20 min turn-around unrealistic!
 

I've been working on the Easyjet product for just over 1 year. During this period I've seen the number of Passenger Service Agents, allocated to "departures" steadily decrease, to the point where only 1 agent is allocated to board a flight.

The workload for the departures team has steadily increased, with the introduction of Online Check-in etc etc, to the point where I find myself coming under fire because I refuse to cut corners. Other agents seem perfectly happy about just checking that the passenger is going to the right destination, but I am not. It seems that brushing off the passport check is the norm when time is tight. On the rare occasion when I am joined by another agent at the gate, I seem to spend half my time chasing their passengers down the stairs, because they have been allowed to board with their spouses passport!!!!!

I do not think that it's acceptable for anyone to be faced with 156 passengers, at the entrance to a restricted area, and be expected to carry out the appropriate checks, single handed, in less than 15minutes. (Assuming that it only took the inbound passengers 5min to disembark). The pressure placed on the staff for an on-time departure is totally counter productive, there is no encouragement to do things properly, instead agents flap and make mistakes.

What are the opinions from those at other stations. Do all EZY hubs only have one gate agent per flight???

Totally agree! That's why I don't help with boarding procedures at the gate - otherwise it might hide the fact that Passenger Services are short-staffed; if a flight goes late because of short-staffing, then maybe management will belatedly pay attention; otherwise they will just assume we (as a team) can cope!

What about the summer season, when the dispatchers get sometimes asked to do two short-haul/low-cost turnarounds SIMULTANEOUSLY... something that's obviously unprofessional and unsafe, and that I now simply refuse to do (for the same reasons as mentioned above).

Cheers :cool:

Back in the days when I was a Customer service agent ( Ok, that was 18 years ago) we used to throw so many staff at the boarding gate. Two to pull boarding cards and two to board. One for under the wing and one for the steps.
It does seem crazy to allocate a max of two staff per gate, and dangerous, to boot.
Ok, everyones trying to cut corners, these days, to make dosh, but at what cost?
Although, when I was a load controller, it was the norm to dispatch 3 flights at a time, 1st thing. although they were usually all parked next to each other.
Used to be a great way to lose weight
Glad I'm behind a desk, these days. Good luck !:eek:

It can be done with one pax agent, but only if the right facilities are available and the agent is clued up and on the ball. My previous experience of EZY at STN is that neither of these things are happening.

I have seen/done plenty of non-fiddled, genuine 20 min turnarounds and I know it can be done, although the classic 20 min turnaround chart from easyjet is a load of old cobblers - network analysis at its worst.

Hi!

Great thread!

I work as a loadcontroller / dispatcher. It's sad to see that our job is sinking... The handling of low cost carriers kills our loadcontrol experience... The freeseating and similar things ruin all that I learnt during the years... Zero Fuel Weight on an Easy A319? Pass the final figures to the captian, and probably you are lucky enough not to offload bags...

Sad, very sad...

Cheers!

Twas one of the reasons why after 4 years working as check in staff and dispatch I decided that enough was enough. Thing is, the less the airline pays the less the handling agent can provide. I can remember a certain Welsh airline paying for one passenger services agent but wanted three when it came to boarding. Handling agent provided what that airline paid for and they picked up quite a few delays because of it.

This leads me onto delay codes. Unfortunately there is not a delay code for " Airline refuses to pay for a proper service " so most delays go down to handling delays. This is where management start to get their knickers in a twist. I got fed up of having to explain that a lack of staff caused the delay. But because that was a handling delay I had to find some other reason. Mind you it would have helped if the guys sending the departure message helped out a bit. When I started dispatching there was an unwritten rule that said " 10 minute delays do not exist ". That all changed when I moved to a single handling agent airport.

The handling agent at this airport covered everything. Though Bacon airlines covered their own flights and one or two others. Now we were all working under the same company name as a team. That was until we picked up a delay of two minutes. They guys sending the departure messages wanted a delay code for a delay of two minutes but their watches/clocks were never wrong were they? So I'd just pick a number to keep them quiet. But I'd get told that we can't use that delay code because it either "does not exist (?)" or was a handling delay so we couldn't use it. Even though that was the cause of the delay I still couldn't use it. So I'd tell them to pick a number (a bit like delay code bingo really) only for it to cause a big argument between the ramp, passenger services and the airport authority. All arguing that the cause of the delay was down to the next person.

