UK Borders - Shaming
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's worse than that - they've merged HMRC detection (a contradiction in terms) with the the UK Immigration 'Service' now. So you can barked at for having your passport in a cover and then get your 200 fags taken off you while 5kg's of coke slips through nicely thank you very much. I hang my hat with the Immigration Service though not HMRC.
Can it get any worse?
Please fill in the gaps.
Can it get any worse?
Please fill in the gaps.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fascinated to know at which UK airport Capot's customer focussed skills made any difference to what was, I suspect in his days as an airport manager, HMI's staffing or service levels.
I've worked at just about every UK airport handling over 1m passengers a year (exceptiond might be SOU and Newquay if they are in those figures); and can say that border control has been a problem for years and years.
However, I have also worked at numerous US airports and had the misfortune to land at several more and believe we have some way to go to get to their inhumane standards.
I actually agree that an airport operator has responsibility to take poor service, be it private or state, to the respective management.
I agree that the staff on border control have an unenviable job and one that I would not want to do.
I concur that many travellers, including myself, will do almost anything to avoid transfers through LHR or LGW; even CDG is better.
Despite long queing times I have always found the actual officers of UKBA very pleasant and courteous; heaven knows how they remain so polite with the never ending throng waiting for their turn to pass past their desk.
What makes my blood boil (sadly, I have no cat to kick to relieve the tension) is the lack of willingness of our politicians and UKBA senior management to invest in the staffing levels required to ensure that a good service is provided as part of 'product UK'.
Rant over.
GH
I've worked at just about every UK airport handling over 1m passengers a year (exceptiond might be SOU and Newquay if they are in those figures); and can say that border control has been a problem for years and years.
However, I have also worked at numerous US airports and had the misfortune to land at several more and believe we have some way to go to get to their inhumane standards.
I actually agree that an airport operator has responsibility to take poor service, be it private or state, to the respective management.
I agree that the staff on border control have an unenviable job and one that I would not want to do.
I concur that many travellers, including myself, will do almost anything to avoid transfers through LHR or LGW; even CDG is better.
Despite long queing times I have always found the actual officers of UKBA very pleasant and courteous; heaven knows how they remain so polite with the never ending throng waiting for their turn to pass past their desk.
What makes my blood boil (sadly, I have no cat to kick to relieve the tension) is the lack of willingness of our politicians and UKBA senior management to invest in the staffing levels required to ensure that a good service is provided as part of 'product UK'.
Rant over.
GH
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word in praise of the immigration peeps at LHR.
We were flying back a couple of years ago and Senora Lars was - as they say - large with child. Queues were long, especially to the non EU passports area.
An immigration officer took us to the front of the queue and saved a fair amount of discomfort. Sikh chap he was.
I was so impressed I wrote to the immigration people at LHR to thank them. Was a tad worried I might get the chap in trouble but got a nice letter back saying they had passed on our thanks.
For my money, they do a difficult job in less than ideal conditions and do the job pretty damn well.
Lars
We were flying back a couple of years ago and Senora Lars was - as they say - large with child. Queues were long, especially to the non EU passports area.
An immigration officer took us to the front of the queue and saved a fair amount of discomfort. Sikh chap he was.
I was so impressed I wrote to the immigration people at LHR to thank them. Was a tad worried I might get the chap in trouble but got a nice letter back saying they had passed on our thanks.
For my money, they do a difficult job in less than ideal conditions and do the job pretty damn well.
Lars
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at which UK airport Capot's customer focussed skills made any difference to what was, I suspect in his days as an airport manager, HMI's staffing or service levels.
Going back to the start of the thread and the staffing levels at T4 UK Borders; another day, another dollar and there I was coming through T4 again last Friday, this time a bit later at around 2030 - 2100; terminal virtually deserted with just 3 arrivals on the baggage reclaim unit indicators.
Got to UK Borders ahead of the main group of passengers and went through more or less without stopping; one of the staff on duty detached himself from the group of at least 8 who were gossiping idly behind the desks to wave me through..
Funny old world, isn't it? Lots of arrivals; far too few Borders staff and queues 100m+ long. Very few arrivals; far too many Borders staff.
