30+ people offloaded from LAX-LHR flight
Apr 15, 2015, 3:28 am
#31
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
Semantics. No discourse to you, of course. I had just been boarded by the gate reader about two minutes prior and was just saying my hellos and goodbyes to some of the staff I know before heading down the jetty to go on the aircraft, when the group came running up. Some of them made quite a bit of commotion and that's what drew my attention toward them in the first place. All other passengers were onboard (a staff member was onboard checking to see whether a passenger who was not registered as being boarded was in fact on board. It turns out they were because the staff member radioed up confirming this), so the flight was ready to go.
It seems that AA cabin crew communicated incorrectly to the OP and the group that the flight was registering a fifteen minute delay to 21:50, but I assure you that ba.com displayed an on-schedule departure of 21:35 at least two plus hours to departure, because I myself checked the app whilst in the lounge. Perhaps this was the case earlier in the evening when they (AA at LAS) checked, but the incoming BA flight made up some time and departure was reverted back to being on-schedule.
I believe BA's policy is that all pax should turn up to the gate at least 15-20 minutes prior to departure or be subject to offload. My boarding pass confirms this with the gate closing time as 21:20. BA was not obliged to allow them on, but in the interest of duty of care/customer service, I agree with you that it was the right thing to do. Furthermore, it is my understanding that BA do not allow for airside bus transfers because all connecting passengers must be re-screened by local TSA security. AA know this, which is why I am surprised to hear that some members of the group were allowed to get on the AA to QF bus after 'arguing' with the AA staff at the bussing gate. Certainly, if the BA gate staff had been made aware that this had transpired, it is highly unlikely that any of passengers who turned up late would be allowed to board.
At the end of the day, AA decided and communicated to BA that these passengers were not going make their BA connection due to their delayed inbound. The decision to offloaded them by BA was based on this advisory. Now if AA had made some time up and the delayed flight was due to arrive at LAX earlier than expected, then this should have been communicated to BA. It was only due to a quick flight time and no holding delays that the flight landed into London slightly early (even with the delay), but you cannot really depend on that 'hope' each and every time.
It seems that AA cabin crew communicated incorrectly to the OP and the group that the flight was registering a fifteen minute delay to 21:50, but I assure you that ba.com displayed an on-schedule departure of 21:35 at least two plus hours to departure, because I myself checked the app whilst in the lounge. Perhaps this was the case earlier in the evening when they (AA at LAS) checked, but the incoming BA flight made up some time and departure was reverted back to being on-schedule.
I believe BA's policy is that all pax should turn up to the gate at least 15-20 minutes prior to departure or be subject to offload. My boarding pass confirms this with the gate closing time as 21:20. BA was not obliged to allow them on, but in the interest of duty of care/customer service, I agree with you that it was the right thing to do. Furthermore, it is my understanding that BA do not allow for airside bus transfers because all connecting passengers must be re-screened by local TSA security. AA know this, which is why I am surprised to hear that some members of the group were allowed to get on the AA to QF bus after 'arguing' with the AA staff at the bussing gate. Certainly, if the BA gate staff had been made aware that this had transpired, it is highly unlikely that any of passengers who turned up late would be allowed to board.
At the end of the day, AA decided and communicated to BA that these passengers were not going make their BA connection due to their delayed inbound. The decision to offloaded them by BA was based on this advisory. Now if AA had made some time up and the delayed flight was due to arrive at LAX earlier than expected, then this should have been communicated to BA. It was only due to a quick flight time and no holding delays that the flight landed into London slightly early (even with the delay), but you cannot really depend on that 'hope' each and every time.
The majority of pax may have been on board but you have acknowledged you personally hadn't even entered the jetty to board at that point. Clearly as a result the doors weren't closed so the flight wasn't exactly at pushback stage. Plus it sounds as if they were only a couple of mins past the 21.20 cut off time.
A win/win all round as the flight arrived early in London and there was a group of passengers who weren't forced to spend an extra day in LAX when no doubt they preferred to be on the way home.
Apr 15, 2015, 3:32 am
#32
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,840
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 8_3 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/600.1.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/8.0 Mobile/12F70 Safari/600.1.4)
BA/LAX require domestic transfer pax to be re-screened, but this is clearly not the case at many other US airports (or indeed many others globally)?
Bizarre. Is there a specific reason for this?
BA/LAX require domestic transfer pax to be re-screened, but this is clearly not the case at many other US airports (or indeed many others globally)?
Bizarre. Is there a specific reason for this?
Apr 15, 2015, 3:50 am
#33
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 218
That to me all confirms that BA were right to let the people on.
The majority of pax may have been on board but you have acknowledged you personally hadn't even entered the jetty to board at that point. Clearly as a result the doors weren't closed so the flight wasn't exactly at pushback stage. Plus it sounds as if they were only a couple of mins past the 21.20 cut off time.
A win/win all round as the flight arrived early in London and there was a group of passengers who weren't forced to spend an extra day in LAX when no doubt they preferred to be on the way home.
