ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1084 times:
I am curious why the powers that be have decided that connecting passengers (arriving from airports known to have top notch security) have to be rescreened? For example on my trip back from Canada, via LHR, I was screened both in YVR and at T4. Between those two I was 'secure'. In the BA lounge they wouldn't let me serve myself a beer (they were not allowed to give us the container), but they would pour me one - into a plastic cup.
As I see it - my flight was secure and connecting passengers need not have been rescreened to protect the integrity of the system. I don't think it's an infrastructure problem either, at least at airports where arriving and departing passengers are kept separate. Don't know if they still do it, but connecting passenger on LX at ZRH could go up to the departure area while arriving passengers could go down to immigration and baggage claim.
Any professional with an idea why this isn't being done?
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, RR: 68 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1061 times:
LHR has been doing this for ages. You came from Canada, but many flights come from places where security is known to be quite flawed. It's easier to run everyone through again than separate out those coming from a Banana Republic with a bamboo arch standing in for an x-ray machine.
Apart from Banana Republics, lots of other security systems leave a lot to be desired, for example the US one (note, this is my opinion). Lots of hassle combined with slow, unprofessional and inattentive screeners and yet there are still plenty of security holes. Don't know about Canada.
[Edited 2006-09-22 13:50:15]
[Edited 2006-09-22 13:50:25]
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1038 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1): You came from Canada, but many flights come from places where security is known to be quite flawed.
Agree that not all security screening may be up to standard, but those flights could be handled as today - all connections through security - it would be an incentive for below par to bring their's up to par.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, RR: 68 Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1019 times:
Quoting ANother (Reply 2):
Agree that not all security screening may be up to standard, but those flights could be handled as today - all connections through security - it would be an incentive for below par to bring their's up to par.
You're assuming such an incentive mechanism would be effective. Those countries either don't care about good security or aren't capable of implementing it. The screeners or their bosses aren't the ones doing the traveling.
You're also underestimating the cost of a segregated solution. Just look at the cost of implementing Schengen segregation at airports in Europe. Must have cost billions of €€€. And that doesn't even include security.
Nope, it's back to being chained naked to the seat. with the only bags allowed made of clear plastic. That way there wouldn't be any problems. Or, err, hmm...
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 989 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3): You're also underestimating the cost of a segregated solution. Just look at the cost of implementing Schengen segregation at airports in Europe. Must have cost billions of €€€. And that doesn't even include security.
No, I think the infrastructure is already there. Take Heathrow T4 as an example. Boarding gates have a ramp that goes down one level, then across to the aircraft. On arrival PAX procced past that ramp and proceed to either connections security, or passport control.
Under my scheme, connecting passengers arriving on a flight from an airport with good security would be directed up that boarding ramp, and into T4 shopping area. Pax connecting to T1/2/3 would have secure bus. Non-connecting passengers would proceed to passport control as today. Flight arrives from an airport with bad security - handled as today, bypass that ramp get searched twice.
Nothing new, no bucks, pounds, euros or francs to be spent. Maybe 1 extra guy at the ramp to direct passengers, but only for 10-15 minutes or so. I don't get screened twice either.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, RR: 68 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 985 times:
Ok well that's a good example and you have a fair point. However, it still involves logistics, and potential screw-ups. Probably someone thought about it and decided it was better the way it is.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 938 times:
Any other thoughts? I'd be interested if anyone 'in the business' of airport security has some thoughts on this, and how we can make it work? Less stess for the passengers, fewer 'clients' for the airports to screen, more money spent at duty free?
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, RR: 68 Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 925 times:
Ok not an expert but I think it's more important to improve the screening process, making it faster and better, than decreasing the number of screened pax. If anything, security is too lax now. Screen them all again, but do it properly.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
ADXMatt From United States, joined Jul 2006, 790 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 909 times:
I know that in the USA Int'l arrivals clear customs (even if connecting out of the country again... i.e. mad-mia-ccs) and you have access to your checked baggage. I'm not sure about a yvr-ewr-mco if they have to go thru tsa screening again as it is "pre-cleared" by us customs in canada.
Domokun From United States, joined Sep 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 891 times:
Quoting ANother (Thread starter): I am curious why the powers that be have decided that connecting passengers (arriving from airports known to have top notch security) have to be re screened?
A few weeks ago when I flew from OGG back to SEA I got my bags hand searched three times in three separate screenings.
* Agricultural - checked bag
* TSA - camera bag and carry-on
* Agricultural (again) - carry-on
Either I have weapons or seeds - I don't have room for both
ANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 887 times:
Quoting Domokun (Reply 9): Either I have weapons or seeds - I don't have room for both
Not something you want to joke about while you stand in one of the queues. Particularly if those seeds are for Maui wowie! (whatever that is).
So if you fly SEA - ORD - IAD, connecting within the same terminal, do you get screened a second time at ORD? How about SEA - ORD - FRA?
