UK Borders - Shaming

[Capot]

qwertyplop

I did appreciate that you were mostly in agreement!

But where you and I disagree, I think, is that you accept that it is all for our own good; a bit of profiling, to allow other agencies to have a look etc etc. And I do not accept that. The 100m queue I was in was in no way planned, nor was anyone using 1-way mirrors in that corridor. It happened because the number of Borders staff on duty was half or fewer than it should have been. And that is simply bad management, with some lame excuses.

And especially I do not agree with you that "any choice you think you do have in such matters can only be exercised before you embark on your journey, that is, you choose not to travel because I suspect that your notion of customer service is not a concept that applies to this area of an airports operations. You simply comply with immigration and customs requirements as these are not negotiable -"

What is negotiable is not the requirements themselves, it's the way they discharge them. Trust me on this; I know it can be done. Not by one grumpy old passenger shouting, but by BAA doing that when 100,000 grumpy passengers start protesting that they have had enough. And by BAA I mean someone in the organisation senior enough to have an effect in the right offices, who is determined that no-one, no-one will be subjected to such appalling treatment in an airport run by BAA.

It has been done and it can be done again. But it won't be so long as passengers simply accept poor treatment as inevitable, non-negotiable, and move on.

And, to come back to my original point, it won't be for so long as the airport operator doesn't care a toss about the image his company is projecting of the UK.

And finally, I don't travel by air from choice every couple of weeks, I travel because I have to. That does not mean that I have to put up quietly with appalling treatment from the airport, the airline or any Government agency.

[qwertyplop]

They are not negotiable though Capot - like I said - your ability to influence anything within the context of this interaction is limited to how you were treated by an officer and not by the system. You'll have to trust me on that one..!! Moreover, those working within the system would agree with every word you say but their hands are tied by the checks they are tasked with conducting. It is the checks that slow the process down. The average transaction time has risen by a factor of 4 in the last two years. Staffing has not kept pace with that. And it will not. It takes two years to get an Immigration Officer up to the point where they are effective - UKBA are two to three years away from the IT solution ergo nothing will change.

Suck it up mate.

The airport authority have nothing whatsoever to do with the discharge of lawful authority by UKBA, they are subject to that authority should they wish to handle flights arriving from outside of the UK. They can moan that you are not getting through to the shops quickly enough but that's about it mate.

I suspect that e-Borders will provide you with a solution to your issues, that solution is some way away. In the interim, what I have alluded to will continue and anything we have to say on the matter will go largely ignored.

Why do I know this?

One look at the nonsense one has to put up with at security should tell you everything you need to know about the issue - what has changed to ease your passage through since people began moaning about this?

Not one thing.

Then factor into the equation that most forged passports are detected on flights originating from EU countries, rather than from outside the EU, and then you can begin to understand the issues UKBA has to deal with in addition to it's responsibilities to other law enforcement bodies etc. Usual M.O of too many chiefs and not enough Indians, the same happens in the police, the army so on and so forth.

None of us are so simple as to believe that what you see on the desks at a UK airport constitutes the whole of the UKBA effort are we? There will be all sorts of dark arts going on in the background I'm sure.

Good debate though, this link may interest you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tra...cle4588060.ece

[Capot]

Qwertyplop

The difference between you and me, er...mate, is that I have, as an airport manager, done exactly what I'm advocating BAA should do, rather than accepting that nothing can be done.

In that case it was the entire HM Customs team being slow, aggressive and unhelpful in the Arrivals area, at a regional airport, while doing absolutely nothing they were not supposed and entitled to do.

And we got it changed, along with the transfer to a non-public facing post of the man in charge.

We did not say, "Ah well, that's Customs, not our business, nothing we can do". For sound commercial reasons we wanted people to think highly of our airport, and we were not going to let any Government agency or officials get in our way. We had to go quite high up to do it, but that's never a problem..

BAA have got sufficient clout with DfT to get things changed tomorrow if they choose to. But they do not choose to.

[qwertyplop]

Why's that then Capot?

1) Why won't they do anything?

2) Why is the issue limited to BAA? They don't own all the airports and there are queues at all airports not just BAA airports.

3) Perhaps the UKBA told them the answer and it was an unassailable point they made?

4) I submit you influenced nothing - I suspect it was simply expedient to move the aforementioned person on and the reason suited. Poor form to mention this as well in an open forum. I bet you don't care to tell us which airport you managed?

