How much do you think it costs to process say 200 items a day, store most of the for 90 days, log each item, security check some items, handle calls from careless people and finally package up and send out some reclaimed ietms.
Don't lose it at the airport!
- Thread starter swee'pea99
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
How much do you think it costs to process say 200 items a day, store most of the for 90 days, log each item, security check some items, handle calls from careless people and finally package up and send out some reclaimed ietms.
marknotgeorge
Hol den Vorschlaghammer!
- Location
- Derby.
Those costs would be the same whether the service was run in-house or contracted out, and it's entirely reasonable to charge to recover those costs.
What's less reasonable are the additional charges caused by turning the service into two revenue streams - one for the airport and one for the contractor.
Would those revenue streams been much the same put together, after all we seem that many things that are subbed out to save money. Take for instance my son's wages as a firemen are subbed out, unfortunately along with many others in his job they have not been paid this month.
OP
OP
swee'pea99
Legendary Member
Gosh, you still seem to be finding this very difficult. I've tried explaining it, but clearly I'm going to have to go again, v-e-r-r-r-y s-l-o-o-o-wly.
Two complete separate issues seem to be getting mixed up. One is your favourite: that it's no good paying for cheap crap and expecting champagne. You like this one. Because it distinguishes people like you, who fly BA, from all us riff raff in cattle class. What do we expect?
Well, I'll tell you what I expect. I expect to be treated like cattle. And I am. And that's fine, because that's what I've paid for. But lost property has *nothing* to do with my post, or my beef with the chisellers. The chisellers have nothing to do with Ryanair, or any other budget airline. So, fly first class to Dubai, be my guest. But please stop imagining it has anything to do with this issue. Because it hasn't.
The second is, roughly, 'you have no idea of the costs involved'. Well, that's true, obviously. But surely the implied point is: 'If you did know the true costs, you would see that the charges are entirely reasonable.' Thereby conceding - I suggest - my core point: that I should be charged enough to cover costs. But no more.
Now, neither you nor I know what the true costs are. But I am clearly getting charged more than them. How do I know this? Because as far as I know, commercial companies don't operate as non-profit organisations. Mr & Mrs Slimeball aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. They're doing it to pay for their beemers and shag pile carpets. And though I don't know this for a fact, I'm pretty damn sure that Stansted will be making money out of this too.
This is how I see it. Once upon a time, when airports were part of the public infrastructure, airports would operate lost luggage facilities. They would see it as part of their civic responsibility to recognise that sometimes tired and stressed people will mislay things, and that it's only decent to do their best to reunite such people with their property. It cost money to provide this facility, but other than putting the stuff in landfill, what else could you do? It was a cost of doing business. Like providing toilets.
Then one day, after privatisation, some brightspark beancounter said 'hey boss, I know how we can eliminate the cost of providing this service. In fact, not only can we eliminate the cost, we can actually make money out of it.' And his boss said 'I'm all ears'. And that's how we got where we are today. The airport sells a concession to a third party to provide a service it ought to be providing itself, making money out of it; then Mr & Mrs Sleazeball make their profit on top.
And that's how I end up having to pay £35. And no, I don't think this is even close to being 'the cost' of returning my property to me. What it effectively means is that the airport has decided to shirk its responsibility to 'do the decent thing', in favour of making money by exploiting its passengers' (who, let's not forget, ultimately pay its salaries) misfortune, letting a third party do the dirty work, while sharing in the proceeds.
So, is returning lost property 'a cost of doing business', on a par with providing toilets - something companies should be willing to provide, at cost, to the people who use their facilities (and pay their salaries)? Or is it perfectly acceptable for them to play 'finders keeper', and return your own property to you only on payment of a non-negotiable, profit-making fee, set by them?
I know what I think. And one thing I *know* is that it has nothing to do with what airline I fly, or at what cost.
You seem to have a problem with understanding that lost property costs money to run, why should it be absorbed and cost all of us. Do not want to pay then do not leave your stuff behind, simple. As you said yourself you have no idea what it costs, and of course most companies should be allowed to make a profit, you would do the same.
marknotgeorge
Hol den Vorschlaghammer!
- Location
- Derby.
I see your points, but like being ill or having an accident (no matter how risky the activity), you don't plan to lose your stuff, so the element of choice is finished somewhat.
And while it's perfectly acceptable for companies to make as much reasonable profit as possible, here we've got two companies needing to make profits.
marknotgeorge
Hol den Vorschlaghammer!
- Location
- Derby.
Hmmm. It seems to me that if a contractor is seeking to provide the same level of service at lower cost but with the added need for profit, then someone's gonna get screwed. And unfortunately, it seems to be your son.
It's the same with the airport. Not only is the airport seeing to provide a lost property service at a negative cost ti itself, the subcontractor also wants its piece of the pie. This time, it's the OP being screwed.
