PDA

View Full Version : LHR Terminal 5 - Transfer Security Fiasco


L'aviateur
27th Oct 2010, 16:50
After seeing the recent BA Security drama the moment on SkyNews, it reminded me of something recently.
In Terminal 5 when you transfer you are merged into the same Security queue as all of the other passengers, except you come up a set of escalators on the right hand side. During the busy periods they have to have someone at the top and someone at the bottom of these escalators because as the queue grows up at the top, people can't disembark the escalator. I was in a bit of a pile up at the top when suddenly confronted with the realisation nobody could move anywhere, and ended up on the floor on top of another person and one woman appeared to be have hurt her ankle. This happens almost everyday at T5 at the peak time, how on earth is this acceptable?

dubh12000
28th Oct 2010, 09:49
Its shambolic. What's even more shambolic is that they haven't done a tap about it since T5 opened. Wouldn't happen anywhere else.

jimtherev
28th Oct 2010, 10:16
elf'n'safety, anyone?

SwissRef
28th Oct 2010, 10:47
I can second that. Shambles.

Everytime I transfer through T5 it seems that this doesn't work right. Can they not have dedicated security lanes for transfers? Or the ability (or sense) to divert non-transfer passengers through the other security entrance?

radeng
29th Oct 2010, 10:09
Most things at T5 are a shambles, and all caused by my particular bete-noir, BAA. Even the lavatories - does it occur to the idiots who designed them that some people wish to wash their faces, and so paper towels are the best answer? Of course, it maybe that in addition to their demonstrated general lack of commonsense, they are also unhygienic! Plus the lack of moving walkways on the arrivals level.....

dubh12000
29th Oct 2010, 11:36
Firstly, why are there doors there when you come up the escalator? They security office is immediately there on your left....I'd move that and stick at least 2 more scanning units in there for transiting pax.

Skylion
29th Oct 2010, 12:53
There should be a separate security channel for transfer passengers as their needs can be very different from joining ones. Many transfers are on tight connections sold as such to compete with Amsterdam and Paris in particular, not to mention the Gulf airports. Most,- but not all of course,- joining passengers are in a bit less of a rush , especially as Economy passengers are (needlessly) told to check in at least 2 hours before departure.
Transfer passengers on short connections are though of little interest to the BAA as they have little or no time to spend money in the shops and eateries whereas the earlier the joiners can be cleared through security the more time they have for shopping, eating etc. Hence it pays the BAA to design the system around the joiners not the transfers and if the transfers miss their connections that's OK by the BAA as their dwell/ spending time goes up, often substantially.
Like Bob Ayling who famously said that transfers were probably only worth the price of a cup of coffee to UK Plc, the BAA do not understand that the volumes of transfer passengers justify the frequencies of flights and range of destinations from the airport and that also brings in more joiners and avoids passengers travelling via competing points instead, thus avoiding spending money with both Heathrow and British airlines.

ExXB
30th Oct 2010, 11:06
Why are transfer passengers (in particular those arriving from US/Canada/EU/CH/NO/etc) re-screened at all? Absolute waste of resources and for BAA, it would give these passengers a few more minutes to visit your shops.

Yellow Pen
30th Oct 2010, 11:27
It's because the DFT have decided that nowhere else is in the world can be trusted to screen passengers properly.

Skylion
31st Oct 2010, 12:25
Well, it's true. Some give less than 100% confidence and at a hub like LHR it's almost impossible to sort who in the security queue has come in from where .
If expert profiling were accepted despite all the howls about political correctness, discrimination etc then a large % of the queues could be waved through without further ado and the problem would disappear. It's not all about race, religion etc as there is always the possibility of a wild card and someone being prepared to blow up his or her own family but with the right level of expertise a first rate queue observer can deal with this possibility too. Unfortunately the cargo incidents will probably give the rear end coverers new life.

ExXB
31st Oct 2010, 13:24
Well, it's true. Some give less than 100% confidence and at a hub like LHR it's almost impossible to sort who in the security queue has come in from where.

