LHR T5 fiasco - who is to blame for this?

On Apr 2, 1:34*pm, z0ned0ut wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT) '
wrote this on rec.travel.air:



On 1 Apr, 22:27, z0ned0ut wrote:
I've heard the news reports and stuff about luggage and cancelled
flights since it's opening last week etc.

What the media never seems to explain is *who* is to blame for it.

Is it BAA or BA or both?

eg: who is actually responsible for the luggage handling system?

Both, but apparently most failures were on the BA side. *Remember that
T5 was meant to solve the terrible reputation BA had for losing bags
at LHR. *So BA knew their performance would be under the spotlight.
As the fiasco unfolded BA were apparently busy having a celebration
party at HQ down the road from T5. *Then they released a typically
sleazy corporate statement which dramatically underestimated the
meltdown that was in progress.

Thanks...today I see that BA have sent thousands of baggage items
to Milan to be sorted out before returning them to customers. What
a glorious mess.

It sound like they have even brought in FedEX to help get bags to the
passengers.

Michael

On 3 Apr, 22:43, Lansbury wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:16:18 +0100, z0ned0ut wrote:
Is it the case that BAA own and
operate the baggage handling system?

Yes they "own" all the baggage handling systems at the airport. T5 had been
planned and building had started before it was decided which airline(s) would
use it. It wasn't just BA who wanted to.

If so, why are BA taking
the wrap in public for the chaos?

My guess it will do no good to start slinging mud in public most of who don't
know the difference between BA and BAA. They give their bags to BA who operate
the system owned by BAA and their bags don't arrive the other end. Do they
care whose fault it is. It is a public relations nightmare for both Heathrow
and BA *and public mud slinging isn't going to improve that situation. Best to
get on putting it right and privately sort out the blame afterwards.

That is exactly what infuriates customers: an organisation blaming
'agents', suppliers or sub-contractors. As far as I know customers
don't buy their tickets for BA from BAA. So BA should have made sure
the system worked and the buck stops with them.



-- *
Lansburywww.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:43:30 -0700 'Lansbury'
wrote this on rec.travel.air:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:16:18 +0100, z0ned0ut wrote:

Is it the case that BAA own and
operate the baggage handling system?

Yes they "own" all the baggage handling systems at the airport. T5 had been
planned and building had started before it was decided which airline(s) would
use it. It wasn't just BA who wanted to.

If so, why are BA taking
the wrap in public for the chaos?

My guess it will do no good to start slinging mud in public most of who don't
know the difference between BA and BAA. They give their bags to BA who operate
the system owned by BAA and their bags don't arrive the other end. Do they
care whose fault it is. It is a public relations nightmare for both Heathrow
and BA and public mud slinging isn't going to improve that situation. Best to
get on putting it right and privately sort out the blame afterwards.


I think if I were the CEO of BA and the baggage problem was the
underlying fault of BAA, I'd probably want to go on TV News and
join the anger of passengers by pointing the finger at BAA.
That is normally what one would expect to happen.

Thus, my gut feeling is that BA have played a large part in the
shambles, if only by not bomb-testing the operational procedures
of baggage handling at T5 before it opened for business.

That would be consistent with my view that some airlines simply
do not pay enough attention to the safe and timely transport of
passengers' baggage from A to B.

IME the whole airport baggage handling process around the world
is poor and subjects baggage to much rough handling and damage.

I won't even mention the frequently broken rule where no baggage
is supposed to be carried if the owner/passenger is not on board.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:53:27 +0100, z0ned0ut wrote:

IME the whole airport baggage handling process around the world
is poor and subjects baggage to much rough handling and damage.


A very true statement.

I won't even mention the frequently broken rule where no baggage
is supposed to be carried if the owner/passenger is not on board.

There is no such hard and fast rule. There are conditions written into those
regulations that allow unaccompanied bags to flown.

Two which spring to mind are

1) If the bags miss the original flight and the passenger was on it they may
be sent unaccompanied on a later flight.

2) They can be sent as cargo.

If the passenger misses the original flight and their boarding pass isn't
scanned that automatically throws up a mismatch and the bags should be
removed. But again there are exceptions written into it.
--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:03:00 -0700 'Lansbury'
wrote this on rec.travel.air:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:53:27 +0100, z0ned0ut wrote:

IME the whole airport baggage handling process around the world
is poor and subjects baggage to much rough handling and damage.


