PDA

View Full Version : Gatwick; standing-room only departure lounges?


OldBristolFreighter
11th Nov 2011, 13:55
With SOU as a local airport I’ve got used to almost walk-in walk-on departures, notwithstanding 4 and 6 hour Flybe delays.
I’ve just had an email from LGW advising of an average security clearance time of 1min. 47sec., so there was considerable irony when the same email advised me of a recommended 4 hour check-in for a transatlantic flight. (3 hours EU & 2 hours domestic).
As many check-in counter won’t even be open this far in advance the primary objective of these wildly excessive times must be to ensure I maximise my “retail experience”. However, surely the actual result will be upwards of 30% more people crammed into the departure lounges?
What’s the point of quick, self-service, check-ins and other innovations if the only net result for passengers is just more time hanging around airside?
(Personally I’d suggest at least fast-tracking nice o.a.p’s like me, but that would only benefit a few of us).

(Mods, Transfer to AA&R, Gatwick, if appropriate).

PAXboy
11th Nov 2011, 15:22
Ahh, OBF, you are imagining that the airport take an interest in YOU. Companies make sweeping rules to fit the slowest of the crowd and that's how it's going to be. :*

Capot
12th Nov 2011, 10:02
I was with BAA, at a relatively fairly senior level, when it was transformed from an engineering based provider of airport services which understood aviation, to a shopping mall with a captive footfall.

We were all expected to learn the language and customs of large scale retailing, and used random buzz-word generators to hold our own in planning meetings.

I was shouted at more than once for failing to realise that a very important Key Performance Indicator for anyone in charge of a terminal, or indeed an airport,
was the increase in "dwell-time" that you had achieved by one means or another. Increase in "dwell-time" correlated closely, as you might expect, with increase in "spending per passenger" (aka "shopper") which is why the bean-counters wanted the "dwell time" to be increased.

Airlines cooperated by telling people to turn up far earlier than necessary in the deluded hope that BAA's promises of consequently lower charges would be fulfilled.

That was 25 years or so ago, and it has gone from bad to worse ever since. A modern airport manager would laugh uncontrollably if you said that the function of a terminal is to transfer passengers expeditiously and efficiently from one mode of transport to another, with no barriers whatsoever to movement other than those required by law, eg Customs and Security.

The whole idea is to confront a shopper with physically unavoidable shopping opportunities until he or she cracks, and to make sure that he or she has so much time to waste that everyone, eventually, surrenders and buys some piece of over-priced "Duty-Free" tat that sells in the High Street for a fraction of the price paid in the airport, and on which no Duty is payable in the first place, or is not "Duty-Free" within the EU.

PAXboy
12th Nov 2011, 13:34
Beautifully put, Capot. :ok:

With the trend in UK terminals, and elsewhere for that matter, I have found it increasingly easy to avoid ALL the shoppping experience. I have a muesli bar or two for emergencies and head straight for the exec lounge. If it's a place where none is accesible to me, then I can sit quietly with newspaper and iPod, perhaps watch the aircraft movements. it is so easy.

WHBM
13th Nov 2011, 07:28
It's not necessarily the airport themselves that comes up with these nonsense excessive check-in times, travel agents can do the same, quite independently. Yes, I know nobody uses these for their own travel nowadays, but I come into contact with one or two who arrange business travel.

One we used sent me an e-mail listing my departure from London City at 0700, and stating that as it was an "International" flight I needed to check in a minimum of 2½ hours before departure. When I pointed out that this was long before the terminal building was physically unlocked in the morning, I was told that it was a "necessary standard". When I then asked what part of any necessary standard involved their customer standing outside in the winter darkness for the best part of an hour waiting for the terminal doors to be opened, there was of course blankness.

And it's not just check-in times, many airport FIDS will progress from Go To Gate, through Boarding, to Closing, you see people leaving meals half eaten in the restaurant, and when they rush to get there they find that the incoming aircraft is not even on stand yet and everyone is still hanging about; London Stansted is a particular offender here.

Those of you who are Dispatchers and complain about passengers turning up late at the gate, and similar, may care to look at your own airport procedures and wonder whether, having cried "Wolf" for far too many times, it is any surprise that the pax, having had so much of their time needlessly squandered previously, take no notice of instructions any longer.

