SkyPriority vs Immigration

Old Jan 10, 18, 10:35 am
  #1  
q
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 179
SkyPriority vs Immigration

This perhaps has been / is being discussed somewhere else ... if so please delete.

From KLM.com web site for instance:

With SkyPriority, you will enjoy a red-carpet treatment at the airport. [...]
Faster security and passport clearance
Where available, access dedicated lines to help clear you through immigration and security faster.


While this seems to work well in some places, in others (including a favorite hub) it is far from reality. Some even believe the 'dedicated lines' are slower, and often the Airport staff, when asked which is faster, advise to go to the non-priority lines. I do not have hard data.

In some countries (the UK perhaps) false or misleading advertising is prohibited, I believe. Has anyone challenged the Airlines with this SkyPriority Red Carpet thing?

I believe the Airlines should CLOSE the so called priority lines whenever they would become slower (in average over some reasonable period of time, of course).
q is offline  
Old Jan 10, 18, 2:38 pm
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,332
Originally Posted by q View Post
I believe the Airlines should CLOSE the so called priority lines whenever they would become slower.
Or make sure to keep them up to speed by matching capacity to demand.

Johan
johan rebel is offline  
Old Jan 10, 18, 11:41 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: mostly not far from AMS, otherwise NUE
Programs: FB Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,948
Or have them in the first place, at least at their home hub, such as in AMS, where no such priority exists anymore.
mfkne is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 1:41 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by q View Post
I believe the Airlines should CLOSE the so called priority lines whenever they would become slower (in average over some reasonable period of time, of course).
The airlines are not responsible for the immigration lines, you often see similar issues with the EU vs. non-EU queues at immigration.
Ditto is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 3:19 am
  #5  
q
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by Ditto View Post
The airlines are not responsible for the immigration lines, you often see similar issues with the EU vs. non-EU queues at immigration.
But are responsible, or not, for what they advertise ?
q is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 3:41 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 3,810
And what is wrong with what they advertise?
In most airports I've been through, priority queues are most of the time quicker than non-priority queues, of course you can't avoid it completely, it only takes one family that requires some extra documentation in the queue to clog it for some time, or said family travelling in J for the first time in their life and have no clue about what they need to take out of their bag for security etc.

If at a specific airport there is an issue with the priority queue being constantly slower than the non-priority one, then this should be addresses with the airport/immigration authorities, but I don't see why it makes the advertisement a false one.
Ditto is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 4:54 am
  #7  
q
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by Ditto View Post
And what is wrong with what they advertise?
In most airports I've been through, priority queues are most of the time quicker than non-priority queues, of course you can't avoid it completely, it only takes one family that requires some extra documentation in the queue to clog it for some time, or said family travelling in J for the first time in their life and have no clue about what they need to take out of their bag for security etc.

If at a specific airport there is an issue with the priority queue being constantly slower than the non-priority one, then this should be addresses with the airport/immigration authorities, but I don't see why it makes the advertisement a false one.
You write "Of course you cant avoid completely [that the skypriority lines are slower]".
I disagree. It is of course >99% avoidable, but could be quite expensive.

I believe that at a specific airport, there is (was?) general feeling that skyPriority can be slower. If this is real and consistent, it would then mean that the advertisement is false or misleading.
q is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 5:23 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by q View Post
You write "Of course you cant avoid completely [that the skypriority lines are slower]".
I disagree. It is of course >99% avoidable, but could be quite expensive.
Actually you agree with me, even if it is avoidable in 99%, you still can't completely avoid it, in some airports it is handled better, in some less, either way it is not controlled by the airline.

Originally Posted by q View Post
I believe that at a specific airport, there is (was?) general feeling that skyPriority can be slower. If this is real and consistent, it would then mean that the advertisement is false or misleading.
So should they remove the advertisement because in one airport (out of probably few hundreds?) passengers have a general feeling (not even backed up by hard data) that it is always slower?
Ditto is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 5:36 am
  #9  
q
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by Ditto View Post
Actually you agree with me, even if it is avoidable in 99%, you still can't completely avoid it, in some airports it is handled better, in some less, either way it is not controlled by the airline.

So should they remove the advertisement because in one airport (out of probably few hundreds?) passengers have a general feeling (not even backed up by hard data) that it is always slower?
Let me try again. That is not what I wrote

What I wrote is this:
- should remove the so-called "priority" lines at certain places, or certain times of the day, if indeed they would end up slower.

And is it OK to advertise on something you have "no control" of?
q is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 5:54 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by q View Post
Let me try again. That is not what I wrote

What I wrote is this:
- should remove the so-called "priority" lines at certain places, or certain times of the day, if indeed they would end up slower.
We've already established that this is not controlled by the airlines

Originally Posted by q View Post
And is it OK to advertise on something you have "no control" of?
I don't see a problem with that.
Ditto is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 8:09 am
  #11  
q
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by Ditto View Post
We've already established that this is not controlled by the airlines
You are probably pulling my leg but in case not: I have great difficulty believing that these additional lines are there only for the free entertainment of airport staff and for us to argue about them.
q is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 8:21 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: AMS
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by q View Post
You are probably pulling my leg but in case not: I have great difficulty believing that these additional lines are there only for the free entertainment of airport staff and for us to argue about them.
Both security and immigration are provided either by the airport or the government, not by the airlines. The airport will typically set maximums for the amount of pax on average to use the priority lanes (15% of total per airline at AMS). Normally, that is sufficient to get you through faster than the non-priority lanes. But, it is impossible to prevent a coincidental situation where most of the pax arriving are priority pax and they all feel that because they're entitled to, they must use the priority lane at all cost, even if the regular lanes have fewer people.

So: the airline advertises that you are entitled to use the priority lanes if available, but whether or not you should actually use them is something you should decide for yourself when you are there and able to judge for yourself what is the better option at that moment.
CyBeR is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 8:24 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 3,810
Originally Posted by q View Post
You are probably pulling my leg but in case not: I have great difficulty believing that these additional lines are there only for the free entertainment of airport staff and for us to argue about them.
Well they are there so that the airport can get some more money from the airlines to allow their Elite PAX to use them
But that doesn't give any specific airline control over when they are open, how well they are staffed etc.
Ditto is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 9:13 am
  #14  
q
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 179
@CyBeR Thanks for that information.

While your statement, edited by me below, is IMO 100% accurate:

Originally Posted by CyBeR View Post
you are entitled to use the priority lanes if available, but whether or not you should actually use them is something you should decide for yourself when you are there and able to judge for yourself what is the better option at that moment.
what the airline actually advertises, however, is (repeat quote here)

"Faster security and passport clearance
Where available, access dedicated lines to help clear you through immigration and security faster."

again IMO this is misleading. It could be better for the KLM statement to read exactly word-for-word as you wrote.
q is offline  
Old Jan 11, 18, 9:16 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: AMS
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by q View Post
It could be better for the KLM statement to read exactly word-for-word as you wrote.
Sure but that's not great marketing, is it? How many companies do you know that advertise their product as being "not the greatest in every case but usually good enough"?
CyBeR is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: