Segregating passengers
 

I was reading the thread about Gatwick and there was a point about airport segragating passengers in Europe but not in the States.

Why is it necessary to segragate passengers at an airport?

Thanks in advance.

If you mean segregating arriving and departing passengers, I think there are two reasons:

• Security: if you let the passengers mingle, then your departing flights are theoretically only as secure as the least-secure airport from which passengers have arrived at your airport;
• Immigration: (the 100-series gates in Dublin are one example, and there are doubtless others in other airports): if passengers with different immigration status can mingle, there is scope for immigration fraud (e.g. swapping boarding passes, or connecting from an international to a domestic flight without having gone through immigration).

Terrorists used to choose Rome and Athens as security was notoriously insecure. Hence without segregation, someone gets a package aboard abroad then gets airside at Heathrow and onto a US bound plane on a connecting ticket? Lethal.

All non UK passengers are segrgeated as the DfT is happy that UK passengers have been cleared to their own standards. This is why you can route from your arriving domestic flight onwards into the lounge at T5 but on the way back from abroad, you absolutely will need to be security screened. It's a pain but there's a very good reason as any chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

This also happens in the US, except most passengers are domestic and already TSA screened so they can connect without rescreening, exactly as you can at say GLA, EDI and LHR.

Cyrano,

Thanks for the correction. I did not have automatic spell checker at the computer I wrote the initial message.

Both answers were clear and concise. Very useful.

Thank you so much.

There are quite a few airports in mainland Europe where arriving and departing passengers are not separated. Amsterdam being a prime example, it's split into Schengen and non-Schengen areas, but within those areas passengers arriving and departing can mingle. Security is done at the gate or at the entrance to the Schengen area (where there is also immigration). Passengers connecting between Schengen flights don't have a security re-check as they have been screened to EU/EEA standards. Otherwise security is done at the gate for non-Schengen flights.

Are there any advantages on segregating pax? Or is it a thing of the past for the name of simplicity of the airport building?

RIS,

Commercially, no - I m sure airport operators would much rather have a single terminal space, where all could mingle, hence no need to repeat catering units in airisde / landside / Schengen or non space etc. Also, where is the best place to put shops, landside where everyone (families seeing someone off etc) can use them, or airside where they can be 'duty free' - again less of an issue in the US, as non-liqo(u)r/tobacco sales are only subject to a local sales tax which is much less than the UK 20% VAT, and most flights are domestic anyway.

However, unfortunately security will always take first priority, and it is very difficult to get security restrictions to be reversed once in place, 'just in case' one bad guy slips through.

Also, airports are used to having different zones, as most large airport have multiple terminals - few of which are linked by pre-cleared airside spaces anyway. If the footfall is big enough, retailers will pay the premium for multiple units.

My biggest gripe is with ATL, where I had to go through security, just for the privilege of ARRIVING into the terminal. Again, this comes down to layout - whilst this terminal is hardly pre-historic, it was designed pre-9/11, and the international concourse is at the end of the people mover. Once you disembark, you pass through the same space used by departing passengers - and whilst it might be inconvenient to go through this screening, it would cost a lot more to build a separate shuttle under the concourses for the relatively few international passengers who use that airport.

The whole complexity would be avoided if the security was performed at the sensible and logical place, at the GATE, rather than ludicrously early in the process, half a mile away.

There are actually a few places around which do this.

WHBM - that could mean 100+ security checks, a nightmare in terms of buying the equipment and running it.

Also, duty free purchases need to be made in an airside area, otherwise they could be handed to non-flying relatives etc.

Why would you want to do that ? "Duty Free" nowadays is invariably more expensive than prices in local shops.

If everyone trusted everyone else's security you would go through security at the start of the journey and that would be it - just like travelling the US.

Trouble is the UK thinks that it has better security than the rest of Europe so insists on rescreening everyone.

The USA doesn't trust anyone else (unless done at US overseas pre-clearance) hence the shenningans when arriving at ATL or MCO.

If you are flying to Australia or the US from HKG you must undergo secondary screening as they obviously don't trust primary security.

Australian domestic security allows (or allowed when I was there) liquids through security so rescreening was necessary for international.

If everone could agree one standard and international audits ensure that it was met we could have one worldwide sterile area. It won't happen for a while. However there are plans to introduce in Europe (UK I think excluded). Have a look on the Zurich airport website to see what they are doing.

Or if everyone just trusted everyone.....

.....and everyone was trustworthy

Alas, 'tis not the case, and we continue to be held to ransom by a tiny number or extremists.

MOL has called several times for profiling, and El Al appear to know what they are looking for. But if Anders Behring Breivik had decided to bomb an El-Al flight LHR to Tel Aviv after flying in from Torp, would he have been stopped?

More concerning security
 

I have wondered about inbound/outbound passenger segregation for a while and this seems like a good thread to resurrect.

Some airports, like Hong Kong, Bangkok, Auckland and Vancouver (airports I am familiar with), strictly segregate inbound and outbound passengers, whereas others like Heathrow and Changi, for example, do not.

Does anyone have any idea why the differences?

Concerning security screening, I've notice that Bangkok has now dropped outbound screening near the gate areas in favour of screening immediately after immigration, presumably for speed and cost saving.

Makes far more sense to centralise security after immigration rather than at each concourse although there still is secondary screening at each gate.

When I was in Singapore last month I notice a few flights being screened right after they got into the terminal, one was from BKK. SIN also do gate screening too.

yeah but Singapore are far sighted...... and have joined up management of the airline and the airport and security

My favourite used to be Sheremetyevo - on a good day you could be checked at the front door, leaving check-in, entering the lounge, at the gate and at the aircraft door...............................

Currently American does an extra check at the gate at LHR on some flights

AMS does it - only a few gates (There's one block used for non-schengen shorthaul flights, e.g. UK/Ireland for instance; there may be more) have a common screening area; all the others have at-gate screening.

There's still boarding card and emigration checks to ensure that only people with passes get airside, so duty-free is still somewhat protected. You could still get someone with a non-EU b/p to buy you duty free and hand it to you, though.

This is in no way a particularly efficient use of resources and causes serious problems for the airside stores in selling liquids, but it can and does work.