 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / October 2007New Trend? or Old News? ~~Mandatory~~ self check-in
I travel internationally (live in the US) quite often but not exactly every week. I saw an astonishing new trend at NCL (Newcastle UK) Air France check-in the other morning though. In the wee-small pre-dawn hours checking in for the 6:20 NCL to CDG the people in the check-in line (yes, those with luggage to check!) were being forcibly removed by an attendant and forced (literally no choice) to do a self-check-in at a machine first. Then they were "allowed" to go back in line and check their bags. I noted an old lady saying something like "Ooh no, pick someone else PLEASE" but her pleas fell on deaf ears of the gestapo-ish attendant. Help and assistance -was- given but seeing old ladies with poor eyesight and zero computer skills being forced to try and enter passport numbers or scan passports etc. etc. on touch screens they obviously had no clue how to use . . . was very painful and I am sure embarrassing and stressful for them. It was bad enough for me and I am 50 and very computer savvy. I was not expecting this and did not have my reading glasses handy. I also had carry on and 2 bags to check and no spare hands at all to fart around with all that stuff. I was required to enter Green Card info and a lot of very persnickety stuff which was a strain for me both in terms of not being able to see well (!) and having to remove documents from safe places in a confusing environment. A recipe, in short, for lost passports, dropped valuables, and what have you. Is this mandatory self-check-in common in Europe *even* for those checking baggage? Is it unique to good old Air France? Either way: it sucks imho. I was only dispensed one boarding pass from the machine anyhow, for a 2-leg flight to IAH, and confusion ensued. I am interested to hear feedback from the group. I think those who are machine-o-phobic, old, or have baggage to check should be allowed to choose. bb > ... > In the wee-small pre-dawn hours checking in for the 6:20 NCL to CDG [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > checking baggage? Is it unique to good old Air France? > ... Could this have happened because it was in the "wee-small pre-dawn hours" and the counter wasn't fully staffed? I recently took an early flight from MSP to ORF and on arrival at the terminal found the NWA counter dark. Eventually, one or two people showed up and started turning things on, and at that moment the only way to check in was through the self-service terminals. I don't know if things returned to normal (or what used to be normal) later.  SignatureBert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com > Could this have happened because it was in the "wee-small pre-dawn > hours" and the counter wasn't fully staffed? No I don't think so. The 2 check-in stations (2 lines) were manned as normal. AF only have 2 stations per flight for check-ins at NCL normally I think. >> Could this have happened because it was in the "wee-small pre-dawn >> hours" and the counter wasn't fully staffed? > > No I don't think so. The 2 check-in stations (2 lines) were manned as > normal. AF only have 2 stations per flight for check-ins at NCL normally I > think. It is the same with British Airways at Newcastle and, certainly, also at Domestic check-in at LHR. The only way to check-in other than online or at a machine is when you don't have a PNR recognisable by the system, such as when on a ticket issued by a Code Share Airline (such as AA) or on some bulk tickets. SignatureJohnT Fair enough. But I flew a few months from NCL to AMS and no such thing on KLM (which even though now ~~affiliated with~~ Air France I think of as an "old school" airline versus AF and even BA). So it may vary by carriers as well. It's a bit like the new and insidious trend at some supermarkets in the US, to have you bag your own groceries (they've already introduced unload your own groceries onto the checkout which was not the case even 15 years ago). Hey, up each ticket $5 or add $5 to the grocery bill and hire check-in clerks and spotty youths to do this will ya? Nah, that would be too simple. Why not impose on an already weary travel populace even more and save the dosh. bb >>> Could this have happened because it was in the "wee-small pre-dawn >>> hours" and the counter wasn't fully staffed? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > when on a ticket issued by a Code Share Airline (such as AA) or on some > bulk tickets. British Midland on certain classes of ticket, ie the very cheap ones, part of the terms and conditions for their purchase are you can only use the self check in kiosk. -- Lansbury www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup [snip] > Is this mandatory self-check-in common in Europe *even* for those checking > baggage? Is it unique to good old Air France? