Making things better for the passenger - Airport Security

[Xeque]

Until recently I have had no problem with airport security. In the past the inspections have been speedy, unobtrusive and necessary since the days of random hijacking and bomb threats from militants.

Sadly, what was once acceptable has exploded into a form of government sponsored paranoia that most sane and respectable people find utterly revolting and quite unnecessary.

Humiliating and degrading passengers and flight crews by making them remove shoes, belts and articles of clothing and then further upsetting them by confiscating liquids, gels and baby food simply sends a message to terrorists that they have won.

Out of interest, what happens to the tens of thousands of factory sealed after shaves, shampoos, hand creams, drinking water and foodstuffs that are confiscated? What happens to the thousands of miniature key ring penknives (deemed by some cretin somewhere as an offensive weapon) and costing us £ 10 a time (in the UK) to replace?

No doubt ‘they’ will have you believe that it is destroyed but I suspect that a sizeable proportion of it ends up on the shelves of the local ‘open-all-hours’ to the mutual financial benefit of all concerned.

The greatest failing at UK airports is in the positioning of the security check points, concentrating them (as they do) at a single point before entering the main Departure Area. This is very, very bad planning and does nothing but create an enormous bottleneck leading to long queues of increasingly disgruntled passengers.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the check points are frequently understaffed.

I once stood in a queue at Heathrow for longer than the 55 minutes I had left before boarding, leaving me frantically telephoning the airline on my cell phone to explain that I had checked in on time, my baggage had been loaded but that I was now unable to get to the gate for my flight because I was stuck at Security.

Thank God someone from the airline ground staff came and rescued me, taking me through the empty First Class security check so that I could board without delaying the flight. It solved my problem but caused a lot of angry muttering from the people I left behind in the queue.

At many of the world’s airports the Security Check is carried out at the point where you enter the Final Departure Area – the point from which your flight actually leaves and that is exactly where it should be. There could half a dozen aircraft waiting to board passengers in that area but, because they are not all departing at the same time the throughput of passengers is staggered and the security check is much quicker and a great deal more efficient as a result.

Also, the security teams are mobile – ready to move to another location if one Final Departure area is quiet whilst another is busy.

Oh that UK airports would adopt the same system!

I realize that this deprives the airport shops of a ‘nice little earner’ in replacing all the stuff that has been confiscated from passengers but hard luck! Sometimes someone other than the passenger should get screwed!

[nebpor]

Maybe if muppets like you bothered to read the security rules before you got to the security checkpoint you would know not to pack anything against the rules in your hand-baggage, thus slowing down those like myself behind you, who have an easy journey through security :ugh:

You diminish some of the good arguments you make by re-hashing grief about security, liquids and knifes - they have been in force for years, so there are few excuses for forgetting about it :E

[UniFoxOs]

Maybe if muppets like you bothered to read the security rules

And maybe if we pax knew how the airport security muppets were going to interpret those rules we would know what not to take.

UFO

[apaddyinuk]

In my opinion (and I travel every few days to different airports worldwide) I feel security standards are more or less consistent regards what you can and cannot bring on board (the procedures such as liquids out or laptops out etc etc change) but I do not feel that there is an interpretation problem Unifox

[pjcarr]

You are upset that someone has deemed a "...knife" as a weapon? How is that NOT a weapon?

All aviation security measures are implemented for a genuine, bona fide and legitimate reason - to mitigate the probability and severity of an attack on individuals like you. It is not (necessarily) for the safeguarding of the flight deck, but rather for the CC on board in addition to fellow passengers...

What do you propose as a solution to having to replace a 10 pound knife - a mult billion pound upgrade to the terminal for people who are unable (or unwilling) to comply with preexisting security requirements?

On a sub note, what is your expertise and background insofar as security of an form?

[terrylaw]

.... and, out of interest, what does happen to all the confiscated goods?

Wasn't it in the Cabin Crew forum that one of the FA's had her sandwiches removed and they were later seen being eaten by Security.

[pjcarr]

You will find that (in Australia at least) the contraban items are destroyed by security. Naturally however, I can not make comment in regard to other jurisdictions' procedures.

[stevef]

Clear the initial security check and then join the queue to have your footwear scanned. Watch it go through the machine without the operator bothering to look at the screen as she is too busy talking to her oppo...
This has happened to me twice.
If we've got to go through the indignity of this procedure, perhaps the staff could at least look as if they're paying some attention.

[nebpor]

UniFoxOs,


And maybe if we pax knew how the airport security muppets were going to interpret those rules we would know what not to take.

I'd agree for a worldwide basis, but the original poster was talking about the UK - I'd say it's pretty clear cut across the UK on what is and is not acceptable for airport security.

I fly twice a week, generally Glasgow to London Airports, but occassionally to others - it's the same at every airport in terms of what you can pass through with - that's not rocket science.

I fully support any argument about the theatre of security (to quote Bruce Shneier) - I'm an information security professional - but to complain about what are now quite clearly defined and understood rules is another thing, hence my "muppets" comment ..... this isn't about a very occassional flyer being caught out, the original poster appears to be a frequent enough flyer.

[ZFT]

I'd agree for a worldwide basis, but the original poster was talking about the UK - I'd say it's pretty clear cut across the UK on what is and is not acceptable for airport security.

I fly twice a week, generally Glasgow to London Airports, but occassionally to others - it's the same at every airport in terms of what you can pass through with - that's not rocket science.



Not true. This week at LHR T3 I was asked to remove my belt. Not mentioned on their 'idiots' board and not required on the adjacent queue!!. When enquired why was told "because I say so"

[SpamFritters]

And is it really so hard and degrading to remove that belt?
get real and just do it!

People who complain about stuff like that make me :yuk:. Complaining for the sake of it.

And I don't think I have been through a checkpoint yet where the belt hasn't had to come off... and i fly a lot.. after all.. it is metal....

[Rush2112]

^^^ In the last 5 days have been through Changi twice, Hong Kong once and Jakarta once, belt stayed on. Beeps in Changi and someone checks it, nothing either place. The main gripe is a lack of consistency.

[ZFT]

Spamfritters,


And is it really so hard and degrading to remove that belt?
get real and just do it!

People who complain about stuff like that make me :yuk:. Complaining for the sake of it.

And I don't think I have been through a checkpoint yet where the belt hasn't had to come off... and i fly a lot.. after all.. it is metal....



Where did I state it was either hard or degrading?

I really feel sorry for your weak constitution.

I've been through LHR about 10 times this past year and NEVER been asked to remove the belt and as I stated, the adjoining security queue weren't being asked to remove it either.
I don't care one way or the other as long as they stick to the same (albeit stupid) rules every time.

Not sure where you fly to/from but the only place I've been asked to remove my belt this past year or so (apart from this T3 case) was Manila

[pjcarr]

As someone who has an extensive background in security (including aviation security), the issue is not as simple as portrayed... one of the many issues is the sensitivity of the units being used - hence why some units will detect the belt and others will not. Additionally, not all belts have a metal composition which in turn complicates the situation moreso. Either way, the easiest thing to do is, if it has given you problems inthe past, remove the belt and continue on - it is quicker to proceed once than have to double back and attempt multiple re-entries.

[groundhand]

Most people would agree with the poster that gate security prior to boarding would be preferable but logistically and economically it would be hard to justify. The additional numbers of xray, AMD and analysis equipment would be massive; not to mention the additional staff required to meet this type of system or the space restraints in the right location within terminal buildings.

Likewise, having mulitple 'access' points from landside to airside looks good in theory but in practice does not meet the ebb and flow of passenger throughput as effectively as single point operations.

What IS true is that few airports staff their security points as effectively at peak times as they could be. This is not the staff's problem but an airport management issue.

Like many poster here, consistency, or lack of it is what gets people angry.

There will aleways be developments, new equipment (footwear scanners for example) but consistent application will be very difficult to achieve.

One of my main gripes is that we now have layers of legislation in the UK relating to security in aviation and some of it is worthless and of no effect. I would like to see a review involving the DfT, airports, aircraft operators and passenger representation to rationalise the current requirements. I do not think it realistic to have 100% consistency across the globe but if EU, Austral Asia and North America had consistency the rest would probably follow.

Lastly, I don't agree with the poster re the point on items being confiscated. The requirements are very well publicised (I do not necessarily agree with them); both by airlines, airports and other agencies so arriving at an airport these days with liquids, gels etc. is a personal failure and not one of the security requirement. I am sure the poster knows what baggage allowance is acceptable on any given flight and would accept the consequences (even if not willingly) if these are not adhered to and likewise with security restricted items.

[VAFFPAX]

How interesting. If this is UK security that Xeque is complaining about, then I'd like to know which airport!

