NickB

Yes, I think that we have a slight difference of perspective here, although it is, I think, fairly minor. I certainly agree with you that I can certainly see the point for an airline to shift as many processes as possible landside so as to facilitate an on-time departure. Where I guess we might perhaps disagree is whether doing this is required to ensure an on-time departure. US airlines who have coped with much more baggage issues at the gate and onboard for much longer than European airlines and yet are still much better than their European counterparts at getting the aircraft ready for departure ontime show that it can be done without the need to shift quite as much landside. It does, however, increase costs. So, from my perspective, what can delay departures on BA is not so much excess hand baggage at the gate or onboard per se but the unwillingness of BA to invest in processes to ensure that that level of hand baggage does not delay departure.
That said, this is not really an issue which I would feel that strongly about. The one that really irks me (and I know we disagree on this ) is T5 conformance: to me, it is the prototype of the kind of processes that masquerade as being about benefitting passengers by facilitating on-time departure but which are, in reality, a way for the airline to save money on processes to achieve on-time departure to the detriment of (some) passengers. But this is not the proper locus to discuss this.
I have no appetite either to go back to pick up all the points, but just on a factual issue in our earlier discussion: you seemed to suggest that all that was required for the check-in agent was picking up the phone and seemed surprised when I mentioned having to accompany the passenger to security. But since the passenger was not allowed through at security, phoning the gate on its own would not have sufficed. The check-in agent would have had to go with the passenger at security to make sure that she was not refoulée at that stage.

In any event, none of us work at check-in and, I suspect, have a clear view of the constraints, instructions and expectations under which check-in agents operate. If I take the case of BA, with which I am a little more familiar, many ground agents are obsessed with avoiding anything that has the potential to delay a plane (it is hammered into them and, moreover, whether they get an annual bonus depends on it) and, as a result tend to instinctively reject generating additional work at the gate by shifting airside something that should be done landside. Too much hand baggage to process and check at the gate is the bęte noire of gate agents and they would love to have a control point upstream for this. Some might feel that, if passengers are to take the restrictions on hand luggage seriously and avoid delaying gate operations due to having too many excess hand luggage to process, then processes should be in place to discourage passengers from even attempting to carry excessive hand baggage airside. Having spot checks at security together with a strict "no-carry-through" policy may be seen as required if the message is to get across that passengers must actually ensure that their hand baggage does really fall within the limits rather than just assuming that it must be ok without actually checking and must plan enough time to go via check-in if they have not verified that their hand baggage is in fact conformant.

It is not a development that I would particularly welcome* as I abhor just as much as you having to check in luggage and for the very same reasons (even though I do not fly anywhere near as much as you) but I can see the sense of it from the airline's perspective.

*: to the extent that it would affect airlines with a relatively low hand baggage allowance. For airlines with a high hand baggage allowance like BA or Easyjet, this is less of an issue for me.

San Gottardo

No need to accompany pax to security. Just slap one of those "Air France Bagage Cabine" tags/stickers on that they have at the check-in counter.

There is a term that I have been looking for since beginning of this discussion: gesture of goodwill. Anything done by the agent at the check-in counter would have been a pure gesture of goodwill, and there is nothing that would make the Dakar Traveler entitled to it. Personally I think that gesture of good will could've been made, given how easy and simple it was to make it. Weight restrictions would still have been enforced, the passenger still bore the responsibility for being at the gate on time, the passenger would've learned his lesson and at the same time would've been extremely grateful to the agent and the airline. Given that the alternative was asking the passenger to destroy his items that simple gesture of goodwill would have been the right thing to do, even if the passenger was not in his right given the weight of his hand luggage.