There is a quote in a certain American carrier’s operation manual that said:-

" Delay codes are not used to allocate blame. They are used by management to identify potential problem areas ".

So why do we get the blame and a bolloking for a delay? Instead of finding a solution to the problem management prefer to take the power trip option and bollok anyone who may be in the wrong place at the wrong time which does nothing for staff moral. This was a big factor in me making the decision to leave the airline business. No one needs the stress or the pressure put upon you.

I'm now working for my local ambulance service driving a doctor around where there is just the two of us in the car and no pressure from management. I get nearly double the pay I used to get, a full time permanent contract, decent working hours, a decent amount of holidays (8 weeks per year) and more respect from management and members of the public. I think I made the right choice and would never return to working for a handling agent unless things changed 100%.

I think it's a big question of how well-trained & well-motivated your passenger service agents are, whilst you can ultimately get the job very well done if you're managers are like the Gestapo, it's much nicer if you feel valued or work in a nice environment, which my experience with the circus shows we are in the Gestapo bracket, rather than the friendly one. Because PSAs are relatively cheap to train, and there is a string of naive young people who see it as the stepping stone to cabin-crew, we're seen as something of a replacable commodity.

20-minute turnarounds are achievable if you're well trained, even if there's only one person on the gate, I've done this for both 156-seat easyJet A319s & 189-seat Ryanair 738s. The issue though, is that whilst you are efficient, you don't have time to be friendly, and sometimes you are unable to ensure that the boarding procedures such as priority boarding groups can be offered. At my base, on slot one flights (0600-0700) there is usually only one PSA on the boarding for low-cost flights, whilst throughout the rest of the day it depends how many staff are around if it's going to be one or two. Short-staffedness is something that won't go away as the airlines try to squeeze more costs from the industry, and whilst I don't think it compromises safety, it compromises service & the well-being of your workforce.

The larger airports will have dedicated checkin, gate and arrivals staff but Cardiff isn't that busy so there is no need. The system works with a nice long turnaround but can cause problems with shorter turnaround times. Having equipment that works is also a bonus. Now when I was at Cardiff I found that the equipment could often let you down be it the airports or the circus'.

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. You may think that pulling cards as fast as you can means being "well trained" but I do not. I do not believe that you can achieve a 20min turn-around single handedly, and only sacrafice boarding groups and a friendly service. If you have not cross-checked names on boarding cards with those in the passport, and checked the photo, then you have not done your job properly!! I really don't know how PSA's can relax, knowing that they have allowed an aircraft to depart without being 100% certain that every single piece of baggage on board, is accompanied by the same person that introduced the bag into the system at check-in!

Sorry TotalBeginner but I think you're actually underestimating the professionalism of some of the people that work as PSAs handling no-frills airlines, and no doubt you will but a stress on the word some. I make it clear as part of all of my announcements when boarding flights, which I believe is necessary to please have your photo open to the photo id page it doesn't take long to look at the photo, the passenger, then rip the card, it's acheivable with 25-minute turnarounds (I've never witnessed 20-minute turns), although I will admit that I usually feel like a sitdown, and a little sweaty after I've done one. Even with the relative discomfort, my main concern is not safety, it's that I've been barking orders at pax, and some passengers who may have been rightfully deserving of a priority boarding placement were not given one, as I was rushed.

We're quite fortunate at my base where we have three gates where passengers have got to go down just three steps before going into a holding pen, standing at the top of the stairs rather than at the podium is usually the best way to ensure that you can check everyone's passport & boarding card. We have another two where the gap is so small to enter the gate area that people come in single file, again a benefit to us. However, whilst these physical restraints benefit us, it can be done from others. It's all down to the training & commitment of staff, and no I'm not a manager or supervisor!