Hipennine
13th Nov 2011, 08:53
Re BAA, Mr Matthews was on Evan Davies prog on Radio 4 yesterday. The mantra was basically, because the govt restricts the amount they can charge the airlines at LHR, they have to get their profit from everything else. The phrase "Customer service" never entered into the discussion.

Rwy in Sight
13th Nov 2011, 11:35
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand but I am very very good at avoiding spending money in all major airports with notable exception of London ones where I feel obliged to buy tea and toffee as presents.

In practically all other airport I tend only to eat and even that when I am with friends.

Rwy in Sight

PAXboy
13th Nov 2011, 13:01
Hipennine, heard the prog on radio and NOT impressed by his tone of voice. It was interesting that he said in passing that Gatwick was "a great airport" and this was immediately challenged by Evan Davies, pointing out it's limitations.

Marshall back tracked and said that, what he meant was that it was in a great position with a great customer base. Oh, nothing about "the great way it serves that customer base" then? Thought not. :hmm:

Anansis
13th Nov 2011, 20:07
Couldn't agree more with your comments about FIDS WHBM. When flying loco I ignore any 'boarding' and 'closing' messages. Instead, I aim to be at the gate around 15 minutes before departure time (regardless of what is displayed on the screens). Usually there is still a significant queue. Often, boarding has not even commenced. In my experience, what is displayed on the flight information screen bears little relation to the actual status of the flight.

Some airlines are just as guilty. Ryanair advises passengers that the gate closes 30 minutes before departure. They also operate on 30 minute turnarounds. Therefore, in normal operations the outbound flight will not have begun disembarking passengers at the time they say the gate closes for inbound passengers. The worst offender however has to be Air Asia, whos flights frequently go straight from 'wait in lounge' to 'final call' in one swift step!

MathFox
13th Nov 2011, 20:17
Well PAXboy, the said thing is that for the "new brand of airport management" the traveler is no longer a customer, but the product to be sold. (To shops, bars and restaurants.)

davidjohnson6
13th Nov 2011, 20:19
Anansis - I used to take a similiar line to you, until I found an instance of an inbound aircraft arriving 45 mins early, boarding beginning early as well, and boarding being closed 30 mins early - presumably so the dispatcher, crew and everyone else could get home early as well that evening.

Alas I found myself on the wrong side of a locked gate with nobody around to whom I could plead, had to pay up to have my booking changed at an office with a grumpy handling agent, as well as find a hotel room at 9 pm. Somebody was probably breaking formal procedures, but there was nothing that I could do about it.

Strongly recommended to consult an arrivals monitor before deiciding the Last call message is a case of someone crying wolf !

L'aviateur
13th Nov 2011, 21:12
I agree with the above. I used to arrive at the airports 2-3 hours before as requested etc etc. Now I travel as much as possible with hand baggage (even longhaul, it's a fine art!), and since I travel on fully flex tickets just arrive at airports at the last possible minute and goto the gate as late as possible. Several years ago decided to start flying KLM from Humberside rather then other local airports, because it's never an issue to arrive 20 minutes before departure, since it's such a small airport. Fly via AMS because it's so easy and convenient, and just go with 30 minutes prior to departure for being at the gate in AMS seems to work fine. Plenty of space as well, although sometimes seem that there are more people in the crown lounge then outside....

Anansis
14th Nov 2011, 07:47
Good shout on checking the arrivals monitor davidjohnson6 - I'll be sure to do this regularly in the future :ok:

I must confess that I have had a few close shaves in the past (usually when pax need to be bussed to a remote stand on the other side of the airfield). My logic is thus: I take around 30 flights a year and I usually aim to arrive at the airport no later than 45 minutes before departure (just before the check in desks close). If I were to arrive the recomended two hours before departure I would waste well over a day of my life every year wandering around departure lounges, time I'd rather spend doing other things...

I can understand the logic of airports encouraging people to arrive two hours before departure but whats in it for airlines? Some (such as Ryanair and Wizzair) do not even allow passengers to carry a seperate duty free bag on board so there's little opportunity for their passengers to enjoy much of a "retail experience"...