You said;

We did not say, "Ah well, that's Customs, not our business, nothing we can do". For sound commercial reasons we wanted people to think highly of our airport, and we were not going to let any Government agency or officials get in our way. We had to go quite high up to do it, but that's never a problem..

Astonishing - so why is there a 'problem' if people like you exist?

I've read some old cobblers in my time - but this is right up there. You work to a commercial imperative - these people do not and why on earth should they. There is no profit per se in denying entry to criminals and smugglers - when you understand that not everyone thinks like this, then you will understand the issue at hand. I submit that for far too many years, the interests of business have undermined the interests of the state with obvious ramifications for us all as seen in the unfolding financial mess around us.

You may have customers Cabot - they have the travelling public and offenders. And until they've been spoken to and looked at, then no-one get's waved through simply because there is no profit in holding them up, I suspect that this is miles down their list. I also suspect you understand the cost of everything but the value of nothing. You clearly do not understand what border control is, the risk they work to and the peaks and troughs of traffic that determine staffing and cover. So a few flights arrive at once - do you deploy all your staff for those flights and leave nothing for later when it's busier? Or is it the fact that you were just pissed off because you had to wait for a bit?

1) I take it you've had access to the UKBA duty lists and flight schedules for the day in question?

2) I take it that you were fully aware of the target selection for the day that UKBA had tasked staff with?

3) I take it you are familiar with case load being conducted behind the scenes?

No, no and no.

Perhaps they started the shift with full staffing but cases were picked up that had to be investigated? Is it fairer to keep you waiting for 45 minutes or is it fairer to lock someone up for half a day that they might ultimately admit to the country, to get you through ASAP? What on earth do you think goes on? You sound like you managed a farm strip frankly.

I assume you have a some rudimentary knowledge of the work of the border control authorities? I'd be all for keeping people waiting for hours while they checked them out, their antecedence in terms of crossing a border is everything, their inability to get into an airside shop is utterly meaningless in that context.

Your ability to argue this point effectively is limited by your inability to answer my last 3 questions.

e-Borders will help you I suspect.

[Capot]

Protesting a little too much aren't we?

I see nothing in all that irrelevant rant that tells me why it's either necessary or acceptable not to man their controls with the right number of staff, or why BAA can't create and manage a better place to do it.

You are using their problems, presumably as an insider, to justify doing their job badly.

That was never a valid excuse, in any context.

In the case I quoted, the aim was not to move on an individual, although that was necessary. It was to get a better service for our customers. Of course Government agencies don't give a toss about good or bad service, that's why they have to be forced into doing it.

As for "You clearly do not understand what border control is, the risk they work to and the peaks and troughs of traffic that determine staffing and cover", what a silly remark. Guess what; those same peaks and troughs apply to everything the airport does. It's really isn't so difficult to get the manning right, given the will as opposed to relying on excuses for not doing that. As for the "risks they work to", do me a favour; there's more risks in manning an information desk.

However, you and I obviously are never going to agree, so I'm calling this a day. Good night, and sleep well.

[qwertyplop]

Capot - what on earth are you on about? I really think you don't know and getting into a dick swinging contest with you is not on my agenda.

The commercial world is full of people like you.

The 'risk' I alluded to is the movement of people due to war, famine, disease, the spread of organised crime networks facilitating people around the world so on and so forth, if you are what you claim to be, then you'd know that. The 'risk' is the movement of goods and services unchecked for all the wrong reasons. The visible part of the UKBA is all you see, you have not answerd a single question I put to you have you?

What they do is nothing like the what happens in the rest of an airport - like I said you see the cost of everything but the value of nothing. You might lose a few customers, what about the children being trafficked for organs or terrorists moving across borders using duff identification? Let's not lose them shall we? What about weapons and firearms moving around unchecked? There might be profit in it but is there a real public interest? So lets make sure that all these risk areas are covered shall we? If you have to queue for 45 minutes, then so be it.

Moreover, which bit of the e-Borders project don't you understand? The bit that says all the money is being chucked at that and not at staffing?

When you understand and acknowledge this, and you begin to understand the true nature of the differences between fluffy customer service and serious law enforcement, I'm happy to have a chat with you again. Some of your points have merit - the rest is an uninformed rage against the machine.