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I am interested to hear feedback from the group. I think those who are > machine-o-phobic, old, or have baggage to check should be allowed to choose. It is coming, and quickly, if its not already here. I suspect "self" check-in via a website will become "mandatory" somehow, in an effort to offload the entire "front desk" cost to someone else. Only gate agents will be around, and only close to the flight. My computer hostile wife is going to have to come (dragging and screaming) into the 21st century soon. I haven't exactly sprinted in myself, even though I was an early user of the web for travel. I actually see the "re-rise" of the travel agent industry where one goes to a travel agent, either in the airport, or just off property (maybe even at your rental car counter) to handle the check in process and then basically proceed directly to the gate. (Quite honestly I'd be just as glad to "check" my bag at the rental counter prior to boarding the bus and then just heading to the gate). >[snip] >> Is this mandatory self-check-in common in Europe *even* for those checking >> baggage? Is it unique to good old Air France? They were certainly doing this at the CDG Air France check-in earlier this year. The counter agents were just lolling about bullshitting, and were clearly upset that a customer was upsetting their routine by asking for assistance.. > I am interested to hear feedback from the group. I think those who are > machine-o-phobic, old, or have baggage to check should be allowed to choose. why should the rest of us pay for your concierge service? go hire a jeeves to travel with you and wait on you hand and foot. if you want to be an upper class twit you have to pay for it. get used to it. i'm not responsible for you not having your reading glasses or travelling with unnecessary baggage. whatta whiner. Hey, why even put seats in the f'ing plane then. It would cur the cost considerably if they bedded us down on straw like animals. (It's pretty close to that already to that, and pig swill would be a step up from Air France in-flight food all right) OR why pump in expensive jet fuel when the 737 engines will probably will run OK on recycled McDonald's grease! Last time I checked having some person check you in was not "concierge" service. Maybe it is these days. Times must have moved on for all I am referring to is what is standard for all peons and upper class twits alike at all airports in living memory. I never suggested you or anyone else was responsible for me, but changing the rules in a game that has been set for about, oh, 70 years, leaves one "unprepared" is all. Fair enough to say screw me. upper class twit that I am (I was flygin from NCL which is not classic UCT territory). But those old ladies were really upset at the ordeal I noticed. Screw them too I suppose in the name of progress and cheapness. Fair enough. I get where you are coming from. bb >> I am interested to hear feedback from the group. I think those who are >> machine-o-phobic, old, or have baggage to check should be allowed to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reading glasses or travelling with unnecessary baggage. whatta > whiner. SBC News schrieb: > I travel internationally (live in the US) quite often but not exactly every > week. What's the problem. You can just walk up to a wall to wall row of checkin machines and be done in 10 seconds, or stand in line for hours with 2000 other punters snaking round the tape barriers and check in the old fashioned way. Your choice. T. Exactly. It should be a choice. If you want to be an historic fossilized old fogey, you should be free to be one. And entering Alien ID numbers, dates of circumcision, hat size etc. as AF wants to know, is not a "10-second job" btw. bb > SBC News schrieb: >> I travel internationally (live in the US) quite often but not exactly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > T. >Exactly. It should be a choice. If you want to be an historic fossilized old >fogey, you should be free to be one. >And entering Alien ID numbers, dates of circumcision, hat size etc. as AF >wants to know, is not a "10-second job" btw. About 30 seconds on AA to fly from Canada to US. 60 if you upgrade to business and want to change your seat. SignatureYou can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word. Tom Peel <letzrwftp@freenet.de> said: >SBC News schrieb: >> I travel internationally (live in the US) quite often but not exactly every [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >with 2000 other punters snaking round the tape barriers and check in the >old fashioned way. Your choice. The OP made the point that for some people, using the self check terminal is very difficult. SignatureCraig http://www.wazu.jp/ 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups: Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/ >Tom Peel <letzrwftp@freenet.de> said: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The OP made the point that for some people, using the self check >terminal is very difficult. Perhaps. A lot of people don't even try, or otherwise get distracted with "I can't do this" rather then looking at the screen. When you are standing in front of a touch screen with only three options, "Check in without bags", "Check in with bags" or "Only check bags" and you can't figure out what to do, you probably shouldn't be allowed to fly alone since you're obviously unable to take care of yourself should an emergency situation occur. I can understand being far more confused when there are multiple options, or you need to enter data (and worse, correct mistakes since the touchscreens are not always perfectly calibrated) The systems are also not designed as well as they could be -- There are a lot of stupid questions (what flight number, departure city, etc, AFTER having scanned my passport. Given that I entered my passport when I booked the flight, and only having one flight on that day, why not jump straight to the "Is this your flight?" screen?). In other words, I can understand needing help at some point in the