"Management" course, anyone?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capot wrote:
Got to UK Borders ahead of the main group of passengers and went through more or less without stopping; one of the staff on duty detached himself from the group of at least 8 who were gossiping idly behind the desks to wave me through..
That's inaccurate Capot - all arriving traffic into an international arrivals hall is 'looked' at and screened.
I would counter by saying it was the efficiency of that operation that you witnessed as they made it look like they were simply waving folks through......
What were they discussing that made you think they were engaged in idle gossip? Or is it more likely that you'd already made you mind up about what you were going to say and designed a back story around it to fit?
Interesting that you bugged out of this thread but as soon as someone spoke up for Border Control you pipe up again.
Oh dear.
Got to UK Borders ahead of the main group of passengers and went through more or less without stopping; one of the staff on duty detached himself from the group of at least 8 who were gossiping idly behind the desks to wave me through..
That's inaccurate Capot - all arriving traffic into an international arrivals hall is 'looked' at and screened.
I would counter by saying it was the efficiency of that operation that you witnessed as they made it look like they were simply waving folks through......
What were they discussing that made you think they were engaged in idle gossip? Or is it more likely that you'd already made you mind up about what you were going to say and designed a back story around it to fit?
Interesting that you bugged out of this thread but as soon as someone spoke up for Border Control you pipe up again.
Oh dear.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I have to agree with Qwerty' If you look at the larger picture; and realise that the Authorities have to make sure they subject all their attention on making sure they do not admit persons that might provide a threat to the UK.
How the infrastructure for this, is provided is down to the Airport Operator. It would appear, that they supply less resources to this, than
providing a shopping mall experience for departing passengers. ie. no profit for them!
If X amount of flights land and need those amount of passengers to be processed at such and such a time; who is responsible for that!
How the infrastructure for this, is provided is down to the Airport Operator. It would appear, that they supply less resources to this, than
providing a shopping mall experience for departing passengers. ie. no profit for them!
If X amount of flights land and need those amount of passengers to be processed at such and such a time; who is responsible for that!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capot - how many flights were scheduled for arrival in the course of that day at that terminal?
Were they all on time?
Were any diverted in or out?
What was going on behind behind the scenes?
How many staff were allocated to that duty on that day?
Were there any 'jobs' going on that you had knowledge of?
Or is it possible that something was about to happen of which you had no knowledge?
How would a 'management' course answer any of those questions?
What's surprising is that some of the people here who are involved in running bits of ports don't know about or understand the KPI's that are agreed with the port operators in the UK and the control authorities. These agreements are in place everywhere.
Queuing times for example - they are monitored and the port operator is invited to measure these times themselves. They are also invited to comment upon these times as well. As it's a Key Performance Indicator, the results are taken seriously and a dialogue is established if it falls short.
Which brings me back to the point about the way the flights coming in are scheduled and the space given to the control authorities to do their job. The requirement is clear in law - the answer more often than not is with the port operator themselves - a commercial organisation who is there to make money.
No space for the essential work of state but plenty for Thomas Pink to flog shirts.
Go figure.
Were they all on time?
Were any diverted in or out?
What was going on behind behind the scenes?
How many staff were allocated to that duty on that day?
Were there any 'jobs' going on that you had knowledge of?
Or is it possible that something was about to happen of which you had no knowledge?
How would a 'management' course answer any of those questions?
What's surprising is that some of the people here who are involved in running bits of ports don't know about or understand the KPI's that are agreed with the port operators in the UK and the control authorities. These agreements are in place everywhere.
Queuing times for example - they are monitored and the port operator is invited to measure these times themselves. They are also invited to comment upon these times as well. As it's a Key Performance Indicator, the results are taken seriously and a dialogue is established if it falls short.
Which brings me back to the point about the way the flights coming in are scheduled and the space given to the control authorities to do their job. The requirement is clear in law - the answer more often than not is with the port operator themselves - a commercial organisation who is there to make money.
No space for the essential work of state but plenty for Thomas Pink to flog shirts.
Go figure.
