Strict check in times

[oz_mark]

Finally, according to SWMBO (i missed this bit), there was a flashed up note to say that TT now give a few minutes grace on check in.

SO if they say, 42 minutes, people will argue that 40 minutes should be ok. At some point they do have to say that's it!

 

[anat0l]

I think a lot of CoCs contain the "buzz word" may, i.e. if you do not arrive at check-in xx minutes before departure, you may not be able to board your flight. Some may be more firm than that.

In any case, I take the view that if you arrive at check-in after the cut-off, you are not guaranteed to be checked in (yes, I know that can happen even if you do make it on time, e.g. bumps, but let's keep the argument simple here). If the airline checks you in after this time, fine, but if they decide not to, then you are in no capacity whatsoever to complain.

It comes back to the point many have raised here - you need to draw the line. It's moot for airlines to suggest "grace periods", because people will want graces on the grace periods, etc.. To put it in the words of a random generation, "Be there (on time) or be square!"

Of course, this will never stop people from complaining when they're in the wrong. Making a complaint about airline practices that'll end up in the press is like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[medhead]

SO if they say, 42 minutes, people will argue that 40 minutes should be ok. At some point they do have to say that's it!

Yeah, of course.

But I'm just commenting on the advice that TT themselves have reportedly released to the people watching their TV show.

some mumbling about shooting the messenger.....

 

[straitman]

That's all very well in practice but it's not a perfect world and people do get caught in traffic etc so whilst airlines must have "rules" about check in etc if a passenger has ample time to make it to the gate what would be the harm of letting them check in if they are only a few minutes late?.
I have been a few minutes late checking in for many Qantas flights over the last few years and have still been allowed to check in and made it to the gate in plenty of time.
There has to be a cut off point of course and if I was 10 minutes late I would not expect to be allowed to check in but 2 or 3 minutes is a different matter IMHO.

OK, lets allow three minutes! Then we find a minor issue with the paper work that holds us up another minute or two or the intercom to the pilots was a bit patchy and the tarmac hand has to get another headset. Oops we are now ten minutes late and just missed our slot time. Next available slot from ATC is in twenty minutes so now all of a sudden we are thirty minutes late all day if nothing else goes wrong. This may then impact upon crew duty times which are governed by federal law. Suddenly the last flight of the day has to be cancelled and we have a lot of very angry people and an aircraft and crew in the wrong city for the morning flights.

Does this sound a little extreme :?: Yes it does but it is also plausible and serves to illustrate why the rules are in place and must be obeyed. Being a little bit late is like being a little bit pregnant :!: Severe consequences either way.

 

[equus]

I agree entirely with the need for strict cut offs, and whole heartedly endorse the concept of planning ahead and allowing contingency for traffic delays and the like. Even some allowance for actually getting in checked in would be expected, but my question (especially for some LCCs) is how much do you allow for inadequate staffing for check in :?:

Most people will have some experience with potential traffic delay, and can make allowances. If I know the trip to the airport should take 45 minutes, and I know I am likely to be held up because I am planning to head out in peak hour, then I may allow 90 minutes.

Infrequent flyers are likely to have no idea how long the check-in queue is likely to be. Do I allow 5 minutes, 15 minutes, or 45 minutes? With a 45 minute cut-off, I am being led to believe that 15 minutes (about 1/3 of the "lead" time) should be reasonable - but I am sure there are many who could make suitable comment about how adequate that allowance would be for a Y queue on a peak Friday evening:shock:

Then the cynic in me really questions the financial motivations on some LCCs to provide effective staffing levels (service = cost) when by there own inefficiency they can actually reap extra revenue from those that can't be checked in quickly enough (lower costs from fewer staff + extra revenue from those who miss the deadline because the queues are long!)

 

[Nigelinoz]

OK I give in ,what is this supposed to be a rehearsal for what I can expect from the missus after I'm married?
I admit defeat.
Just hope none of you ever miss a flight because you were a few minutes late checking in.

 

[oz_mark]

OK I give in ,what is this supposed to be a rehearsal for what I can expect from the missus after I'm married?
I admit defeat.
Just hope none of you ever miss a flight because you were a few minutes late checking in.

I have only missed one being a little bit more than a few minutes late. Actually I arrived a few minutes after it took off

 

[tuapekastar]

Finally, according to SWMBO (i missed this bit), there was a flashed up note to say that TT now give a few minutes grace on check in.

I may have missed this one too, but I think the note I saw said something along the lines of allowing a 'late' pax to transfer to the next available flight for little or no fee.

 

[harvyk]

A few of you have posted up what could be considered the root cause of the problem. Most pax on LCC's are not frequent flyers and thus do not have the same level of understanding of the rules that many of us on here would have. I expect quite a few would simply click 'I Agree' when booking without even opening the fare rules section, let alone reading them.

As for allowing pax to check in late, well how late is acceptible? Sure it may have only taken the check-in staff 4 minutes to complete their part of the paperwork, however what about the other sign-off's that need to happen which the check-in staff play no part in (eg determining fuel loadings for example, most LCC's don't like to carry extra fuel if not required)

On that note I expect most full service airlines would be fairly unforgiving if you checked in too late (don't know, never tried, never will).

 

[medhead]

I may have missed this one too, but I think the note I saw said something along the lines of allowing a 'late' pax to transfer to the next available flight for little or no fee.

That could be it. the reprot from SWMBO didn't exactly sound right, but I'm not going to call her a liar. :shock:

 

[tuapekastar]

That could be it. the reprot from SWMBO didn't exactly sound right, but I'm not going to call her a liar. :shock:

Rest assured...neither am I

 

[Nigelinoz]

most LCC's don't like to carry extra fuel if not required)

Except Jetstar of course who apparently carry enough fuel to go from SYD to MEL and then to BNE.! (Or at least they did a few weeks ago)

 

[odysseus]

As for allowing pax to check in late, well how late is acceptible?

