Manchester-3
It’s not at all. Unless you understand the risk-based reason which led to this UK measure being in place, you jump to the conclusion that it is misplaced, damaging etc etc. You can’t have a proper debate about the specific risk without the threat assessment, and you don’t go near putting either in the public domain if you are party to them.
It is a completely futile debate here as the debate is far from fully informed. And if you think those at MAG who are fully aware of this issue have been silent on the subject with DFT and HMG, then you’d be mistaken.
It is a completely futile debate here as the debate is far from fully informed. And if you think those at MAG who are fully aware of this issue have been silent on the subject with DFT and HMG, then you’d be mistaken.
And if you think those at MAG who are fully aware of this issue have been silent on the subject with DFT and HMG, then you’d be mistaken.
Two weeks ago, I boarded an Ethiopian A359 at GVA bound for MAN. About 24 pax boarded there, all fully security-checked in accordance with Swiss procedures. Aboard the aircraft itself were around 200 through-passengers who remained aboard throughout the stopover. I never felt under any threat from this, as all those pax had undergone similar security checks before initial boarding at ADD. They'd also already completed one long sector without incident. All pax aboard had done one comprehensive security check, completed to international standards at a major airport, to be there. Based on your information, there is something so concerning about this situation that UK authorities would require a full re-screening were this aircraft to stopover in MAN bound, say, for DUB, yet that need is not replicated or recognised by Swiss authorities at GVA.
If you are aware of a valid reason for this, fair enough. We don't need the details. But I hope it is a really good one, because UK regional airports are paying a high price for this apparent over-abundance of caution, as is our economy. Security situations evolve, so if the opportunity to rescind this rule (within the bounds of safety) exists, then it should be taken. Other highly-respected security-conscious jurisdictions haven't applied this rule in the first place, so obviously they interpret the threat level differently. Of course, if there is a specific flaw unique to UK airports which introduces a security threat not present at continental airports (I won't ask), perhaps it would be cost-effective to rectify that issue directly instead, rather than trying to mitigate it on a day-to-day operational basis. A behind-closed-doors cost-benefit analysis should be produced, quantifying the cost of remedying this uniquely UK problem, versus the opportunity cost of discouraging potentially lucrative fifth-freedom air services which could be transformational for regional connectivity.
I do understand and have sympathy with your "not in front of the children" approach on forums such as this, but there is a need for UK airports to keep this issue on the agenda with the appropriate Whitehall officials, away from the public gaze. I'm encouraged by your reassurance that MAG does that.
Emotive topics
A behind-closed-doors cost-benefit analysis should be produced, quantifying the cost of remedying this uniquely UK problem, versus the opportunity cost of discouraging potentially lucrative fifth-freedom air services which could be transformational for regional connectivity.
Good grief, how many times. You are not privy to the information that made this decision necessary.
You do not know what threats, current, historical or perceived are in the minds of UK security policy makers. Just because you can't see a threat it doesn't mean there isn't one. Let it go.
You do not know what threats, current, historical or perceived are in the minds of UK security policy makers. Just because you can't see a threat it doesn't mean there isn't one. Let it go.
No doubt MAG has the relevant data to hand and can lobby the appropriate agencies without either party divulging security-sensitive / commercially-sensitive information in the public domain. The important thing is that dialogue takes place and that both security implications and value of business forfeited are afforded due consideration in exchanges. It is helpful if political figures are aware of the reality of business opportunities being lost so that an old security rule of questionable value to passenger safety might be left unchanged. The continuation of that rule comes at a high cost. Is it worth it? That is for discussion behind closed doors, but regular dialogue on the issue should be maintained. Nobody wants to compromise safety if a genuine concern is driving this, but the commercial impact must be taken into account too. We can't be keeping a damaging rule in place due to inertia alone. Switzerland don't see the need for it, and they're not complacent about matters of passenger safety. Many other countries likewise.
We know that Bangladesh Biman switched initial plans to route transatlantic transit flights through MAN to IST instead, with the re-screening issue being a major factor in that decision. Likewise, we know that Ethiopian have been unable to progress plans for combining MAN with DUB for the same reason. We know that Luxair, who previously operated LUX-MAN-DUB, restored only LUX-DUB with this being a consideration. Beyond these, we know that other possibilities draw speculation, but only MAG and the companies concerned can assess the likelihood of these realistically coming to pass. What we do know for sure......
How do 'we' know all these things? Are they public knowledge?
Apologies if I missed it.
We can't just leave security rules to fossilise at great cost, simply because some insist that the subject must never be discussed or debatable decisions revisited.
You do not know what threats, current, historical or perceived are in the minds of UK security policy makers
How do 'we' know all these things? Are they public knowledge?
Apologies if I missed it.
Apologies if I missed it.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LIVERPOOL
Age: 59
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we could make the case for every passenger departing MAN to be forced to go through the same security process twice before boarding their flights. Surely that would be safer than going through security just once?
And if I were arguing the case to retain the current rules, I'd point to Singapore Airlines SIN-MAN-IAH as an example that the rules aren't a blocker to trade.
On your point about acceptance of third countries' standards, I have not argued for random acceptance of these. Airports would need to be approved on an individual basis, using standards benchmarked by a recognised agency such as ICAO [see the earlier postings on this to avoid repetition]. The reality is that it would only be necessary to monitor a very limited pool of airports for this purpose; flights of this sort would tend to use major gateway airports with state-of-the-art equipment.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It certainly wasnt/isn't just a UK thing I recall flying EVA from LHR to TPE via BKK and having to get off the aircraft and go through security on both legs in BKK. Was pre covid so may have changed since then.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: BOURNEMOUTH, ENGLAND
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happened in MUC, ZRH, FRA whilst transferring to LHR.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luxair do not need to route via Manchester as loads are good enough for the route to operate as a stand alone service.
If Luxair thought Manchester was viable on it's own right I guess it would operating the route. Can Manchester not generate its own traffic to support routes such as Newark, Philadelphia, Dallas, Delhi, Mumbai to name but a few.
If Luxair thought Manchester was viable on it's own right I guess it would operating the route. Can Manchester not generate its own traffic to support routes such as Newark, Philadelphia, Dallas, Delhi, Mumbai to name but a few.
Happened in MUC, ZRH, FRA whilst transferring to LHR.
If Luxair thought Manchester was viable on it's own right I guess it would operating the route.