Last edited by qwertyplop; 13th Mar 2009 at 20:43.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Qwertyplop
But the acid test is do things improve as a result?
When all the desks are occupied, you might have a valid point, however there are plenty of times when they are not.
Once again, I need to bring you back into reality by pointing out that frequent travellers don't care which part of the total experience causes it to be painful, we judge the whole and vote with our feet.
Ultimately, people like me have a choice where to connect; for example, I have to book a trip to the middle east next week.
Should I (a) connect at Zurich, where the system always works smoothly or (b) transit via London? Well that was an easy one, looks like another opportunity to buy some duty free Toblerone.
And I think that you should also recognise that Capot started this thread by pointing out the deficiencies of the port operator, not the border authority.
Queuing times for example - they are monitored and the port operator is invited to measure these times themselves. They are also invited to comment upon these times as well. As it's a Key Performance Indicator, the results are taken seriously and a dialogue is established if it falls short.
No space for the essential work of state but plenty for Thomas Pink to flog shirts.
Once again, I need to bring you back into reality by pointing out that frequent travellers don't care which part of the total experience causes it to be painful, we judge the whole and vote with our feet.
Ultimately, people like me have a choice where to connect; for example, I have to book a trip to the middle east next week.
Should I (a) connect at Zurich, where the system always works smoothly or (b) transit via London? Well that was an easy one, looks like another opportunity to buy some duty free Toblerone.
And I think that you should also recognise that Capot started this thread by pointing out the deficiencies of the port operator, not the border authority.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As above - I now do most business inter-european travelling out of UK at London City via Zurich-Swiss or Amsterdam-KLM - not generally because of HMRC/Borders but because the whole 'experience' is much better even against the option of a Gatwick or Heathrow direct flight (and for £25 more on the ticket...not always...I save double that in petrol)
However on an economy flight LON going via Prague (CSA) outside the EU to Kiev have a look at the new EU? stealth taxes - on a flight to Kiev this is £106.80 + the former security/pax taxes £21.20 + £40 (yes a total of £168 of tax?!) - my ticket was only £288 including those taxes! - so just what the hell am I paying for as one would assume exactly the ongoing subject, Borders/HMRC et. al.
The Govt. taxes are 58% of the ticket price...
However on an economy flight LON going via Prague (CSA) outside the EU to Kiev have a look at the new EU? stealth taxes - on a flight to Kiev this is £106.80 + the former security/pax taxes £21.20 + £40 (yes a total of £168 of tax?!) - my ticket was only £288 including those taxes! - so just what the hell am I paying for as one would assume exactly the ongoing subject, Borders/HMRC et. al.
The Govt. taxes are 58% of the ticket price...
Last edited by Boss Raptor; 14th Mar 2009 at 08:40.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I can say is that the KPI's are an assurance given to the port operator.
They dictate, if memory serves, what the operator can expect in terms of queuing times. If someone is held up for more than the allotted time, then there will be a knock on effect but can anyone here say that this is not acceptable? Or is it proper to keep within the allotted time frames and allow someone to proceed simply to stop the queue being held up? I don't think so. Interviewing someone entering the UK about their intentions is a nightmare if there are language issues and simply accepting the first answer that comes into their heads when ones experience shows that they're up to something that will require time to get at is necessary. This is when officers start to disappear off the control. Duty of care to the detained person becomes a prime concern as does making sure that due process is followed in lawfully administering that power.
There are many juxtapositions in doing this work - most notably the commercial and law enforcement imperatives.
Which comes back to the business of flight scheduling and the space allocated to the port control authorities - none of which the port control authorities have any control over. If desks are empty - there will be a reason for it. Casework is usually the answer - other flights generated cases to be dealt with and you will not see any of this - it's understandable to believe otherwise that something is amiss. Most places don't have enough space behind the scenes for all the staff to even sit down and work. What you see out front is not the sum of all activity obviously.
What is really clear is that much of the issue relates to the port operator themselves and the space they allocate to the business of state at the port - they provide a hall with 5 desks but then proceed to land ten flights an hour into the port.This is not uncommon but they're the first to make a fuss about queues even though we all know it's a smokescreen to pass the buck. They caused the problem.