LHR T2/T1 does NOT require you to take off your shoes. You do NOT need to remove your laptop. You only need to divest yourself of your coat, with your keys, phone, wallet and phone preferably in your hand luggage.

You are specifically asked BEFORE entering the security queue to check for liquids over 100ml (and if you get to security and you've forgotten, you can still drink it there and then if it's drinkable, or mail it back to yourself). I don't recommend drinking multiple cans of energy drink samplers (forgotten in hand luggage after a visit to an energy drink manufacturer) and water before security though - It's... well... unpleasant.

I entered the security channel at BHX a while ago with a pair of scissors that I'd totally forgotten about. The security bloke was very nice and suggested I mail it back to myself by going to the little shop across the corridor for some stamps and an envelope. I did. Easy as pie.

If you are with a roller bag, expect to be stopped and asked to place it in the appropriate box at the entrance to the channel to prove that it fits in the maximum dimensions. They tend to be lenient if your item is slightly thicker than it is wide, but I have seen people pulled off and asked to either remove something from the bag to make it fit, or check the bag in.

If you want to talk about humiliating security, try the US TSA. Shoes removed, belts removed, laptops and other electronics removed, any glass items removed (camera lenses with lead glass are a special favourite), a swipe of your bag with the anthrax tester, a pat-down, and then another secondary check of your shoes, your bag and your person at the gate. Randomly selected? My ass. NOT. You have the wrong kind of passport, you will be 'randomly' selected every time.

The inconvenience in UK security is nothing compared to the security at IAD and other airports in the US.

S.

[makintw]

Have to agree with some of those above - a lack of consistency around the world, a lack of educating the masses and a lack of design of the security system that would help to speed up the process.

Some examples:

1. Last autumn flying through Tel Aviv, one of the most security conscious airports in the world. Had 2 x 100g choccie bars removed from luggage that then travelled in their own XL sized cardboard box.

2. Again Tel Aviv same time. Going through security questioning why the guy in front was putting a 2 litre bottle of Pepsi back in his hand carry - no liquids rule so OK! :ugh:

3. Helsinki a couple of weeks ago. Passing through security, no inspection of boarding passes and ID, so any Tom, Dick or Harry non-traveling public could go air side for a wee bit of shopping or whatever and walk out through arrivals.

4. Copenhagen after security restaurants air side using metal eating irons handy for use on board.

5. Some airports, having at gate security meaning you get all those liquids (water, etc...) you purchased air side confiscated.

6. Be like the States, where they seem to have long, long tables before the x-ray machines, well supplied with trays so 2, 3 or more people can get themselves ready at at time.

Contrast to CPH where there is room for one. SLOOOOOW

7. Lack of signs explaining what's required - laptops in/out, belts, shoes.... Most places you have to watch to see what's happening up ahead to try and figure out what's required.

Contrast with CPH where they have displays and video showing what to do.

8. Have ushers helping passengers, telling people what to do, and controlling flow to multiple security lines - at least I won't end up always picking the line that's going the slowest. :mad:

9. and on and on.........

[radeng]

Unoifoxos,

I wear a belt to keep my trousers up, not as a fashion accessory. So if I remove the belt for the security muppets, whose responsibility is the resulting indecent exposure?

Why did Frankfurt security deem a dual ended 2/4BA spanner 2 inches long a threat to security? While a set of tweezers with sharp points 6 inches long weren't? Who are the muppets there?

Why, at LHR T4, have I seen on several occasions, the Xray operator get up and walk away, leaving the queue stalled for 10 minutes until another one appears? In the so called 'Fast track', too? What sort of muppet incompetents are the supervisors?

Liquids are the biggest laugh. I can take more than 100mL if I put it in what looks like a medicine bottle and it has a label on it from a pharmacy that says 'Mr radeng, Elixir, take as directed' or whatever. Since I can make a label on the computer (and thus, one presumes, could someone with an evil mind) what's the point? How do I know I can take more than 100mL if it's medicine? The DfT web site tells me so....The problem is that some medicines aren't available in 100mL bottles.

LHR and LGW seem more worried by the fact that there isn't a pharmacy label on the box that the medicine comes in. I have to explain the label is on the bottle which is in the box.......a more secure arrangement. They take the bottle out to inspect it. Unfortunately, it's nearly always sticky. I hope they don't lick their fingers - it could have unfortunate results for them.