The point of my thread is that (at many) European airports you have to go through that second screening. This seems a waste of (valuable) resources and a big waste of my time.
Domokun From United States, joined Sep 2006, 190 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 884 times:
Quoting ANother (Reply 10): The point of my thread is that (at many) European airports you have to go through that second screening. This seems a waste of (valuable) resources and a big waste of my time.
I completely agree; though every airport then has to run on the preconditon that everyone coming through security has been screened with the same care and quality.
From traveling in the US I can tell you that some airports are way better than others at finding things; the TSA still leaves quite a bit to be desired (IMHO).
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, RR: 68 Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 849 times:
Quoting ANother (Reply 10): So if you fly SEA - ORD - IAD, connecting within the same terminal, do you get screened a second time at ORD? How about SEA - ORD - FRA?
No and no.
Quoting Domokun (Reply 11): From traveling in the US I can tell you that some airports are way better than others at finding things; the TSA still leaves quite a bit to be desired (IMHO).
And there's the problem. Second screenings will not go away until the quality of "first" screenings has been raised way up. If you think the TSA is spotty on occasion, take a tour of ten random "third world" countries and let us know whether you chose to laugh or cry as you went through "security".
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Andz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 7226 posts, RR: 14 Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 829 times:
I flew JNB-LHR-BCN last week and at LHR the transfer screening is now checking for the additional items banned by the UK authorities, they already had a pretty big pile of shampoo and toothpaste by the time I landed at 7am!
SK A340 From Sweden, joined Mar 2000, 838 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 584 times:
Quoting Andz (Reply 13): I flew JNB-LHR-BCN last week and at LHR the transfer screening is now checking for the additional items banned by the UK authorities, they already had a pretty big pile of shampoo and toothpaste by the time I landed at 7am!
Transfer screening of pax from SA isn't that bad. I flew CPT-FRA-ARN last December and, without knowing it, I had a Swiss Army Card (small scissors and a tiny, tiny, tiny knife) in my carry-on. Needless to say I had to leave it at FRA.
Cubsrule From United States, joined May 2004, 13157 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 557 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12): Second screenings will not go away until the quality of "first" screenings has been raised way up.
I disagree. The controlling factor will be infrastructure. Take CDG 2B. There are flights arriving there from countries that screen significantly more than France does. Yet, they rescreen everybody. Because of the setup of the terminal, it will have to be that way until the terminal is replaced (or significantly remodeled). There's no trust issue (Passengers arriving from the States and in international transit are also screened at CDG, but that's another story.)
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12): take a tour of ten random "third world" countries and let us know whether you chose to laugh or cry as you went through "security".
Some developing countries have surprisingly good security. Chile, Peru, and Poland all come to mind.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, RR: 68 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 539 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):
take a tour of ten random "third world" countries and let us know whether you chose to laugh or cry as you went through "security".
Some developing countries have surprisingly good security. Chile, Peru, and Poland all come to mind.
I don't know about Peru but I wouldn't really call Chile and Poland "developing". In any case, I don't deny that many third world countries have great security. But there are others where it's apparently quite disastrous.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):
Second screenings will not go away until the quality of "first" screenings has been raised way up.
I disagree. The controlling factor will be infrastructure.
These go together in my opinion. If the first screening is subpar in ANY of the originating countries, the infrastructure of the airport is such that you must rescreen everyone since there is no prior filter.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Cubsrule From United States, joined May 2004, 13157 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 523 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16): If the first screening is subpar in ANY of the originating countries, the infrastructure of the airport is such that you must rescreen everyone since there is no prior filter.
Yeah, but I don't think that comparitive screening standards were really on the minds of the designers of CDG or other older terminals.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, RR: 68 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 497 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 17): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
If the first screening is subpar in ANY of the originating countries, the infrastructure of the airport is such that you must rescreen everyone since there is no prior filter.
Yeah, but I don't think that comparitive screening standards were really on the minds of the designers of CDG or other older terminals.
Having connected there many times, I am inclined to agree.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
YYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 642 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 348 times:
Quoting Domokun (Reply 11): From traveling in the US I can tell you that some airports are way better than others at finding things; the TSA still leaves quite a bit to be desired (IMHO).
Security is only as good as the people manning the checkpoint.
I once flew through an airport (that should have known better) with a stroller, and was invited to walk the stroller AROUND the metal detector. They thought it would be too big to go thorugh the x-ray when folded, even though I could see the machine was the same as the fifty other machines that had taken the stroller. The patted down the seat of the stroller in amost perfunctory manner (3 or 4 pats at most) ... and then let me walk on to the gate UNSCREENED.
There I sat in seat 16B, hoping they had done a better job on everyone else.
Plus, even if you could divide flights up to "good" screening and "bad" screening you still would not catch passengers who had made prior connections... easier and safer to rescreen everyone.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13564 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2006, 790 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 7226 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Mar 2000, 838 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 642 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
