Is the second BP scan at T5 Fast Track Security a stats scam?
Feb 16, 2015, 3:13 am
#76
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,839
Yes, that is true and while we haven’t put resources there the implementation of parallel loading is attacking the bottleneck at the front and the longer lanes mean that build-up of rejected tray pax now needs to be longer to affect non rejected tray pax, a good thing I hope you’ll agree but doesn’t solve the issue for rejected pax and especially the no fault ones. Work is being done to explore flagging the non-fault random pax to searchers earlier but that still requires an explanation to why someone has been skipped forward to the other waiting pax. Improving the back end of the process will be the next priority after improving the front.
I'm sympathetic, I know what it is like to wait for a random test behind other people who aren't compliant when you are in a rush as I have to use staff search fairly often never mind when I do fly. Despite it not solving the issues at he back of the lane we are quite right to implement something that makes significant improvement to flow at the front.
I'm sympathetic, I know what it is like to wait for a random test behind other people who aren't compliant when you are in a rush as I have to use staff search fairly often never mind when I do fly. Despite it not solving the issues at he back of the lane we are quite right to implement something that makes significant improvement to flow at the front.
There is no excuse for the shambles that is secondary screening and it needs two things to happen
1) more resource added
2) existing staff to stop the "go slow" or whatever passive action they are taking which results in them moving at the speed of a disgruntled teenager being asked to tidy their bedroom.
Feb 16, 2015, 3:29 am
#77
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
It's my strategic aim to win the lottery. I suspect I'm more likely to win than LHR is to be[come] Europe's hub of choice.
Feb 28, 2015, 3:56 am
#78
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA GGL
Posts: 677
Just been through South Fast Track at T5. Employee standing at the second BP scan and asking for boarding passes to scan. I queried why and was told we need it to track you. I complained that it was not compulsory and was informed we have to do it "in case anything happens to you" during scanning (?!) What guff.
However, with queues behind me and mindful that annoying security is rarely a good idea, I submitted. Revenge was taken with a frowning face at the feedback console.
However, with queues behind me and mindful that annoying security is rarely a good idea, I submitted. Revenge was taken with a frowning face at the feedback console.
Feb 28, 2015, 4:20 am
#79
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
I'm glad HAL has so many extra security staff on duty they have enough spares to do the second BP scan for pax...
You really couldn't make this stuff up!
You really couldn't make this stuff up!
Feb 28, 2015, 7:10 am
#80
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Brighton and Hove, UK
Programs: LH FTL, BA Silver, Thameslink Delay Repay
Posts: 1,248
I was also very rudely told that "you HAVE to scan your boarding pass here" two days ago at FT South. Obviously then took another 10 minutes to get through after that
Feb 28, 2015, 8:21 am
#81
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London, Babylon-on-Thames
Programs: BAEC Blue (back to Earth)
Posts: 1,508
I just ignored the bloody thing.
Mar 1, 2015, 2:40 am
#82
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Shanghai
Programs: BAEC (Gold), PC (Plat), HH (Gold), MR (Gold)
Posts: 2,729
FT South a farce this morning, so used Slow Track. Plenty of time for conversation within the queue so explained to everyone nearby who was digging for their BPs that they didn't have to do it. Mass disobedience ensued. Take that, HAL.
Mar 1, 2015, 3:00 am
#83
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: England
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold, UA Premier Platinum
Posts: 389
Errm.... By ignoring the second scan when queues are long you're playing into the hands of HAL. The scan is there to measure the queuing time pre-security, and while I agree that the security targets are defined badly that's all we have at the moment. Unless you scan at busy times HAL's fines will be lower and it will have even less of an incentive to do anything about the queues.
Mar 1, 2015, 3:38 am
#84
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Shanghai
Programs: BAEC (Gold), PC (Plat), HH (Gold), MR (Gold)
Posts: 2,729
Errm.... By ignoring the second scan when queues are long you're playing into the hands of HAL. The scan is there to measure the queuing time pre-security, and while I agree that the security targets are defined badly that's all we have at the moment. Unless you scan at busy times HAL's fines will be lower and it will have even less of an incentive to do anything about the queues.
Mar 1, 2015, 3:45 am
#85
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
Satisfying no doubt, but something of a Pyrrhic victory.
Mar 1, 2015, 4:42 am
#89
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: England
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold, UA Premier Platinum
Posts: 389
According to FTLHR (who seems close to this issue at LHR) HAL supplement the scan info with CCTV evidence. How they do this, I don't know. It must add some subjectivity to the calculations, and is clearly more subject to manipulation than direct scan data.
Mar 1, 2015, 5:21 am
#90
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
EDIT:
If you say it enough times, would that make it true?
Last edited by shorthauldad; Mar 1, 2015 at 5:37 am