BasilBush

If that is indeed happening then you really must email Ian Osborne at the CAA (email details above). The CAA is very keen on improving the measurement of security queues (within their rather limited definition of the topic...) and if there is evidence of foul play they are likely to do something about it.

kdhurst380

The only non flawed method of measurement would be a system similar to what shops have for measuring footfall and conversion (the measure of how good the staff/POS are at converting browsers into buyers, and queuing times at till points). They are motion/infrared sensors (known colloquially as shower heads) that can detect a single movement at point of entry and another at the exit, or several placed along a route to measure number of movements through particular areas.

I'm surprised the CAA don't already enforce a system like this.

BasilBush

Yes, the CAA and HAL seem to want to make a mountain out of a molehill. I have seen how another UK airport measures overall security queuing/processing times (in real time) by using passengers' mobile phone signals to time their passing from landside to airside. It looked quite convincing to me....

fotographer

I have never scanned my BP, why? does it help me no... is it required, I dont believe so

rumbataz

Sometimes those secondary BP scanners aren't even working!

Land-of-Miles

The CAA is completely hopeless in discharging it's responsibility as regulator for airports and passenger rights. I think this is because it enjoys historically warm and cosy links with the airlines and airport operators and has no wish to rock the boat.

The sooner it is confined to the role of safety inspector and the broader passenger rights and airport regulation role is passed to an independent third party with real teeth, the better things will be for passengers.

hugolover

I agree 100%.

Scots_Al

I was actually refused service by WHS at GLA a couple of weeks ago, because I didn't have my BP handy. "Airport regulations" apparently...

Dicksbits

Sounds like a silly question, but is it quicker to use Flight Connections or, leave through immigration and up to departures for security?

Genius1

It very much depends on the day and the volumes of connecting passengers. Flight Connections is almost always a more miserable experience overall than Departures.

Land-of-Miles

Even if it isn't quicker it usually feels better to land yourself, especially if you can use the e-passport gates.

Dicksbits

I've used flight connections twice and it was horrid in the morning.

cziwkga

Thanks for that info. I'll certainly do that if I see possible bad practice relating to the BP scan in future. For the last couple of months, it has all seemed above-board - the scanners are always available and staff neither encouraging nor discouraging passengers from using them. But in the past year I've seen the BP scanners blocked behind items of signage, and on other occasions had staff strongly discourage me from scanning my BP - on one occasion, physically preventing me from doing so.

FWIW, I always try to scan it and always try to so after I've unloaded stuff into the trays.

Tafflyer

Flight Connections fast track is the worst. After breezing through the conformance queue, which is admittedly often empty, you are channelled into 2 designated fast track security lanes and penned in by tensa-barriers at the top of the escalator. These 2 queues are almost always the worst of all the security lanes fast track or not. I regularly skip the barrier and am regularly challenged by somebody barking at me that I am supposed to remain in the fast track lane. I usually ask them if there is a rule against de-fast-tracking which shuts them up. Sometimes I'll even re-fast-track myself at the far end (departures north fast track) by showing my boarding pass to another "agent", which has never been a problem.

HAL has no dynamic system, nor the intelligence of staff to implement it, that is the problem. There is often capacity available at other security lines but a failure to reallocate the queues to effectively utilise that capacity.

FTLHR

Hello again, I'll try and answer some of the points in this thread where I can.

Scanning boarding passes is not mandatory, there have been some staff suggesting other wise on some occasions but it is not under instruction from management.

We spoke at length with the airlines and the CAA about how this barcode scanning method would work in practice and how strict monitoring of sample sizes, uptake rates and any avoidable sampling biases are avoided where possible.

No-one at the airport has the combination of time, influence and understanding of how you could manipulate the queue times, it would be genuinely easier to run the operation better than trying to affect it on a holistic level.

Bluetooth sampling is not representative as it's a fading technology, certainly in transfers the sample sizes obtained are not even approaching being large enough. The previous measure of one sampled passenger by CCTV every fifteen minutes was laughable in terms of representing the passenger journey and contrary to what has been said in here was conducted by a third party often with a more negative outcome for the airport rather than the airport 'rigging' it.

I've mentioned it before but the license says Fast Track is not included in the metric where a commercial agreement with the airlines is included. That's not the case everywhere.

I will add that, yes, the measure we are held up on is waiting time at security not for security. However if the latter is poor than the former will be as well. Queuing before the 2nd BP scan does happen when rejects are high and the lane slows down.

It is for that reason the metric is where it is 95% of timelines average queue time under 5 mins (10 mins in transfers , though these are being harmonised). Where it for the whole security process you might wait less time when your bag has a secondary search but you'd probably wait longer when it doesn't.

The metric is what it is and the CAA haven't suggested that they are looking at changing it to the whole security process for the reason that DfT could completely change the rules on % of explosive tests, random activations etc. Considering the metric is set for 5 years it would be of no benefit to anyone if the airport had to pay out £24m a year if the threat level is changed.

If the security lanes were staffed to process all passengers from one end to the other inside say 10 minutes the lanes would probably need to be twice the length and have three times the staff number on them to deal with peaks. That would mean a lot of staff and assets doing very little for the majority of the time. The trick is to be smarter about when those staff are there to anticipate issues rather than react.

I would also add that the queue data is very important for operational reaction on the day and getting statistically significant samples from the BP scanning has aided this and planning data greatly.

The enhanced lanes that went in place a couple of years ago do capture waiting time and length of secondary bad search and the data we are using to be more proactive about known demographic impacts to the operation, certain times of day, year and so on. It is not easy to get the operation to think more about data driven decision making, especially when people have vast operational experience. There is a growing Six Sigma culture in Heathrow, which includes myself and we are starting to gain traction in these areas.

If queues stretch beyond the 'in' point of the system, manual top up is added to the system. If you came back four hours later to scan a BP it would be flagged as an outlier and not counted (unless a very large amount of people did so)