Is the end of the dreaded airport queue in sight? Not quite
'We couldn't move our arms, we could barely breathe, and people were sweating. Some parents lifted their children onto their shoulders to stop them from suffocating,' one passenger told local media.
It's a frightening image, and one that has become more common at European airports since British air passengers became 'third-country nationals' after Brexit. This effectively gives us the same rights as arrivals from, say, Venezuela, banishing us to the often snail-paced 'All Passports' queue to get a stamp on arrival.
When flying home we must also pass through border control to get a second exit stamp before proceeding to the gate. This can lead to scenarios where passengers are kettled at the gates with no access to refreshments if a flight is delayed, and no way to go back to the main terminal area.
A new deal
Change, it seems, is on the horizon. The Labour party has struck a deal with the EU to allow British passport holders to pass through e-gates, and the introduction of the Entry/Exit System (EES) in October will automate identity checks and remove the need for manual passport stamps.
So will these images of British passengers snaking out of arrival halls at European airports soon be a thing of the past? Yes, but it may take a while.
When it first rolls out, EES will require British (and all non-EU) travellers to provide fingerprints and facial images when entering or exiting the Schengen Area. This process has been much-delayed, not least because implementing it requires a continent-wide tech overhaul. And as we all know, airport IT systems, often operated by third-party firms and alongside multiple other systems, have a tendency to buckle at inopportune moments.
If the new tech doesn't create hold-ups, the data capture process could. Pressing thumbs on sensors and having a photograph taken may sound like a simple process, but how many times have you seen somebody push their passport into the e-gate sensor the wrong way up? Such are the fears of hold-ups that airports are planning 'safety valve' procedures, where the requirement to capture everyone's data will be temporarily waived if a checkpoint gets too busy.
On e-gates, I have found this new Labour/EU e-gates 'agreement' to be somewhat smoke and mirrors. The wording in the relevant document says that 'British passengers will be able to use more e-gates in Europe'. But this does not necessarily mean we will be able to use fast-track EU e-gates.
Instead, it might be that we remain in the naughty ('All Passports') queue that happens to have an e-gate at the end of it. This will ultimately be up for individual countries and airports to decide.
Additional hurdles
Perhaps I'm being overly negative. Let's say that the EES roll-out isn't as clunky as feared, and that through some miracle the majority of European airports do kindly allow Britons to use their fast-track e-gates. Surely the airport queues will have simmered down by next summer?
Maybe. But we will still face the additional border check when flying home, albeit with biometrics rather than a passport stamp. Even if e-gates are rolled out to British arrivals (as Faro Airport announced this week), we will still need to go to another booth afterwards to get our passports stamped by a human. And hold-ups like those seen in Tenerife are as much to do with poor scheduling as anything else.
I checked the arrivals board on Tuesday June 2, and at 10.40am there were scheduled flights from Manchester (Jet2), Liverpool (Jet2), East Midlands (Tui) and Bournemouth (Ryanair). Ten minutes later, flights from Birmingham and Leeds (both Jet2) were scheduled to land, plus another from Paris.
That's seven 180-or-so capacity flights touching onto tarmac, one after the other, in the space of ten minutes, at a single-runway, single-terminal airport. Even the sleekest, AI-powered biometric arrivals system would struggle to process all those passengers without the formation of a queue.
There are some changes to the airport process that we can feel optimistic about. Soon, we'll be able to take greater quantities of liquids through security at all UK airports.
A shake-up of UK flight paths promises to reduce air traffic delays before the end of the decade.