With respect I disagree. Aircraft lands from country with less that 100% confidence passengers progress through security, as transfer passengers do today. Aircraft lands from country will 100% confidence (like Canada/US/EU/CH/NO/and a lot of others) transit passenger disembark directly into the boarding area, O&D passengers follow todays path to immigration and customs.

radeng
31st Oct 2010, 13:53
Because that would take some thought, some intelligence, and some organisation from BAA and DfT (neither of whom apparently give a damn about the PAX convenience and despite their ranting, not much about PAX safety). Easier to inconvenience people.

Newforest2
31st Oct 2010, 16:24
Did the terminal tango last year and missed my connecting flight, trying to do it again next month (the tango not the missed flight).

Skipness One Echo
31st Oct 2010, 16:35
Because that would take some thought, some intelligence, and some organisation from BAA and DfT (neither of whom apparently give a damn about the PAX convenience and despite their ranting, not much about PAX safety). Easier to inconvenience people.

It's not helpful to assume that everyone in authority is a drooling imbecile. It would be a very brave man who changed this for several reasons.

1) The UK is a primary target alongwith the US and France.
2) Security Theatre is leaky at best already
3) Removing the UK check means that if foreign airport drops the ball and someone gets something onto an ex UK flight they shouldn't then the question then becomes : "Minister do you regret removing secondary screening for UK connecting passengers in the light of the bomb / firearm that destroyed / hijacked flight 123?"

The last point is very easy to imagine happening and, anti-authoritry as I am, I sure as Hell wouldn't backpeddle on this yet. By all means let's be sensible. I have trouble trusting the BAA to get it right, excuse me if I don't have more faith in certain other airports in the EU. A chain is only as strong as it's weekest link. In days gone by, Rome and Athens had notoriously bad security. The DFT re-check is a pain but by God it's necessary.

Remember how lax US Domestic security was pre 9-11? This is why the TSA has never bothered me as I can put them in context. It is not as simple as saying France security is good and Yemeni isn't. Until the next leap in technology, the checks will remain and I support that and bite my tongue. Fight the battles worht fighting I say.

Good on Martin Broughton for his sensbile thoughts though. A lot of the other issues do need fixed, this isn't one IMHO.

WHBM
31st Oct 2010, 22:14
1) The UK is a primary target .......
So why not screen ALL arriving passengers then?

Actually I still believe that the most effective route is to scrap all the bulk security points, the bulk transfer security check, etc, and screen all departing passengers just the once, at the last possible point - right at the gate. It would also be amazing how it would then be "found possible" to handle liquids etc through the check, once it was after the duty-free shopping bonanza.

PAXboy
31st Oct 2010, 23:44
One of the big problems for all airport operators and carriers, is that the greatest majority of airports were built before all the current regime of checks were added. Secondly, those that have been built since - have been largely built on old thinking and trying to pretend that, once inside the terminal, the glossy world of aviation is untouched and as it always was.

radeng
1st Nov 2010, 09:26
Skipness,

They have had enough time to sort out the transfer mess, and if teh failure to do so is DfT and not BAA, BAA should have pointed it out. The first post here said that someone was injured - that should ring loud alarm bells. A complaint to HSE and a legal claim could wake them up, I suppose, but to allow a dodgy situation to carry on is unforgivable. Last year mrs radeng went A over T in a T5 jetway because it was raining, the thing was leaking and BAA hadn't bothered to clean it up. So taken with all the other things wrong with T5, I think it's fair to accuse BAA of being incompetent when it comes to anything other than parting people from money.

A few senior BAA heads on pikes on London Bridge would be a good start - 'pour encourager les autres'.

Skylion
1st Nov 2010, 13:58
The design of the arrivals level of T5 is such that it is almost impossible to segregate passengers from any particular inbound flight from others. Once off the aircraft they very quickly intermingle and coralling even one one lot of say 100/150 without using off pier stands and bussing them separately to a "clean" or "dirty" channel would be a nightmare. T5 arrivals peak involves numerous near simultaneous and overlapping arrivals. Just stand ad look at the flows and cross flows next time you go there.

