Manchester-3
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone clarify where this rule about having to off load transit pax has originated.
UK, USA, EU ?
Suggestion is BIMAN are looking to come back from Istanbul. They tried a year ago but switched to IST when they realised that they had the off load issue.
This also applies SIA, is Singapore Changi security so bad it needs to be be double checked at Manchester. Nope. ... Or that of Houston flying in the opposite direction?
Completly nonsensical.
UK, USA, EU ?
Suggestion is BIMAN are looking to come back from Istanbul. They tried a year ago but switched to IST when they realised that they had the off load issue.
This also applies SIA, is Singapore Changi security so bad it needs to be be double checked at Manchester. Nope. ... Or that of Houston flying in the opposite direction?
Completly nonsensical.
When Aer Lingus operated the fifth freedom transit flights through Manchester from 1988 the transit passengers remained on board the aircraft.
At that time there was no requirement for pax or bags to be re-screened.
That applied to flights in either direction.
At that time there was no requirement for pax or bags to be re-screened.
That applied to flights in either direction.
Times have certainly changed since 1988. Just think of 9/11 and other events and the reasons behind the changes.
To compare 1988 with 2023 is ridiculous.
Last edited by Sotonsean; 22nd Jul 2023 at 18:19.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely bonkers.
The passengers are already ON-BOARD, and have been for 3, 4 thousand plus miles, so I'm somewhat baffled as to where this has orginated and how leaving passengers on the aircraft poses a security risk to the UK, oh hang on... the only security risk is actually allowing passengers off !
There are a number of airlines who wish to transit through Manchester so is this not a case of civil servants in Whitehall sticking the boot in ?
Last edited by Navpi; 22nd Jul 2023 at 16:03.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has always been the case that the UK re-screens all passengers arriving from non-uk destinations. It has certainly happened for the last 20 years at Heathrow, even from Ireland.
What not not even the USA or Singapore?
Absolutely bonkers.
The passengers are already ON-BOARD, and have been for 3, 4 thousand plus miles, so I'm somewhat baffled as to where this has orginated and how leaving passengers on the aircraft poses a security risk to the UK, oh hang on... the only security risk is actually allowing passengers off !
There are a number of airlines who wish to transit through Manchester so is this not a case of civil servants in Whitehall sticking the boot in ?
Absolutely bonkers.
The passengers are already ON-BOARD, and have been for 3, 4 thousand plus miles, so I'm somewhat baffled as to where this has orginated and how leaving passengers on the aircraft poses a security risk to the UK, oh hang on... the only security risk is actually allowing passengers off !
There are a number of airlines who wish to transit through Manchester so is this not a case of civil servants in Whitehall sticking the boot in ?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think it was brought in as a result of Lockerbie where neither passengers nor hold luggage were re-screened at Heathrow.
Does hold luggage also get re-screened in the UK?
Does hold luggage also get re-screened in the UK?
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What not not even the USA or Singapore?
Absolutely bonkers.
The passengers are already ON-BOARD, and have been for 3, 4 thousand plus miles, so I'm somewhat baffled as to where this has orginated and how leaving passengers on the aircraft poses a security risk to the UK, oh hang on... the only security risk is actually allowing passengers off !
There are a number of airlines who wish to transit through Manchester so is this not a case of civil servants in Whitehall sticking the boot in ?
Absolutely bonkers.
The passengers are already ON-BOARD, and have been for 3, 4 thousand plus miles, so I'm somewhat baffled as to where this has orginated and how leaving passengers on the aircraft poses a security risk to the UK, oh hang on... the only security risk is actually allowing passengers off !
There are a number of airlines who wish to transit through Manchester so is this not a case of civil servants in Whitehall sticking the boot in ?
And yes Navi it is an entirely UK directive as applied. And even prior to B was a consequence of remaining out side of Schengen yes we had control of our external frontier and that of those transiting the wet and windy isles
Last edited by Rutan16; 22nd Jul 2023 at 18:03.
I made no comparison, simply stated that when the EI transit flights operated no rescreening was required.
The question had been raised as to when the requirement was introduced, off the top of my head I'm not sure.
Lockerbie happened in December 1988, the EI flights continued for many years after that.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all your replies. So in effect this outdated legacy has evolved from the Pan Am flight originating outside the UK landing at Heathrow then being destroyed over Lockerbie.
As was said it was 35 years ago ! Have we not moved on ?
Presumably it was introduced as ATN suggests on the basis that back in the day Heathrow had better security screening than where the flights originated but surely in 2023 it is a pointless exercise, there are common security standards that makes such a requirement completely outdated.
In the case of Manchester there a number of airlines are looking to use Manchester as a transit stop ,
ETHIOPIAN (Dublin)
EMIRATES (Athens)
BIMAN (Istanbul)
AIR CANADA (Heathrow)
SIA (Manchester) more routes
It makes it completely uncompetitive. Is this not a slight of hand by Whitehall to keep Manchester in its box ?
My understanding is that BIMAN wished to offer their transit flights at Manchester but took exception to this rule suggesting it was totally discriminatory and so switched to Istanbul.
