BA customers as deliberate "collateral damage"
Sep 17, 2017, 4:41 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Programs: AS MVP Gold, BA Silver, AA Gold, Marriott Titanium, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,619
BA customers as deliberate "collateral damage"
My wife and I experienced two occasions recently (last Thursday) that highlighted what appear to be cynical "collateral damage" impacts on passengers flying BA in regard to the airline's commercial disputes:
1. The Fast Track arrivals queue at T5 for non-EU customers flying J/F (or having BAEC Silver/Gold status) is mired in a dispute with Immigration staff, and the impact is that those in line wait ~1 hour to reach one of the two (and only two) rostered Fast Track immigration staff. At noon on Thursday, the "normal" line (non-Fast Track) appeared to take ~20 minutes. In part the delay is due to each customer being informed individually (during their Immigration interview) of the ongoing dispute between BA and the Immigration staff, and being advised to join the regular line if visiting T5 again**. This good advise could/should have been provided before joining the Fast Track queue, or in fact anytime during the hour long wait. For BA to knowingly and cynically allow its best customers to be powerless fodder for this dispute was very disturbing. [I'm sure that this sad state of affairs has been well documented on FT, but I admit that I had not noted the thread, and I don't see it pinned on the front page of the BA section of FT).
2. The U.K. government has imposed restrictions on carrying certain electronic devises onboard flights from certain Middle Eastern airports, but these restrictions have been relaxed/removed for certain airlines, but not BA. The situation in Cairo is particularly glaring at the moment, insofar as Egypt Air has apparently been approved by the U.K. government to allow devises that they disallow for BA customers. For example, virtually all portable computer and cellphone chargers are being confiscated from BA customers but not from MS customers flying the same CAI - LON route. I can appreciate that BA may have made a commercial decision to hold firm and not pay-off certain security contractors, but it appears that the dispute here is not with Egyptians but rather with their own (U.K.) government, and it's appraisal of BA's current risk management procedures in regard to such chargers. Again, the cynical approach to its customers -- BA emailed out an alert that Egyptian security guards will confiscate all such chargers, making no mention that such confiscations will not occur if you choose to fly its head-to-head competitor, and the commercial dispute is with the U.K government, not the Egyptian security guards --- is extremely disturbing.
Consumers are very often unwittingly put in the middle of commercial tussles (strikes, threats of strikes etc.), but usually companies attempt to shield their best customers from the impacts/disruptions. In both of the above cases I felt that BA had deliberately --- and cynically --- put us into harm's way, failing to take any mitigating steps whatsoever.
** According to the Immigration officer at T5, abuse of Fast Track arrivals is not occurring at either T2, T3 or T4. YMMV.
1. The Fast Track arrivals queue at T5 for non-EU customers flying J/F (or having BAEC Silver/Gold status) is mired in a dispute with Immigration staff, and the impact is that those in line wait ~1 hour to reach one of the two (and only two) rostered Fast Track immigration staff. At noon on Thursday, the "normal" line (non-Fast Track) appeared to take ~20 minutes. In part the delay is due to each customer being informed individually (during their Immigration interview) of the ongoing dispute between BA and the Immigration staff, and being advised to join the regular line if visiting T5 again**. This good advise could/should have been provided before joining the Fast Track queue, or in fact anytime during the hour long wait. For BA to knowingly and cynically allow its best customers to be powerless fodder for this dispute was very disturbing. [I'm sure that this sad state of affairs has been well documented on FT, but I admit that I had not noted the thread, and I don't see it pinned on the front page of the BA section of FT).