When Ryanair and Easyjet first introduced online check in, it's main unique selling point was the ability to arive at the airport 30 minutes before departure, a point which they both agressively marketed. Whats changed? Did they perhaps learn the hard way that airport hype about "1min47sec" transitions through security are often mythical? :E

WHBM
14th Nov 2011, 12:49
Good shout on checking the arrivals monitor.
There are many of us who would do the same were the arrivals monitors readily visible to departing passengers, as they typically are in the USA where, even there, paranoia about segregating arriving and departing passengers has not reached UK levels. Unfortunately in the UK the arrivals monitors are often on a separate level, below departures, and you can always only go down to see them before going through security, after which point there are none at all.

Even the "old fashioned" method (looking out of the window at the ramp towards the relevant gate) increasingly doesn't work as airport architects think we all want to spend our time looking at plain walls rather than a view out across the field. BAA probably prefer this approach as well, as they then save on the costs of window cleaners.

Skipness One Echo
14th Nov 2011, 15:13
Alas I found myself on the wrong side of a locked gate with nobody around to whom I could plead, had to pay up to have my booking changed at an office with a grumpy handling agent, as well as find a hotel room at 9 pm.

Operator and airfield please? Name and shame.

Octopussy2
14th Nov 2011, 15:16
Presumably there is actually a significant downside for airlines to have passengers arrive earlier than necessary; simply put, it increases their drinking time! So the probability of drunk, truculent, difficult-to-handle pax increases.

OldBristolFreighter
14th Nov 2011, 16:25
Risk assessments

Through the forums there is a wide consensus that passengers don’t really want to fly from shopping malls, but airport business plans revolve round them. My real concerns are;

There is no need for passenger time from arrival at airport to boarding to be more than two hours. This would still allow time for a cup of coffee, visit to the loo etc.
There is only limited space for passengers in terminals.
Airport terminals are high profile targets for terrorists.
Giving unnecessarily early check-in times means there are excessively high numbers of passengers in the terminal(s) at any given time. In case of emergency, albeit a false alarm over an unattended bag, or faulty smoke alarm, an evacuation will take longer, and present a higher risk to passengers/staff. Additionally the return to normality will take longer. Also, crowded conditions lead to frustrated and/or bored passengers, some of whom will take solace in the bar while others will be plain grumpy. (Me).

Sadly airport operators would rather risk evacuating 5,000 passengers, 2,000 of which need not be there, than evacuate 3,000. They make more money that way.

Rollingthunder
14th Nov 2011, 18:31
paranoia about segregating arriving and departing passengers has not reached UK levels.

Ha, T3 LHR, arriving and departing pax walk right by each other. I usually plan my "shopping experience" before I get to the airport - it usually consists of a newspaper and maybe a chocolate bar and a couple of bottles of water at the gate. If I buy duty-free it's onboard inflight and cheaper. Any spare time I have is usually spent nursing a couple of whiskeys.

WHBM
14th Nov 2011, 19:39
Presumably there is actually a significant downside for airlines to have passengers arrive earlier than necessary; simply put, it increases their drinking time! So the probability of drunk, truculent, difficult-to-handle pax increases.
Yes. However :

Difficult situation .... for airline staff. :(
Revenue on booze .... for airport operator. :)

So that's OK then.

PAXboy
14th Nov 2011, 20:20
WHBMEven the "old fashioned" method (looking out of the window at the ramp towards the relevant gate) increasingly doesn't work as airport architects think we all want to spend our time looking at plain walls rather than a view out across the field.I'm torn between thinking that this (highly unwelcome) development has been due:


saving money by not having to have windows, with pax walled into a shopping mall
saving money by not providing viewing areas (even behind bomb proof glass)
saving construction difficulties (i.e. money) by having routine walkways and corridors in a position to overlook the working parts of the airport.

Either way, I'd say it's money. Just like they save money by not putting in travelators and escalators or too many lifts - but I won't start myself off on that one again. :mad:

OAB11D
14th Nov 2011, 20:32
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand but I am very very good at avoiding spending money in all major airports with notable exception of London ones where I feel obliged to buy tea and toffee as presents.

Totally agree, vote with our feet and we might just get our airports back and not these BS shopping malls that we have at the moment.