process. Not even trying isn't excusable. My grandmother is a poster child for this, she does quite well if you point to each line and have her read it, then she can pick the one she wants and can navigate most interfaces without any difficulty, but on her own, she panics and doesn't even try. It's frustrating. Maybe I'll understand when I get older (But frankly, I hope not) SignatureYou can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word. >>Tom Peel <letzrwftp@freenet.de> said: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Perhaps. A lot of people don't even try, or otherwise get distracted >with "I can't do this" rather then looking at the screen. You are also assuming everybody travelling is able to understand English, which is what most of these machines use. >>>Tom Peel <letzrwftp@freenet.de> said: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >understand English, which is what most of these machines >use. Yes, and I'm willing to make exceptions for those who can't operate the machines, as opposed to those who can, but won't try. SignatureYou can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word. >>>> Tom Peel <letzrwftp@freenet.de> said: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes, and I'm willing to make exceptions for those who can't operate the > machines, as opposed to those who can, but won't try. But what if you are just a lazy swine, and can't be arsed to do it on a particular day? When did we slip into a world where we cannot "push back" against the MAN who wants us to be just like ants to their desired machinations? It's like seat belts. Damned good to great idea. I used to wear one almost always, UNTIL they made in compulsory. Now I never do. You see, I am not willing to behave like a rat on the maze when it does not make sense and hurts no-one. I obey all sensible traffic laws, like speed [never had a ticket, never speed!], which affects others' safety. But stuff which affects MY safety, is MY f'ing business, whether the man tells me it is not. Worst case, I'll move to New Hampshire where "Live Free or Die" actually still means something and they "push back." No compulsory seat belts there. And I'm not joking if it comes to it. I am NOT HEARING THE VOICES OF PUSH_BACKERS these days!!!! "Screw your check-in machines" Screw you trying to get me to lower YOUR costs, and hassle myself into oblivion when airline travel is already like some form of cruel and unusual punishment to start with. !!! Have we (a nation that used to cross vast prairies on our own wits, shoot heads off rattlesnakes on a daily basis, and subsist on a bit of bacon and biscuit) rolled over and become "club me, club me" baby seals? It's like the Twilight Zone. Hello?? Am I the last man on earth to push back??? Hellooooo?? Anyone there???? [sound of echoing footsteps {mine} and tumbleweeds tumbling] Signed, the Last Man On Earth (except the follow on posters who will reassure me that I am not!) cue Rod and cigarette [] >But what if you are just a lazy swine, and can't be arsed to do it on a >particular day? >When did we slip into a world where we cannot "push back" against the >MAN who wants us to be just like ants to their desired machinations? Sure. What if you don't want to check in at all, or bother with security? Should you be able to skip whatever portions of the check-in process you want? SignatureYou can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word. >>But what if you are just a lazy swine, and can't be arsed to do it on a >>particular day? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >security? Should you be able to skip whatever portions of the check-in >process you want? That's how it used to be, not too long ago. Check in at curbside, or check in at the counter, or go straight to the gate were all common options. >>>But what if you are just a lazy swine, and can't be arsed to do it on a >>>particular day? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Check in at curbside, or check in at the counter, >or go straight to the gate were all common options. And heck, why bother with the gate? Just drive your car out to the tarmac and board the plane. SignatureYou can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word. >>>>But what if you are just a lazy swine, and can't be arsed to do it on a >>>>particular day? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >And heck, why bother with the gate? Just drive your car out to the >tarmac and board the plane. Used to be able to do that also, at one time Think 'Casablanca'. DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> said: >And heck, why bother with the gate? Just drive your car out to the >tarmac and board the plane. Shhh. Moran might hear you. SignatureCraig http://www.wazu.jp/ 1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups: Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/ Apart from everything else we obviously have a generational issue. The trouble is that whereas us "old duffers" do not begrudge the young turks their preference for no "queue for me, I'll do-it-myself", the same young turks seem to want to force their preferred ways way upon said old duffers. This essentially is my point. It is that it is progress to offer choice: it is nazism to frog march agitated old ladies from familiar procedures even under protest. The man with the tag about 2 by 4 and kind words has it 100% the wrong way around. There are people (myself included) for whom the added 2 by 4 is counterproductive. I think (I feel a swathing comment coming on) the younger generation have bought into the powers that be's divine wish that we behave like obedient little good boys and girls, and have no power to fight back. They rationalize their compliance, and even booster it as the "rather cool way" to check-in, rather than fight it. Swathing comment over. bb > DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> said: > >>And heck, why bother with the gate? Just drive your car out to the >>tarmac and board the plane. > > Shhh. Moran might hear you. It may be a generational issue or perhaps an experience issue. Given my experiences I am little impressed with technology for its own sake. I have a liking for technology when it is well do and is a convenience for me. I have far less tolerance when it is simply a convenience for someone else and an inconvenience for me. In some ways I have become more of a Luddite in recent years. I suspect that it may be a reaction to the tendency of others use technology only for their own convenience and not share the benefits. > Apart from everything else we obviously have a generational issue. > The trouble is that whereas us "old duffers" do not begrudge the young turks [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >>Shhh. Moran might hear you. > Apart from everything else we obviously have a generational issue. > The trouble is that whereas us "old duffers" do not begrudge the young turks > their preference for no "queue for me, I'll do-it-myself", For the times when I haven't printed out my BP at home, or left it there, I find kiosks very useful. Why wait in line for a human to take minutes to do something that takes seconds at the kiosk? If you want to pay a phone fee or in-person ticketing fee, go right ahead. If you don't want to use the kiosk to check in, I am not about to force you to do it, but anticipate that airlines will someday charge for that. It's not a matter of forcing you to do something you don't want to do. For the airlines, it is about saving money. Ticket prices in your lifetime have fallen far below the rate of inflation. Maybe you could learn a few things. I guess if you feel people like me are "young turks", then maybe I should try to wean you off of Ma Bell either. My monthly phone service cost less than some of my domestic phone calls did in my younger days. I see no reason to go back that monopoly. >> Apart from everything else we obviously have a generational issue. >> The trouble is that whereas us "old duffers" do not begrudge the young [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > My monthly phone service cost less than some of my domestic phone calls > did in my younger days. I see no reason to go back that monopoly. Problem is simple: "Value." Some of us would gladly pay a bit more for an inclusive economy class fare with some of the amenities we used to consider normal - i.e., decent room, a smile from the flight crew, perhaps even meals on domestic flights. Kinda like "Premium Economy" on some of the international segments (i.e., Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Eva Air, etc.) or even United's Economy Plus (which a non-elite can purchase on an annual or on-check-in per segment basis). If you consider apples-to-apples, I'm not sure that fares are that much lower than they would be otherwise. But the level of service IS significantly less than it used to be. An un-bundling is just part of the problem when some airlines are now nickeling and diming for everything from checking baggage at curbside to peanuts to pillows and blankets. In the U.S., to a degree, I think United and Continental are the only two "legacy" carriers that have realized this, with Continental still serving at least snacks in Economy on mealtime flights, and United offering the option of Economy Plus - look at their "Premium Service" between JFK and the West Coast, which has been very successful. If you want to fly RyanAir, Southwest, or the like, that's great. But there should be an option for those who want a bit more service and are willing to pay a "reasonable" premium for it. >>>Tom Peel <letzrwftp@freenet.de> said: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > understand English, which is what most of these machines > use. Most of the machhines in the US use English. I don't most machines in non-English speaking countries to be in English. That said, it is interesting that sometime in the past yeara, WAMU (Washington Mutual) in this area has added Russian to their ATMs mrtravel blabbled: > >>>Tom Peel <letzrwftp@freenet.de> said: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > That said, it is interesting that sometime in the past yeara, WAMU > (Washington Mutual) in this area has added Russian to their ATMs Oh, that's for the convenience of all those mail - order Russian brides and their nubile daughters you are wont to cart over... :-) SignatureBest Greg "I am smarter than you think I am" - Maryanne "Loafhead" Kehoe to me in alt.gossip.celebrities > I travel internationally (live in the US) quite often but not exactly every > week. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I am interested to hear feedback from the group. I think those who are > machine-o-phobic, old, or have baggage to check should be allowed to choose. It is a growing trend to insist on on-line check-in or check-in at the kiosk. Several times I have been 'hectored' to the kiosk. The problem is if you use a travel agent, then the system may not recognise you. So you can end up being forced to wait to check-in the old way just because you are a frequent business traveller who has to use an agent. Some airlines require the full e-ticket # for on-line check-in Others require the 6 digit reservation code Others require the id to be entered in a separate box during booking (e.g. FF#), it is not sufficient that your FF# is entered to make the reservation as the on-line and kiosk will not recognise this. ...and then you find that if you print your boarding pass it cannnot be scanned so you have go go back to check-in to get a proper boarding pass and re-join the queue all over again. In some cases there seems to be resistance from passengers; I see the express bag drop counter completely empty but the old fashioned check- in having a huge queue. And don't forget telephone check-in. In the old days check-in was so simple... I'm sure the new methods are a whole lot better when they work.. Problem is it seems a whole lot more complicated and every airline is different. > bb > The problem is if you use a travel agent, then the system may not > recognise you. So you can end up being forced to wait to check-in the > old way just because you are a frequent business traveller who has to > use an agent. If the system doesn't recognize you because you made a reservation through a TA, then you TA made a mistake. Your are "recongized" to the airline by the code given when the reservation is made. Have you personally experienced this? On what carrier? What was the cause of the problem? > Some airlines require the full e-ticket # for on-line check-in > Others require the 6 digit reservation code Which airline requires the e-ticket number for check-in? Which airline requires you know the confirmation code? A couple of years ago, AS required it, but I found out back then that I could enter any 6 characters and get to a screen that would let me check in. That problem is no longer there. It sounds like you are trying to make the process sound far mor difficult than it is. > Others require the id to be entered in a separate box during booking > (e.g. FF#), it is not sufficient that your FF# is entered to make the > reservation as the on-line and kiosk will not recognise this. > ...and then you find that if you print your boarding pass it cannnot > be scanned so you have go go back to check-in to get a proper boarding > pass and re-join the queue all over again. I have never had a problem where scanning the boarding passed caused any problem other than needing the gate agent to manually override the problem it when boarding. I have had misreads on AS, AA, WN, UA, and DL, so maybe your experience is not with an American carrier. > whitely...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If the system doesn't recognize you because you made a reservation > through a TA, then you TA made a mistake. They enter the FF# and everything else is correct. However, they need to enter this # in another box to show the airline this # is used as the means of id for on-line check-in or check-in at the kiosk. Yes it is partly that the TA make mistakes. But the airlline still has your FF# in their reservation system, it is just they don't recognise it as a form of id so on-line or kiosk check-in does not work. >Your are "recongized" to the > airline by the code given when the reservation is made. > Have you personally experienced this? On what carrier? > What was the cause of the problem? Ill thought out/incompatible computer systems of TA and airlines and the fact that all airlines are different in requirements. > > Some airlines require the full e-ticket # for on-line check-in > > Others require the 6 digit reservation code > > Which airline requires the e-ticket number for check-in? For on-line check-in. Read what I wrote..! > Which airline requires you know the confirmation code? For on-line check-in, again read what I wrote. > A couple of years ago, AS required it, but I found out back then that I > could enter any 6 characters and get to a screen that would let me check > in. That problem is no longer there. It sounds like you are trying to > make the process sound far mor difficult than it is. If you use a travel agent, the new check-in methods can be impossible. > > Others require the id to be entered in a separate box during booking > > (e.g. FF#), it is not sufficient that your FF# is entered to make the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > problem it when boarding. I have had misreads on AS, AA, WN, UA, and > DL, so maybe your experience is not with an American carrier. Nothing to do with the gate agent. It is scanned at security (and your photo taken). There is usually a queue for this queue which can be quite long. It never happened to me because I listened to the check-in agent who had already had people sent back and insisted on printing me a 'proper' boarding pass. >>Which airline requires the e-ticket number for check-in? > > For on-line check-in. Read what I wrote..! Read what I wrote. Does the word "which" have a different meaning in the UK? >>Which airline requires you know the confirmation code? > > For on-line check-in, again read what I wrote. Read what I wrote. Does the word "which" have a different meaning in the UK? >>A couple of years ago, AS required it, but I found out back then that I >>could enter any 6 characters and get to a screen that would let me check [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you use a travel agent, the new check-in methods can be > impossible. Your travel agent should be able to find out the correct booking number the airline recognizes, no matter which system the TA uses. If your TA is using an Apollo systems and is too stupid to get you a Sabre confirmation code from the airline you are booked on (if the airline uses Sabre), then you should consider using another agent. >>I have never had a problem where scanning the boarding passed caused any >>problem other than needing the gate agent to manually override the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nothing to do with the gate agent. It is scanned at security (and > your photo taken). Not in the US, and you will notice I said "maybe your experience is NOT with an American carrier"? > whitely...