2. The U.K. government has imposed restrictions on carrying certain electronic devises onboard flights from certain Middle Eastern airports, but these restrictions have been relaxed/removed for certain airlines, but not BA. The situation in Cairo is particularly glaring at the moment, insofar as Egypt Air has apparently been approved by the U.K. government to allow devises that they disallow for BA customers. For example, virtually all portable computer and cellphone chargers are being confiscated from BA customers but not from MS customers flying the same CAI - LON route. I can appreciate that BA may have made a commercial decision to hold firm and not pay-off certain security contractors, but it appears that the dispute here is not with Egyptians but rather with their own (U.K.) government, and it's appraisal of BA's current risk management procedures in regard to such chargers. Again, the cynical approach to its customers -- BA emailed out an alert that Egyptian security guards will confiscate all such chargers, making no mention that such confiscations will not occur if you choose to fly its head-to-head competitor, and the commercial dispute is with the U.K government, not the Egyptian security guards --- is extremely disturbing.
Consumers are very often unwittingly put in the middle of commercial tussles (strikes, threats of strikes etc.), but usually companies attempt to shield their best customers from the impacts/disruptions. In both of the above cases I felt that BA had deliberately --- and cynically --- put us into harm's way, failing to take any mitigating steps whatsoever.
** According to the Immigration officer at T5, abuse of Fast Track arrivals is not occurring at either T2, T3 or T4. YMMV.
Last edited by jbalmuth; Sep 17, 2017 at 4:49 am
Sep 17, 2017, 4:42 am
#2
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL, AA 1MM LT GLD, SPG PLAT, National Exec Selc, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 8,278
My wife and I experienced two occasions recently (last Thursday) that highlighted what appear to be cynical "collateral damage" impacts on passengers flying BA in regard to the airline's commercial disputes:
1. The Fast Track arrivals queue at T5 for non-EU customers flying J/F (or having BAEC Silver/Gold status) is mired in a dispute with Immigration staff, and the impact is that those in line wait ~1 hour to reach one of the two (and only two) rostered Fast Track immigration staff. At noon on Thursday, the "normal" line (non-Fast Track) appeared to take ~20 minutes. In part the delay is due to each customer being informed individually (during their Immigration interview) of the ongoing dispute between BA and the Immigration staff, and being advised to join the regular line if visiting T5 again**. This good advise could/should have been provided before joining the Fast Track queue, or in fact anytime during the hour long wait. For BA to knowingly and cynically allow its best customers to be powerless fodder for this dispute was very disturbing. [I'm sure that this sad state of affairs has been well documented on FT, but I admit that I had not noted the thread, and I don't see it pinned on the front page of the BA section of FT).
2. The U.K. government has imposed restrictions on carrying certain electronic devises onboard flights from certain Middle Eastern airports, but these restrictions have been relaxed/removed for certain airlines, but not BA. The situation in Cairo is particularly glaring at the moment, insofar as Egypt Air has apparently been approved by the U.K. government to allow devises that they disallow for BA customers. For example, virtually all portable computer and cellphone chargers are being confiscated from BA customers but not from MS customers flying the same CAI - LON route. I can appreciate that BA may have made a commercial decision to hold firm and not pay-off certain security contractors, but it appears that the dispute here is not with Egyptians but rather with their own government, and it's appraisal of BA's current risk management procedures in regard to such chargers. Again, the cynical approach to its customers -- BA emailed out an alert that Egyptian security guards will confiscate all such chargers, making no mention that such confiscations will not occur if you choose to fly its head-to-head competitor, and the commercial dispute is with the U.K government, not the Egyptian security guards --- is extremely disturbing.
Consumers are very often unwittingly put in the middle of commercial tussles (strikes, threats of strikes etc.), but usually companies attempt to shield their best customers from the impacts/disruptions. In both of the above cases I felt that BA had deliberately --- and cynically --- put us into harm's way, failing to take any mitigating steps whatsoever.
** According to the Immigration officer at T5, abuse of Fast Track arrivals is not occurring at either T2, T3 or T4. YMMV.