Isn't that the whole point of the post? That safety is taking a back seat. The original poster wrote that he dosn't like to cut corners and you have just shown that you do just that by compramising the safety of passengers. If you were well trained in your job then safety would be the priority a long way before priority boarding!!

FC: I don't understand your comment "I used to pick a number to keep them quiet." Isn't it important to assign the correct delay code? Clearly you weren't doing this!:zzz:

However, how about adding some new delay codes to the IATA list to ease this apparent issue: how about not enough dispatchers, not enough gate staff, no ground staff available because the a/c was off schedule etc etc.

Off the original topic I know, but any other ideas for new delay codes?

Quite. But when you are told that you cannot use that code because it is a handling delay even though that was the cause of the delay, you just select a number that isn't a handling delay to keep everyone happy and give you an easy life. These are just some of the codes that I was told I could not use:-
13. Check-in error.
15. Boarding, discrepancy and paging _Flight coupon/boarding passs counting errors or wrong announcement
32. Loading/unloading - Late or wrong load planning/lack of loading staff
36. Fueling/de-fueling. Late arrival of the fuel supplier/technical problems at fuel supplier. (because there was an "agrrement" with the fuel supplier)
90% of the time I was told I couldn't use those codes. So if you can't issue a code, what do you do?

I wasn't aware that Ryanair had 20-minute 738 turnarounds. As far as I am concerned, they are all 25-minute turnarounds - I do enough of them to be sure about that, and at 25 minutes, they are intensive enough!

As for not being able to use the correct delay code (it has happened to me, but not to that extent), if I really disagree with a given delay code, I will (as I have done several times) write a separate, full report about the turnaround to my OPS manager (and I will make sure he reads it, too!); if anything, I will have made my point about fiddling delay codes (after all, what are they for if they are not to be used?) and he'll realise that fiddling delay codes means wasting 10 minutes of HIS valuable time! :E

Cheers

I don't think you quite understood what I said, I meant safety was not a concern of mine, because I know it isn't being compromised, it doesn't mean I don't care about safety, safety is the priority of everyone working in the airline industry, whether it's a low-cost or legacy carrier.

Aloon, my post is not their to be spellchecked, I'm not in an English primary school lesson, it's an internet discussion board for aviation professionals, I don't require writing with a dictionary when I post here. The conflict of 20/25 minute turnaround was that I think this post should say "25 min turn" as these are the turnaround times that are used by Ryanair & most of the time easyJet. I've never at my base seen either airline schedule 20 minute turns.

Don't worry about it, I'm not angry at all, but felt that I needed to justify my post. I've been handling low-cost airline flights with 25-minute turnarounds now for three going on four years, and believe that with the right amount of training, enthusiasm & encouragement, then this can be realistically targeted. I wanted to comment on this post, because I handle mostly low-cost airline flights, although both easyJet & Ryanair operate 25-minute turns at my airport, which is the norm systemwide, rather than the 20-minute quoted at the top of the page.

But, there is a lot to be said for debate, and I enjoy hearing plenty of opinions.

Just to clarify, the 20 minute turn arounds that I am referring to, are the UK domestic flights.

I work for a handling agent that handles Jet2. The shortest turnaround time we have would be 30 mins. Having that extra 5-10 mins is important especially when both the inbound and outbound flights are full.

Richard

I agree; having even an extra 5 minutes would be priceless - especially on a full Ryanair 737-800 with 189 seats. Even a baby 737-300/149Y can be challenging in 25 minutes if there are WCHC among the PAX.

Cheers :cool:

As low-cost airlines shun the use of airbridges, the trend seems to be that it's actually faster to get pax across the ramp and up two flights of steps where they can spread themselves about where they like. The problem is that most people only see one flight of steps, or do not want to walk to another set especially if it's cold & wet, and furthermore what I've noticed with bmibaby, where we have assigned seating, at EMA is that our CSAs no longer direct pax to a particular flight of steps. Go, who used the same model as we do, used to direct pax sitting aft of the emergency exit rows to board through the rear doors, and those forward to go through the front door. I agree with FougaMagister when he says that pax with special needs don't seem to be accounted for with these fast turnarounds, whether they're slow walks or actually need an ambulift. Not having airbridges presumably requires more staff anyway, as pax have to be directed across the ramp & assisted with steps, so does time over number of staff save money?

