HEL T2 opens
May 16, 2024, 3:32 pm
#361
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tokyo
Programs: JAL Metal Card (OWE), SAS Eurobonus Gold (*G), Marriott Titanium (LTP), Tokyu Hotels Platinum
Posts: 21,500
I don't imagine being free at point of use is a requirement for something to qualify as a public service offering.
Applying for passports and other permits is a public service offering, but is paid for by individuals at point of use.
Just because a public service offering is integrated into a flow of commercial activity does not change its nature as a public service offering.
The question is precisely how should a public service offering that is practiced in an environment where it is embedded into commercial activity be governed when the interests of those two different frames of reference may be in conflict.
Stating that it is one or the other simplifies the question rhetorically, but it does not necessarily simplify the legal reality.
Applying for passports and other permits is a public service offering, but is paid for by individuals at point of use.
Just because a public service offering is integrated into a flow of commercial activity does not change its nature as a public service offering.
The question is precisely how should a public service offering that is practiced in an environment where it is embedded into commercial activity be governed when the interests of those two different frames of reference may be in conflict.
Stating that it is one or the other simplifies the question rhetorically, but it does not necessarily simplify the legal reality.
So if we for the sake of the argument say that airport security is a public service, why shouldn't that be fast tracked for a few, but a legal necessity of an ID is fine to be fast tracked for a fee and so is the fee for fast tracking a passport.
So I do come back to my original point of the ombudsman one morning having a tantrum over not being in the "fancy" lane. Reading the thread here, it could not have been due to not being in the fast lane. I really feel the ombudsman should get the priorities straight, even in Finland, there can't be that few cases worthy of the ombudsman.
Last edited by CPH-Flyer; May 16, 2024 at 5:08 pm
May 16, 2024, 3:44 pm
#362
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY, SK, TK
Posts: 7,630
I just learnt the magic words: l haaveile!
Very few pax at prio security at 10:15 this morning, but the bags came out ever so slowly. This time, however, there was a dedicated agent sitting by the machine looking at a monitor. The non-prio machine opposite did not have that so probably they had one centralised guy in the back and then another one for prio, which is nice, of course. However, when nothing happened, his colleague from the manual search team walked up to him and told him to stop daydreaming (l haaveile!) and then the bags started moving again I havent yet decided whether I should laugh or cry, but now I know what to say next time when standing there with 25 others waiting for my bag.
Very few pax at prio security at 10:15 this morning, but the bags came out ever so slowly. This time, however, there was a dedicated agent sitting by the machine looking at a monitor. The non-prio machine opposite did not have that so probably they had one centralised guy in the back and then another one for prio, which is nice, of course. However, when nothing happened, his colleague from the manual search team walked up to him and told him to stop daydreaming (l haaveile!) and then the bags started moving again I havent yet decided whether I should laugh or cry, but now I know what to say next time when standing there with 25 others waiting for my bag.
May 17, 2024, 7:53 am
#364
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 1,481
Passports are an interesting parallel example, as the Finnish government blatantly lists that you can get express service for an extra fee. This is also the case for the national identity card, which, under "most of the public services not being charged but covered by taxes principle of Finland" I am a bit surprised even carries a fee, can be fast tracked for an extra fee.
So if we for the sake of the argument say that airport security is a public service, why shouldn't that be fast tracked for a few, but a legal necessity of an ID is fine to be fast tracked for a fee and so is the fee for fast tracking a passport.
So I do come back to my original point of the ombudsman one morning having a tantrum over not being in the "fancy" lane. Reading the thread here, it could not have been due to not being in the fast lane. I really feel the ombudsman should get the priorities straight, even in Finland, there can't be that few cases worthy of the ombudsman.
So if we for the sake of the argument say that airport security is a public service, why shouldn't that be fast tracked for a few, but a legal necessity of an ID is fine to be fast tracked for a fee and so is the fee for fast tracking a passport.
So I do come back to my original point of the ombudsman one morning having a tantrum over not being in the "fancy" lane. Reading the thread here, it could not have been due to not being in the fast lane. I really feel the ombudsman should get the priorities straight, even in Finland, there can't be that few cases worthy of the ombudsman.
It could certainly be argued that Finavia being allowed to offer priority security may be in the public interest, this is a case where different public interests may be in conflict with one another.
If strict prioritisation of equality prevails, HEL may become a less attractive city for airlines to operate into, potentially harming Finland's economic and geopolitical prospects, which certainly are a public interest as well.