1. The Fast Track arrivals queue at T5 for non-EU customers flying J/F (or having BAEC Silver/Gold status) is mired in a dispute with Immigration staff, and the impact is that those in line wait ~1 hour to reach one of the two (and only two) rostered Fast Track immigration staff. At noon on Thursday, the "normal" line (non-Fast Track) appeared to take ~20 minutes. In part the delay is due to each customer being informed individually (during their Immigration interview) of the ongoing dispute between BA and the Immigration staff, and being advised to join the regular line if visiting T5 again**. This good advise could/should have been provided before joining the Fast Track queue, or in fact anytime during the hour long wait. For BA to knowingly and cynically allow its best customers to be powerless fodder for this dispute was very disturbing. [I'm sure that this sad state of affairs has been well documented on FT, but I admit that I had not noted the thread, and I don't see it pinned on the front page of the BA section of FT).
2. The U.K. government has imposed restrictions on carrying certain electronic devises onboard flights from certain Middle Eastern airports, but these restrictions have been relaxed/removed for certain airlines, but not BA. The situation in Cairo is particularly glaring at the moment, insofar as Egypt Air has apparently been approved by the U.K. government to allow devises that they disallow for BA customers. For example, virtually all portable computer and cellphone chargers are being confiscated from BA customers but not from MS customers flying the same CAI - LON route. I can appreciate that BA may have made a commercial decision to hold firm and not pay-off certain security contractors, but it appears that the dispute here is not with Egyptians but rather with their own government, and it's appraisal of BA's current risk management procedures in regard to such chargers. Again, the cynical approach to its customers -- BA emailed out an alert that Egyptian security guards will confiscate all such chargers, making no mention that such confiscations will not occur if you choose to fly its head-to-head competitor, and the commercial dispute is with the U.K government, not the Egyptian security guards --- is extremely disturbing.
Consumers are very often unwittingly put in the middle of commercial tussles (strikes, threats of strikes etc.), but usually companies attempt to shield their best customers from the impacts/disruptions. In both of the above cases I felt that BA had deliberately --- and cynically --- put us into harm's way, failing to take any mitigating steps whatsoever.
** According to the Immigration officer at T5, abuse of Fast Track arrivals is not occurring at either T2, T3 or T4. YMMV.
Sep 17, 2017, 4:58 am
#3
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Krakow
Programs: BAEC Silver, Miles and More(FTL), IHG(Platinum), Accor, HHonors(Diamond), SPG, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 5,916
regarding point 1, I am not sure what the dispute is but it seems its always been advice on this board to look at the length of the Q on fast track as there are always only 1 or 2 people working fast track
Its basically down to what BA will pay, I am not sure its any sort of dispute.
As for 2, I guess that is a commercial decision on how much extra BA are prepared to pay for "enhanced" security checks. No idea why you would expect them to say anything about Egypt air's behaviour.
Its basically down to what BA will pay, I am not sure its any sort of dispute.
As for 2, I guess that is a commercial decision on how much extra BA are prepared to pay for "enhanced" security checks. No idea why you would expect them to say anything about Egypt air's behaviour.
Sep 17, 2017, 5:10 am
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Programs: AS MVP Gold, BA Silver, AA Gold, Marriott Titanium, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 1,619
regarding point 1, I am not sure what the dispute is but it seems its always been advice on this board to look at the length of the Q on fast track as there are always only 1 or 2 people working fast track
Its basically down to what BA will pay, I am not sure its any sort of dispute.
As for 2, I guess that is a commercial decision on how much extra BA are prepared to pay for "enhanced" security checks. No idea why you would expect them to say anything about Egypt air's behaviour.
Its basically down to what BA will pay, I am not sure its any sort of dispute.
As for 2, I guess that is a commercial decision on how much extra BA are prepared to pay for "enhanced" security checks. No idea why you would expect them to say anything about Egypt air's behaviour.
The email from BA indicated only that the confiscations were due to Egyptian security processes ---- failing to mention that these were being carried out at the behest of the U.K. government, and then specifically only for their (BA's) customers (and therefore not the majority of passengers flying the route.) Their failure to note that the U.K. government was faulting BA's risk management was understandable (albeit ethically dubious), but implying that the issue was somehow due to Egyptian processes was misleading at best.
