Basically, a few months ago, I had the misfortune to return from my honeymoon VIA T5. The queue for immigration was a least 400 metres long and we asked the people wearing purple who were wrangling up the crowd whether we could, as my wife is 4 1/2 months pregnant, use the special assistance lane. They said we could.

We get there and are waiting in the queue and a security guard comes up to us and tells us to get to the back of the regular queue. His response, when I tell him my code is pregnant and can't stand for all that long is "I don't care, get to the back of the queue"

Despite this, I manage to keep my cool and ask him for his name. He refuses, saying "we don't give names, you can have a form if you like" and then repeated that we should get to the back of the queue.

At this point my wife burst into tears, not too surprising after a 10 1/2 hour flight and she was recovering from what we now know to have been salmonella poisoning, so I looked after her until I noticed the same security guard behind me flapping a form in my direction. I told him that I didn't want it and to go away. I then informed him he'd made my wife cry. His response? "There's a lot of people crying cos there in that queue, now get to the back of it"

Strangely enough, he seemed to back off after this. Personally, I think he knew what he'd done was wrong, but I didn't care at that point, all I wanted to do was get out of there. By this point the queue had gone down and we were called forward. While not actually apologising, the UKBA guy was very sympathetic and sorted us out double quick.

Needless to say, I complained and bearing in mind this happened back in mid April, it was nice of them to take their time and respond yesterday. This is what they said.
Now if it was down to me, this man's **** would be skewered on a stick and that stick would be stuck in the grass of my front garden, so its safe to say my proportionality has gone out the window.

So what do you think? Do you think I have taken this far enough? He made my pregnant wife cry ffs, so I'm leaning towards a handwritten letter of apology, what do you think?
Astraboy.

 

How on earth you kept your head I do not know.

MITIE - hardly surprising the employees of Mitie are a bunch of C****. They were in charge of land management where I live and it was a complete farce.

To be honest, move on. You've got far more important things to worry about.

 

Write a letter, taken more seriously than email imho.

TX.

 

Personally I think that is a very good response. They have not dogged the issue and apologised, not many companies would do that. I also like that it is a personalised letter rather than just a standard response.

I don't mean this is an antaganistic way astraboy and in no way do I condone the behaviour of the operative however I think he might have been right. If I was in that que I would not have been happy waiting forever while someone 4.5 months pregnant gets to waltz past me. 8/9 months maybe.

Ultimately it is your decision to have a baby and I find it a little rich that the rest of that que should have to wait longer becuase you made a lifestyle choice.

Don't get me wrong if someone spoke to my other half like I would have lost it and I admire you for keeping your cool.

Chop

 

You should have gone straight to the press with that story.

A bit late now so I would suggest you move on and concentrate on your family.

 

I completely disagree.

I would gladly give up my place to allow a pregnant woman go to the front of the queue.

 

I think it's a good outcome. You asked to join a shorter queue for good reason and was allowed. This chap who's probably having a pretty ****ty day himself fails to handle the situation correctly and was reprimanded. Job done.

 

Agreed, as soon as I saw the word MITIE the penny dropped....huge over grown company with nothing but pound signs in its eyes always focusing on financial targets and costs and nothing else. Whilst you may get a response from a complaint, whether this will result in better management of staff is another thing. Whilst I don't expect you to queue jump, the core problem of the queue in the first place and the poor communication between floor workers needs to be addressed.


As for LHR....god knows why people/airlines insist on using THAT airport. There are plenty of other airports in the UKs that should be better utilised.

And why do they insist on putting a 747 load of people from a flight from say, Yemen into the same immigration hall as several flights from the US or Oz that all are allowed to disembark at the same is beggars belief...you know what happens. Pure chaos as many of the people on the Yemen flight who can't read/speak english or have UK/EU passport or fill in the correct forms use the wrongs queues clog everything up and cause a 1+ hour long queue for those on the other flights.

 

Why the **** are they called presenters ?

Is immigration now a new games show and they all want to be Brucie

 

contrary to popular belief, the airports do actually care about queing times and related issues - its bad press for them and its constantly addressed issue. theres always new targets being set for maximum acceptable time in ques.
but the reaity is its a stressful period of time. beign couped up for hours on a plane and then having to wait in a further que is not pleasant and people do get very irratible - its totally understandable
a massive number of flights are dealt with very effeicinetly - but obviously some are not. can be for many reasons, poor planning or staff levels, or delayed or diverted flights causing unforseen build ups/emergency incidents ect.

thats a side issue.

id say you were entitled to use the other lane, and the individuals action wasnt necessary - and the response given was about as good an outcome as you could expect tbh.

as for the reason airlines use LHR, its because it does have the capability of processing a very large amount of passengers, its location, the landing fees paid by airlines, the facility of a large network of ground handling crews and engineers, the transport links, the category of the airlfeild and the aircraft that can use it - coupled with the huge concentration of people in the area,ect ect the list is actually endless.

 

+1

 

TX

 

Don't you think they've only addressed half of the issue?

When a excessive number of multiple flights land at the same time, why does nobody stop them all disembarking at the same time when knowing the relevent immigration halls can only handle XXXX amount of people?

Managments must know how many people a hall can handle with a given number a staff and knowing the region that the ariving flights come from with the typical ratio of non-EU passengers that will likely require more lengthy immigration checks. For example a flight full of English passengers will be dealt with far quicker than one full of illiterate ethinics.


LHR is only a central hub becuase its had the funding and expansion to be just that, making it ingrained in aviation mantra that LHR is central focus of UK air travel for everyone and everything (for example 20% of passengers are just transfers and probably just as many passengers need to travel outside of London or the South East - congestion that could be have been sent elsewhere). If another airport were given that same massive economic benefit for investment and deveopment over for the same period of time (historic, over 50odd years), then that would also have been a hub of worthy propertions. Its a viscious circle as LHR feeds growth mainly to London (which in turn feeds LHR) but in doing so, it economically neglects everwhere else outside of the region.

