Don't lose it at the airport!

[PhilDawson8270]

You believe it costs hundreds of thousands of presumably GBP & not JPY to set up a lost property office?

Probably £100k+ per annum in rent, and rates. Plus money for fit out, IT systems, accounts, wages, employee national insurance, money for however much the contract with the airlines cost, etc.

So yes I do believe it would.

 

[Markymark]

Probably £100k+ per annum in rent, and rates. Plus money for fit out, IT systems, accounts, wages, employee national insurance, money for however much the contract with the airlines cost, etc.

So yes I do believe it would.

Yep. Me too.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Capitalism at it's best, screw longevity, let's go for short term gain

 

[screenman]

Capitalism at it's best, screw longevity, let's go for short term gain

What sort of business do you own that does not have overheads, because that is one I would like to own.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

What sort of business do you own that does not have overheads, because that is one I would like to own.

I don't own a business, what gave you the idea that I did, although I have been instrumental in building several very successful ones? I can also guarantee that if I did i wouldn't cost me "hundreds of thousands" to set up a lost property business in a protected environment.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I don't own a business, what gave you the idea that I did, although I have been instrumental in building several very successful ones? I can also guarantee that if I did i wouldn't cost me "hundreds of thousands" to set up a lost property business in a protected environment.

How much do you think rent and rates cost at an airport?

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

How much do you think rent and rates cost at an airport?

So until this company turned up the airport company didn't have a lost property office on their land in their building that cost only the salary of the guy in it reading the Mirror and the nice person that hoovered up every Tuesday?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

So until this company turned up the airport company didn't have a lost property office on their land in their building that cost only the salary of the guy in it reading the Mirror and the nice person that hoovered up every Tuesday?

Probably not with budget airlines that don't even have humans staffing check in desks, and don't print you actual tickets, and charge you for even 1 piece of hold luggage.

If you pay for the cheapest possible ticket with a cut down service, you get a cut down service. If you want all the extras, then pay more for the ticket, that covers it.

 

[subaqua]

people are confusing airlines and airport operators here.

airlines fly you.
they have to pay the operator of the airport for the use of the airport

there are lots of other service companies at airports. they have to pay rent - 3 months in advance plus a large "deposit" although its not called that. then they have the overheads of fixtures fittings etc. if you pay a person minimum wage then the cost of actually employing them is about 3 times that.

heathrow is horrendously expensive to rent space at. we looked at renting a tiny store for materials . and realised we would keep them in the off site compound and drive them in daily as it was cheaper.

Stansted was similar. Gatwick was more sensible but we were in a tiny compound in a field.

 

[screenman]

I don't own a business, what gave you the idea that I did, although I have been instrumental in building several very successful ones? I can also guarantee that if I did i wouldn't cost me "hundreds of thousands" to set up a lost property business in a protected environment.

I just though as you were commenting on a business that you might own one.

Getting back to the costs, say a 250 items a day are lost, that is one hell of a lot of storage as each one must be kept for 90 days.

 

[srw]

I think @srw's point is that Stansted is inherently a low-cost airport, and that by choosing to fly from Stansted, one is choosing a business model where customer service is paid for item by item rather than included in the fare, and one should accept the consequences of one's choice. Which is a fair comment up to a point, but only IMHO up to a point. Firstly, there are all sorts of reasons why one might choose to fly Ryanair from Stansted rather than business class on Emirates from Heathwick (including, arguably though possibly marginally, less environmental damage stemming from the greater seating density), and not all of those reasons involve a positive embrace of the low-initial-cost, charge-for-the-extras business model. And secondly, I don't feel entirely confortable with saying about anything that is partly done to save money, and therefore is statistically going to correlate with use by less advantaged parts of society, that it's just tough and they have to accept the consequences of their cost-constrained choices - that way does not a fairer society lie.

Ryanair and Stansted are entitled to operate their chosen business model; I am entitled to choose whether or not to avail myself of the service they offer (as I have done); but I (or in this instance @swee'pea99 ) am surely also entitled to call out the morally unattractive aspects of it and to suggest there may be alternative approaches that would pay them better in the long run.

I agree with both your points. If you choose to buy cheap crap, you shouldn't be surprised when someone delivers you cheap crap. Whether it's right that an airline and an airport are allowed to deliver cheap crap by making life hellishly difficult for the customer who doesn't want to, or can't, conform to the rigid toothpaste process that the cheap crap company want to squeeze them through is another question. I'd be delighted to see such sharks (I think that is the right word) regulated out of business.

But the OP seemed to me to be a case of someone paying for cheap crap and being surprised when it didn't turn out to be champagne. And of not really understanding all the costs of running a business.

 

[swansonj]

I agree with both your points. If you choose to buy cheap crap, you shouldn't be surprised when someone delivers you cheap crap. Whether it's right that an airline and an airport are allowed to deliver cheap crap by making life hellishly difficult for the customer who doesn't want to, or can't, conform to the rigid toothpaste process that the cheap crap company want to squeeze them through is another question. I'd be delighted to see such sharks (I think that is the right word) regulated out of business.

But the OP seemed to me to be a case of someone paying for cheap crap and being surprised when it didn't turn out to be champagne. And of not really understanding all the costs of running a business.

When an airline charge for extra bags or legroom, they are profiting from people's choices. When a company charge for returning lost property, they are profiting from people's misfortune. That's a spectrum but somewhere on that spectrum some sort of line is crossed which is why I share a sense of affront with the OP.

On the other hand, we could probably all agree that this is an illustration of why pure capitalism is not very attractive as a way of running society.

 

[screenman]

If the careless person does not pay then we all have to, seems a bit odd to me.

 

[swansonj]

If the careless person does not pay then we all have to, seems a bit odd to me.

Do you have the same unease with the NHS treating people whose ailment or injury is their own fault?

 

[screenman]

Do you have the same unease with the NHS treating people whose ailment or injury is their own fault?

To be honest in some cases yes, but the cases would be very few. I have more of a problem with people not using the NHS correctly.