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > >>Which airline requires the e-ticket number for check-in? 10> > For on-line check-in. Read what I wrote..! > Read what I wrote. Does the word "which" have a different meaning in the UK? Goto 10 > >>Which airline requires you know the confirmation code? > > > For on-line check-in, again read what I wrote. > > Read what I wrote. Does the word "which" have a different meaning in the UK? Goto 10 > >>A couple of years ago, AS required it, but I found out back then that I > >>could enter any 6 characters and get to a screen that would let me check [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sabre confirmation code from the airline you are booked on (if the > airline uses Sabre), then you should consider using another agent. Not always sufficient... The 6 digit booking code or full e-ticket # are not required or recognised by some on-line/kiosk check-in systems, but are essential for others. So if the agent does everything the same for all bookings, the result can be different. It may have escaped you but people who travel on business don't always get a choice of travel agents.. if there was a choice I would not use a travel agent at all of 90% of flights. > >>I have never had a problem where scanning the boarding passed caused any > >>problem other than needing the gate agent to manually override the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Not in the US, and you will notice I said "maybe your experience is NOT > with an American carrier"? I guess there is still fairly sloppy security in the US, despite the huge hike in taxes..! > I guess there is still fairly sloppy security in the US, despite the > huge hike in taxes..! I see. So, you believe 9/11 could have been prevented if only security had checked the boarding passes of the hijackers? Do you think the shoe bomber, who did NOT start his flight from the US, have his boarding pass checked by security? So, there you have it. 2 prime examples of how validating a bording pass doesn't make flying safer. In one case, the boarding pass wasn't checked, but there have been no ceeditable reports of the 9/11 hijackers using fake boarding. In the other case, we have a dangerous person who had his boarding pass checked by security and still got on the plane. Security isn't about checking boarding passes. The purpose of boarding pass checking in the US is to reduce the number of people that have to be screened by TSA. It is not a barrier to terrorsts wanting to board a plane anymore than putting SSSS on a BP for a flight purchased as one way. whitely525@yahoo.co.uk schrieb: >> whitely...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > If you use a travel agent, the new check-in methods can be > impossible. Ok I understand now what the problem is. You didn't book the flight in person. I always book my flights myself online and pay with a credit card. At the airport I just put my CC in the machine and my flight of the day pops up. It's easier than drawing money out of a cash machine. T. >>> Others require the id to be entered in a separate box during booking >>> (e.g. FF#), it is not sufficient that your FF# is entered to make the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > check-in agent who had already had people sent back and insisted on > printing me a 'proper' boarding pass. > And don't forget telephone check-in. I wonder just what "check-in" means. Southwest, which I fly a lot, allows you to "check in" and print your boarding pass as much as 24 hours in advance, over the Internet. Which, obviously, is completely divorced from any implication that you are not stuck in traffic or checking one last e-mail at the hotel or lingering over coffee with your hosts; you have made it to the airport and they can take a good guess whether you can get to your plane on time. That's what I always assumed check-in meant: here I am. Getting back more to the original question, one thing I will say about Southwest -- if it's reasonably close to their flying hours at that airport, they always give you an option for doing things in person at the ticket counter (and in my experience, the person is usually friendly and knows something). Computerized check-in either over the Internet or at a kiosk is something I often find convenient, but I've never seen them *make* anyone do it that way. I wonder if that was a factor in the original poster's situation -- perhaps it speeds things up for some airlines (at least if the traveler isn't ill at ease with computers and/or vision disabled) to do it that way. That's just a guess. Pulling you out of the line and making you poke at a computer is not something for which I have a definite explanation. --Joe On Oct 24, 2:13 pm, Ad absurdum per aspera <jtc...