http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2183188,00.html

Here's something I didn't know:

Somehow I doubt those rebates are passed on to the consumer. In fact that makes it seem like the airlines have a vested interest in the lines being long...

Probably not. The airlines don't want to have to reaccommodate pax who miss their flights due to security wait times. They also don't want to have people showing up many hours early and clogging up their checkin facilities, lounges, etc. It's unlikely that whatever little payment they may get from BAA is worth the trouble.

Wasn't the strict 1-bag rule supposed to help reduce security screening times? I really hope this doesn't mean that they're going to try to put in a "0.5 bag" rule now (i.e. shrink the allowable size significantly).

I do have to say that a 10 minute upper limit is pretty tough. I doubt many U.S. airports, even smaller ones, could meet that requirement all the time. A 5-10 minute average time and maybe a 25-30 minute max might be more reasonable based on peaks of passenger traffic at various times during the day. I'd be willing to accept that as long as there were significant consequences for exceeding the max time so that it didn't happen very often.

Aha -- I'm sure the rebates are what made BAA insist that UK airports allow only one carryon bag per passenger. It takes less time to tell someone to check a bag than to screen an extra bag. to BAA.

How strict is BAA about the 1-bag rule these days? When I went to London a year ago, they were claiming 1 bag but they were pretty lax about it in the business class security line. I've heard other FT'ers talk about the 1-bag rule being pretty strict, but I haven't heard whether they've tightened up on first & business pax, too.

They were very strict about it on business passengers in March when I last went through LHR. Definitely forcing you to put 1 bag inside another. They were also measuring bags after you had done this...

Wow, good to know. In the past, I've never seen anyone measure a bag that was even moderately close to the allowed size.

The 1-bag limit was enacted to save BAA money (employ fewer screeners). The max bag size has already been effectively reduced.

I've discovered that I really have no need to use BAA airports. @:-)

I was in the UK about six or seven times in the last year including trips departing through LHR, LGW, and STN. All were extremely strict with regard to the bag size and quantity. The LGW folks offered me the choice between checking my bag or the camera that was around my neck.

In answer to the thread title, BAA will never stop sucking.

BAA is owned by Spaniards. Well, by a Spanish-registered company. They bought BAA in a highly-leveraged deal and now all they can do is pay the whopping interest on their debt. They have no money for improvements in service or infrastructure.

Meanwhile, in Spain, the airports authority is controlled by the Spanish State. Things work pretty well and security check queues are nothing like LGW or LHR.

Its enough to make a Socialist out of you!

...which is counterproductive if your objective in making the one-bag rule was to speeds things up.

"BAA told to stop sucking"?

That's like telling a fish to quit swimming. It just comes naturally.

Yes, but queue monitors are cheaper (and you need fewer of them) than security staff.

I'm just about to move from Tokyo to London which will make my home airport Heathrow instead of Narita. This is one of the aspects about moving which I am least happy with.

Heathrow is just going steadily downhill. I wonder if they can renationalise the airport - can't be any worse.

I don't know about that...

They're building T5 which is opening next year. I don't think it's built out of mud and straw; although it doesn't look as nice as that new airport in China that Foster designed.

Once T5 is open they're going to knock down T2, move those flights to T1 and move all BA flights from T1 to T5. I hope that makes sense.