Still queues at BHX and MAN can be silly/chaotic too. Typically when a flight from Asia or the Middle East arrives. So its not a isolated issue by any means.

 

They're in a different queue. I'm pissed off that they're closing the retinal scan, when there are huge queues it's always a win.

 

Even the Americans and Ozzies?..who typically do fill in the forms correctly and are much swifter being dealt with

 

well firstly theres no way you could hold an aircrafts passengers on board for the sole reason of ethnic oriantation - as good an idea as it is, it would not be allowed
also your making the pressume all passangers on said flight would be the same - highly unlikely, would you be happy being held onboard/or even a holding area just becuse the majority of passengers were not english speaking?

you see what its like when a plane lands, even before its on stand, everyone is up, geting luggage out and just then stand in the isle for 5 mins waiting to get off, i think most would prefer to be atleast off the aircraft - plus the ground crew have to get baggage off, and feul the aircraft which is not allowed when passangers are on board - and they need quick turnarounds to make money and also keep fares reasonable.

also the likes of heathrow, traffic on taxi ways is immense, they have to be given clearance and are held at points all the time to allow traffic to flow, so it may mean a flight was due in at ten to the hour but gets to stand ten mins late, colliding with another flight.

i do agree with your sentiment, its just a lot of it is much more complicated than people think - there is not quick easy solution - if there was it would be inplace already.

tbh most other major airports do get substantial investment, but there are limited factors - applications for more runways are rarley successful they receive oppostion from many from enviromental griups, to local communities to goverment ministers.
imo LHR just represents and is a result of the global position of london - if you get me

edit to add, terminator x your going to have field day with the amount of mistakes in there haha - enjoy

 

Because the plane has to get loaded up and back into the air
to earn money. The passengers have to be parked somewhere. I would rather wait in arrivals than on the plane.

 

Good points.

I've been on flights where passengers have been out of their seats getting their overhead luggage before the plane has even left the runway (Vietnamese all with a four carrier/bin bags a piece ). On the one flight the Captain stopped the plane on the taxiway to get them seated....then everyone else got up and started messing with their luggage When it happened on other flights the captain carried on to the stand, with passengers ignoring the flight crew requests

God I hate cattle class

 

lol, i hate holidays purely down to the travelling arrangements

the sooner some one comes up with a teleporter the better lol

some captains do get quite irate with passengers, even when i fly, i find myself getting up out of my seat to get bags and just standing in the isle, -its pointless for anything other than stretching your legs, but i cant help it lol.

 

I think the letter is acceptable and MITIE have taken responsibility of their actions. Although what I would say is that you should request for an official apology from the gentleman in question, if not that then atleast recieve a written outcome from the meeting between the gentleman and his line manager.

It may also be worth asking what the disciplinary proceedures for incidents like this? How frequently do incidents like this happen in general?
What training, continual service improvement programs do staff undertaken? And how often?
What preventitive measures have been taken?
What could have been done better......how could the gentleman have handled the situation better considering your wifes situation?
Are pregenant women treated in the same way as joe public?

I'll stop now

 

I have to say this sentiment really winds me up. Having children AND bringing them up to contribute positively to society is about the most socially responsible thing you can do with your life. Not having children is the anti-social choice because you avoid the cost (time, money and emotional ups and downs) of bringing them up, and get to mooch off everyone else's kids when you reach retirement age.

 

They don't address the point as to why the guy wouldn't identify himself.
What is the reason for that?
Why can't the guy apologise personally?
The response looks rather wooly and pro-forma to my view.
If I didn't know better, I would assume they don't give a ****.

 

I'm not a spelling **** (honest!), just thought that particular one was funny

TX.

 

Think someone else said it somewhere - 8 months preggers = fine, 7 months = i guess so, 6 months preggers = maybe, 4.5 months preggers = i'd be pretty annoyed if a Lady in this position made it into a special Q based on that.

 

Bit of a tangent, sorry AB.

Is it socially responsible to have children (no matter how well you could morally bring them up) if you actually can't afford to have them and provide a good standard of living? Would it be better to mooch off everyone for the 18 years or so that you can, to raise that child? Surely it is just as selfish to have kids you can't afford, as it is to not have them, and potentially mooch off others in later life???? What is to say that people who don't have kids, don't put a lot of money aside over the years to support themselves in later life? There are so many variables that I don't think a blanket statement like you have made is entirely fair.

As for the OP... You need to decide what more you want. They have been apologetic, whether sincere or not, you may never know that. At the end of the day, what I don't understand is why somebody who said it was ok for you to join the special assistance lane didn't step in to say they had authorised this. I would find that more annoying than somebody speaking out of turn who, for whatever reason, thought you shouldn't have been there. Regardless of what people may think re. special treatment for a pregnant lady, it was authorised, and I feel somebody should have been called over to deal with it at the time.

 

Astraboy that is shocking.

I'd make sure you write to your MP and also maybe get your wife to 'testify' on the letter. Document it all and with flight bookings etc. At the very least you should get a grovelling apology and that is something. The ***** in question have no right to treat us like cattle and really someone should be fired because of that.

 

That's crap mate. What sort of person are you?

 

I agree and he even used the word 'maybe' when referring to whether or not he'd be happy for a 8/9 month pregnant woman to jump the queue

 

8/9 months pregnant, what are you doing on a Plane? 4/5 months is pushing it.

 

I think it's cruel to make your wife sit for a 10 hour flight when shes pregnant