Sep 17, 2017, 5:15 am
#5
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
The problem with the length of the line advise assumes that you can judge that visually (or otherwise). The location and configuration of the Fast Track line at the far end of the Immigration hall makes that virtually impossible. Advise by BA/T5 personnel monitoring such lines could have significantly mitigated the issue.
The email from BA indicated only that the confiscations were due to Egyptian security processes ---- failing to mention that these are being carried out at the behest of the U.K. government, and then specifically only for their (BA's) customers (and therefore not the majority of passengers flying the route.)
The email from BA indicated only that the confiscations were due to Egyptian security processes ---- failing to mention that these are being carried out at the behest of the U.K. government, and then specifically only for their (BA's) customers (and therefore not the majority of passengers flying the route.)
Sep 17, 2017, 5:29 am
#6
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 732
Just booked the CAI-HNL run. Didn't realize the CAI-LHR flight is subject to these restrictions still. Do they have gate-check or do you have to do a full check in? How does that work if you are transferring to a LHR-JFK flight? Any way to get these back for the second flight?
Sep 17, 2017, 5:47 am
#7
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,791
The second issue is what it is, you've had the explanation upthread, you may or may not like it, but at least you have the choice. It's not passengers as collateral, just two different approaches to the same problem, passengers are warned in advance (and at check-in) about what can be carried into the cabin.
The first one, as described, I can't quite pin down, I'm not aware of a dispute in this area, though it's possibly something recent. However there is a long standing position that BA only pays for 2 Border Force officers to attend Fast Track, and there has long been grumbles from UKBF that BA or HAL should pay for more officers or take a more flexible approach (pay for more officers at peak time, for example). I don't think it's anything new, and the past advice about this probably still holds: count the Fast Track queue, divide by 2 (assuming 2 officers on duty). Count the main queue, divide by the number of officers handling that area. Join the shorter queue per officer. In theory Fast Track should be shorter, but with just 2 officers on duty then there is a risk of both being stuck on a problematic case, whereas the main queue is more likely to see that washed out with the number of officers. The service level for the main queue is supposed to be 40 minutes, the service level for Fast Track is 2 officers (hence the grumbles). One hour would be particularly bad luck on Fast Track, I'd guess the norm, if there is such a thing, is 20 minutes for FT and 30 minutes for the main queue.
If it's a regular problem, then maybe consider the Frequent Traveller programme and then you can use the e-gates.
The first one, as described, I can't quite pin down, I'm not aware of a dispute in this area, though it's possibly something recent. However there is a long standing position that BA only pays for 2 Border Force officers to attend Fast Track, and there has long been grumbles from UKBF that BA or HAL should pay for more officers or take a more flexible approach (pay for more officers at peak time, for example). I don't think it's anything new, and the past advice about this probably still holds: count the Fast Track queue, divide by 2 (assuming 2 officers on duty). Count the main queue, divide by the number of officers handling that area. Join the shorter queue per officer. In theory Fast Track should be shorter, but with just 2 officers on duty then there is a risk of both being stuck on a problematic case, whereas the main queue is more likely to see that washed out with the number of officers. The service level for the main queue is supposed to be 40 minutes, the service level for Fast Track is 2 officers (hence the grumbles). One hour would be particularly bad luck on Fast Track, I'd guess the norm, if there is such a thing, is 20 minutes for FT and 30 minutes for the main queue.
If it's a regular problem, then maybe consider the Frequent Traveller programme and then you can use the e-gates.
Sep 17, 2017, 6:06 am
#8
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,924
... Consumers are very often unwittingly put in the middle of commercial tussles (strikes, threats of strikes etc.), but usually companies attempt to shield their best customers from the impacts/disruptions. In both of the above cases I felt that BA had deliberately --- and cynically --- put us into harm's way, failing to take any mitigating steps whatsoever. ..