The majority of pax may have been on board but you have acknowledged you personally hadn't even entered the jetty to board at that point. Clearly as a result the doors weren't closed so the flight wasn't exactly at pushback stage. Plus it sounds as if they were only a couple of mins past the 21.20 cut off time.
A win/win all round as the flight arrived early in London and there was a group of passengers who weren't forced to spend an extra day in LAX when no doubt they preferred to be on the way home.
Of course they were right to do so. There's no argument there in that and a "win/win" as you say for those who were allowed to get away on the flight they booked. True that I hadn't entered the jetty at that point, but I was registered as being boarded through the gate reader on time, which is what the policy dictates. It would have only taken me an additional 5-10 more seconds to get down the jetty and step onto the aeroplane, but again, semantics.
I will go on to say that the crew onboard the AA flight perhaps should have maybe communicated first to their local LAX AA staff to see what procedure had been put in place rather than announcing to the BA connecting passengers what they 'believed' (bussing transfer) would happen. That should have been the course of action. It was incorrect to assume that because this is what had been set up for AA to QF transfer passengers, that the same would apply to BA pax. When those passengers were allowed by AA to transfer airside, unbeknownst to BA, it was clearly a breach of security protocol and this is against BA's transfer policy at LAX to my knowledge. AA knows this, which is why again I am a bit gobsmacked that this was allowed to occur.
Apr 15, 2015, 3:59 am
#34
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London / Los Angeles
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Globalist, BA Silver
Posts: 1,631
When those passengers were allowed by AA to transfer airside, unbeknownst to BA, it was clearly a breach of security protocol and this is against BA's transfer policy at LAX to my knowledge. AA knows this, which is why again I am a bit gobsmacked that this was allowed to occur.
Ultimately though if Qantas pax can transfer without rescreening, it does not seem to be a serious security breach if BA pax are allowed to do so also. Maybe in a technical sense it is a breach but are BA pax really any more of a security threat than Qantas pax?
Apr 15, 2015, 3:59 am
#35
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
I will go on to say that the crew onboard the AA flight perhaps should have maybe communicated first to their local LAX AA staff to see what procedure had been put in place rather than announcing to the BA connecting passengers what they 'believed' (bussing transfer) would happen. That should have been the course of action. It was incorrect to assume that because this is what had been set up for AA to QF transfer passengers, that the same would apply to BA pax. When those passengers were allowed by AA to transfer airside, unbeknownst to BA, it was clearly a breach of security protocol and this is against BA's transfer policy at LAX to my knowledge. AA knows this, which is why again I am a bit gobsmacked that this was allowed to occur.
I remember being sat on a BA flight at Prague when the volcano went off. We all had to be deplaned and the Purser announced to everyone on board that we should head back up the jetty into the gate room where staff were on hand to rebook people. Of course that was complete b/s and after a traipse through the airport we reached a shared BA desk where 2 people were trying to deal with a line of about 500 people. Fortunately then our TA came to the rescue.
Apr 15, 2015, 3:59 am
#36
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 218
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3G: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 8_3 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/600.1.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/8.0 Mobile/12F70 Safari/600.1.4)
BA/LAX require domestic transfer pax to be re-screened, but this is clearly not the case at many other US airports (or indeed many others globally)?
Bizarre. Is there a specific reason for this?
BA/LAX require domestic transfer pax to be re-screened, but this is clearly not the case at many other US airports (or indeed many others globally)?
Bizarre. Is there a specific reason for this?
Apr 15, 2015, 4:10 am
#37
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 218
I'm not sure AA allowed us to get on the bus officially. I think the staff at the bus gate were in a state of mild panic when 10-20 pax showed up saying they had been told they could take this bus and pleading to be let on. There were several Qantas and AA staff at this bus gate and they seemed to completely disagree about what to do. In the confusion, some of us were able to get onboard before the rest were stopped (I think one agent said we could board before someone more senior countermanded this instruction 30 seconds later).
Ultimately though if Qantas pax can transfer without rescreening, it does not seem to be a serious security breach if BA pax are allowed to do so also. Maybe in a technical sense it is a breach but are BA pax really any more of a security threat than Qantas pax?
Ultimately though if Qantas pax can transfer without rescreening, it does not seem to be a serious security breach if BA pax are allowed to do so also. Maybe in a technical sense it is a breach but are BA pax really any more of a security threat than Qantas pax?
Apr 15, 2015, 5:04 am
#38
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GLA
Programs: BD (in memoriam), BA
Posts: 1,359
Could it merely be that the only airside route between LAX T4 and TBIT requires a bus, and BA aren't willing to pay for an airside bus for their pax (while Qantas are)?
Apr 15, 2015, 5:05 am
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
In general, the same applies for someone flying LAS-LAX-LHR. The first flight is domestic, and there's no need for the passenger to be re-screened at LAX.
Of course, BA may have a specific re-screening requirement at LAX - but it's not a general BA requirement everywhere.
