Easyjet increase minimum check-in times with new automated check-in.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:34:27 +0100, Highflier <Howdedode@m>
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:17:17 +0200, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:14:31 +0100, Highflier <Howdedode@m>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:21:08 +0200, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>LOL. Continuing from what Tim posted, could you explain how you expect
>>>>130 or so pax to be checked in 2 hours before departure when check-in
>>>>only commences 2 hours before departure?
>>>
>>>Which flights only commence a two hour check in ? The industry
>>>standard is for check in to open 3 hours before departure time. Some
>>>airlines open check in before that time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Hmm, I think you need to broaden your travelling experience.
>
>Having worked in all four terminals at LHR and having been around the
>world more times than I've had hot dinners, you really think that ?

Not knowing your culinary predilection, the hot dinners comparison is
meaningless:-)
In any case, you've worked at one airport in one city in one country.
Hardly industry wide experience.
As for going around the world, well I've only done that twice, however
I have been half way around the world numerous times over 3 decades, a
quarter of the way around the word many times, and shorter distances
more times than I care to count.


>
>>I have flown on short/medium haul full service, feeder, low-cost, and
>>charter flights departing from various locations around the world
>>where check-in opened 2 hours before departure.
>
>Most charters here in the UK open check in at -3hours to departure.
>Even at the out station check in opened -3hours to departure time. And
>yes, I have flown charter.

Most charters in the UK does not make an industry standard.


>
>>This includes major British, other European, Asian, and Australian carriers. Oh, and it
>>includes the airline in the subject header of this thread.
>
>I have never flown "low cost or no frills" carriers. I certainly don't
>intend to either with EZY new hand baggage policy.
>

I repeat, you need to broaden your travelling experience to make valid
comments on 'industry standards'.


>>The exception to this is when flights are departing from their airlines
>>home bases/hubs where they have permanently manned check-in desks.
>
>At T4 check in for long haul flights open -3 hours for WT and WT+
>passengers.
>

I don't doubt that for a moment. It is probably the case that for the
majority of long haul flights check-in opens 3 hours in advance, but
that is far from making an industry standard. I don't believe that
there is any such thing as an industry standard, but in my experience
the common time for short haul flights at out stations tends to be 2
hours.
--==++AJC++==--

In message <8f5rf01od6jetlfl1vpbg00c5nubajo7rq@>, Malcolm Weir
<malc@gelt.org> writes
>>Another good reason for not using the ghastly place. Perhaps they could
>>learn a thing or two from the World's busiest international Airport
>>(Atlanta, of course).
>
>Which has had 2 hour queues (half mile long) for security this year.

Allegedly, but in fact it's often not as bad as that at the main
security check. And for international passengers it's even better.

The checkin desks for most of the international airlines are where they
always were, which is just outside the old international terminal (now
called the "T-gates" and used mainly, I think by AA domestic flights -
the old international baggage hall downstairs is now where AA have their
dedicated carousels). So after check-in you join a maximum five minute
security queue and enter the T-gates, which have a station on the
transit train to take you to the new international terminal. Job done.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:45:38 +0100, Highflier <Howdedode@m>
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:32:20 +0200, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>In any case, you've worked at one airport in one city in one country.
>>Hardly industry wide experience.
>
>The worlds busiest international airport,

Isn't current group opinion that that is ATL?

>that just about every major
>carrier in the world either flies into or wants to. Not some small
>regional airport.
>
>You do see how other carriers operate and what time they open their
>check in from.
>

Indeed. You see how carriers operate under the constraints imposed on
them by LHR. One airport, a handful of handling organisations.


>>>Most charters here in the UK open check in at -3hours to departure.
>>>Even at the out station check in opened -3hours to departure time. And
>>>yes, I have flown charter.
>
>>Most charters in the UK does not make an industry standard.
>
>It is an industry standard in the UK. Hello,

Yes, hello, how are you?

> read the title of the
>group travel.UK.air
>

I see. You have narrowed it down, not only from an industry standard
to an industry standard in the UK, but further, to an industry
standard in the UK charter market. I'm quite happy to accept that 3
hours may be the UK charter industry standard, and maybe the LHR
industry standard, but certainly not anything wider than that.


>
>Just because you don't believe there is an industry standard, does not
>mean there is not one.

Indeed. And just because you believe there is an industry standard
does not mean there is one. Perhaps you would like to post a link to
where it is written that the industry standard for opening check-in is
set at 3 hours. Then we can discuss why so many UK airlines fail to
adhere to the standard.
--==++AJC++==--

In message <2m6t2cFjokfvU1@uni-berlin.de>, Miss L. Toe
<missltoemissltoe@m> writes
>But how many airports are not 'passenger airports'.

Memphis holds records for freight, as I think does East Midlands. They
both do some passengers as well, though. I doubt if any military
airports are nearly as busy as any of the well known passenger airports.
--
Roland Perry

In message <oufsf0pjoj5diams2cobm3vsqbrndslt2j@>, AJC
<ajc@wxs.nl> writes
>How about 'the world's busiest airport for international service'?

