Jafa39 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2303 times:
Ok, flame proof gear on but i am asking in innocence.
This morning I picked up a group of 30 Poms off of NZ1 LHR-LAX-AKL, the group is 4 adults and 26x16-18 yr old kids.
As they checked in at LHR one of the kids turns out to have the same name as someone on the USA "Terrorist List", he is 16 but they searched his bags anyway, in his bag he had a gas cooker, the lightweight sort that you use whilst camping, it has been used a fair bit but they took it off him and then searched his mate's bags saying that used gas cookers were not permitted in the USA, the kids countered by explaining that it isn't illegal in NZ and will be in a plastic box, in a suitcase, in a 744 cargo hold but no, the security dudes took as many away as they could find, saying that the combustion residue (Soot) was a banned substance in the US.
If you can carbon wash a jet engine in the USA and as we know a jet engine is fairly similar (don't get technical on me people, I have been up since 4 am) to a huge gas or other camping cooker and must produce similar (probably nastier) residues, why can't you transport a gas cooker through in a jumbo, also what do Americans do, buy a new cooker each time????????????
Then, apparently the deal in LAX transit is that you have to be photographed and fingerprinted even if you are in transit and surely not technically through immigration (you sign a waiver)
Does US law, or the law of any country in which a transit lounge is situated, prevail?
Would an American citizen in transit in the UK expect the protection of American law?
Not trying to bash the yanks, I would have asked the same questions if this had happened in Johannesburg or Maastricht or anywhere.
Just seems daft to me and i was under the impression that either Pommie or Kiwi requirements applied to the contents of the cargo hold if the pax are in transit.
Aussieindc From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 437 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2216 times:
Quoting Jafa39 (Thread starter): Then, apparently the deal in LAX transit is that you have to be photographed and fingerprinted even if you are in transit and surely not technically through immigration (you sign a waiver)
Since 9/11, everyone transiting through any US gateway needs to go through immigration and security. The same happens when AC operates SYD-HNL-YVR etc. It's adds a lot of time onto the journey but it's all in the name of US National Security.
Geoffm From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2177 times:
Quoting Jafa39 (Thread starter): Would an American citizen in transit in the UK expect the protection of American law?
You'd be under British law - but you have the best of both worlds if you do anything naughty. Some pairs of countries have reciprocal laws (or sometimes just one way) which allow your country of citizenship to arrest and try you for crimes committed abroad. One good example is Americans getting arrested for kiddy fiddling in Asia - even when the said country does not arrest you themselves. I think the UK has a similar law. http://www.worldvision.org/worldvisi...ususfo.nsf/stable/globalissues_stp
Jafa39 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2138 times:
Quoting Aussieindc (Reply 2): Since 9/11, everyone transiting through any US gateway needs to go through immigration and security.
When i emigrated to NZ in may 2003 we didn't do any of that, just straight into transit (there were hoods..I mean security guys...about). but no finger printing, just a straight forward in, watch The Simpsons and out.
However...Feb 2003 was a different story, look out for a trip report on that soon!!
Jjbiv From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2046 times:
The problem with gas stoves is that they last contained combustible fuel and by extension are considered dangerous goods. I believe the standards for what constitutes a D.G. are fairly standardized across the world, however enforcement is usually haphazard.