bibbju

Hang on....so usually on this board everyone complains about having to wait too long for checked baggage to arrive. Yet now we're moaning that it's arriving before the passenger? You can't have it both ways.

Ldnn1

Ultimately the person who has control and who is liable to cover this loss is the thief. Unfortunately, he isn't easy to find.

NFH

I disagree. Multiple parties, through negligent procedures, allow passengers' baggage to become outside anyone's care, even though some of those parties have a duty of care over the baggage. The parties concerned are the airline, the immigration officers and the airport.

Imagine if you left your car with a garage for repair and it was stolen. You wouldn't deferring liability to the thief in this case. Even if your insurance covered it, there would be an excess, loss of no claims bonus and loaded future premiums. Insurance is never the answer to resolving disputed liability. Insurance is for where the liable party can't be traced.

flyingnomad

Well, one of school of thought might argue that it is the airline and the border agency that want to have it both ways. The pax is held responsible for any contents of their bag that might be "contraband" or otherwise fall foul of the laws of the country they are entering, but at the same time want to take no responsibility for ensuring security of the bag from the time it is delivered to the carousel to the time he/she arrives at the carousel to collect it?

TabTraveller

No. I really can't see that UKBF has any liability here. They are fulfilling a stautory function in checking the right to enter the UK. That this may take some time at busy periods doesn't in some way suggest that they have a duty to get a passenger through in a certain time before their bags arrive, if they have any. Say UKBF delay me entering the UK because they have a large number of arrivals and are checking passengers carefully. As a result I then miss my train and have to buy a new ticket at significant additional cost. Are they responsible for this? Clearly not.

The primary liability is with BA and whoever has control over the baggage area, which may be HAL, BA or a baggage handling contractor. This could easily be stopped by employing people or building exit barriers to check bag tags against receipts. That BA and/or HAL haven't done suggests they are seeking to reduce costs at the expense of security.

TabTraveller

Incidentally if I was seeking to smuggle drugs into the UK that were on my person I would certainly steal a bag and conceal them within the bag. If on walking through customs I get detected by the resident spaniel then I can readily disclaim ownership of the bag and claim I picked up the wrong one. Or I could plant the drugs in the bag, wait for the person to collect it and then steal the bag back from them at some point down the line.

golfmad

I think you're over thinking this scenario

There are several holes in your plans but probably best we don't go down that route.

simons1

Like any uninsured loss it's up to you if you proceed to take action against the person you believe is at fault.

I would suggest taking action against Border Agency would be a waste of time and money. You have no contractual relationship with them, and at no stage do they have anything to do with your bag. Unless there us some evidence of negligence, they will just swat you away and say they are filling the mandate they are given.

You might have more luck with BA - they are responsible for your bag from check in to collection. No doubt they will make it difficult, however for a GCH a gesture of goodwill of say £50 covering the excess might not be unrealistic.

TabTraveller

Just to be clear - not plans - more musings on the lack of security!

Silver Fox

Stick to the day job.

Ldnn1

It's a fair argument for sure, but it's not strictly a matter of 'reducing' cost because afaik there never has been a checking procedure to do away with. Also the fact that virtually no other airport in the world, certainly in Europe, does these checks does say something.

I guess random checks as mentioned at LGA could be a reasonable measure but wouldn't solve much. A systematic check, effectively like a second immigration queue, would NOT be popular.

simons1

Classic risk based analysis. Weigh up the cost of a systematic check against potential costs if you don't, and people sue you.

Exactly the same reason that banks haven't checked signatures on cheques for more than 30 years. It's cheaper to pay a few claims than have squads of people checking.

Ldnn1

Quite. Or even not pay a few claims, as the case may be.

creampuff

I've always been uncomfortable with bags potentially getting nicked.

I've been to many, many airports (usually in Asia) where you need to show your baggage receipt to leave the baggage claim area with your bag. I like that system. The only way you can fake your way out is if you steal a bag small enough to be carry-on and just rip off the baggage receipt so it appears to be your carry on.

I'd be very, very happy if all airports required you to show your baggage receipt prior to leaving with your bags.

Jimmie76

I've had my tags checked at BOS (coming off an international flight) and LHR by customs and border patrol just before either wanting to check my luggage for contraband or sending me on my way.