@california.com> wrote: > > And don't forget telephone check-in. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > plane on time. That's what I always assumed check-in meant: here I > am. I've wondered much the same thing. Although if one wants to go back a bajillion years, international flights often requested/required one to call about 48 hours prior, one still "checked in" upon arrival, giving them some idea of how many passengers were going to be flying that day. With the new system, although they get some early idea of how many folks are actually intending upon showing up, there still must be a fairly good "no show" rate for last minute problems. [snip] > I wonder if that was a factor in the original poster's situation -- > perhaps it speeds things up for some airlines (at least if the > traveler isn't ill at ease with computers and/or vision disabled) to > do it that way. That's just a guess. Pulling you out of the line and > making you poke at a computer is not something for which I have a > definite explanation. There is no doubt that the number of people capable of using the kiosk rises to a level where they can process significantly more people in the same amount of time with fewer actual gate agents. When you realize that in some "groups" at least one of the people traveling can do the process for everyone, I'd guess that the number of folks who flat out can't use a kiosk is lower than 10% and it is to the advantage of an airline to identify them and apply resources to them exclusively. Any process of coercing/ cajoling/ redirecting customers at this stage is almost assuredly an attempt to get folks who can, but choose not to, to at least "give it a go". >>And don't forget telephone check-in. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > airport and they can take a good guess whether you can get to your > plane on time. It is interesting when standing by for a flight or upgrade on AA, and they tell you they can't add you to the list, because "first class has checked in full".. [snip] > It is interesting when standing by for a flight or upgrade on AA, and > they tell you they can't add you to the list, because "first class has > checked in full".. I was flying out of Washington National one time, near a weekend, and some guy in front of me was trying to upgrade to FC. The agent told him she'd put him on "the list". He authoritatively informed her that he was "platinum medallion" or some such designation. He seemed quite proud of his status. She drolly informed him that that is why he was on the list at all. About that time some congressman that I recognized at the time strolled out of the elevator. The guy ultimately ended up in coach with me. I strongly suspect the agent wanted to tell the guy he didn't have a prayer. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > strongly suspect the agent wanted to tell the guy he didn't have > a prayer. Sometimes you can get bumped (downgraded) even though you booked the higher class. This can happen on the more popular routes. Someone I know got a free upgrade from econ to FC transatlantic, which is as rare as hens teeth. But of course if you do get upgraded they can sometimes change their mind before departure ... the Lord Give'th and the Lord Take'th Away... >Someone I know got a free upgrade from econ to FC transatlantic, which >is as rare as hens teeth. But of course >if you do get upgraded they can sometimes change their mind before >departure ... the Lord Give'th and the Lord Take'th Away... Have it happen twice, once from San Francisco to London on Northwest via Minneapolis, the Air Traffic guys in London were threatening strike action and they hurried us aboard in Minneapolis, we finished up in First with all the trimmings etc, Second time in Rome to New York on TWA, the counter agent said we look tired and we would be more comfortable in First. > >Someone I know got a free upgrade from econ to FC transatlantic, which > >is as rare as hens teeth. Never lucked into anything that nice, but one time the Air France gate lady at Charles de Gaulle frowned at the computer screen and took my ticket to the office. This filled my soul with nameless dread for a few moments, of course, but what she came back with was an unwarranted, unexplained, and you'd better believe uncomplained-about upgrade to business class. Maybe not first class but pretty cush all the same. I think that was also the trip where we were delayed on the taxiway and they washed down the explanation with champagne for all passengers in the admittedly not very full 747. Certain US airlines could learn a thing or two from such incidents about how you don't always have much control over travel glitches but you have a fair bit of control over how the customers feel about it all... --Joe On 24 Oct, 19:13, Ad absurdum per aspera <jtc...@california.com> wrote: > > And don't forget telephone check-in. > > I wonder just what "check-in" means. Yes... after you have gone through all the intrigue of on-line check- in and the 'next step' is to take you bag to the airport and drop it of at, erm, 'check-in'... Basically I think it is a way to re-confirm your flight, reduce queuing at the airport, and choose your seat. Downside is small extra admin burden on the passenger, seat choice is never 'guaranteed' and some more things to go wrong... I suppose for the airline you are re-confirming you will turn up, but that is not guaranteed when you 'check-in' 24hours before departure.. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.