The last word and all that...

Yours aye,

QP

[Hartington]

As a simple passenger I've noticed how processing times have gone up recently resulting in longer queues. If this means that the possibility of a "bad guy" getting into the UK is reduced then I have to support the changes. But that doesn't mean that I feel that the current situation is acceptable or that waiting for e-borders is acceptable either.

The changes may well have been introduced more quickly that staff can be recruited and trained. Politicians have to be seen to do "something" and, by jingo, we can all see they have done "something".

I'm doubtful whether e-borders will be efficient or delivered on time. Quite apart from experience with other UK government IT projects I find that it is quite often the case that IT doesn't speed up processes at the point of delivery, simply reduces the back office staff needed to support the front office.

As a non member of the civil service or a political party, it seems obvious to me that the changes already introduced would have a negative effect on processing and that e-borders would not be delivered quickly enough so extra staff should therefore have been recruited.

They weren't. I don't believe they will be until we all make a noise about it by writing to BAA, MPs etcetera.

I'll be coming through T1 in about three weeks (after 2 months out of the UK) and I may feel a few letters coming on.

[Chica]

I arrived at T4 on a TAM flight last week and was met at the gate by at least 6 immigration officers doing "spot checks". If you looked Brazilian you had a good chance of being stopped and questioned. What is the point of this? Why not deploy these people at the immigration desks and save the questioning for there? I fast-tracked through IRIS but did notice the huge queue at the immigration desks.

[Final 3 Greens]

qwertyplop

Whatever the merits of your postings, the fact is that the unattractive security and immigration experience at UK airports is costing the country a lot of money, that frankly it needs given the parlous state of it's economy.

I am expat and will not suffer the experience, unless I have to (i.e. I get paid for a job and then I'll accept it as part of the cost of doing business.)

But use any UK airport to change flights for long haul? No way.

As a frequent traveller, I meet a lot of others and the word on the street is change at FRA, CDG, AMS, ZRH, MAD, anywhere but the UK.

But if you wish to live in your little dream world, where you see monsters that other countries don't, or perhaps more accurately other countries are equally aware of but seem to be able to manage more efficiently, then good luck to you.

One of the main reasons I left the UK was because too many people accept poor service and it becomes the norm.

Capot

IMHO you won that exhange hands down.

[UniFoxOs]

It is the checks that slow the process down. The average transaction time has risen by a factor of 4 in the last two years. Staffing has not kept pace with that. And it will not. It takes two years to get an Immigration Officer up to the point where they are effective - UKBA are two to three years away from the IT solution ergo nothing will change.

Arrived at EMA a couple of weeks ago. The check consisted of the officer comparing my face with the passport, then shoving my passport in to some sort of reader. Took about 5 seconds. Exactly how does it take two years to train someone to do that? Or are they really that thick?

UFO

[davedog]

UFO,

What i cannot undertand about this website is that if you are not a pilot then you are thick or dumb.

How long does it take a Pilot/Teacher/Doctor to train? an Immigration Officer has to learn about every passport and national ID card in the world, the security features of these documents, plus the application of immigration law. You may think it is not hard to stick a passport into a scanner but all that is telling the Immigration Officer is if you are a wanted by the Police (murderer or kiddie fiddler) or that another government agency has an interest in you. The Immigration Officer true skill is his application of passport knowledge to ensure the document is real or not. So in my opinion you are the thick one for not knowing what there function/role is
I cannot understand why everyone has to slate everyone else, they do a job in a tough environment and on a whole do a reasonable good job. I would hate to behind you in the queue at check-in, Sainsbury's traffic jam or anywhere else you cannot be arsed to wait.

Improvments can and should be made but sometimes it is a necessary evil. I am sure UKBA are on the whole not interested in 98% of the travelling public but as is most cases the majority suffer because of the minority.

[UniFoxOs]

OK Dave, I see that it takes two years to train an officer to the stage where he can tell that a passport is genuine with a glance lasting about half a second. I freely admit that I couldn't do that with any amount of training.

UFO

[Load Toad]

I'm sure the staff have a hard job and are well trained etc.

Right - now why aren't there enough desks open and why is the area that people who are entering the country have to que up in such an obnoxious, disorganised crap hole that is an embarrassment to take people through - never mind being an insult to British Citizens that just want to get home?