I'd say 30-minutes is plenty of time to turnaround a Boeing 737, after all even post 9/11 Southwest (before they had 15-mins turns in some stations including LAX) in the USA manages to do it in 20mins. 30-minutes not only gives the gate staff enough time to do their jobs in a professional & secure manner, but also is much more comfortable for both them & pax especially those with limited mobility or other special requirements. 20/25-minutes just rushes everyone, and I wonder what added expenses would come with just adding 5-minutes.

Good Boarding calls
 

Surprised that Baby.com states that at EMA (Sorry NEMA is too much of a mouthful & in my opinion should never have been changed) the CSA's do not direct pax to the rear steps, a good boarding call & pro-active instructions when "pulling the card" should ensure that’s not required?
At our base we have the luxury of holding lounges & can "pen in" the pax even before the inbound arrives, if we use 2 sets of steps then telling the pax seated in rows 14-26 to use rear steps & all other rows to use the Fwd normally means a smooth departure, even if we use the bridge (as we do most times) sending down 14-26 first ensures they get onto the aircraft & get settled far quicker. Having allocated seating is a godsend though as when FR boards its a rugby scrum & we normally have to waste having a staff member at the top of the ramp to stop businessmen from trying to get on before those with small children, after that its normally "every man for themselves" despite calls for Seq no's 1-60 1st, (normally you get lots of blank looks & "where's me number"). Traveling FR last year REU/LTN & it was a nightmare they called pax with children 1st & we all stood up (was during school hols) was let through the gate & then held by a rope across a very wide pathway, when the A/C was ready the rope dropped & it was like the grand national start, not good if your traveling with 2 kids & a slow walker. Never again.
Talking of FR look at airlinequality.com for loads of bad experiences of their dubious customer service. :eek:

bruppy, I don't ever remember flying as pax with bmibaby, sitting in the lounge and distinctly hearing the CSAs include in their announcement that pax should use a particular flight of steps, surely this could be incorporated into the boarding call? With regards to the Ryanair boarding procedure, I think it all depends on the handling agent as to how well it's dealt with. Open-seating will always be uncomfortable as you're anxious to get a good seat, but the CSA at the podium will make the difference as to how well-enforced the rules are.

EZY ran a few trials using steps and a Jetway. They found that with the wider aisle of the 319's, a jetway made no difference to the turn around time, and was much more beneficial for wheelchair passengers. They have now made it clear that their preference is for a jetway on all international turn-arounds. It is taking a while to get all of the dispatchers trained up, but it's a definate improvement!

From the flight deck point of view……….

These short turn around times are a complete and utter risk to safety. To be honest, I’m so tied up in what I’m doing in preparing the next sector that I had not given what you people do much thought…………. It’s totally un safe.

Im usually an easy going and calm person but I’ve been so stressed out with these 25 min turnarounds that the other day I found myself arguing and pissing off the dispatcher. I felt like a right idiot afterwards. It was not the dispatchers fault we were late. Not my fault either. It’s the fault of the low cost competition that means even if a particular airline would increase its turnaround times to lets say 45min ( which isn’t long enough really either) you guys will no doubt be poached to go help the airline that’s still insisting on 25min. Guys and girls,….. The only people benefiting from our increased stress and reduced safety are the people counting the ££.

What’s worst is I cant see it changing.

Midjet, I know exactly what you mean. It puts pressure on everyone involved!

EZY have increased the pressure once again by introducing INET check-in. This means that passengers who have checked-in on-line, have to have a full document check at the departure gate. In my opinion this is ludicrous, I am already complaining that I don't have time to check the name and photograph, and now they want me to check for VISA's!!!!!!

What makes me so angry, is that Easyjet think that every airport is like Luton. Their agents have 2 computers per gate, and so can enter the INET sequence number as the passenger comes through. Not all airports can do this, for whatever reason. The combination of a CR@P reservation system, copied from Navitaire, and the fact that no thought has gone into this process means that we all have to run around like idiots to try and make it work.

