Airport Security, Immigration & Border Control

[EX9]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

The airport are currently in the process of installing a fast track lane through immigration having moved the entry doors slightly back, this will cost something in the region of £05.00. Madness!

 

[White Heather]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

I don't know, £5.00 seems like a bargain to me!

 

[EX9]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

Not when you consider the principal of it, the que can back right up the corridor at peak times, yet by the time you get to the machine/splitting lanes its somewhat pointless.

 

[Galaxy]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

I think it's pretty disgusting actually. I'm not aware of any other airport in the world that does this, another money making nail in the LBA coffin...or is that coffers....

 

[White Heather]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

The post is ambigous and took it to read that the works cost £5.00, hence my post. If its the case that there will be a fast track lane, costing £5.00, I don't see that as a problem as nobody has to use it or pay the £5 do they? If money is no object and they want to jump the queue and pay, that is fine with me. I would have thought the objections would arise where people have no choice - although having said that there is a choice outside when dropping off but it doesn't stop people complaining anyway.

 

[leedslad]

Not exactly an incentive for them to cut queues though is it... In fact quite the opposite... The less staff they put on, the more they likely make in queue jumps.

Also it's not quite the right approach to fixing the queues now is it... Surely the answer is more capacity and staff so everyone gets through quicker, rather than adding a charge for those in a rush...

 

[White Heather]

Not exactly an incentive for them to cut queues though is it... In fact quite the opposite... The less staff they put on, the more they likely make in queue jumps.

Also it's not quite the right approach to fixing the queues now is it... Surely the answer is more capacity and staff so everyone gets through quicker, rather than adding a charge for those in a rush...

If LBA provided the staff or had any real say in how many staff operated on immigration I would agree with you, but they don't. Staff manning is provided by Border Control or whatever their latest title is - they are Civil Servants, not airport employees. This is LBA recognising there is a problem they don't fully control and giving people an option if they want to take it.

 

[wawkrk]

In my experience, LBA is one of the airports with less delays through immigration. The longest I have waited at LBA is about 5 minutes.There are many airports that are much worse.
How about 2 hours at Heathrow?

 

[Jordan-34092]

Airport security, Immigration and Border Control

Just to let you know the government is actually getting involved regarding the recent dispute between LBA bosses and west Yorkshire police on who should pay for the airport policing.

 

[ls27]

The police issue is an odd matter. LBA is private land and under normal cicumstances the airport should pay for policeing, but the question is why do they patrol there and at whose request. This is a similar pasition as at Leeds United.

 

[Jordan-34092]

The news article I read did compare it slightly to Leeds united position

 

[Jordan-34092]

The news article I read did compare it slightly to Leeds united position

 

[channex 757]

The police issue is an odd matter. LBA is private land and under normal cicumstances the airport should pay for policeing, but the question is why do they patrol there and at whose request. This is a similar pasition as at Leeds United.

The police do patrols around the airport to act as a deterrent to try and deter any wrong doing at the airport and they do these patrols randomly. They may also do extra patrols when big events are in place I.e if football fans are passing through the airport.

 

[ls27]

I don't think I made myself clear enough. I do realise why the police do patrol, but at whose request. If Lbia request them to patrol within the boundaries of the airport, I think that is fair enough for some sort of a charge. But if it is done by the police saying we are coming in to patrol, then the burden of payment should be with the Police Authority or the Borders and Immgration Agency. It is just a similar situation whereas Leeds United should pay for police in the ground, but not on the public highway outside the ground.

 

[wawkrk]

Bad press for our airport security dimwits.We know they are not the brightest lamps in the street but they give LBA a bad name.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... apons.html

 

[Aviador]

Bad press for our airport security dimwits.We know they are not the brightest lamps in the street but they give LBA a bad name.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... apons.html

I think you will find the dimwits are the ones making the rules down at the Department for Transport head quarters. The DfT frequently send inspectors to monitor all aspects of airport operations from security to handling. If things aren't carried out the way they want it to be, deficiency notices are issued with financial penalties attached.

The security rules are extensive so it's easy for them to be misinterpreted or even missed by airport security.

Have a read of the Department for Transport rules: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_176922

 

[BigMac]

Beat me to posting the link Aviador. It really gets my back up when people start to complain about the security staff. If you follow Aviador's link, you can see the "dimwit" was doing as he was trained.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I don't know who the Dft seeks advice from when it formulates its security rules.

Like many things in life security seems to follow events and not lead them - so in one sense maybe they are ahead of the game when it comes to tennis rackets as someone might have thought of using them on an aircraft in an offensive manner, no matter how unlikely it seems. I'm only half serious about the possible lethal effect of a racket but it could happen - just!

More likely to cause far more serious injury is a credit card and I don't mean to the holder's bank balance. Just think of the disruption if one of these cards is used in anger on an aircraft one day. It would mean the instant banning in the passenger cabins of all credit cards and the myriad other plastic cards including airline loyalty cards: that reactive rather than proactive policy again.

Of retrospective reactions, two examples are banning unauthorised vehicles from driving near the front of terminals after the Glasgow incident and outlawing of most liquids when it was belatedly discovered that in theory it's possible to constuct an explosive device from disparate but in themselves innocent items taken on board, including certain types of liquid.

The measures taken to try to combat these will never be one hundred per cent successful. Security is a balance between reasonable and potentially effective deterrent/detection and the need to get on with normal life.

That's why tennis rackets should not be one of the 'banned' items though I don't blame the security staff. They don't make the rules, merely follow them and have little discretion.

Harking back to my first sentence, I presume that part of the Dft's security advice comes from the police - in fact I know it does - yet when the government appoints a chief inspector of constabulary who was formerly a rail regulator and has no police experience whatever (inspectors of constabulary were almost always former chief constables) people might reasonably wonder what sort of advice will be put forward in future.

Maybe the next move will to appoint a supermarket executive as chief inspector of fire services.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Trust me they are some dimwits in that place that do security. Think they own the place, when infact police will deal with any issue such as drunk or aggresive people and not them as they don't have a clue what to do. They are rude, aggresive and not very nice. Mind thats the few, most just do the job, and there are a few who are really nice.

But i agree with what he says, why can't airport security do one of several things

a) - items which they take off can be reclaimed upon arrival back at said airport. Should you be on a one way ticket tough.
b) - items which they take off reported and sold on, with the money given to a local charity (in our case Yorkshire air ambulance)
c) - items which they take off given (not sold) to a local charity. Such as tennis rackets - to a charity which would make children happier (childs hopsice anyone).

The choice is left with the passenger in question. And not one of the rude obnoxious prats who think they are gods gift to security.

 

[wawkrk]

I am still bitter towards them because of something in the past.I had a serious eye problem and they confiscated my ant-biotic eye drops. I had to go to an eye clinic in Germany and pay about 80GBP to get some more that were similar.

Some of the comments from filghtdeck crew on this subject make my comments look very tame indeed.Some pilots also have reported eye drops being confiscated. So having an axe in the cockpit and control the aircraft is nothing compared to attacking somebody with eye drops.

This is just another example of the health and safety madness that has gripped the nation and enchanted and empowered the hords of dimwitted jobsworths.

"Rules are for the guidance of wisemen and the blind obedience of fools."

wawkrk