the Prime Minister's salary of £197,000.

So ... twenty years ago, the financial companies were full of shenanigans and paying themselves too much and now our MPs have been up to the shenanigans with their expenses and the charities are paying themselves too much. So, if everyone is doing it, then it must be normal???

[PeterP]

PAXboy. Hope you don't object. Loved this assessment so much that I have posted it (with appropriate acknowledgements) elsewhere (http://walesairnetwork.ning.com/forum/topics/management-thinking-is-flawed) for discussion by a smaller audience.

[belfrybat]

I said 'it's not a bomb, it's a desktop Windows computer!' There's a difference?

Oh dear, look at the time, gotta run...