NickB

mmm.... the UK does street rioting with gusto too, albeit perhaps not in Kensington and Chelsea.

ajax

That part actually was brilliant.

And if things get really bad, someone might seriously consider writing a strongly worded letter to their MP. And possibly mention it in passing at the country fair.


On the Channel 4 news, they had an interview with an anonymous, disguised "senior immigration agent". He was moaning because "some people when approaching the desk were rude."

rwoman

This adds up....of course...

The Independent: Heathrow given 80 staff – but 900 were cut across UK

With all the slot restrictions at LHR, should pax surges be a surprise???

Aviatrix

"Surprise surges"? Why should passenger numbers be a surprise to UKBA?

They have access to passenger details, so they should know how many to expect at any given time. And dates of public holidays around the world are generally known years in advance, so there is no excuse for not planning ahead for days that are likely to be busy. (There will undoubtedly have been an above-average number of passengers last week-end because most of Europe had a public holiday yesterday and many companies were also closed on Monday)

rwoman

Somethings just cannot be made up...

Christopher

The only "surprise surges" I can think of would be the ones that occur when several flights are delayed or ahead of schedule and so an unexpectedly large number of passengers find themselves in the arrivals hall at the same time. However, such uncertainties are inherent in the running of many services that deal with the general public: most shops, for example, seem to be able to cope if an unexpectedly wet summer Bank Holiday sends everyone scurrying indoors to spend the day shopping.

Indeed, ideally some "slack" (i.e. excess capacity) is needed to run the passport control system properly. Just as it is not possible to run a hotel or a hospital effectively if it is always full, neither is it possible to run passport control at an airport effectively if the normal passenger flow stretches the service to full capacity, since this means that any slight increase in passenger numbers, whatever the cause and whether expected or not, will result in severe bottlenecks, as we are seeing.

Another thing that is annoying me in this present debate is government ministers bleating on about "the need to maintain security at our borders" and so on. Of course this is important, and no one has ever seriously said that it isn't, but it doesn't wash as a reason (or an excuse) for excessive delays at passport control. As far as I know, the perceived threats of illegal immigration and of the security problems arising from it have been the same for ten years or more: they can't be said to be the cause of the current problems.

Then there's the argument, commonly used, "Oh, well, you know, Heathrow is a terribly busy international airport – you just can't compare the problems that the immigration service faces there with those of smaller airports like Copenhagen (or wherever)." However, if Heathrow has so many passengers, then it needs a commensurate number of passport control officers to deal with those passengers. Presumably, anyway, the large passenger numbers result (ultimately) in a large inflow of money into the country, by various means (airport charges, tourist spending, business, and so on). The funding of proper passport control shouldn't be seen by a country like the UK as an optional extra – it is vital to the proper running of the country.

stut

I also notice:

The target processing time is 25 minutes. However, this appears to include EU/EEA queues, which is far too long.

We are being told that this will be fixed "at Heathrow". We've already seen people shipped down from MAN - does this mean that airports other than LHR will be allowed to suffer?

We're also being told that this will not be acceptable "during the olympics". Does that mean it will be the normal situation for the rest of the time?"

Maybe I'm being cynical, but there do seem to be far to many get-put clauses in the various statements made on the matter. Just like the current ones on Leveson ("grand plan" indeed...)

stut

Of course, if we joined Schengen...

<runs away>

Christopher

While that would obviously reduce the need for passport control (those flights, boats and trains arriving from the Schengen area would require no routine passport checks on in-coming passengers), it is not – in truth – a good reason for the UK to join the Schengen area. [Caveat: Please note, this statement is not intended as a comment on whether or not the UK ought to be a part of the Schengen area!]

Another question that has not been broached amid the current noise in the media is the vexed question of exit passport controls, which this government (and I think the previous government) said they would restore...

stut

Oh no, it's not reason in itself - just as the convenience of one currency when travelling is not reason to adopt the Euro...

Christopher

I am not actually sure why it is particularly acceptable that non-EU/EEA passengers should wait longer than EU/EEA passengers. If the government policy (arising from UK and European legislation) is that non-EU/EEA passengers are subject to immigration control and checks in a way that EU/EEA passengers are not, then surely it should also be government policy to provide sufficient passport control officers to deal with those passengers expeditiously. I really don't think that the UK ought to be emulating, say, the USA, where citizens (sometimes) waltz through in a couple of minutes while non-citizens have to queue for an hour or more, to be honest.

The Olympics are surely a red herring in the overall debate. They are being used by both the media and the government to further their own ends – the media to create a good story ("Whatever will it be like when the Olympics come?!"); the government to try to suggest that it has important matters under control ("There will be no problem during the Olympics..."). But the fact is that the present problems have absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics anyway.

I must admit, I too wondered if the passengers arriving at Manchester Airport are suffering delays because of the transfer of passport officers from there to Heathrow...

Christopher

Ha! I nearly said that very thing in my post!

stut

I agree that theres no point in unnecessarily subjecting non- EU/EEA passengers to extra delays, but I suspect it all comes down to how long it takes to process someone and how you determine how to allocate resources.

Say it takes 10 times as long to process a non-EU/EEA passenger. The EU/EEA queue has 2 officers on duty and the non- has 10, so it's already taking twice a long to get through. You get another officer - do you get then to provide a 50% increase on the EU queue or a 10% on the non-EU, when there are politicians breathing down your neck...

Ideally, there should be enough to manage both, but there clearly isn't. I wonder if the IT could be speeded up?

(As a side point, I recently turned down a job that would have seen me fixing some of that...)

rwoman

Wanderlust: Heathrow could be increasing landing fee levy

Since they have inadequate manning...just charge pax more to come in...

Was IRIS really THAT costly???

Christopher

Yes, what you say is true – I suppose my basic point is simply that there ought to be sufficient staff to process arriving passengers (EU/EEA and non-EU/EEA) in a timely manner. (I don't find it acceptable when people say things like "delays of over an hour for non-EU passengers, but British passport holders passed through in 10 minutes, so it's OK".)

As for accepting the job that you mention ... it would be a brave person indeed who might take that on!