I think the likely outcome will be a form of posturing whereby priority security will continue to be offered to appease airline and customer demand, but the service levels may end up being rather similar potentially at times inconveniencing priority service users, in order to substantiate the claim that the carrying out of the public service does not create discriminatory outcomes in terms of wait times.
This may all seem like an exercise in pedantry, but even as an enjoyer of the convenience of priority services, I wouldn't wish for Finavia to be free to lower the service standards for other passengers. I think the case that they would have commercial interests to do so to make priority services more appealing and increase their revenues from selling that service is a convincing one.
Last edited by Flythe96flag; May 17, 2024 at 7:58 am
May 17, 2024, 3:42 pm
#365
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tokyo
Programs: JAL Metal Card (OWE), SAS Eurobonus Gold (*G), Marriott Titanium (LTP), Tokyu Hotels Platinum
Posts: 21,500
My first post on this topic was to point out extra fees for processing times for identity documents as a case where differentiation in service levels already exists, yet seemingly the ombudsman does not take issue with, so I was already with you there on that one.
It could certainly be argued that Finavia being allowed to offer priority security may be in the public interest, this is a case where different public interests may be in conflict with one another.
If strict prioritisation of equality prevails, HEL may become a less attractive city for airlines to operate into, potentially harming Finland's economic and geopolitical prospects, which certainly are a public interest as well.
I think the likely outcome will be a form of posturing whereby priority security will continue to be offered to appease airline and customer demand, but the service levels may end up being rather similar potentially at times inconveniencing priority service users, in order to substantiate the claim that the carrying out of the public service does not create discriminatory outcomes in terms of wait times.
This may all seem like an exercise in pedantry, but even as an enjoyer of the convenience of priority services, I wouldn't wish for Finavia to be free to lower the service standards for other passengers. I think the case that they would have commercial interests to do so to make priority services more appealing and increase their revenues from selling that service is a convincing one.
It could certainly be argued that Finavia being allowed to offer priority security may be in the public interest, this is a case where different public interests may be in conflict with one another.
If strict prioritisation of equality prevails, HEL may become a less attractive city for airlines to operate into, potentially harming Finland's economic and geopolitical prospects, which certainly are a public interest as well.
I think the likely outcome will be a form of posturing whereby priority security will continue to be offered to appease airline and customer demand, but the service levels may end up being rather similar potentially at times inconveniencing priority service users, in order to substantiate the claim that the carrying out of the public service does not create discriminatory outcomes in terms of wait times.
This may all seem like an exercise in pedantry, but even as an enjoyer of the convenience of priority services, I wouldn't wish for Finavia to be free to lower the service standards for other passengers. I think the case that they would have commercial interests to do so to make priority services more appealing and increase their revenues from selling that service is a convincing one.
I think that a reasonable level of service should available to all people using an airport. And as an effective monopolies for passengers in many cities I don't think it unreasonable for the governments, as possibly personified by an ombudsman, to set maximum wait time targets for the regular security lines, and much like train operators are in many countries, penalise the airports if they don't meet the in time targets.
If the ombudsman should take part here, it should be to fix the standard security. In the end 80-90% of departing passengers will go through the main security, focus on ensuring they have an acceptable service guaranteed, then it does not really matter whether the remaining gets a better service.
Last edited by CPH-Flyer; May 17, 2024 at 3:47 pm
May 17, 2024, 4:06 pm
#366
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,837
Could this "issue" be fixed by a 50 EUR express fee that anyone going airside could pay at the prio security entrance if they so wish, regardless of airline, travel class or status? Just like those express passports.
May 18, 2024, 12:51 am
#367
Moderator, Finnair
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Gold, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 14,246
The key to this is enforced standards.
It is fine to have a 50€ fee for express passport if normal time of expedition is say 3-4 day, and stays that way over time.
When authorities are allowed to use quality decay to manipulate and drive demand for paid versions of services the incentive is so strong.
Even a government that first issued the public service and pays money for the utility to the public might be happy the provider finds 3.rd party funding
A type of consumer rights ombudsman for the public should be equipped with authority to enforce standards for the public. Not just say "everything should be more or less equal", but issue fines when the waiting time for general service exceeds what is reasonable.
It is fine to have a 50€ fee for express passport if normal time of expedition is say 3-4 day, and stays that way over time.
When authorities are allowed to use quality decay to manipulate and drive demand for paid versions of services the incentive is so strong.
Even a government that first issued the public service and pays money for the utility to the public might be happy the provider finds 3.rd party funding
A type of consumer rights ombudsman for the public should be equipped with authority to enforce standards for the public. Not just say "everything should be more or less equal", but issue fines when the waiting time for general service exceeds what is reasonable.