Dear Airport
Aug. 30th, 2012 03:15 pmGatwick
Dear Gatwick Airport:
Thank you for a pleasant flight!
I see you have recently updated the normal English terms "bar code" and "scan" to mean "QR code" and "hold stationary". Unfortunately, I only learn English by hearing it used, and my brain does not automatically get the latest updates, and I fear many people may be in a similar situation.
Thus, it would increase the efficiency of your automatic "proceed to security" gates rather if you were able to either:
(A) Promptly publish updates to the standard English language on your website, so busy travellers can check them in advance
(B) Explain the DIFFERENCE between what a traveller does and what they need to do, rather than asking politely "Please scan the barcode", and then, when they scan the barcode, screaming "No, please SCAN the BARCODE" at them.
If you had a few quid to spare, you could even update the little diagrams to show which of the barcodes on the boarding pass they need to see, so people can simply look and do the right thing the first time, rather than having to learn by experiment, or deducing which of the barcodes is "the" barcode from first principles.
Do you know if this is likely?
Thank you,
Love Jack
Zagreb
Dear Zagreb Airport:
Thank you for a pleasant flight!
In fact, your security screening was reasonably efficient and quick, so I don't mean to pick on you, but I happened to witness a problem which is much, much more prevalent at many larger airports.
I notice you have extensive security screening, and yet, if someone forgets to pick up a large bag from the conveyor belt, it just sits there and no-one notices.
It seems pointless to have this mix of zealous and non-existant security. Travellers are inconvenienced by ALL the aspects of security, but any actual nefarious felons may simply attack the weak points, not the strong ones, so there's little point having some security much more comprehensive than the minimum.
I can't speak for you, but I would suggest increasing the security at ALL points to a reasonable minimum, or relaxing the most intrusive measures that are still more secure than the weakest point.
Thank you,
Love Jack
Dear Gatwick Airport:
Thank you for a pleasant flight!
I see you have recently updated the normal English terms "bar code" and "scan" to mean "QR code" and "hold stationary". Unfortunately, I only learn English by hearing it used, and my brain does not automatically get the latest updates, and I fear many people may be in a similar situation.
Thus, it would increase the efficiency of your automatic "proceed to security" gates rather if you were able to either:
(A) Promptly publish updates to the standard English language on your website, so busy travellers can check them in advance
(B) Explain the DIFFERENCE between what a traveller does and what they need to do, rather than asking politely "Please scan the barcode", and then, when they scan the barcode, screaming "No, please SCAN the BARCODE" at them.
If you had a few quid to spare, you could even update the little diagrams to show which of the barcodes on the boarding pass they need to see, so people can simply look and do the right thing the first time, rather than having to learn by experiment, or deducing which of the barcodes is "the" barcode from first principles.
Do you know if this is likely?
Thank you,
Love Jack
Zagreb
Dear Zagreb Airport:
Thank you for a pleasant flight!
In fact, your security screening was reasonably efficient and quick, so I don't mean to pick on you, but I happened to witness a problem which is much, much more prevalent at many larger airports.
I notice you have extensive security screening, and yet, if someone forgets to pick up a large bag from the conveyor belt, it just sits there and no-one notices.
It seems pointless to have this mix of zealous and non-existant security. Travellers are inconvenienced by ALL the aspects of security, but any actual nefarious felons may simply attack the weak points, not the strong ones, so there's little point having some security much more comprehensive than the minimum.
I can't speak for you, but I would suggest increasing the security at ALL points to a reasonable minimum, or relaxing the most intrusive measures that are still more secure than the weakest point.
Thank you,
Love Jack