Blame should be rightly attributed where blame exists - the port operators have to take this on the chin but it's all too easy to blame those who don't always answer back. These are tough times for airlines and operators - they will take any money coming their way with gleeful abandon but to woefully ignore the needs of the travelling public and then blame it on one small part of the international travellers experience is simplistic and frankly disgusting.
I agree, these passengers will vote with their feet and go to airports that treat them with respect. It will not be because of how UKBA and the Police operate at that port though - it will be how they were forced to queue for 3 hours to get through security, it will be how they were ripped off buying a beer airside, it will be how the airline treated them like idiots and cancelled a flight with no information to the pax, it will be because they were ripped off for parking.
It won't be because there was a requirement to not smuggle fags or use a false passport.
That is the case here.
I agree with the tax bit too - robbery.
They dictate, if memory serves, what the operator can expect in terms of queuing times. If someone is held up for more than the allotted time, then there will be a knock on effect but can anyone here say that this is not acceptable? Or is it proper to keep within the allotted time frames and allow someone to proceed simply to stop the queue being held up? I don't think so. Interviewing someone entering the UK about their intentions is a nightmare if there are language issues and simply accepting the first answer that comes into their heads when ones experience shows that they're up to something that will require time to get at is necessary. This is when officers start to disappear off the control. Duty of care to the detained person becomes a prime concern as does making sure that due process is followed in lawfully administering that power.
There are many juxtapositions in doing this work - most notably the commercial and law enforcement imperatives.
Which comes back to the business of flight scheduling and the space allocated to the port control authorities - none of which the port control authorities have any control over. If desks are empty - there will be a reason for it. Casework is usually the answer - other flights generated cases to be dealt with and you will not see any of this - it's understandable to believe otherwise that something is amiss. Most places don't have enough space behind the scenes for all the staff to even sit down and work. What you see out front is not the sum of all activity obviously.
What is really clear is that much of the issue relates to the port operator themselves and the space they allocate to the business of state at the port - they provide a hall with 5 desks but then proceed to land ten flights an hour into the port.This is not uncommon but they're the first to make a fuss about queues even though we all know it's a smokescreen to pass the buck. They caused the problem.
Blame should be rightly attributed where blame exists - the port operators have to take this on the chin but it's all too easy to blame those who don't always answer back. These are tough times for airlines and operators - they will take any money coming their way with gleeful abandon but to woefully ignore the needs of the travelling public and then blame it on one small part of the international travellers experience is simplistic and frankly disgusting.
I agree, these passengers will vote with their feet and go to airports that treat them with respect. It will not be because of how UKBA and the Police operate at that port though - it will be how they were forced to queue for 3 hours to get through security, it will be how they were ripped off buying a beer airside, it will be how the airline treated them like idiots and cancelled a flight with no information to the pax, it will be because they were ripped off for parking.
It won't be because there was a requirement to not smuggle fags or use a false passport.
That is the case here.
I agree with the tax bit too - robbery.
Last edited by qwertyplop; 14th Mar 2009 at 09:33.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Qwertyplop
What part of this are you having trouble with?
I don't care why the experience is bad.
I choose to go where the experience is better.
Simple.
That many like minded travellers behave as I do is costing your country a lot of lost revenues.
What part of this are you having trouble with?
I don't care why the experience is bad.
I choose to go where the experience is better.
Simple.
That many like minded travellers behave as I do is costing your country a lot of lost revenues.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a debate - I've listened to you and concluded that you have a narrow and two dimensional view of the issue. Nothing more.
Leaving/going somewhere else is your choice FTG. It's called the free market is it not? As for it costing this country business - not likely. The regulatory system for that free market has seen to that. It's why we are bankrupt and on our ass now.
If it's any consolation, I'm off out of the UK too as soon as I can sell my house. Might be a while though. Want to buy a house?
Before the ship finally sinks.
Leaving/going somewhere else is your choice FTG. It's called the free market is it not? As for it costing this country business - not likely. The regulatory system for that free market has seen to that. It's why we are bankrupt and on our ass now.