I agree with Anatol and nigelinoz. It's not about a defined time, but if the circumstances allow - which is pretty much like QANTAS. They won't hold the plane for you, but if you're there with no luggage, can make it to the gate and the necessary admin stuff can be done, they will do it. That's just common courtesy.

Hiding behind an arbitrary rule is only to serve the airline's interest, which isn't good customer service and therefore is likely to discourage customers from choosing you again when there's a choice.

On top of all the rules, the attitude of some of their staff was terrible.

 

[Evan]

In places like Singapore they can turn around fast but thats special.

As for late cut off's, well i had BA ring QF to say i was on my way from T5 to T3 and not checked and and could only be checked in at a QF desk (Ticket complications) and they held the flight open for me. I was hang luggage only of course !
So less than 30 minutes before a LHR-SIN flight i was checked in... It goes to show the legacy airlines do have some room to move if they have to.

Having said all this generally i am very mich for strict cut off times and make sure i am at the airport with time plenty of time to make it.

 

[N860CR]

I think the bigger concern that has come from that show is not the actual problem of the checkin times etc, but the attitude of the TT staff (most of all the Sarah girl - who's supposed to be the supervisor!)

Even with the ROK pax (who wasn't rude or abusive at all) Sarah seemed to take absolute pleasure in refusing to allow her to fly - and made it very clear to the customer that she was enjoying it. Her attitude to the 17yo (btw has anyone else never heard of such a policy??) and even Mr Kranium was equally disgusting.

If I were Mr TT and I saw tonights episode... there would be one less contractor working in MEL tomorrow!

I think I shall stick with Qantas - even though they're not much better these days.

 

[straitman]

Except Jetstar of course who apparently carry enough fuel to go from SYD to MEL and then to BNE.! (Or at least they did a few weeks ago)

..as all airlines must carry fuel to get to a suitable alternate.

Hiding behind an arbitrary rule is only to serve the airline's interest, which isn't good customer service and therefore is likely to discourage customers from choosing you again when there's a choice.

Unfortunately they can get away with this as they are catering for the masses who travel infrequently. If they burn a few off there are plenty more out there.

So less than 30 minutes before a LHR-SIN flight i was checked in... It goes to show the legacy airlines do have some room to move if they have to.

Having said all this generally i am very mich for strict cut off times and make sure i am at the airport with time plenty of time to make it.

It is a little easier if a long haul is a minute or two late as there is the next 6-8 hrs to catch up the time.

I think the bigger concern that has come from that show is not the actual problem of the checkin times etc, but the attitude of the TT staff (most of all the Sarah girl - who's supposed to be the supervisor!)

Even with the ROK pax (who wasn't rude or abusive at all) Sarah seemed to take absolute pleasure in refusing to allow her to fly - and made it very clear to the customer that she was enjoying it. Her attitude to the 17yo (btw has anyone else never heard of such a policy??) and even Mr Kranium was equally disgusting.

If I were Mr TT and I saw tonights episode... there would be one less contractor working in MEL tomorrow!

I think I shall stick with Qantas - even though they're not much better these days.

I suspect that Sarah was implementing the policy exactly as she has been told to do. The TV show is a great medium to get the message across.

 

[straitman]

What happens when a SQ flight gets delayed....

YouTube - 2009/7/3 SQ117 at KLIA Gate C3

The show about TT was quite mild by comparison.

 

[Dave Noble]

I think the bigger concern that has come from that show is not the actual problem of the checkin times etc, but the attitude of the TT staff (most of all the Sarah girl - who's supposed to be the supervisor!)

Even with the ROK pax (who wasn't rude or abusive at all) Sarah seemed to take absolute pleasure in refusing to allow her to fly - and made it very clear to the customer that she was enjoying it. Her attitude to the 17yo (btw has anyone else never heard of such a policy??) and even Mr Kranium was equally disgusting.

If I were Mr TT and I saw tonights episode... there would be one less contractor working in MEL tomorrow!

I think I shall stick with Qantas - even though they're not much better these days.

I didn't see anything majorly wrong with the approach of the agent; she was enforcing the rules in accordance with the airline policies from what I can see

I thought that her attitude to the 17 year old was remarkably helpful tbh. It may be a surprising policy ( though credits at end indicated that they have dropped the age of not needing a form to 15 ) but her approach of allowing virtually anyone to sign it was extremely helpful rather than disgusting

The agents seemed remarkably restrained when dealing with Mr Kranium.

The show should ensure that TT passengers that see it will realise that 45 minutes means 45 minutes and not 44,43,42 or 41 minutes

Dave

 

[oz_mark]

Even with the ROK pax (who wasn't rude or abusive at all) Sarah seemed to take absolute pleasure in refusing to allow her to fly - and made it very clear to the customer that she was enjoying it. Her attitude to the 17yo (btw has anyone else never heard of such a policy??) and even Mr Kranium was equally disgusting.

Interesting. From my watching I was quite impressed by the way stayed composed.

 

[drron]

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielribo
Even with the ROK pax (who wasn't rude or abusive at all) Sarah seemed to take absolute pleasure in refusing to allow her to fly - and made it very clear to the customer that she was enjoying it. Her attitude to the 17yo (btw has anyone else never heard of such a policy??) and even Mr Kranium was equally disgusting.

I am another that thought she wasnt too bad handling this but i can understand where you are coming from.The agent smiled a lot-that does not mean she was enjoying what she was doing neccessarily-it could be she was trying to defuse a potential confrontation.
I am a fellow that smiles a lot and on many occasions i have been accused of enjoying peoples pain-that however is very definitely wrong.
Vive La difference!