Last week we discovered that there was an error with the check-in system, and that Infants who are checked in on-line, are included in the M,F,C, headcount!!! I mean for god sake, don't those idiots put these changes into practice and check that everything is working properly before bringing them online????????????????

20 min turnaround
 

i used to work for FCA at STN and i cant imagine how u guys do a 20 minute turnaround safely. It was bad enough turning round an a/c in an hour! Fair enough their are diffrences in cleaning and seat pockets etc. But the one thing is that b4 the aircraft left i knew that a/c had left safely and that all security had been done.
I Flew with FR on Friday and as soon as the last pax disembarked the a/c then we boarding!
Come on how can proper security checks can be completed??

Baby, I obviously did not make my last post clear as we do actually inform pax through the boarding call (as well as telling them) which steps to use. how often do you fly with baby through Brum?, Flybe are also a stickler for front & rear steps so we are well versed with boarding calls.
FR are bringing in INET check in throughout, luckily we only have a DUB flight to contend with, god help those at STN & LPL who will have all & sundry destinations to try & board. KLM also do INET & the cock up's that have occurred because of that are numerous, we also had all the infants checked in as adults & one day all the INET pax offloaded? can see tears with this one?:{ :{ :{

In the same order, Flybe introduced "return check-in" whereby a PAP checks-in for his day return at the same time as his outbound flight. The result: you end up waiting at the gate at, say, 1800Z for someone who may have checked-in at 0630Z in the morning! These are usually business people, but how can they be sure that they'll make their return flight? Then we have to wait until STD-5 before offloading them.

Also, Flybe procedures say that the handling agent HAS to accept LMC PAX until STD-10; the dispatcher is not asked, rather TOLD, that an LMC is on his/her way to the gate! What about the day when the aircraft has a few empty seats but is overloaded? We will have to refuse boarding (the check-in staff have no indication of what the underload is).

Mad... :*

bruppy, I'm crew at EMA so rarely experience the bmibaby service from a passenger perspective, however when I've done so through my own base, I've never heard an announcement be made regarding the correct set of steps or when having my boarding pass pulled either.

Be advised that besides open seating there are other ways that airlines are trying to cut down on their turnaround times. In America, Ted the low-cost product from United board passengers firstly by their frequent flyer status, then rather by row, their actual seat position ie window then centre then aisle. Not sure how well it works or how it affects parties like families, but generally it seems to get everyone on the plane quickly.

Turn Around Time
 

Just my 2 pence worth.....

I feel the CAA has as much to blame for this as management, they accepted a 20 min turn around to be OK.

I think a turn around of 20 min does put pressure on staff and therefore compromises safety in all the mentioned above situations not forgetting cabin crew and flight crew.

My view is that the CAA should change this time as a legal minimum limit to lets say.... 30 mins..... and that's any a/c or operator who lands or operates from the UK.

Cheers

[quote=Aloon]Do handling agents and airlines sit down and look at the airport facilities when they make a deal??

In my experience the guy in charge of new contracts says 'yes' a lot. Pier stands, a set or rear steps, staff.... you name it you got it.

It's then up to the poorly paid and overworked middle staff to try and provide it. And then get moaned at by same when it JUST CANT HAPPEN.

Great thread...

I have followed this thread with considerable interest and sympathize with anyone attempting 20/25 Minute Turnarounds on Medium Haul Aircraft as standard practise.

Somewhile ago, when I had access to the tools I did some analysis and the reults are:

The critical path analysis of the 'generic' Turnaround which includes Cleaning and Cabin Grooming would not show Flight Deck Checks as a problem.
In very general terms would give a turnaround as being 30 to 40 minutes, with the Cabin Cleaning and Grooming Standard required being the main variable.

However once you feed in a time for turnaround of 20 Minutes, then Midjet is right that Flight Deck procedures are now a critical element and it is a 'close run thing' and if the checks result in 'a tech query' then a delay is inevitable.