Sep 17, 2017, 6:19 am
#9
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: ±38,000 feet
Programs: LH HON, BA GGL, AF Plat, EK Plat
Posts: 6,428
As someone who freshly arrived from Cairo an hour ago, those security measures are all shambles. None of them picked up some stuff in my carry on (I left my work laptop charger there as I wanted to test them). It's all for show, if you are risk averse avoid flying from Cairo is my advice.
Sep 17, 2017, 6:26 am
#10
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Scotland
Posts: 377
The security measures that BA employ are a mix of governmental edict and security assessments made by BA's own in house security team. That BA has decided to keep these measures in place should tell you something. BA also chose not to fly over certain areas that other airlines did fly over - a Malaysian aircraft was shot down. By all means fly with BAs competitors - you pay your money and take your choice. BA know the cost to the bottom line of people choosing convenience over safety - they also have excellent threat assessors.
Sep 17, 2017, 6:35 am
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
There are many behind-the-scenes and costly efforts which BA employs, both as the result of government rules or its own security and safety assessments which inconvenience customers. Calling customers "collateral damage" is uninformed and needlessly cynical.
These include pre-departure safety briefings, seatback cards, backup oxygen, and all manner of security precautions. Those could all be abandoned, the money put into paying for additional Fast Track officers and OP's inconvenience would be greatly enhanced.
I would prefer that oxygen mask (and the oxygen it brings!) at FL 39 to the extra few minutes at Fast Track and we must all acknowledge that F, J or not, there are limits to what BA may charge and remain competetive.
As OP notes, he is free to fly other carriers. Perhaps for him it is a marketing advantage that a given carrier overflies dangerous airspace but gets him home quicker. Maybe.
These include pre-departure safety briefings, seatback cards, backup oxygen, and all manner of security precautions. Those could all be abandoned, the money put into paying for additional Fast Track officers and OP's inconvenience would be greatly enhanced.
I would prefer that oxygen mask (and the oxygen it brings!) at FL 39 to the extra few minutes at Fast Track and we must all acknowledge that F, J or not, there are limits to what BA may charge and remain competetive.
As OP notes, he is free to fly other carriers. Perhaps for him it is a marketing advantage that a given carrier overflies dangerous airspace but gets him home quicker. Maybe.
Sep 17, 2017, 6:35 am
#12
Join Date: Aug 2015
Programs: M&M Senator, BAEC GGL, Delta Platinum
Posts: 258
This has nothing to do with a 'commercial tussle', this is a serious security issue. You will find more detail of the measure here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...ghts-to-the-uk
last week I watched 3 strollers going trough totally unchecked in T5....
Sep 17, 2017, 6:40 am
#13
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,924
Please don't shoot the messenger. Are you suggesting there are no security threats from that part of the world?
Sep 17, 2017, 6:44 am
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BA, AF
Posts: 10,129
As someone who freshly arrived from Cairo an hour ago, those security measures are all shambles. None of them picked up some stuff in my carry on (I left my work laptop charger there as I wanted to test them). It's all for show, if you are risk averse avoid flying from Cairo is my advice.
Sep 17, 2017, 6:56 am
#15
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,924
The initial ban was for "phones, laptops and tablets larger than 16.0cm x 9.3cm x 1.5cm" Here is the original written Parliamentary statement: https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...ling-to-the-uk
Later updates stated the following:
The following peripheral devices, designed to be used with either a phone, laptop or tablet and exceeding any one of the following dimensions:
Later updates stated the following:
The following peripheral devices, designed to be used with either a phone, laptop or tablet and exceeding any one of the following dimensions:
- length: 16.0cm
- width: 9.3cm
- depth: 1.5cm
- keyboards
- power cable transformers
- external hard drives
- spare or separate device batteries
- portable power sources