PAXboy
1st Nov 2010, 14:40
As I recall from our discussions when T5 opened, the original plan was always to mix everyone together in the retail halls. When T5 was being designed, the international standard was for in and outbound pax to be kept 100% separate. If memory serves, they got special permission to allow in and out pax to mix specifically for the purpose of retail.

History: The reason for BAA being so focused on shopping is that. When BAA was privatised, the Thatcher govt introduced a cap on how much they could charge in landing fees. The political intention was to show that costs could be brought down under commercial mgmt, rather than state ownership.

Since this heavily restricted their ability to make money - and make the investment that was so badly needed that the govt had not made - BAA changed other things.

Firstly, as I recall, they changed the way that carriers were charged. Originally, they had been charged by the size of the aircraft and a BAe 146 paid much less than a wide body long haul. This immediately upped the costs for all the domestic connecting flights and (it could be argued) helped to spur the lo-co market from regional fields!

Secondly, they turned to retail. They upped the cost to the shop keepers of the cost per square metre of floor space and that cost was passed on to the pax. Then they moved on to car parking ...

In due course, BAA became known as the largest retailer in the UK and made more money from retail than from handling aircraft. That is the context whereby T5 is what it is and (in another thread) someone is complaining about parking charges at STN.

It could be argued that this is all a rather amusing sequence of unintended consequences: A Conservative govt that always beats the drum of 'national security' created the circumstances whereby, 20 years later, security is compromised and people are endangered right the way down to congestion on escalators - because of saving money.

I sit to be corrected.

jethrobee
1st Nov 2010, 15:29
Flying through T5 on Sunday the transit was pretty smooth.

Inbound and outbound PAX ARE kept separately from each other, you have to go through transit security to get back to the retail area. Which involves going up the crazy escalator which someone was complaining about at the start of the thread.

The debacle at the opening of T5 was about the mixing of domestic and international departures and having pictures taken of domestic PAX.

I do think that the T5 security is getting slower, fast track is one of the misused signs i've ever read!

radeng
2nd Nov 2010, 12:50
Monday afternoon had only two out of the four security lanes open for the so-called 'fast track'. Over ten minutes to get through.

WHBM
2nd Nov 2010, 14:18
Monday afternoon had only two out of the four security lanes open for the so-called 'fast track'. Over ten minutes to get through.
Two Fastrack lanes open ? That's better going than often, when there is one or none open.

I believe BA pay extra for these lanes. I wonder if they get a rebate when it's slower than the main lanes, or closed.

Secondly, they turned to retail. They upped the cost to the shop keepers of the cost per square metre.
That's not quite how it works (or wasn't when I was there). BAA don't charge rental or anything. Their retail team determine what shops there will be, and they take all the takings. They then get retailers in to act just as operational contractors, paying them their costs (stock, staff, etc), a percentage for their overheads, and an amount for their profit. More complex than that, of course, but you get the general idea.

PAXboy
2nd Nov 2010, 17:32
Most interesting WHBM, thanks for that. It's certainly a clever way to make more money than just taking a slice. They get the whole cake and then give some slices back. :D I have always said that BAA are very clever at what they do and that it is not their fault that no one has a strategic vision of air transport in the UK. Leave alone any kind of control over it.

HamishMcBush
5th Nov 2010, 20:05
Let's not forget one thing, as a fellow member of a professional body found out a few years back when doing a customer service/quality project at Heathrow:
as far as BAA is concerned, its customers are the retail outlets and airlines. They really do not seem to give a damn about passengers

radeng
6th Nov 2010, 09:59
Hamish

>They really do not seem to give a damn about passengers<

Actually

They really do not give a damn about passengers!

Rwy in Sight
7th Nov 2010, 07:37
If pax decided not to shop in the airport shops

Rwy in Sight

radeng
7th Nov 2010, 10:50
>If pax decided not to shop in the airport shops<

I rarely do. Occasionally in duty free for whisky, occasionally in Boots for throat lozenges and the like! Three times this year in 42 flights...Looking at the stuff brought onto the plane, many do, though. If the rules on cabin baggage were actually enforced, there would be problems....