A very true statement.

I won't even mention the frequently broken rule where no baggage
is supposed to be carried if the owner/passenger is not on board.

There is no such hard and fast rule. There are conditions written into those
regulations that allow unaccompanied bags to flown.

Two which spring to mind are

1) If the bags miss the original flight and the passenger was on it they may
be sent unaccompanied on a later flight.

2) They can be sent as cargo.

If the passenger misses the original flight and their boarding pass isn't
scanned that automatically throws up a mismatch and the bags should be
removed. But again there are exceptions written into it.

OK Thanks.

I recall a while ago when I returned from Recife via Lisbon, TAP
said they couldn't get me on my scheduled flight to LHR because of
my late arrival at Lisbon, so I had to take a later flight. When I
arrived at LHR I discovered that my baggage had caught the earlier
flight and it was stacked up against a wall with some others ... no
security. Anybody could have picked it up and walked. sheesh.

On 2 Apr, 21:52, Lansbury wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Both, but apparently most failures were on the BA side

No most failures were down to IT and engineering problems with the system and
that is BAA, it is their terminal and their infrastructure.

Software people work to a lower standard than the rest of us. It is
why 'software/computer' failings are excluded from many insurance
policies.

No surprise then to hear the IT system for sorting bags has today
crashed. So while modern computers can work at zillions of
gigahertz, and communication systems can work a the speed of light...
sorting bags is apparently too much of a challenge.

No that dividing blame is going to solve the problems.





-- *
Lansburywww.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:42:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On 2 Apr, 21:52, Lansbury wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Both, but apparently most failures were on the BA side

No most failures were down to IT and engineering problems with the system =
and
that is BAA, it is their terminal and their infrastructure.

Software people work to a lower standard than the rest of us. It is
why 'software/computer' failings are excluded from many insurance
policies.

No they don't. They just dealing with very complex problems to solve.


No surprise then to hear the IT system for sorting bags has today
crashed. So while modern computers can work at zillions of
gigahertz, and communication systems can work a the speed of light...
sorting bags is apparently too much of a challenge.

Why they even tried this after the Denver International billion dollar
fiasco is a mystery in itself.

In article
,
wrote:


Software people work to a lower standard than the rest of us. It is
why 'software/computer' failings are excluded from many insurance
policies.


Not sure what you mean by "software people," and God knows (as does
anyone who reads comp.risks) that "bugs" exist in software, and cause a
lot of trouble.

However, my impression is that the primary responsibility for most
software and computer failures -- the majority of the blame -- does not
rest on the working level programmers or even program designers.

Rather it rests with the planning and management and system design
people in the companies that employ the programmers, or that contract
with software firms to build some system, for not clearly identifying
and thinking through all the excruciating details of what it is that
they really want or need -- and also for not being willing to plan and
pay for sufficient testing the computer systems they purchase.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:42:51 -0700 (PDT) '
wrote this on rec.travel.air:

On 2 Apr, 21:52, Lansbury wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Both, but apparently most failures were on the BA side

No most failures were down to IT and engineering problems with the system and
that is BAA, it is their terminal and their infrastructure.

Software people work to a lower standard than the rest of us. It is
why 'software/computer' failings are excluded from many insurance
policies.

No surprise then to hear the IT system for sorting bags has today
crashed. So while modern computers can work at zillions of
gigahertz, and communication systems can work a the speed of light...
sorting bags is apparently too much of a challenge.

No that dividing blame is going to solve the problems.


The good thing today is that BAA have issued a statement admitting
liability for the baggage shambles.

John Kulp wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:42:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


On 2 Apr, 21:52, Lansbury wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Both, but apparently most failures were on the BA side

No most failures were down to IT and engineering problems with the system =

and

that is BAA, it is their terminal and their infrastructure.

Software people work to a lower standard than the rest of us. It is
why 'software/computer' failings are excluded from many insurance
policies.


No they don't. They just dealing with very complex problems to solve.


What problem?
The US Postal Service does rather well with sorting handwritten zip
codes. Sure it isn't rocket science to route bags that with computer
generated tags.