Comment Re:It's simple - I don't use UK airports anymore (Score 2, Interesting) 413
Another perspective on this:
The security staff at BAA are unionised - basically if there is something they're not happy with then they slow down searches and/or search more people (staff can hardly be fired for searching more frequently and thoroughly). This actually hurts BAA financially as a large amount of their income comes from rent from the shops on *air-side*. If security is slow (which it usually is) passengers won't have the time to spend money and this, of course, upsets all those retailers and this will in turn impacts BAA revenue.
It is also why London City and Luton airports are so much quicker - they're aren't managed by BAA and the operators don't have to deal with a traditionally unionised work force (both City and Luton are 'new' airports).
Here's a [conspiracy] theory: BAA can't recruit more security staff as this would dilute union power at the airports - especially this labour would likely be contractors, not permanent staff): Note that the labour at Heathrow is very closely knit - lower income families are all dependant on Heathrow for employment - anything upsetting them will lead to a airport wide protest. Just like last year when BA's caterers were made redundant and in turn loads of baggage handlers walked out in protest!
So I don't believe that BAA's inability to add security staff is related to profit - in fact, quite the opposite. BAA's 2005 profit was £710million - adding additional security staff to increase passenger throughput and in turn obtain greater rental income sounds like a no-brainer. There's clearly something more complicated in the equation on why BAA hasn't recruited enough security staff...
The security staff at BAA are unionised - basically if there is something they're not happy with then they slow down searches and/or search more people (staff can hardly be fired for searching more frequently and thoroughly). This actually hurts BAA financially as a large amount of their income comes from rent from the shops on *air-side*. If security is slow (which it usually is) passengers won't have the time to spend money and this, of course, upsets all those retailers and this will in turn impacts BAA revenue.
It is also why London City and Luton airports are so much quicker - they're aren't managed by BAA and the operators don't have to deal with a traditionally unionised work force (both City and Luton are 'new' airports).
Here's a [conspiracy] theory: BAA can't recruit more security staff as this would dilute union power at the airports - especially this labour would likely be contractors, not permanent staff): Note that the labour at Heathrow is very closely knit - lower income families are all dependant on Heathrow for employment - anything upsetting them will lead to a airport wide protest. Just like last year when BA's caterers were made redundant and in turn loads of baggage handlers walked out in protest!
So I don't believe that BAA's inability to add security staff is related to profit - in fact, quite the opposite. BAA's 2005 profit was £710million - adding additional security staff to increase passenger throughput and in turn obtain greater rental income sounds like a no-brainer. There's clearly something more complicated in the equation on why BAA hasn't recruited enough security staff...
