San Gottardo

You are absolutely right, AF is by no means the only carrier doing that. But think about SAS, LH, LX, OS, TP, AZ, and I believe eveb KL, etc. who don't do it - without putting our lifes at risk.

I would criticise BA as much as AF for this hypocrisy: how do you enhance security? If you are on the lookout for a terrorist, only the CKI agent and the immigration office check the pax names against a no-fly list or other criminal databases. All the others don't, and in any case don't have any legal power to do anything. Thus, their contribution to security is zero.

Since this discussion is about operations improvement, I would like to bring it back to that: streamlining the CKI-boarding process chain would greatly enhance pax comfort. By cutting out process elements which add no value in terms of security or operational reliability - exception on the latter: Terminal 2D - AF could make a great leap forward. If it doesn't have enough trust in the Gate Agents to properly control BPs, it shouldn't install another control, but properly train their GAs.

JOUY31

During my last flight to Vienna, I noticed that there is now a Fast Track security access in 2D, in addition to the one in 2F1, in the leftmost security checkpoint (I haven't checked the other one) ^ . There is a sign to the right of the security checkpoint and the agent makes you bypass the queue, this also gives you access to one of the two underused machines located to the right.

I also noticed that they now check tickets when you enter the check-in area in 2D, where there used to be immigration checks before the Schengen zone came into effect.

JOUY31

The plastic wrapped snacks or meals for short flights can be uninspiring, at times . Yet, for breakfast, we used to have fresh bread and viennoiseries served separately in addition to the easily forgotten piece of bread on the tray. Now, this fresh bread and fresh viennoiseries are only served in Tempo. Could we have them back in the two forward cabins, please ?

sfoeuroflyer

I have travelled on first rate carriers all over the world. The ONLY one that does passenger counting after everyone is on board is AF. The number of delays that I have experienced because of this is in the dozens. Not once was there any problem other than the counting itself or some screw up at the gate.

For the life of me I can't see what benefit comes from it. If boarding cards are carefully placed into the gate reader (and how hard can that be?) and pax have no means to "escape" (which again can never happen without someone seeing), then the counting accomplishes nothing.

So my vote to improve on time performance is "ditch the counting". That is an ineffective, bureaucratic, time wasting exercise.

JOUY31

I would personally disagree. First, this is the last check in a multi-layered process which makes sure that, although there can be human mistakes on one layer, or you can compromise an individual operating at one layer, it is much more difficult to achieve when you have two or more layers on which mishap can happen, involving rotations of different staff categories, with an increase in difficulty which is much more than proportional. Second, on a practical basis, as the count is done by cabin, this also helps make sure that there are neither voluntary nor unvoluntary mistakes in cabin seating , which I have seen a number of times when I was seated at the front of the Tempo cabin.

stimpy

Huh? I've seen this on several SQ flights. They do it when they need to. Same with AF which doesn't do it on every flight. Same with most US carries, not that they are first rate.

brunos

Indeed the count by cabin has some advantages. There have been several recent posts on the BA forum complaining about Y people seating in business unnoticed by the FAs. I am also aware of other airlines doing "random" count, even if they do not announce it on the central audio system.

San Gottardo

This is what they say: "Heaven is a place, where the English are the policemen, the Italians are the lovers, the French are the chefs, the Germans are the mechanics, and everything is organised by the Swiss. Hell is a place where the Germans are the policemen, the Swiss are the lovers, the English are the chefs, the Italians are the mechanics, and everything is organised by the French."

What I mean to say by that: this "abandon counting" issue addresses the same underlying point as the "abandon superfluous BP checks" issue I had brought up myself earlier: we in France tend to be sloppy, "les rois de l'ŕ peu prčs", so there's a greater tendency for someone not to check a BP properly, not to count properly, to make a mess of the BPs, and so on. To avoid problems, more checks are needed, that is logical.

So, when I suggest "instead of checking BPs several times (or recounting for that matter), just do it right for the first time", then that would work in Switzerland or Germany. Which is why traveling with LX or LH is so much less hassle. But in F and all the mess that CDG is anyway plus our way of working in France, I am afraid it's not going to happen. It annoys the Swiss in me, but the French in me understands.

On a side note: if only the AF lived up to the saying that in heaven the chefs are French. They aren't for AF short haul flights

JOUY31

1. No one can perform flawlessly 100% of the time. Multi-layered processes takes care of this human frailty .

2. It is far more difficult to compromise, on the same day, on the same flight, different staff categories operating at different layers of the process and with different rotation cycles. You would need to compromise on the same day, the security agent at the entrance of the boarding area, the gate agent and the flight attendant. The difficulty for people with bad intent increases exponentially, not proportionally. It is an issue of security, not sloppiness.

