Manchester-3
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Danunder
Age: 49
Posts: 139
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 So in effect this outdated legacy has evolved from the Pan Am flight originating outside the UK landing at Heathrow then being destroyed over Lockerbie.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surely in 2023 it is a pointless exercise, there are common security standards that makes such a requirement completely outdated.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surely in 2023 it is a pointless exercise, there are common security standards that makes such a requirement completely outdated.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!
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes they do and yes the commercial benefits outweigh the inconvenience.
Prior to Covid, I flew from London City to New York JFYoon the British Airways Airbus A318. The aircraft made a tech stop at Shannon for fuel. We all got off the aircraft with all our hand luggage, we had to go through security again, and then US pre-clearance.
The passengers on the Ethiopian flights through Dublin have to do the same thing.
Prior to Covid, I flew from London City to New York JFYoon the British Airways Airbus A318. The aircraft made a tech stop at Shannon for fuel. We all got off the aircraft with all our hand luggage, we had to go through security again, and then US pre-clearance.
The passengers on the Ethiopian flights through Dublin have to do the same thing.
They don't have 5th freedom and only stop Westbound. They used to have 5th freedom on ADD-DUB-LAX-ADD, but even then they didn't use US pre-clearance. That was the only flight where pax deplaned between legs. Doesn't happen anymore.
The daily Kuwaiti flight to JFK was forced to stop in SNN westbound each day for approximately a year pre COVID as the US were unhappy with the security screening in Kuwait. Pax were offloaded, went through pre-clearance, then the aircraft continued to Kennedy.
Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 23rd Jul 2023 at 13:21.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oman
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons for compulsory deplaning is an immigation scam which became popular about ten years ago. Asylum seekers would swap seats during a layover with facilitators who had legitimate visas and who left the aircraft at the stop. I recall it became a big problem on one BA route in the Middle East.
Preclearance at Edinburgh seems very unlikely. It is a service provided not in order to advantage an airport or airline, but to reduce the burden on Immigration in US and to prevent ‘undesirables’ from getting to US soil. If 75% of EDI’s US traffic is US passport holders, it makes it a bit pointless, particularly in winter months. US passport holders may find it convenient but that is not the point of preclearance.
Preclearance at Edinburgh seems very unlikely. It is a service provided not in order to advantage an airport or airline, but to reduce the burden on Immigration in US and to prevent ‘undesirables’ from getting to US soil. If 75% of EDI’s US traffic is US passport holders, it makes it a bit pointless, particularly in winter months. US passport holders may find it convenient but that is not the point of preclearance.
This isnt unique to Manchester so whomever is on the its discrimination line should give that up straight off. The UK DFT has a certain set of More Stringent Measures which mandate re-screening of any passenger who has arrived in the UK from overseas before boarding another flight either domestically or internationally. It doesnt matter where they have arrived from - this rule applies.
It is a major brake on the UK being used for any transit flights. A handful of operators choose to do it, but there can be no doubt that this limitation deters countless others at a variety of UK airports. Note that Air India, Kuwait and others all stopped using Heathrow as a transit point some years ago after this came into force.
It is a major brake on the UK being used for any transit flights. A handful of operators choose to do it, but there can be no doubt that this limitation deters countless others at a variety of UK airports. Note that Air India, Kuwait and others all stopped using Heathrow as a transit point some years ago after this came into force.
It would be interesting to know exactly when DFT changed their rules.
I'm left wondering if 9/11 was the event that changed things.
That's certainly nearer the change on transit flights rules than either Lockerbie or Gulf War.
I'm left wondering if 9/11 was the event that changed things.
That's certainly nearer the change on transit flights rules than either Lockerbie or Gulf War.
More to the point, is there any prospect of an initiative from UK airport operators to get this archaic restrictive throwback reviewed and rescinded? There is no justification for this nonsense to continue. Of course, this would imply Whitehall mandarins actually doing something sensible, and I know that is a very big ask.
Back in the day, MAN had routes such as LUX-MAN-DUB (Luxair) and LIN-MAN-DUB (Alitalia). Such routes are essentially impossible to run now. Double-drops were once a sensible solution for certain carriers; they could be again if dumb bureaucrats stepped out of the way.
Back in the day, MAN had routes such as LUX-MAN-DUB (Luxair) and LIN-MAN-DUB (Alitalia). Such routes are essentially impossible to run now. Double-drops were once a sensible solution for certain carriers; they could be again if dumb bureaucrats stepped out of the way.
[QUOTE]More to the point, is there any prospect of an initiative from UK airport operators to get this archaic restrictive throwback reviewed and rescinded? There is no justification for this nonsense to continue.[/QUOTE]
Good luck with that one. I think you'll find the airports' trade body has been privately lobbying on this for years. DFT will simply say that all security measures are continually re-assessed in light of threat levels and any change will be implemented only if and when the external threat environment supports such a change being made. The UK additional measures remain in place and given that we [rightly] don't have access to the threat information which led to those measures being introduced and then retained thereafter, it's fighting a losing battle.
The commercial impact across several airports must be immense - would Emirates do Dubai-Glasgow-JFK, would Kuwait do Kuwait-MAN-Chicago and would Turkish Airlines do Istanbul-BHX-Boston - who knows? However, safety and security should never take priority over commercial requirements and so for as long as these rules are deemed necessary by the UK Government, who are we to challenge them from a position of relative ignorance?