The biggest problem is underpaid security people, and not enough of them. If we had a rule that anyone held in a security line for more than 10 minutes had to be given £50 for every 5 minutes they were delayed, they'd get enough bodies and gates open. Same way if they had to pay £50 for every 5 minutes that bags were delayed by more than 15 minutes. You would need to make the rule indepedent of airport charges so they couldn't push them up, but it might make Bloody Awful Airports start putting customers higher up the priority list!

[groundhand]

Radeng,

I was with you until your last paragraph.
That's why I want to see a global political review of the legislation that is stangling aviation.

Sadly, you lost it at the end as your last paragraph is laughable. Next you'll want to be fining passengers for presenting themselves at security with the wrong items; fining airlines that arrive early, fining them for leaving late etc.

[Chica]

What is the story with Laptops at Heathrow security? At every other airport I visit it is laptops out of hand luggage, but at Heathrow last week I was told to put it back into my hand luggage!

[ZFT]

To give them some credit - This rule change is on the 'idiots' chart/poster as you enter security so one should be prepared.

[Land After]

LHR T2/T1 does NOT require you to take off your shoes.
Really - I've just come in from LHR T1 tonight and had to remove my shoes for security - as did everyone in the line.

[ZFT]

I 'believe' that shoes off is voluntary?

Certainly I have declined to do this in T3 with no issues from the security muppets.

[Land After]

I am not in the habit of voluntarily removing my shoes at security. This was a instruction, and it is quite usual to have one line at LHR removing shoes.

[Beer_n_Tabs]

People who complain about stuff like that make me :yuk:. Complaining for the sake of it.

And I don't think I have been through a checkpoint yet where the belt hasn't had to come off... and i fly a lot.. after all.. it is metal....

Now thats where it becomes frustrating as far as inconsitency is concerned. I fly a resonable amount UK-EU-UK, and have at times set off the archway, but NEVER have I had to take off my belt....after all its metal :ok:. Just a quick wave over my goolies with the magic wand

[DeltaIndiaSierraPapa]

And maybe if we pax knew how the airport security muppets were going to interpret those rules we would know what not to take.

UFO

Don't bring ANYthing pointy or with a sharp blade and dont bring ANY liquid, gel or paste in anything larger than a 100ml container! Simple as!!

What's so bloody hard about that?

[radeng]

groundhand,

Airports have a de facto monopoly. This doesn't give them the right to b****r the passengers about. We have the EU ruling on delays that penalise the airlines: I'm saying we should have rules penalising the airport for its inefficiencies. Especially when those inefficiencies are caused by 'cost saving' i.e. not spending money where they need to.

Airports aren't like supermarkets, where if you don't like Sainsbury's, you can go to Waitrose or Tesco. In the south of the UK if you don't like BAA, that's it. Even if BAA is split up, to some extent, there will still be pseudo monopoly - basically, for many places, you'll have to use Heathrow - or not fly.

Which is why I argue that airport operators have a duty to provide a reasonable service - and it's arguable that BAA doesn't do that. Anyone know how much BAA gets per passenger (including charges for security)?

The best way to make them do their duty to the passengers is to introduce statutory penalties that pay the passenger, not the Treasury.

[VAFFPAX]

Strange that at T1 they ask you to remove your footwear. I have not had that at T1. Ever. And my most recent flight out of T1 was earlier this year. T2 was last w/e. No request there either.

But I have had it at T3.

S.

[nickmo]

Consistency..........mmmmm

EDI to LHR T1 was last experience, and did want belt removed, but not shoes at EDI..... laptops stay in bags.

Hike to T3 - belts off for all, but security then only wanted some pax to remove shoes, but others were waved past to just go through and looking back to see if there was any rhyme or reason it was as stated previously, the screens were not being 'watched' in any consistent way. And laptops taken out please....

Returning (with another internal Turkish flight) to LHR from Istanbul - (...where it was belts off, laptops left in bags, shoes stay on...and you get scanned as you enter the terminal, as well as at the gate...at both Turkish airports) to arr. at T3 - nip to T1 to get back to EDI - this time no belt off, but shoes: 'oh, yes please, everyone has to.....'

So is there different policy in place for BAA sites then? Each site shouldn't be operating under varying rules in the area of security should they?

Going to be going through T5 (and then T3) on next trip so be interesting to see how that one works out.

[call100]

It's not difficult. Shoes, Belts laptops etc are checked on a ratio basis. 1 in 10 can be handled as 1 in 10 pax or 1 in 10 flights. Some you win and some You lose.