If you take out cabin Cleaning/Grooming then 25 Minutes is achievable as a standard, but it allows no real margin for any section involved (difficult cargo offload/onload, special needs passenger group etc), but this works on the 'generic airport', i.e. No account of any special circumstances at that station (including Security Requirement bottlenecks etc).

If you now move to the Transit Case where you are just dealing with Pax and Baggage On/Off (no Cargo, No Crew Change and slightly less required in the way of checks, No Scheduled Fuel Uplift, Catering change, Cleaning etc) Then at the 'generic airport' 20 Minutes is feasible. But this makes 'huge assumptions'.
The first being the Passengers are called to the Gate prior to Aircraft Arrival and the Security and Pax Services Team have effectively processed the bulk of them prior to the Aircraft Arriving on stand. The bulk of the outbound baggage is pre-positioned a the stand holding area.

Of course when planning 'real' Turnarounds, the actual Airport circumstances must be factored in and that should not just include the basic Facilities set, but probable Stand/Gate allocation, coaching, steps only, etc, and at busy airports time of day.

But this case still (normally) assumes no real limitation on Airport Staff Resources.

There have always been exceptions, one from what most of you would consider ancient history was at the height of the 'The Troubles' the planned Turnaround at BFS was 14 Minutes Chock to Chock with Full Load of Pax and Mixed Belly load Cargo. But everyone was fully resourced and geared up to do it (including the Passengers :-)

Now to close this bit of the post out, when planning at Main base/Hub add 10 minutes to your to full turnaround analysis, mainly to give Engineers time to deal with the accumlated minor 'snags' but also to give a 'punctuality' margin!

But the real world isn't like this, well not anymore:
The Handling Negotiations are purely Cost based and the Turnaround Time is planned on the Transit Time which as near as damn it defines the minimum possible ground time and this is applied globally to the Route Network. So all the above analysis (even if the airline bothered to do it) goes out of the window.

The Airline will be asking for the world for 50p and the Handling Agent (aware of the competition) will agree to it.

As this thread proves:
Regardless of how professional the Handling Agency staff are, the end results are Delays which accumulate as there is little, or no recovery planned into the programme. Good people deciding it's time to leave aviation, Passenger and Crew frustration and finally but most importantly Concerns that the 'holy grail of safety' is being undermined.

As this trend has been going on for a number of years, I have come to the sad conclusion that unless the CAA do become involved and regulation is enacted, nothing will change, except that working on the ground in Passenger Services, Load Control/Dispatch etc will become something only the financially desperate, or otherwise unemployable will want to do!

As for Delays and allocating Delay Codes:
I once worked for an airline (as a dispatcher) that at various times worked to +5, +3 and Zero tolerance delay standards. The Zero Tolerance period was I later found out (when I put on a suit), to prove a serious point. However as being part of the Airline rather than an Agent we were in a position to allocate the delays as we saw them and not have to fudge to preserve anyones feelings/jobs/contract. I am NOT saying that on (too many) occasions we didn't operate rubber watches.

The most contentious delays were those down to Flight Deck, which were fought tooth and nail by Flt Ops every morning at the Delay Committee. Sometimes (as I later discovered) even when proof was available the rest of the committee gave in (life too short)!

But when I was working as a relatively junior member with a group tasked with reducing Handling delays (we ignored the Delay Commitee findings as being 'over processed'), we found that because in general terms the dispatcher reports were accurate (if in many cases cynical), that once the statistics guy had put them through various tools, the patterns that emerged enabled root cause problems to be isolated and in time many were resolved.
From memory a lot of them were not resourcing problems, but getting resources where required, when required. The result was a significant reduction in delays with a positive financial benefit.

A similiar analysis on route Airports was less successful, but did change the schedules for the Scottish and French departures at certain times of day.

Inaccurate delay reporting, in the long term doesn't benefit the Handling Agency (although proving this is the case to their Management is almost impossible) and it doesn't benefit the Airline nor the travelling public.
But from this thread it appears that currently the Airlines don't care, the Handling Agencies daren't care (if they are to stay in business), the Staff who do care are being worn down and Joe Public is resigned to it.

