So, I know it's been discussed to death, but I didn't seem to find a definitive answer while trawling through the search results... Whose genius idea was conformance in the first place? I remember reading something about it being BAA's way of 'sticking it to' BA, but I can't work out why, or how it works in BAA's favour...
Programs: BA Exec Club Silver, EK Skywards Silver, A-Club Platinum
Posts: 179
It's so genius that other airlines are desperate to be able to adopt it across other terminals at LHR.
In the old days, you check in online, you are running late. You sprint off the Heathrow Express, get through security and run to the gate. Meanwhile the gate team have no idea where you might be. Are you in the lounge? Are you in the shops? Are you claiming VAT back? Have you fallen asleep? Have you actually boarded and there's been a boarding error? A check is made on board but in the meantime, you arrive at the gate at -5 to STD. Not good.
I am happy with the conformance, but the current security queue (especially when there is secondary bag screening going on) makes it potentially farcical because you may have cleared conformance well and truly in time but still miss your flight due to security queues or waiting for manual search of your bag to be completed.
Programs: MUCCI Seigneurs Veneres de la Pucci, Hotel Chocolat, LA Fitness (mainly thanks to Hotel Chocolat)
Posts: 2,577
Back when T5 was heading towards opening Heathrow was performing so badly on the punctuality front that it was all over the papers and even became an issue at government level. Pressure was put onto BAA to use the airport transformation program (which T5 was a part of) to improve things. One thing airlines agree on is that knowing where customers are and deciding appropriate timescales to stop them if they are late would massively help in the later stages of the flight. There were other things of course but they don't relate directly to your question. As 5 is a one carrier building it was very easy to get timelines agreed and implemented.
So in answer it was no one person, or entity. The process was designed by cross company working groups.
Without doubt, punctuality has moved on dramatically from when LHR and in turn BA were seen as never on time and much of this is down to customers being through security on time and the airline knowing this.
__________________
To Fly, To Serve......
The views that I express on here are my own and may differ to those of my employer, British Airways
It was a genius in BA who dramatically improved punctuality for all of us. As Adrianjc32 pointed out, before on-line check-in it was easy. You had to be in the terminal in order to check in so you had to be on time.
Before a flight can depart BA has to reconcile the passenger and baggage numbers for both security and trim. This takes time and the final paper work has to be accepted by the Captain. Last minute passengers cause changes to numbers and this takes time to resolve.
Using conformance time not only deals with this, but also saves delays due to visa issues etc at the gate. These have to be resolved landside before someone is considered clear to pass conformance.
If you think back to T1 in particular short haul, people would check-in on line and not worry about being late because they were checked-in, knowing the aircraft would wait for a while. A small minority of people thought this was acceptable forgetting the other 100 or more people waiting for them on the aircraft. This used to happen on most of my twice weekly flights.
Conformance can be a pain, but when you consider the improvement in punctuality, it has been worth it.
I am happy with the conformance, but the current security queue (especially when there is secondary bag screening going on) makes it potentially farcical because you may have cleared conformance well and truly in time but still miss your flight due to security queues or waiting for manual search of your bag to be completed.
Good point. Conformance has to be realistic with regards to security clearance time. I think conformance time should therefore be increased and herewith claim all intellectual property of this idea. Should BA implement any increase in conformance time I claim 70% of the savings it generates
Back when T5 was heading towards opening Heathrow was performing so badly on the punctuality front that it was all over the papers and even became an issue at government level.
Correction: it was not so much Heathrow in its entirety which was performing so badly: it was BA at Heathrow. Some other airlines, including one now owned by BA and operating from Terminal 1 where there is no conformance, seem to operate with far less delays than BA.
I think conformance is always going to generate tales of woe. But it seems quite democratic and allows the vast majority of passengers to enjoy punctuality the airline failed to achieve before. I'm sure that this encourages more loyalty overall, despite the few that come unstuck with conformance requirements, either through their own or others' fault, and are determined not to use BA again.
I suspect genius is overselling it, but probably an excellent business decision, as long as Heathrow Airport security play their part...
I think a flat T-35 min conformance time across the board is unrealistic. I can get from South security to A6 in 10 minutes. I can get to a C gate in 15 at most. My grandmother could take 45 minutes to find A10.
AF at CDG, and LX in ZRH have a computerized system that calculates the cost of passengers missing connections (where conformance seems to strike mostly, since most of us enjoy some bubbles in the lounge and so arrive at the airport earlier) and makes a decision on whether to hold a plane or not... That seems much more reasonable to me...
Correction: it was not so much Heathrow in its entirety which was performing so badly: it was BA at Heathrow. Some other airlines, including one now owned by BA and operating from Terminal 1 where there is no conformance, seem to operate with far less delays than BA.
True and I know on domestic routes BD really showed BA up. But BD was a much smaller operation, most likely with fewer transfer passengers, which probably helped management keep a handle on it, even if they didn't manage to do so profitably.