[spiney]

Consistency? Forget it - dozens of countries, hundreds of airports all run by humans ... and sadly the organism is not a perfect form.

I see no point in getting uptight about security.. I've given up on big carry-on bags, I don't even bother trying to get a laptop on board any more... plastic belt, plastic watch, slip on shoes... my glasses, pen, cellphone, ipod, wallet, change all in the hand-carry well before security, shoes on/off , who cares? - how hard can that be...? Surly, rude staff? - water off a duck's back. I have a way better job than they have and I'll be out of here in an hour and they'll still be doing this all day today, and tomorrow, and the next day... You should feel sorry for them not irritated with them. And for the polite, professional, efficient security staff, a smile and a thankyou ain't too hard is it

Arrive a little earlier at the airport, chill and all this Security 'hassle' becomes a non-event.. Whatever they want to do... but just make sure my flight is as safe as it can be - and those other 40 parked out there also.

[VAFFPAX]

Hmmm... flew out of LGW-South on Friday... they asked me to remove my shoes and the laptop...

S.

[Beausoleil]

If the point is to catch terrorists, I'm not sure that consistency is that good an idea. They should not be able to predict exactly what will be searched and how.

I'm not a massively regular flier, probably 4 or 5 trips by air per year. But I've never experienced any problems at security anywhere - they always seem dispassionate to me.

My gripe would be this. If this is a war on terror, can we have a law against profiteering please? You can't take water through security and unlike the US there are no obvious water fountains, so if you want a drink you have to buy water. I was offered a small bottle of water for £2 at Manchester Airport last week. Meanwhile, there is no pick up point after the Glasgow attack, which is fair enough. When pick up was closed at what was my local US airport they opened the short stay car park and gave free parking for the first half hour. In Manchester they force you to park and charge you for it.

The overwhelming feeling I have is that new security measures are seen as a great way of gouging extra cash from the passengers, and that there is no restraining airport operators in this.

[radeng]

Beausoleil said:

>The overwhelming feeling I have is that new security measures are seen as a great way of gouging extra cash from the passengers, and that there is no restraining airport operators in this.<

I agree!

Consistency: T5 Sunday April 20. No apparent photo, no removal of shoes.
150mL bottle medicine examined for pharmacy label,
checked against passport.

T5 Sunday April 27. Photographed, shoes removed. 150mL
bottle medicine examined for pharmacy label, and NOT
checked against passport.


I can remember those big bottles (about 1 pint!) of medicines.......that would cause trouble, but if the dose was say 1 tablespoon three times a day, it would need a big bottle.

[nebpor]

Meanwhile, there is no pick up point after the Glasgow attack, which is fair enough
You'll be pleased to hear there is a free pickup area in Glasgow again - they've sorted it out at last :ok:

[Crusher1]

As someone who has been flying since the "good old days" of Dc-4's etc, it pains me to say it but.................ake the train it's a lot less hassle!

I've given up flying unless I have to, since Eurostar moved to St Pancras it's far easier to get to central Europe, and door to door not that much longer time wise - and you get treated like a human being!

[fyrefli]

All aviation security measures are implemented for a genuine, bona fide and legitimate reason

:ugh:

That's the funniest thing I've read on here in ages.

[PAXboy]

fyrefli
That's the funniest thing I've read on here in ages.I think that you are bing unfair.

All aviation security measures are implemented for a genuine, bona fide and legitimate reason - the politicians craven need to pretend to be doing something.

:p

[Jess1968]

For all you frequent fliers...think of us poor souls who work airside...EVERY day 3-5 times a day we go through exactly the same as you do...but we aren't anywhere near the plane!!

No butter/jam/frozen food (if it MAY contain a bit of water when unfrozen!) allowed through even to our staff room which is about 20 paces away from the security cone!

However just smile and get on with it...it isn't the security agents fault the DfT change their minds daily!

Belts on 4am...Belts off 6am
Shoes off 4am...shoes on 6am
Keys on RZ pass through scanner 4am...Keys on 7am

I just shrug, smile and get to work...to a MUCH nicer environment then they work in!

[qwertyplop]

I find threads like this quite amusing.

I work airside and unless any of you have the inside track on 'WHAT THE THREAT IS' and 99.9% of us do not have that knowledge then all that's left to complain about is the implementation of the procedures that are there to protect you from 'WHAT THE THREAT IS'. The only way anyone is going to progress this argument is by dealing with what you can deal with - as I say - the 'powers that be' know what they are up against - not one of you does I would venture.