Just my 2cts.

San Gottardo

I absolutely agree with you!! Only thing I said is: in some countries, performance is closer to the 100% mark than in France. Which is why in France those additional layers are needed, annoying as they may be

In other words: companies like SK, LH or LX, which don't do all of that, are less safe? Not so sure...

... and this is without questioning the logic that the kind of controls that are being put in place are actually effective (I've laid that out further above). Unless someone gives me a logical explanation what added security comes from the guy looking at my passport and my FB card (=electronic ticket) before entering the CKI counter at 2F. Neither will he recognise "people with bad intent" (=he has no database or other tools against which to check the pax' name), nor could he do anything about it even if the person's passport said "Ousamma Bin Laden", as he has no law enforcement authorities. So all he can do is re-direct errand passengers to the right CKI counter, and slow down the process for all others. And this is just one example of bogus "security".

But please note that I am not against security checks, all I am saying is that there are plenty of bogus ones, rather than a few effective ones. For example, I often hear from immigration officers that they work in a rush and don't do their work properly when they see several hundred people waiting in line. They feel pushed and rushed. So, why not increase staffing levels at this crucial and potentially very effective control point? That would increase security by much more than having one person check passport and BP after the BP has been shown 1 meter before to the GA (happens on bus boardings).

airchristophe

I will be the first to tell you that not every agent does his / her job as they should. You won't believe how hard it is for an agent to pass the boarding card through the reader and how many times the passenger has gotten to the plane with the entire boarding card.

The head count serves a big purpose and it should stay that way.

In any case the wrong count does not always come from the ground staff. Unless you know how the operation is run, kindly refrain from the commentary.

airchristophe

My thoughts exactly ... the security aspect aside, this procedures mandates a basic gesture of politeness, "bonjour" or "hello monsieur, madame".

It kills me to board a US-carrier and not have the flight attendant say "hello" or "good afternoon" when boarding.

What ever happened to basic manners ?

San Gottardo

Oh pleeeeeeeeease....

What kind of weird logic is that? I need to show my boarding pass so they say "bonjour" to me?

When I stepped off my Air France flight this morning in ZRH I noticed that they said "au revoir" in a very friendly way to every passenger. And guess what, I didn't have to show my boarding pass for that.

I agree with you on the US carriers and their lack of form and manners. And I am a big fan of Air France's FAs always being very well-mannered, polite, curteous. In that respect they are the world's best.

But I also appreciate those carriers where I am greeted in a very friendly way without being asked to fiddle out with one hand a small BP stub, all of that in the entrance of the cabin which is a place not offering a lot of space for that kind of acrobatics.

Oh, and on this one:

In my mind there is an absolute inflation of abusing the word "security" to justify all kinds of things which are bogus and/or don't increase security at all. What kind of "security" does the checking of BPs at the aircraft door by FAs provide? Will they spot a terrorist? Not really, unless the BP said "Osama Bin-laden", but this guy most likely would have been identified earlier on. All it does is to prevent people sitting on the wrong plane. But sitting on a wrong plane is not a security risk: if a pax went through security to board a flight to destination A, then he would also be safe to go to destination B instead, even if not ticketed to that destination. It certainly creates an operational hassle, but that has nothing to do with security.

So if the only purpose of this is to avoid operational hassle, it would be sufficient to ask those people checking BPs at the gate to do their job properly. Some airlines seem to be able to do that, so why not Air France?

So logic tells us that checking of BPs by FAs is not needed.

JOUY31

There's no problem for check-in at CDG for AF/AZ codeshare flights. The check-in counters can check you in for AF or AZ operated flights. Not so in FCO and worse, in MXP, where you need to go to dedicated AF or AZ counters. In FCO at least, they are side by side. Not so in MXP. As AZ often has problems printing out boarding passes for onward flights and as transfer desks in MXP are overcrowded, you often need to go landside, run like hell to the AZ check-in counter just to be sent running to the AF counter before going back through security.

It would be nice if AZ could provide a better integration with AF at its two major hubs.

JOUY31

I know this has never been part of the official inflight product. It was initially offered on a space available basis by the crew, then restricted to the first rows, before being scrapped altogether in the infamous round of service cuts two years ago.

Nevertheless, if airlines such as BA, AY or LH are able to offer it on a consistent basis on flights as short as CDG-LHR, AZ and OS just sometimes, it would be a significant enhancement to the AF medium-haul C product if it could be brought back and extended to the entire C cabin, even on a space available basis. It is just too bad that, after a very pleasant CDG-ATH flight, you need to put on a crumpled coat and suit to go into a meeting.