If it's any consolation, I'm off out of the UK too as soon as I can sell my house. Might be a while though. Want to buy a house?
Before the ship finally sinks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Want to buy a house?
Good luck with the move abroad, but from your comments in this thread, you may have to do some adjustment of your thinking processes to fit in wherever you go to, for example free markets do not have regulation, so what is causing the depreciation of your asset is the mismanagement of a mixed economy.
That means government and the private sector both messing up, which brings up back neatly to the subject of the thread.
And you can make comments about two dimensional narrow views until the cows come home, but that it how frequent travellers think and it is costing your country a lot of lost revenue in airline tickets, taxes and other income arising from transfer pax - if I am two dimensional, you are in denial.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd only be in denial if I did not understand the issue at hand. Having spent most of my adult life in various border control locations, I believe I'm qualified to comment. I also go on holiday by air and I travel on duty by air, I am subject to all the same issues that you describe.
For example, I'm properly vetted regularly, why should I go then through security like you when I travel? I can't fart without having to declare it sothat makes me a better person than you right? Of course not. I am no different to anyone else and I must comply with the law. Is the law an ass because it can't differentiate between those who should be looked at and those who should not? Wow - imagine the database the government could create - every civil servants wet dream. Straight off the aircraft,into your car and away. No shops, no immigration and no police and no customs. Could you cope with that level of oversight in your life because let me assure you it ain't even close to that right now.
What's that got to do with the desks being empty? Nothing I guess but you simply can't comment about something on the basis that you THINK you know. I'm here to tell you that you do not know and that your comments reflect a commercial mindset in a area of life where there is not, and should not, be a commercial consideration.
Most people see a mere snapshot of the issue when they pass through - the do not see the peaks and troughs, they do not know what goes on behind the scenes and they're quick enough to be usually the same person who moans about illegal immigrants as they are to moan about being kept waiting for half an hour when they come through the border. It's an emotive issue, it always riles people and everyone can do a better job than those who actually do it.
HMG are minded to go down this route;
All travel plans to be tracked by Government - Telegraph
Chances are you'll be able to sail right through with no interaction. Sound good? Or would you rather that someone did actually speak to those coming through should you find yourself here? Just because you don't like it here and choose to live somewhere else, should the citizens of this country not be afforded proper protection now from those who might seek to harm them? It's not negotiable on any level I would argue. The airport might be a ****-hole but this little bit of compliance is a pre-requisite.
Law enforcement is not compatible with the commercial world - if you are going about your business lawfully then absolutely you must pass through with the minimum of fuss. So how do you go about that if it's a passengers intention that must be decided upon?
Computers can't do that and neither should you just be waved through.
And while you may disagree with what I say, you need to know that most of us in this area of work want to do the best work we can with the minimum of fuss and minimum of harm to the communities from which we also come and in which our families and friends live. If you had to wait half an hour because staff held up a wanted criminal or fraudster or terrorist I personally would make NO APOLOGY.
We'll see on the property front - loads more interest in the last few weeks.
As for anything else though - happy to agree to disagree. The exercise of border controls is not likely to change but the idea that the commercial world is correct about everything is changing though................
We'll see what we see.
For example, I'm properly vetted regularly, why should I go then through security like you when I travel? I can't fart without having to declare it sothat makes me a better person than you right? Of course not. I am no different to anyone else and I must comply with the law. Is the law an ass because it can't differentiate between those who should be looked at and those who should not? Wow - imagine the database the government could create - every civil servants wet dream. Straight off the aircraft,into your car and away. No shops, no immigration and no police and no customs. Could you cope with that level of oversight in your life because let me assure you it ain't even close to that right now.
What's that got to do with the desks being empty? Nothing I guess but you simply can't comment about something on the basis that you THINK you know. I'm here to tell you that you do not know and that your comments reflect a commercial mindset in a area of life where there is not, and should not, be a commercial consideration.
Most people see a mere snapshot of the issue when they pass through - the do not see the peaks and troughs, they do not know what goes on behind the scenes and they're quick enough to be usually the same person who moans about illegal immigrants as they are to moan about being kept waiting for half an hour when they come through the border. It's an emotive issue, it always riles people and everyone can do a better job than those who actually do it.