The only thing anyone here should be arguing the toss about then is the cretinism displayed by the so called 'security officers' on the gates - I prefer 'operatives' because they are not 'officers'. Such stupidity should be challanged on every occasion - the more people who challange stupidity by the operatives means the less likely it is to occur to others. Stupid people back down quite quickly in my experience.

And don't trot out the same old tired crap about conspiracy theories and excuses to crack down on the innocent population at large - it just does not wash - local interpretation of objective rules is the only issue here.

If anyone posting on this forum from the few government departments that actually do know 'WHAT THE THREAT IS' would care to comment - and they won't obviously - then all of you should forget about ever arguing the toss about 'WHAT THE THREAT IS' because you don't need to know.

:ugh:

[Capot]

I use Bristol quite a lot, and the good thing about that airport's security is that if you feel like removing your shoes you head for the scanner/AMD channel which is demanding that, and if not you go for the other scanner/AMD channel.

It's been the same on the last few occasions. I usually choose not to remove my shoes, but sometimes I do otherwise just for the sake of a change.

It's very good of the management to allow customers to choose, and I applaud that. Especially if the customer's shoes are packed with incendaries.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

I have to agree with spiney. At the end of the day, whether consistent or not, polite or surly, these people are working in pretty c**p jobs for low pay. All of us whether frequent fliers or not just pass through and get on a flight made as safe as current measures can make it, which surely must count for something.

If I have any criticism it would be the huge queues at the scanners when up to half the lanes are closed. Not a staff problem, just BAA saving on the recruitment and ovetime money.

NEO

[radeng]

My latest encounter was at T5. They look at the box containing the medicine.
'You can't have that, it's over 100mL'
'Yes I can, it's medicine'
'Where's the prescription?'
'On the bottle'

Then (first time in 27 flights this year) 'You'll have to taste it'
'NO'
'Why not?'
'Because I've had the dose for today, and it tells you that it's dangerous to exceed the stated dose'

(note the dose is 8mL, so tasting it would push over 8ml, even on the end of one's finger. Plus, it's very sticky)

Fetches supervisor.

'You've got to taste it'
'No'
'Why not?'
'Because I've had the dose for today, and it tells you that it's dangerous to exceed the stated dose'
'Well Im allowed discretion but the DfT says it should be tasted.'
'Oh yes? Where on the DfT web site with all the rules does it say that?'
'Well, OK this time'

Now the DfT site specifically mentions that baby food is to be tasted, but not medicines.........

Did we have a case of some local invention?

[glad rag]

Absolutely, and don't forget whilst all this security checking is going on the general public are being grouped up nicely.:ugh:

[RevMan2]

Coming through LAX 2 weeks before my operation for a hip replacement.

I'm not a newbie, so no liquid/pointy stuff etc and everything metallic from my pockets in the carry on, notebook out etc.

The "Shoes Off" rule.

I asked if there was a chair for me to be able to remove my shoes due to the limited movement in my hip joint, explained the reason politely and got


"You can crouch"

"Well, actually, that doesn't work. Limited movement in my hip joint etc. Can I rest against the table"

"No. You'll have to go through extra security if you don't take your shoes off. I'm trying to think of a solution for you"

"If I can rest against the table, I can get my shoes off"

"I SAID I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A SOLUTION FOR YOU"

While she was thinking of a solution (which appeared to consume all her limited brain CPU, because she didn't register what I was doing,) I rested against the table, took off my shoes, put them in the tray and was gone.

The last time I saw her, she was still looking blankly into the distance, doubtlessly trying to think of a solution for me......

[liteswap]

<sigh>

If only all this security malarkey actually had any effect other than to dissuade people from flying....

<thought bubble: ping!>
Hold on: it's all a plot by the greens, isn't it?

[Wot No Engines]

RevMan2 - had a similar incident in Hawaii a few years ago.

Had a trapped nerve in my neck and probably shouldn't have been travelling, but I had had to get someone at the hotel to put my socks and shoes on before setting off as I couldn't find any way (even sitting) of reaching them.

"Take your shoes off"

"Sorry, can't - but you are welcome to take them off for me"

"No - extra security for you and you will take them off there anyway"

At "extra security" I was able to sit down, then

"Take your shoes off"

"Sorry, can't - but you're welcome to take them off for me"

(repeat 10-15 times)

Then

"I'm not permitted to remove your shoes, so I'll wand them and off you go"

That was it - the shoes stayed on !