"The world's busiest International Terminals", was the closest we got
last time round.

>Whatever busiest means of course!

Number of passengers is a perfectly legitimate metric.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:55:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <oufsf0pjoj5diams2cobm3vsqbrndslt2j@>, AJC
><ajc@wxs.nl> writes
>>How about 'the world's busiest airport for international service'?
>
>"The world's busiest International Terminals", was the closest we got
>last time round.

No, that was _your_ consensus... you meant to wrote "I got"...

That would be a terribly silly metric, because it totally fails to
sensibly address (a) airports like ATL and DEN, which have one
"terminal" and multiple concourses within the terminal, and (b)
airports which have largely separate international and
domestic terminals, which are impossible to compare with (e.g.) LHR
where each terminal is a busy international terminal.

>>Whatever busiest means of course!
>
>Number of passengers is a perfectly legitimate metric.

Which is why the interpretation L. Toe supplied works infinitely
better than yours: LHR *is* the busiest "international passenger"
airport.

(HKG is, I believe, the busiest "international cargo" airport, or
possibly TPE; MEM is the busiest cargo airport, IIRC).

Malc.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:10:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <8f5rf01od6jetlfl1vpbg00c5nubajo7rq@>, Malcolm Weir
><malc@gelt.org> writes
>>>Another good reason for not using the ghastly place. Perhaps they could
>>>learn a thing or two from the World's busiest international Airport
>>>(Atlanta, of course).
>>
>>Which has had 2 hour queues (half mile long) for security this year.
>
>Allegedly,

Factually.

Deal with it.

> but in fact it's often not as bad as that at the main
>security check. And for international passengers it's even better.

Gee... "ATL: sometimes the queue isn't two hours!"

>The checkin desks for most of the international airlines are where they
>always were, which is just outside the old international terminal (now
>called the "T-gates" and used mainly, I think by AA domestic flights -
>the old international baggage hall downstairs is now where AA have their
>dedicated carousels). So after check-in you join a maximum five minute
>security queue and enter the T-gates, which have a station on the
>transit train to take you to the new international terminal. Job done.

.... for the relatively tiny percentage of ATL passengers on
international flights.

I'd remind you that *YOUR* claim was that people could "learn a thing
or two" from ATL because ATL was the busiest. You now want to suggest
that airlines could "learn a thing or two" from ATL's small amount of
international traffic? Why not from San Jose, while you're at it?

Malc.

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GQI9udW0$p$AFADe@perry.co.uk...
> In message <oufsf0pjoj5diams2cobm3vsqbrndslt2j@>, AJC
> <ajc@wxs.nl> writes
> >How about 'the world's busiest airport for international service'?
>
> "The world's busiest International Terminals", was the closest we got
> last time round.
>
> >Whatever busiest means of course!
>
> Number of passengers is a perfectly legitimate metric.

But so would be number of flights. Which puts LHR way way down the list of
busiest airports, as they tend to have more large planes and fewer tiny
ones.

"Malcolm Weir" <malc@gelt.org> wrote in message
news:ffktf0p6k4oole8i37au2q363kcn4evd32@...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:55:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <oufsf0pjoj5diams2cobm3vsqbrndslt2j@>, AJC
> ><ajc@wxs.nl> writes
> >>How about 'the world's busiest airport for international service'?
> >
> >"The world's busiest International Terminals", was the closest we got
> >last time round.
>
> No, that was _your_ consensus... you meant to wrote "I got"...
>
> That would be a terribly silly metric, because it totally fails to
> sensibly address (a) airports like ATL and DEN, which have one
> "terminal" and multiple concourses within the terminal, and (b)
> airports which have largely separate international and
> domestic terminals, which are impossible to compare with (e.g.) LHR
> where each terminal is a busy international terminal.
>

Although that could lead on to a major battle over the definition of the
difference between a concourse and a terminal.


> >>Whatever busiest means of course!
> >
> >Number of passengers is a perfectly legitimate metric.
>
> Which is why the interpretation L. Toe supplied works infinitely
> better than yours: LHR *is* the busiest "international passenger"
> airport.
>

OMG - praise from Malc !!! <faints> (but you dropped my strategically placed
hyphen)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:00:00 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
<missltoemissltoe@m> wrote:

>
>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:GQI9udW0$p$AFADe@perry.co.uk...
>> In message <oufsf0pjoj5diams2cobm3vsqbrndslt2j@>, AJC
>> <ajc@wxs.nl> writes
>> >How about 'the world's busiest airport for international service'?
>>
>> "The world's busiest International Terminals", was the closest we got
>> last time round.
>>
>> >Whatever busiest means of course!
>>
>> Number of passengers is a perfectly legitimate metric.
>
>But so would be number of flights. Which puts LHR way way down the list of
>busiest airports, as they tend to have more large planes and fewer tiny
>ones.
>

And the difference will only get greater as the 380s start arriving in
their droves at LHR.
--==++AJC++==--