HMG are minded to go down this route;
All travel plans to be tracked by Government - Telegraph
Chances are you'll be able to sail right through with no interaction. Sound good? Or would you rather that someone did actually speak to those coming through should you find yourself here? Just because you don't like it here and choose to live somewhere else, should the citizens of this country not be afforded proper protection now from those who might seek to harm them? It's not negotiable on any level I would argue. The airport might be a ****-hole but this little bit of compliance is a pre-requisite.
Law enforcement is not compatible with the commercial world - if you are going about your business lawfully then absolutely you must pass through with the minimum of fuss. So how do you go about that if it's a passengers intention that must be decided upon?
Computers can't do that and neither should you just be waved through.
And while you may disagree with what I say, you need to know that most of us in this area of work want to do the best work we can with the minimum of fuss and minimum of harm to the communities from which we also come and in which our families and friends live. If you had to wait half an hour because staff held up a wanted criminal or fraudster or terrorist I personally would make NO APOLOGY.
We'll see on the property front - loads more interest in the last few weeks.
As for anything else though - happy to agree to disagree. The exercise of border controls is not likely to change but the idea that the commercial world is correct about everything is changing though................
We'll see what we see.
Last edited by qwertyplop; 14th Mar 2009 at 16:07.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Qwertyplop
You just don't get it, so I'll say it one more time.
The UK authorities and airport management, in combination, provide an experience that is poor compared to the alternatives for travellers changing planes.
Many, many people like me avoid changing flights in your country because of this.
This is costing your economy a substantial amount of money and giving other contries airlines competitive advantage.
I don't know why you huff and puff about the supremacy of the state controls over commerce, because the other countries are rigorous too, in fact the UK does not have a stellar reputation abroad for it's ability to control it's borders.
My point is simply that people like me can shop around for where we change flights and we do.
You can jump up and down and wave your fists and shout until you are red in the face and it will do no good, because we can't hear or see you from 37000 feet as we bypass your tawdry airports and long queus.
You just don't get it, so I'll say it one more time.
The UK authorities and airport management, in combination, provide an experience that is poor compared to the alternatives for travellers changing planes.
Many, many people like me avoid changing flights in your country because of this.
This is costing your economy a substantial amount of money and giving other contries airlines competitive advantage.
I don't know why you huff and puff about the supremacy of the state controls over commerce, because the other countries are rigorous too, in fact the UK does not have a stellar reputation abroad for it's ability to control it's borders.
My point is simply that people like me can shop around for where we change flights and we do.
You can jump up and down and wave your fists and shout until you are red in the face and it will do no good, because we can't hear or see you from 37000 feet as we bypass your tawdry airports and long queus.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because I do not agree with you it therefore does not follow that I am wrong. I do understand the issue you raise, I just don't agree.
Prove to me that the airport experience in this country is costing UK PLC money?
Avoiding changing flights in this country costs the airport operator money at the terminal in question I suppose but BAA's profits for example don't seem affected by this issue and you don't interact with border control when you transit the same airport more often than not unless you have a DAT visa so it can't be that part of the experience.
BBC NEWS | Business | Passenger fall hits BAA profits
This seems to suggest that it's a credit crunch issue actually and that just about every airport in the world is concerned with similar issues. So long as the UK is the centre of the world for certain issues, people will continue to come. When that changes, they will not. It's as simple as that.
As a matter of interest, does the US border experience put people off going there? Credit crunch notwithstanding, has it affected US ability to attract inward investment? Or does a more connected & on-line world mitigate such problems?
The UK's reputation for Border Control is just what drove the formation/creation of the UKBA and more rigorous border controls so not sure where you are going with that either. It was simply waving people through up until 10 years ago or so that led to some of the problems we have may appear to have socially today, so fixing that by operating differently now is not likely to be part of the problem either. You either submit to a more rigorous regime of questioning and profiling when you enter the UK or you avoid it by not coming. Not so sure I have a problem with those that would seek to avoid questioning not coming here.
