Airport security staff reward
 

The stated aim by airports is that the purpose of the security function when screening pax heading for departures is to search for anything which might endanger the security of a flight.... be it bombs or bottles of water
However, security staff at many of the UK's busier airports seem strongly motivated to process passengers as fast as possible.
Are security staff at any UK airports either paid, promoted or rewarded in other ways (or not punished) based on any kind of metric which records how many passengers were processed through "their" security lane during their shift ?

Yes, I know an hourly wage that explicitly depends on "number of passengers processed" approach would give rise to a conflict of interest between people who are on low wages earning more money and identifying bombs passing through an X-ray machine... but knowing that one may get fired if you regularly allow a test person who is carrying a knife through an arch can motivate in other ways.

another interesting question would be how many bombs have they identified using x ray machines at UK airports over the last 20 years?

The airline business seems to be the only one that aims to check EVERYONE all the time

No one wants to be the person who roles back the legislation. It would only take a minor problem for the venal press to point the finger. I think that this is why we now have the next generation of equipment being mandated for airports.

another interesting question would be how many attempts there might have been without a regime of checking.

Indeed SWBKCB hence no repeal of regulations.

Against strong competition one of the most mind boggling statements ever to appear on PPRUNE

And how many have died from smallpox since the advent of mass vaccination?

Having had the good fortune to pass through the security lanes at LGW this afternoon where no liquids or laptops need to be removed from baggage, with pleasant and helpful security staff, I would respectfully suggests the metric concerning the number of passengers 'processed' should not assessed in terms of 'SLF passing through', because not only will that vary with the time of day, but also on the quality and specifics of the equipment assessing the possessions of the said-SLF.

clearly there is point in security checks - but Air Transport is pretty unique in checking everyone every time. Trains don't, buses don't, ferries don't, not every car on the Channel Shuttle is checked-

with those we seem happy to leave it to random checks or none at all

Could I very gently nudge the topic of the thread back towards how airport security staff are rewardes and motivations for processing passengers quickly ?

At the risk of thread drift to dj6-
I flew (obviously as a pax) from Manchester early last year and I got to the head of the main security queue where one of the staff was then allocating pax to the belt queues.
I said to him 'Good Morning' He said in what I thought was very slightly aggressive language 'What did you say'? I replied 'Good Morning'. He said that he'd been on shift for four hours and I was the only person who'd said Good Morning to him, and because I'd said it he then opened the gate behind him and ushered me into the fast track security queue. Being polite can help !

I think a problem with security staff in ANY location in the world (and I include police and Army ) is that it's a very boring job most of the time. Being able to hassle people who can't bite back appeals to some after a time - US immigration are a classic example

From my time working at a large UK airport where Security staff were employed directly by the airport: there were targets for the maximum length of time passengers spent in the queue for security checks. It was acknowledged that at busy times the target could be missed - this was known as a "breach". There was a limit to the number of breaches permitted each month, which if exceeded, resulted in a rebate being paid to the airlines using that terminal. The incentive was therefore on the terminal managers to deploy enough staff at key times (number of lanes open, sensible control of the queues) to contain the number of breaches within agreed levels.

There was no incentive or reward for security officers to speed up their checks, in fact there were several types of monitoring to ensure that things were done "by the book".

Sunday afternoon at LHR T5: the queues were not as big as I have seen and security staff all helpful and matters running smoothly.

Yes, well, it's arguable that if the answer is "none", that's because potential terrorists know that they will be required to submit to a very revealing security scan of themselves and their hand baggage. If the regime is relaxed to the point where this no longer happens to EVERY passenger, this might be seen as an opportunity to try to get a weapon of some sort on to an aircraft.

Yes, it's not rocket science - if the chances of being detected are known to be approaching 100%, then the likelihood of anyone expecting to be able to get through with a bomb will be effectively zero.