And yes, all this new tech will eventually reduce friction at borders. But when you are stuck in a packed arrivals hall with a child on your shoulders and no access to water, you will be praying for progress now – not at some ambiguous point in the future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Conservative asylum policy: the moderate Tory tradition faces extinction
The traditional test of effectiveness in a leader of the opposition is whether the holder of that office looks like a prime minister in waiting. It is famously hard to achieve when fronting a party that was recently expelled from office. Kemi Badenoch is struggling with that challenge in most areas, but especially with regard to immigration and asylum. Mrs Badenoch has warned that 'Britain is being mugged' by foreigners who treat the country as 'the world's softest touch'. She has urged Conservative-run local authorities to follow the example of Epping council, which this week was granted an injunction by the high court to prevent asylum seekers being housed in hotels. On that point she had already been upstaged by Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, who joined protests at the hotel in question, mingling in a crowd alongside notorious far-right activists. Rival parties have been quick to point out that the Conservatives' appalling record of managing the asylum system in general, and the accommodation question in particular, disqualifies them from commenting on the subject. Nigel Farage has called Mr Jenrick a 'fraud' on the grounds that he was the responsible minister in September 2023, when the number of asylum claimants housed in hotels peaked at 56,042. Official figures released on Thursday show that that number was down to 32,059 at the end of June this year – lower than in March but higher than a year ago. Labour insists that it is bringing the situation under control, noting that the backlog of asylum cases is falling. Over time, that should ease pressure for temporary accommodation. But the government struggles to make a case for patience and incremental change when the terms of debate are framed by opportunists and demagogues waging a campaign of social division. There is little space for a rational conversation about fair asylum processes when prominent politicians depict all claimants as criminals and cast the entire system as a conspiracy to transfer public resources from native-born Britons to undeserving foreign interlopers. Those paranoid, xenophobic assumptions are not new, but their capture of mainstream politics has accelerated recently. In part, that expresses the cowardice of a Labour government that projects more anxiety about Britain somehow becoming an 'island of strangers' than it does for the systemic corrosion of refugee rights. But it is also a symptom of moral collapse in a Conservative party that finds its function as the official opposition eclipsed by Reform UK, with Mr Farage playing the role of prime minister in waiting. Mrs Badenoch looks intellectually and strategically paralysed by her predicament. She claims not to make common cause with Reform while refusing to articulate any ideological distinction between the two parties. Mr Jenrick openly manoeuvres to replace her as leader and, in the process, erases any remaining distinction between traditional Conservatism and radical anti-immigrant nationalism. A party that was once a broad church is folding itself up into a narrow hardline sect. Mr Jenrick's defeat in last year's leadership contest suggests that there is – or was then – a substantial portion of the party that mistrusts his agenda. Some MPs may even be appalled by his antics. If so, the time to speak up is long overdue. Otherwise their continued silence can be taken as acquiescence in the total extinction of moderate Conservatism as a force in British politics.
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
David Lammy among 21 foreign ministers to condemn plan for illegal West Bank settlement
David Lammy has joined 20 other foreign ministers around the world to condemn Israeli plans to build an illegal settlement on the West Bank, with the Foreign Office summoning the Israeli ambassador to communicate the government's displeasure. The foreign secretary co-signed a joint statement on Thursday criticising the so-called E1 Plan, a 3,400-home settlement that critics say would divide the West Bank in half. Officials then summoned Tzipi Hotovely to the Foreign Office in a rare public rebuke for the Israeli ambassador. The actions marked a further intensification of recent international criticism for Israel over its tactics in Gaza and the West Bank. The statement, which was signed by 21 countries including the UK, Australia, Canada and France, said: 'The decision by the Israeli higher planning committee to approve plans for settlement construction in the E1 area, east of Jerusalem, is unacceptable and a violation of international law. We condemn this decision and call for its immediate reversal in the strongest terms.' In a separate statement, the Foreign Office confirmed it had summoned Hotovely in a display of public criticism. 'If implemented, these settlement plans would be a flagrant breach of international law and would divide a future Palestinian state in two, critically undermining a two-state solution,' the department said in a statement. It did not say which minister or official had met Hotovely or what was said in the meeting. The Israeli embassy did not respond to a request for comment. Israel announced on Wednesday it had approved plans to build the major new block in the West Bank, with the deliberate intention – according to Israel's far-right finance minster, Bezalel Smotrich – of preventing the creation of a Palestinian state. Smotrich on Wednesday called the decision to approve the settlement a 'significant step that practically erases the two-state delusion and consolidates the Jewish people's hold on the heart of the land of Israel'. The proposals would extend the Jewish settlement of Ma'ale Adumim towards Jerusalem, further separating occupied east Jerusalem from the West Bank, and dividing the north and south of the territory. The statement by the 21 foreign ministers said: 'Minister Smotrich says this plan will make a two-state solution impossible by dividing any Palestinian state and restricting Palestinian access to Jerusalem. 'This brings no benefits to the Israeli people. Instead, it risks undermining security and fuels further violence and instability, taking us further away from peace.' British officials say Israel's renewed expansionism in the West Bank has played a critical role in pushing them into a decision to recognise Palestine as an independent state. Keir Starmer said last month he would issue formal recognition before next month's UN general assembly, unless Israel committed to a ceasefire and a two-state solution. The international community has also expressed outrage over Israel's plan to take control of Gaza City, with the UN assistant secretary general, Miroslav Jenča, warning it would cause 'forced displacement, killings and destruction'. The Israeli Defence Forces said on Wednesday that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, had instructed them to accelerate the planned assault on Gaza City, the prospect of which has already prompted thousands of Palestinians to flee. And on Thursday, the UK was one of 27 countries to sign a separate statement demanding international journalists be given access to Gaza to allow them to cover the 'unfolding humanitarian catastrophe' in the war zone. The statement from the Media Freedom Coalition (MFC), an international advocacy group which the UK helped to create, said: 'We … urge Israel to allow immediate independent foreign media access and afford protection for journalists operating in Gaza.'