Happy to accept if some people believe that this gesture of goodwill would be too complicated or too much to ask for or would require staff of a different calibre. I personally do not share that view and I think that it was lame by the AF staff not to do it.

orbitmic

We don't disagree on that either. I actually agree with you that at a cost, it is perfectly possible to manage that. However, it so happens that Labour (the main cost involved here) is much cheaper in the US than in Europe and that I fully understand why European airlines do not wish to spend that sort of money. It is also the case that US airlines have lower seat density than their European counterparts, so in a way, they can also afford to be a but more generous with hand luggage most of the time. So yes, it can be done, but at an additional cost and effort which I sympathise with European airlines trying to avoid as this, to me, is certainly no priority.

orbitmic

Errr... no, hang on - that's moving the goal post: "Air France Bagage Cabine" tag means that the passenger would be allowed to take this onboard, which you said is not what you were suggesting. To materialise your suggestion (that the passenger be authorised to take that bag to the gate but with the condition that it is then gate checked), NickB is correct that this would have required an escort by an AF agent who could have answered the presumably furious hand luggage check lady who would see the pax come back with the exact same hand luggage as before and would understandably think that she had just gone back landside for a couple of minutes before trying her luck again.

San Gottardo

No. Pax would have been let through security thanks to the official tag/sticker. The gate is informed by the check-in counter that the sticker for this passenger doesn't mean that the hand luggage can go on board, and will confiscate it.

But even if accompanying the passenger to security were required, that didn't seem to be the bottleneck because it actually did happen according to the Dakar tale.

I still consider it wouldn't have been a big deal.

But by now we have given the story more attention than it deserved and taken the discussion to the customer friendliness of Japan, the cost structure of Air France ground handling, and the psychology of people intentionally or unintentionally having overweight hand luggage. Thank God that we didn't debate the more dramatised elements of the tale, such as whether there is racism when it comes to applying security checks. I couldn't imagine where we'd be now

orbitmic

(emphasis mine). But that is exactly what the sticker means! The moment you put it, the passenger is well entitled to say: sorry my bag has been controlled and been given the cabin luggage sticker, and whatever you tell her changes nothing to that. What you are suggesting is that the embassy puts a visa in the passenger passport to signal that the passenger does not have a visa and then calls immigration to say: by the way, the visa I have put in the passenger's passport is not really a visa but just so that the airline let the passenger travel!! It does not work that way.

PS: I suspect we didn't discuss the racism and theft accusations because we probably all agree on what we think of them

San Gottardo

Fine. But since someone was accompanying the passenger anyway it's a moot point to discuss whether it would have been to much to expect from AF. They did it.

In the end if we don't want to agree with the other we are all "smart-sassy" enough (no offence, it's a character description of the only three people that must be left reading this thread, including me) to always find a weak spot in someone else's argument. I am happy to accept the disagreement that I believe that AF could have easily made that gesture of goodwill and you/NickB not seeing it that way. And why should people always agree about what they think of an airline and their employees and how they handle various situations.

I'll "chicken out" now of the debate of the Dakar tale. I look forward to reading more about (other) people's experiences with hand luggage weighing at CDG and elsewhere on the Air France network.

Enthilza

I know that a lot of people do that, but doing that is not exactly traveling "without incurring unnecessary stress". And I will just quote your own post:

Except that this guy did NOT have a "hand luggage that is within normal". It was almost 75% ABOVE the maximum limit so this chap knew or should have known he was playing with fire.


DING DING DING!! We have a winner here.

NickB

Agreed and it was precisely the point I was making; if my carry on weighs more than allowed and I end up in a pickle as a result of it, this will be a problem of my own making which I will have to accept to take responsibility for and it would not be appropriate for me to expect the airline to get me out of it. I am aware of that and accept it.

Enthilza

Oh sorry, then we fully agree.

DernierVirage

Just in case anyone is still interested:

- at 2E two weeks ago (Saturday 14), they were weighing hand carry, but not in the SkyPriority line, and nobody was called out of my line to be checked;

-at 2A today for CX (Saturday 28 at 9.30 a.m), nothing was being weighed as far as I could see. BTW, the Acces No 1 line worked very well just now!

brunos

If you mean Cathay Pacific, they depart from 2A not 2E. Different airlines have different requirement for hand luggage, I have never seen CX weighing hand luggage anywhere. BTW I find security and immigration much better at 2A than 2E.

DernierVirage

Sorry, sorry, I meant 2A, I have edited my post now!

I am now enjoying a nice glass of champage in the very nice CX lounge in 2A!

brunos

Indeed, try the dandan noodles.

SDQBound

Last few times I've departed from 2A, it has taken me over half an hour to clear immigration using Acces No.1In the past, it was a breeze, but seems that AA has most flights departing around the same time.