Hmm for some reason reminds me of the last years of British Rail!
Sorry for 'rambling on for so long'
DIH

Great post Opssys! You've totally summed it up!

I worked for Swissport at STN for just under 2 years on the FR side.

FR paid Swissport (then Groundstar) for 2 agents per flight to check in and 1 agent to board. The boarding agent was asssited by a cabin crew member who made the announcements and usually ripped the cards whilst the gate agent marked the cards off.

Whilst I was thurough at check in, the most I did at the gates was to check that the boarding card was for the flight I was actually boarding and maybe have a look at the passport/ID photo if the picture was being shown to me. It all came down to how good the cabin crew member was that you worked with. Some were great, knew what to do and did it quickly whilst those that insisted on checking every detail (name, picture, flight etc) HAD to be helped to prevent a delay on the flight. 20-25 min turnarounds were common and to be honest weren't difficult (for me anyway).

With regards to the comment made on Visas, it only adds seconds onto the passport check apart from the odd occasion when you would need to do a further check.
The team I worked in had between 60-80 PSA's on shift at any given time and there weren't many that you could work with who could close a fully booked flight on time. 189 people between two in 1 hour 20 was beyond most staff especially those that insisted on charging excess baggage.

I was constantly bollocked for not charging enough (it was monitored) but at least I could close a flight on time.

The major difference between FR and EZY @ STN is that EZY are computerised whereas FR are manual.
I preferred the manual way because it was just as fast as using a PC and when EZY had computer issues, their operation almost ground to a halt whilst we continued as normal. The only time manual checkin became an issue was during the peak periods when you had to call checkin for pax names. 1 phone, many flights and missing pax = delays.

Anyhow, I think I've strayed off topic there but I felt totally comfortable with the way I worked during the turnarounds.

The check-in Process and the Excess Baggage Problem
 

Although not central to this thread, the Check-in Process has come up frequently, especially in regard to 'new' ways of remote check-in, coupled with round-trip check-in etc.

Although the use of the internet as the medium is recent, many of the 'new' methods can be traced to trials (and tribulations) carried out from the mid-1970's onwards. These were all marketing driven and inevitably even the most carefully planned (not many) uncovered problems and pitfalls that the designers of the scheme had not-forseen (usually in part because they had never monitored sufficiently, nor understood the processes involved and rarely if ever sought the advice of people who worked on check-in).

Many of these methods have been revived in recent years and some are now mainstream, at least with certain carriers. But the lessons learned in the original trials have in the main been forgotten, or lost. So again the designers have started from scratch and it appears made exactly the same mistakes again (ranging from Equipment Siting, fully integrating the additional method into the processes, exception handling, etc) An example of history teaching us nothing if we aren't listening.

So I am not surprised that route stations in particular have and are experiencing problems with some of the new 'methods' as the requirement definitions and design would, if it even considered the Check-in and Gate Area ergonomics at all, have concentrated on Main Base, and/or Main Hubs (and therefore any project costs involving Check-in/Gate Equipment would ignore the route stations) Plus any late alpha and beta testing on a realistic scale with involve high cost. So final 'beta' would tend to be as part of the production implementation and as implementation support is concentrated at the critical points (i.e. High Volume), a Route Station can feel pain, with no locally available asprin to ease it.

As SLF I have experienced most of the 'new' versions in action and in the case of some Airports reverted to the Check-in Queue. Where well implemented, they can be extremely convienent for the Passenger, where however the equipment is badly sited, or in the case of remote check-in the software is not 'robust' normally because it is a 'quick and nasty bolt-on' rather than being designed and project managed as a major change. As an example which happened to me: From the Hotel the Web Front End of the System Consistently Refused to check me in, but when I arrived at Airport Check-in I found that it had a total 5 timesm something impossible to do from a CUTE, or Networked PC/Terminal - As the PSA took it well I suspect this was not the first time it had happened!