I don't care if other places are worse Heathrow should be better.

[qwertyplop]

It's disappointing that some here think this is about winning or losing an argument because it is not, it is more about having an understanding, where demonstrably none exists, of what different people do in different ports and why things sometimes happen.

I have agreed that, on the face of it, the staffing can be rubbish, I have commented that the immigration staff are likely to be no more happy about it than Capot but I have simply offered the possibility that there may be mitigation to which we are not party. Ongoing casework, other targets, other priorities. It does not mean anyone was neglectful of their responsibilities but simply that perhaps they were juggling a number of priorities. It highlights the juxtaposition between the commercial world and those engaged in law enforcement unfortunately.

It is disappointing that the OP does not understand what 'risk' is in the context of the work of those agencies and his comments seem to show how he regards the work engaged upon by the UKBA as nothing more than a mere irritation, moreso as he claims to be an airport manager and therefore should know all about the facilities that the airport is supposed to provide to the control authorities, it is disppointing that another poster thinks that the work is nothing more than looking at someone passing through in a second or two and feels that he/she is justified to then call them thick. It is disappointing that law enforcement professionals have to work in such an environment where a lack of respect and understanding of what they do is so evident. I understand that most IO's are either graduates and/or linguists, so to call them thick is a rather odd suggestion to make.

It's all very PPRUNE actually.

[malc4d]

Wow.
I think the original point was about why the building decor has to be so utterly disgusting, and that most of the desks were unattended......not how bright or stupid anyone is.

[qwertyplop]

Yes, you are correct.

And an airport manager, as Capot says he/she is, should know that the facility is down to the airport authority as a consequence of the Immigration Act and it's requirements as set out to the port operator. That requirement is along the lines that the airport provide and maintain an area for the purpose of conducting an immigration control. HMRC have the same requirement as do the Police if the port is designated. There is not a port in this fair land that do what they should do in respect of this legal requirement yet they are the first to bitch when things don't flow the way the want them to flow, as I understand it trying to take them to task over the facilities and their responsibilities is a nightmare. As with everything, the devil is in the detail.

How traffic arrives into the hall is nothing to do with the UKBA - you'll have to speak to the airport on that one - you'll have to speak to the schedulers who schedule 10 flights to arrive in an hour but then nothing for the following two hours - anyone seen BHX in the summer?

Is anyone seriously therefore saying that the time spent in an immigration hall, complying with the law I might add, is the one single thing that ruins the experience of the international traveller? Or is it possibly more to do with the attitude of the port operator who restricts the space people work in so it can flog another airside shop? Or who does not refit and refurb the airside areas? Or who blames everyone except themselves for the apparently horrible experience that just the UKBA part of the airport causes for everyone? Most UK airports are dumps, who's that down to? The operator?

Who'd even want to then work in such an apparently unpleasant environment? I should think the UKBA would support anyone who wanted to moan about such an unpleasant place. It's in their interest.

[MartinCh]

If you looked Brazilian you had a good chance of being stopped and questioned. What is the point of this?

Cheeky checking (out) chocolate chiquitas.

Hm, me being male I do notice Latin girls, too. Ehm, I do notice most of the girls worth looking at. I'm biased. I myself take security checks and clearance, incl long waits at check-in desks as necessary evil. So be it. Pull your mp3 player and try to chill out.

[Final 3 Greens]

qwertyplop

I had the great pleasure of arriving at LHR last night and say that I can understand how it takes two years training to learn to be as miserable as the person who ignored me when I said 'good evening', scanned my passport and then handed it back without comment or eye contact - that is just plain rude.

Busy international travellers have better things to worry about than which incompetent organisation(s) are the most guilty party in providing a bad experience.

They just vote with their feet.

At the end of the day, the UK loses business.

But I don't care, I don't live there, do not have to pay UK taxes and will receive very good fees for working in the second world.

[Runway 31]

Arriving into T5 and going though the immigration checks, not too much trouble. Then you get to the bottom of the stairs and are herded like cattle with someone shouting various messages at you before being let up the stairs to the security scanner queues. Whoever designed the top floor putting the scanners so near the top of the stairs needs their head looked at.

[rothin]

Hats off to qwertyplop for trying to support HMRC but it's a lost cause, they are institutionally cr*p. Combining the arrogance of the customs with the ignorance of the inland revenue was genius.