I have not asserted that the state is better than commerce, all I've said is that it is different and not that compatible. And on commerces current performance, thank Christ for that.
Huffing and puffing, waving my fists etc. It's all very emotional FTG, calm down and take a deep breath, it an interesting debate, that's all.
Like you said, you are well out of it old chap and all power to you.
And smile when you pass over us at 37000ft and raise your G&T to us.
Prove to me that the airport experience in this country is costing UK PLC money?
Avoiding changing flights in this country costs the airport operator money at the terminal in question I suppose but BAA's profits for example don't seem affected by this issue and you don't interact with border control when you transit the same airport more often than not unless you have a DAT visa so it can't be that part of the experience.
BBC NEWS | Business | Passenger fall hits BAA profits
This seems to suggest that it's a credit crunch issue actually and that just about every airport in the world is concerned with similar issues. So long as the UK is the centre of the world for certain issues, people will continue to come. When that changes, they will not. It's as simple as that.
As a matter of interest, does the US border experience put people off going there? Credit crunch notwithstanding, has it affected US ability to attract inward investment? Or does a more connected & on-line world mitigate such problems?
The UK's reputation for Border Control is just what drove the formation/creation of the UKBA and more rigorous border controls so not sure where you are going with that either. It was simply waving people through up until 10 years ago or so that led to some of the problems we have may appear to have socially today, so fixing that by operating differently now is not likely to be part of the problem either. You either submit to a more rigorous regime of questioning and profiling when you enter the UK or you avoid it by not coming. Not so sure I have a problem with those that would seek to avoid questioning not coming here.
I have not asserted that the state is better than commerce, all I've said is that it is different and not that compatible. And on commerces current performance, thank Christ for that.
Huffing and puffing, waving my fists etc. It's all very emotional FTG, calm down and take a deep breath, it an interesting debate, that's all.
Like you said, you are well out of it old chap and all power to you.
And smile when you pass over us at 37000ft and raise your G&T to us.
Last edited by qwertyplop; 14th Mar 2009 at 16:54.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qwertyplop
F3G failed, so I'll try. (Why? Dunno.)
The problem is not about immigration control, or how assiduously or otherwise the UK polices its borders.
It's about the places it is done in, and the management of the people who do it.
The places are awful, especially, but not only in BAA airports, which is not the fault of the UKBA. It is up to the airport to supply the place in which UKBA personnel work. It can supply a pleasant, cheerful, well-lit, spacious environment, capable of handling large variations in flow without seriously incoveniencing the airport's customers provided that UKBA does its job well and supplies sufficient staff when required.
Both parties have a clear role to play, and the problem is that in some airports and at some times the management of both is bad, as evidenced by the outcome of long queues in dreadful surroundings. That is what is so shaming; the UK looks and feels like an impoverished third-world failed State on those occasions. The controls themselves are neither here nor there.
For the airport, it is a long-term issue of better design, and a shorter-term issue of good planning of effective building maintenance. Forgetting about its shops would be a good start.
For the UKBA it is a matter of better staff management.
For both, it is a matter of pulling their fingers out.
F3G failed, so I'll try. (Why? Dunno.)
The problem is not about immigration control, or how assiduously or otherwise the UK polices its borders.
It's about the places it is done in, and the management of the people who do it.
The places are awful, especially, but not only in BAA airports, which is not the fault of the UKBA. It is up to the airport to supply the place in which UKBA personnel work. It can supply a pleasant, cheerful, well-lit, spacious environment, capable of handling large variations in flow without seriously incoveniencing the airport's customers provided that UKBA does its job well and supplies sufficient staff when required.
Both parties have a clear role to play, and the problem is that in some airports and at some times the management of both is bad, as evidenced by the outcome of long queues in dreadful surroundings. That is what is so shaming; the UK looks and feels like an impoverished third-world failed State on those occasions. The controls themselves are neither here nor there.
For the airport, it is a long-term issue of better design, and a shorter-term issue of good planning of effective building maintenance. Forgetting about its shops would be a good start.
For the UKBA it is a matter of better staff management.
For both, it is a matter of pulling their fingers out.