As a Passenger, because of the Stamps in my Passport, I am now resigned for being selected for additional Security checks, but from observation (and going through some checks does give time to observe :-) once an enhanced security process has been implemented for a while, if properly resourced and the staff have gained experience, overall it doesn't cause any major impact on Ground Time, it is the implementation and immediate afermath that causes a problem (Although immediately Post 9/11 was extreme, I went through 4 Security Checks on one Flight - The Normal Check and Three Personal Checks, although I scored the Maximum, I wasn't alone and it was partly a case of left/hand right hand and the queues were mega - A couple of Months later same flight - I scored three checks, but the process was smooth and as painless as one could expect).

As someone who has spent much of their career in Airline Systems (mainly Operational rather Passenger Related) I was disappointed to hear that something as basic as POB+Infants wasn't handled correctly in Production, even if this appeared to be a one-off glitch.

Excess baggage: From Opsix' Post once again an example of cost based handling resulting in a problem. If a route has a high level of excess baggage (e.g. LGW/LHR LOS) then you either resource (and pay for) check-in to handle it (i.e NOT two Agents/Desks), or you wave it through (unless it is so gross that ignoring it is impossible) as long as the weights and/or pieces are correct.

If you are not going to resource for it and still 'discipline' staff for not dealing with the excess then your going to cop late closeouts and delays (and still not get the real amount of excess owed).

189 People in 80 Minutes, through two desks would be good throughput for a DCS based Check-in. A 2 Desk Manual Check-in can in certain circumstances achieve higher rates, but only if the desks are prepared with Pre-written/printed Tags, Cards and Shared Seat Plan. But an all Manual System does require A Coupon Control and is from a Back-office viewpoint less than ideal

Sorry gone (even) further off topic than intended
DIH

This was not a one-off glitch. It was something that had been overlooked. And even though it had been pointed out, it was not rectified until it actually caused a delay. Which in my opinion is totally crazy!

This is exactly what I can't understand about FR. Not only does their manual system restrict passengers to specific desks, they also require two memembers of staff to go through the process of checking in the passengers again on their DCS post departure??? I've taken part in this process myself, it's extreemly time consuming, and very rarely do the two match up.

From the 'sound of it' the Requirements Definition probably didn't cover the Infants Case and despite the 'checks and balance' which should have picked this up it went through Alpha Testing (the Developers own test process) and Beta (Customer testing Process) without be spotted (Not very good to say the least), Once in production and the fault reported, then depending on the design, a fix could take time, I suspect the Delay put down to the problem was a catalyst to 'a sort this now' demand and resources were thrown at the problem. Whilst this speeds the fix, there is often a price (not just financial) to pay as the change cannot be tested for possible cause/effects elsewhere in the Application/Module whatever!.

Gosh Manual Check-in with DCS reconciliation. A permanent parallel run (where manual and automated systems are run together normally prior to the sutomated system going live) - A you say TB a process that 'eats' staff resouces and the reconciliation is going to throw up anomalies almost every flight.

Life just doesn't get any easier in the world of Airport Handling does it!
DIH

hey all, just had a quick flick through this thread and felt the need to add a moan of my own, im a dispatcher at lpl (points at name) and i find that the 25 min turn around puts pressure on despatchers to skip secruity messures, aircraft departing with out the AAA forms filled in completey etc etc, yet if a dispatcher does the paper work correctly and the flight goes out late they then have to try and explain to the ops control that your job takes 25 mins just to wade thru the paperwork, that ontop of the cabin crew havin a natter between flights and departures takin 10 mins to get the pax on the ramp after reqested it does seem to get a bit heavy. i understand the need to get the a/c off asap when its low fares but manegement and the airlines need to think of ways to improve saftey and abilty of staff. think i need to move to a bigger airfield and do some hour turnarounds, can grab a brew then!!

I don't see how FR are checking in the pax again at the gate. All you do is mark off the pax that have passed through so you can see who exactly is missing.
The 2 desks per flight also works pretty well but only if both staff members are up to the job. If they are slow then you get issues.

I think it refers to what happens in the back office after the flight has left. All the passengers are checked in on the reservation system, and the no-shows removed, so that FR have an accurate record for revenue management, and resevation changes, refunds etc.