Apr 15, 2015, 5:12 am
#40
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, CX Gold (OW Sapphire), Hilton Gold, SPG Gold, Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,476
Not quite. All arriving international transit pax are re-screened at LHR to meet UK government requirements. No rescreening is necessary if you've already been through a UK checkpoint (ie you're connecting from a domestic flight)
Could it merely be that the only airside route between LAX T4 and TBIT requires a bus, and BA aren't willing to pay for an airside bus for their pax (while Qantas are)?
Could it merely be that the only airside route between LAX T4 and TBIT requires a bus, and BA aren't willing to pay for an airside bus for their pax (while Qantas are)?
All because BA doesn't do a direct from domestic airside-airside transit in the same manner as VS Little Red.
Apr 15, 2015, 5:13 am
#41
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: A hop, skip and jump away from MAN.
Programs: BAEC Gold, ex-VS Gold, ex-UA Gold, Premier Inn Platinum-Iridium
Posts: 1,114
Honestly, the reason being proposed behind the whole mandatory rescreening thing in this instance sounds bizarre.
You arrive on a flight from a US origin, where you have already been screened by the TSA.
If it is possible to make an airside transit, without leaving the secure area, there is no need to be screened again, to the same procedures, to the same standards, by the very same TSA.
The statement that "BA require rescreening" sounds like a load of FUD to me.
The rescreening is currently absolutely necessary when transferring to TBIT at LAX because there is no "official" way for a BA pax to get from T4 to TBIT without going curbside, outside the secure area.
As c-w-s observed, once there is an airside corridor available as part of the improvement works, it will be possible to arrive into T4 (plus T5 and T6 via the tunnels to T4) and make an airside transit to TBIT without having to be rescreened because the passenger will never have left the secure area.
You arrive on a flight from a US origin, where you have already been screened by the TSA.
If it is possible to make an airside transit, without leaving the secure area, there is no need to be screened again, to the same procedures, to the same standards, by the very same TSA.
The statement that "BA require rescreening" sounds like a load of FUD to me.
The rescreening is currently absolutely necessary when transferring to TBIT at LAX because there is no "official" way for a BA pax to get from T4 to TBIT without going curbside, outside the secure area.
As c-w-s observed, once there is an airside corridor available as part of the improvement works, it will be possible to arrive into T4 (plus T5 and T6 via the tunnels to T4) and make an airside transit to TBIT without having to be rescreened because the passenger will never have left the secure area.
Last edited by mjh0; Apr 15, 2015 at 5:19 am
Apr 15, 2015, 5:18 am
#42
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: A hop, skip and jump away from MAN.
Programs: BAEC Gold, ex-VS Gold, ex-UA Gold, Premier Inn Platinum-Iridium
Posts: 1,114
It would certainly reduce the burden on flight connections.
Of course, no-one is probably looking at the larger picture, sadly.
Mike
Apr 15, 2015, 5:27 am
#43
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 218
Apr 15, 2015, 5:38 am
#44
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 218
Honestly, the reason being proposed behind the whole mandatory rescreening thing in this instance sounds bizarre.
You arrive on a flight from a US origin, where you have already been screened by the TSA.
If it is possible to make an airside transit, without leaving the secure area, there is no need to be screened again, to the same procedures, to the same standards, by the very same TSA.
The statement that "BA require rescreening" sounds like a load of FUD to me.
The rescreening is currently absolutely necessary when transferring to TBIT at LAX because there is no "official" way for a BA pax to get from T4 to TBIT without going curbside, outside the secure area.
As c-w-s observed, once there is an airside corridor available as part of the improvement works, it will be possible to arrive into T4 (plus T5 and T6 via the tunnels to T4) and make an airside transit to TBIT without having to be rescreened because the passenger will never have left the secure area.
You arrive on a flight from a US origin, where you have already been screened by the TSA.
If it is possible to make an airside transit, without leaving the secure area, there is no need to be screened again, to the same procedures, to the same standards, by the very same TSA.
The statement that "BA require rescreening" sounds like a load of FUD to me.
The rescreening is currently absolutely necessary when transferring to TBIT at LAX because there is no "official" way for a BA pax to get from T4 to TBIT without going curbside, outside the secure area.
As c-w-s observed, once there is an airside corridor available as part of the improvement works, it will be possible to arrive into T4 (plus T5 and T6 via the tunnels to T4) and make an airside transit to TBIT without having to be rescreened because the passenger will never have left the secure area.
Apr 15, 2015, 5:45 am
#45
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 218
With respect, no. If you fly EDI-LHR-JFK, you will not be re-screened at LHR. This is because the first flight is domestic and you have already been screened to UK standards.
In general, the same applies for someone flying LAS-LAX-LHR. The first flight is domestic, and there's no need for the passenger to be re-screened at LAX.
Of course, BA may have a specific re-screening requirement at LAX - but it's not a general BA requirement everywhere.
In general, the same applies for someone flying LAS-LAX-LHR. The first flight is domestic, and there's no need for the passenger to be re-screened at LAX.
Of course, BA may have a specific re-screening requirement at LAX - but it's not a general BA requirement everywhere.