Good luck with that one. I think you'll find the airports' trade body has been privately lobbying on this for years. DFT will simply say that all security measures are continually re-assessed in light of threat levels and any change will be implemented only if and when the external threat environment supports such a change being made. The UK additional measures remain in place and given that we [rightly] don't have access to the threat information which led to those measures being introduced and then retained thereafter, it's fighting a losing battle.
The commercial impact across several airports must be immense - would Emirates do Dubai-Glasgow-JFK, would Kuwait do Kuwait-MAN-Chicago and would Turkish Airlines do Istanbul-BHX-Boston - who knows? However, safety and security should never take priority over commercial requirements and so for as long as these rules are deemed necessary by the UK Government, who are we to challenge them from a position of relative ignorance?
who are we to challenge them from a position of relative ignorance?
Security checks at Singapore Changi are world class. Security checks at Houston Intercontinental are world class. Likewise at many other primary gateway airports. There could be an 'approved' list, with vetting and ongoing inspections coordinated by a recognised international body such as ICAO. In fact, doesn't this happen already?
If you are a terrorist with ill-intentions and you (somehow) manage to evade detection at one of those major gateways, do you sit obediently for many hours on your first intercontinental flight - risk being caught by security at the intermediate stopover airport - and then do your misdeeds on the flight's second leg? This makes no sense whatsoever. We're just strangling business opportunities with mindless red tape, perpetuated by a bureaucracy with zero tolerance for constructive engagement or common sense.
Threat levels determine the need for robust security checks at the airport of initial departure. NOT at some interim stopover airport where passengers with ill-intent have already had many hours of flight to make their mischief. All logic has been left at the door on this one.
Dear oh dear is 20 years considered archaic now?
May I ask, do you or have you, ever worked for MI5 the CIA or any one of a number of security organisations that have access to intelligence and on going security threats that the average man in the street will have zero knowledge of?
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I ask, do you or have you, ever worked for MI5 the CIA or any one of a number of security organisations that have access to intelligence and on going security threats that the average man in the street will have zero knowledge of?
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.
As has been said, I'm struggling as to how this can possibly makes us any safer. It makes not one iota of difference.
Using this logic why not force every aircraft entering UK airspace to land so we can re screen everyone ?
Last edited by Navpi; 23rd Jul 2023 at 17:20.
May I ask, do you or have you, ever worked for MI5 the CIA or any one of a number of security organisations that have access to intelligence and on going security threats that the average man in the street will have zero knowledge of?
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.
The concerns you highlight are the ones which justify robust security checks at the airport of initial boarding. Security is of vital importance - I'm not downplaying that and never will - but it must be applied at the departure airport. Duplication of those checks at an interim stopover which those passengers have already flown their first sector aboard to reach are redundant and superfluous.
Problem is you're never certain about every airport - Sure Singapore or Israel are top class - but every Greek Airport? Or Latin America??
The effort of having to continually weed out various passengers would be enormous - its just too hard to do effectively day in day ouit
and no-one wants to be the poor sod who let someone through and an aircraft is destroyed
The effort of having to continually weed out various passengers would be enormous - its just too hard to do effectively day in day ouit
and no-one wants to be the poor sod who let someone through and an aircraft is destroyed
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is you're never certain about every airport - Sure Singapore or Israel are top class - but every Greek Airport? Or Latin America??
The effort of having to continually weed out various passengers would be enormous - its just too hard to do effectively day in day ouit
and no-one wants to be the poor sod who let someone through and an aircraft is destroyed
The effort of having to continually weed out various passengers would be enormous - its just too hard to do effectively day in day ouit
and no-one wants to be the poor sod who let someone through and an aircraft is destroyed
I'm a wee bit lost on the point you are making we don't have any transit stops from Greece or Latin America?
We do however have them from Singapore , this policy gives the impression we feel security measures at Changi are sub standard.
It could not be further from the truth.
Last edited by Navpi; 23rd Jul 2023 at 17:37.
Unless there is a significant change of heart by the UK Government, the risk factors here were deemed sufficiently high as to require additional measures to be put in place. Using examples from the past, you can't today operate services from Toronto to Belfast and then onwards to Cardiff without re-screening pax at Belfast even if the only pax on the Belfast-Cardiff leg are a proportion of those who originally boarded at Toronto. I don't have sufficient information (and nor should I have, to be fair) about the threat levels and risks which had led to those additional measures being put in place to be able to say that they either are warranted or are arcane nonsense, as you suggest. All that can be said is that those whom we trust every day to take such decisions deem that this isn't happening, and we have no choice but to accept their assessment.
Oh - and edit to add - there is a long-running difference of opinion between the EU, UK and USA about the security process in the USA. It's not appropriate to go into details on an open forum, but arrivals from the USA transitting through UK airports and departing onwards would be at the upper end of the risk scale.
Oh - and edit to add - there is a long-running difference of opinion between the EU, UK and USA about the security process in the USA. It's not appropriate to go into details on an open forum, but arrivals from the USA transitting through UK airports and departing onwards would be at the upper end of the risk scale.
We do however have them from Singapore , this policy gives the impression we feel security measures at Changi are sub standard.
It could not be further from the truth.
It could not be further from the truth.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's completely and utterly pointless exercise.
Do passengers from Houston to Singapore actually get off as well. Must confess i assumed it was just one way.
Do Air Canada passengers Toronto Mumbai deplane ?