I'm amazed SIA have not taken the same view. Is Singapore Changi so bad passengers have to be re screened at Manchester? i don't think so.
In this current age of equality and diversity this smacks of borderline rascim and a "we know best attitude".
By any standard it is preposterous!
As was said it was 35 years ago ! Have we not moved on ?
Presumably it was introduced as ATN suggests on the basis that back in the day Heathrow had better security screening than where the flights originated but surely in 2023 it is a pointless exercise, there are common security standards that makes such a requirement completely outdated.
In the case of Manchester there a number of airlines are looking to use Manchester as a transit stop ,
ETHIOPIAN (Dublin)
EMIRATES (Athens)
BIMAN (Istanbul)
AIR CANADA (Heathrow)
SIA (Manchester) more routes
It makes it completely uncompetitive. Is this not a slight of hand by Whitehall to keep Manchester in its box ?
My understanding is that BIMAN wished to offer their transit flights at Manchester but took exception to this rule suggesting it was totally discriminatory and so switched to Istanbul.
I'm amazed SIA have not taken the same view. Is Singapore Changi so bad passengers have to be re screened at Manchester? i don't think so.
In this current age of equality and diversity this smacks of borderline rascim and a "we know best attitude".
By any standard it is preposterous!
Last edited by Navpi; 23rd Jul 2023 at 06:59.
From reading the responses, I don't think anybody knows for sure! My recollection was that it was an American requirement to ensure that aircraft arriving in the US had been screened to an acceptable standard but as you say, that doesn't make a lot of sense for Singapore
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think somebody is getting paranoid. Why is Whitehall using this policy to keep Manchester in its box?
The policy could be seen as being equally as detrimental to Stansted, Gatwick, Birmingham, Edinburgh etc
Singapore already does flights beyond Manchester, and Biman Bangladesh used too. In recent years, Air India used to transit through Birmingham to Toronto.
Ethiopian also use Dublin for US pre-clearance which is something that cannot be done using a UK airport.
The policy could be seen as being equally as detrimental to Stansted, Gatwick, Birmingham, Edinburgh etc
Singapore already does flights beyond Manchester, and Biman Bangladesh used too. In recent years, Air India used to transit through Birmingham to Toronto.
Ethiopian also use Dublin for US pre-clearance which is something that cannot be done using a UK airport.
Personally I don't think Lockerbie was the motivator as at a guess it must have been around late-mid/late 1990s before the EI transits stopped.
Nor was it down to the first Gulf war.
Both those events were 1981/1988.
We certainly got tightened up hold baggage accountability as a result of Lockerbie but that didn't prevent transit flights.
I can recall sitting at a meeting in Olympic House (along with various representatives from Airport/Airlines/Agents) with a senior civil servant from the DOT.,
Very dapper chap sporting a Robin Day style bright polka dot bow tie!
He happily announced to assembled minions "that the minister required" (that turned out to be a favourite expression) that baggage for departing passengers could only be loaded onto the aircraft once the passenger passed through the gate and boarded the aircraft.
From that you might rightly conclude that those making the rules have little concept of reality.
If I was very cynical I might have thought it was to protect Big Airways. After all that's what brought about the previous stop to EI transit flights a long time prior to that.
Nor was it down to the first Gulf war.
Both those events were 1981/1988.
We certainly got tightened up hold baggage accountability as a result of Lockerbie but that didn't prevent transit flights.
I can recall sitting at a meeting in Olympic House (along with various representatives from Airport/Airlines/Agents) with a senior civil servant from the DOT.,
Very dapper chap sporting a Robin Day style bright polka dot bow tie!
He happily announced to assembled minions "that the minister required" (that turned out to be a favourite expression) that baggage for departing passengers could only be loaded onto the aircraft once the passenger passed through the gate and boarded the aircraft.
From that you might rightly conclude that those making the rules have little concept of reality.
If I was very cynical I might have thought it was to protect Big Airways. After all that's what brought about the previous stop to EI transit flights a long time prior to that.
As for the US influence, possibly but that would only impact something going to the US.
By the by, the UK Can quite happily have the same sort of pre-clearence as Dublin etc.
The issue (as I understand it) is that US require that while the passengers are being processed they are in a segregated and controlled area in which US laws apply and US authorities have control.
The UK as a matter of principle will not "surrender sovereignty" in this way so it's no chance.
By the by, the UK Can quite happily have the same sort of pre-clearence as Dublin etc.
The issue (as I understand it) is that US require that while the passengers are being processed they are in a segregated and controlled area in which US laws apply and US authorities have control.
The UK as a matter of principle will not "surrender sovereignty" in this way so it's no chance.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre-clearence would be a strong selling point for any UK regional airport. It might even give an advantage if Heathrow found its infrastructure made it a problem there.....
Biman used to operate a transiting 777, passengers stayed on board, however the aircraft also operated through LHR so it's possible because everyone had to disembark there anyway they didn't have to at MAN. Pretty sure that was post 2001.