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
I told Jeremy Corbyn starting a new party was a bad idea, says Diane Abbott
Diane Abbott advised Jeremy Corbyn against setting up a new political party, she said, over concerns it would struggle to get a foothold in Britain because of the voting system. Ms Abbott, who served as Mr Corbyn's shadow home secretary when he was Labour leader, said she had spoken to him before its launch, and said it was not a good idea. Speaking at an event at the Edinburgh Book Festival, the current longest-serving female MP said: 'There were people around Jeremy encouraging him to set up a new party, and I told him not to. 'It's very difficult under first-past-the-post system for a new party to absolutely win. If it wasn't first-past-the-post, then you can see how a new party could come through, but I understand why he did it.' Ms Abbott said she thought the party, formed by her long-time friend Mr Corbyn alongside independent MP Zarah Sultana, would outperform people's expectations. It was launched last month, but is still without a formal name. She said she believed it would take advantage of a broader discontent with politics in Britain. She paid tribute to Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana but said: 'At this point in time, it's difficult to see how a brand new party wins. 'However, I think Jeremy's party is going to do a lot better than people think because a lot of people who are not necessarily terribly left-wing people, are a tiny bit disappointed about the way we've gone in the past year.' The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington indicated her disappointment with the Labour government. She had the whip withdrawn for the second time in two years in July, after she expressed a lack of regret about comments to the Observer in 2023 that suggested that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people experience prejudice, but not racism. However, she implied she would not join Mr Corbyn's party. Ms Abbott said: 'It's a tricky state of play. I wouldn't have thought that you'd have a Labour government and they'd be cutting winter fuel allowance for the elderly and benefits for the disabled.' She was also critical of the Government's proscription of Palestine Action and labelled the decision 'a complete disgrace'. 'What they are seeking to do is proscribe protest as such,' she said. 'I mean, we all saw the pictures of the people in Trafalgar Square – 500 people? Half of them over 60. Come on, these are terrorists? I think this is an attempt to bear down on (protest).' She added her more than 40 years in Labour meant it was too late to leave it. She was elected to Parliament in 1987, and was the only black female MP in the Commons for a decade until Labour's landslide under Tony Blair. In response to a question about whether she thought she would ever be accepted 'at the heart' of the Labour Party, she replied: 'I think I am at the heart of the Labour Party, it's other people who aren't.' Ms Abbott, whose book A Woman Like Me was the subject of the interview in the Scottish capital by campaigner Talat Yaqoob, also told the audience of her anger at not being called by Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the aftermath of racist comments by Conservative Party donor Frank Hester in 2024. She said she had stood during a Prime Minister's Question session more than 40 times to be called to speak, after Sir Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak and Sir Ed Davey had all spoken about the incident. Mr Hester was reported to have said Ms Abbott made him want to 'hate all black women' and that she 'should be shot'. The remarks brought widespread condemnation, including from Sir Keir, but she told the event her office was used to receiving racist abuse. 'I've been an MP for 38 years, and custom practice in the chamber is if you're being talked about, you get called. It's just a courtesy. I was so shocked that I wasn't called. 'But I heard later from someone who had reason to know, that what happened was that Rishi didn't want me called, because (Hester) was a Tory donor and it would look bad for them, and I'm afraid Keir Starmer didn't want me called because he wanted to milk the issue (for) political advantage, without mentioning me.' She said Sir Keir had approached her after the questions session and asked what he could do to help. 'I said, 'Yes, you can restore the whip'. And as if he hadn't heard, he said, 'Is there anything I can do for you?' It was like he was deaf. And I said, 'Yes, you can restore the whip', and he realised I wasn't going to play that game and he went off.'
