UK security & a woman's handbag [Archive]

BRUpax

17th Nov 2006, 22:03

Flew back to BRU out of BHX with my CEO (that’s the wife) yesterday. At security she was told that she couldn’t go through with her (small) handbag and her (medium) carry-on bag. She was however allowed to put one inside the other. :ugh: Surely a small lady’s handbag should be exempt from the 1 piece restriction. Needless to say, she doesn't have this hassle anywhere else in Europe. Whilst Europe may have come to some form of common agreement about liquids, the rest is still anyone’s guess depending on airport and/or country of departure. Very very frustrating for SLF.

Globaliser

18th Nov 2006, 12:35

Surely a small lady’s handbag should be exempt from the 1 piece restriction.The one piece rule that has been in operation in the UK since August is the rule that should now be applied across the EU after the new EU-wide change last week. It does have the advantage of being simple to understand and simple to apply.

daedalus

19th Nov 2006, 11:05

At Stansted on October 15th in the appalling chaos caused by BAA's lack of security staff, people were told "Only one bag" before they got to passport control. There were no tables or flat surfaces around apart from the floor (as usual in most airports), so pax were scrambling around stuffing handbags and laptop bags into their other bag. Pointless pointing out to the idiots in charge that the laptop would have to be taken out again when we got to security check.
When we got to security check, laptops and bathroom stuff had to be taken out again.
On the plane, no body minded if you had more than one bag.

What a bunch of circus clowns security are!

:ugh:

redsnail

19th Nov 2006, 17:48

Ah yes. That one bag per person prior to security screening.

I have a small satchel with the essentials (wallet, pda, ipod, etc) and the nav bag with the lappy etc stashed in it. I play the game. Before getting to security I remove the lappy and that frees up enough space in the nav bag to stuff my satchel in it. Sure, it isn't tidy or elegant but the security folks are "happy".

Once through x-ray I sort it all out and no one says a word as I board the aircraft.

Oh, and of course I can buy a tonne of stuff and cart that on board too.

One bag? One big joke.

redsnail

20th Nov 2006, 10:51

Hey Mike,

That banana is used to bribe one of the engineers at LCY. :E He really does like them.

flybywire

20th Nov 2006, 11:04

What really p:mad: s me off is the way the open up your handbag and empty its content there, in front of everybody, and when I try to ask them to wear gloves (I used to share a house with a securicor agent and I can tell you where his hands where spending most of their time) I get really strong reactions.

Besides, I do not want the whole airport to see the entire content of my handbag....my work colleagues knew I was pregnant before my other half, thanks to one of those :mad: at Jubilee House. :{

MMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :oh:

Globaliser

20th Nov 2006, 16:57

Once through x-ray I sort it all out and no one says a word as I board the aircraft.Um, yes, this is the whole point of a rule that ensures that only one bag per person goes through the machine. That's the only point at which the restriction matters and the only point at which it's applied.

How many bags per person do you think the security screeners should have to look at?

Avman

20th Nov 2006, 18:34

Since security staff inspect pax boarding cards, could they not perhaps have the intelligence to identify those with C or F boarding passes and thus the right to 2 items of hand luggage? What is absurd is that Security policies are now effectively overruling airline policies regarding service to their premium clients. However, BRUpax's point is that a relatively small lady's handbag should be exempt, and he's right.

Final 3 Greens

20th Nov 2006, 19:14

Gobaliser

The one piece rule that has been in operation in the UK since August is the rule that should now be applied across the EU after the new EU-wide change last week. It does have the advantage of being simple to understand and simple to apply.

In my experience, C class pax can still take 2 pcs.

As ever, the UK knows best and is out of step with the others.

Avman

Turkeys and Xmas come to mind.

The UK must be losing a lot of transfer traffic.

SXB

20th Nov 2006, 19:42

I travelled C class today and had two pieces of hand luggage, no problems at either VIE or SXB.

Gerontocrat

23rd Nov 2006, 15:26

The long-haired CO has just phoned from LGW, due to fly back to CIA this evening. Flying from CIA just two days ago, she was allowed to take a carry-on case plus a handbag. The only plastic bags available (for sale) at CIA were exactly the same as those you put fruit and veg into at Tescos, i.e. tie-up and not ziplock, and in 3-litre size (not the one litre required, apparently) by the new EU law.
No problems, she already had makeup, toothpaste ready to transfer to a clear bag, as instructed, and sailed through security in the middle of the bomb scare that was going on.

At LGW, no deal: handbag only allowed as cabin baggage. What has really galled her tonight, is the attitude at LGW security where her tube of face-fixer was taken away and binned because it was 115ml. However, the operative word here is 'was', i.e. that was the quantity when full and, as she demonstrated to the 'security guard', the tube was over 3/4 empty.
So can anybody tell me, what is the rule on quantity?
Secondly, when is somebody going to start ensuring that security guards apply a modicum of common sense - although this would entail employing people with common sense in the first place.

christep

23rd Nov 2006, 15:58

The rules, stupid though they are, are clearly defined by the size of the container. http://www.baa.co.uk/assets/B2CPortal/Images/BAAnewSecurityRules061106.gif

In the US you are apparently allowed to take empty bottles airside, but not at BAA Shopping Malls.

gdiphil

23rd Nov 2006, 17:21

Mrs gdiphil yesterday went on Ryanair to Dublin and back for the day, out of LGW. Since she loves me so much she bought some Irish whiskey marmalade in a 240 gms jar. Was she allowed to get through security at Dublin? You know she wasn't. I now have to deal with the fallout and I am not happy either. What a silly rule. When she went earlier in the year I got my marmalade. Now I don't. Of course she could have paid extra and checked it in. Quite simply air travel is becoming bizarre. Looks like it is little jars in future such as you get at breakfast in hotels. Oh well. Meanwhile on two trips to Oz this year I think I got a penknife in my hand luggage through Heathrow security both in terminal four last April and terminal three in September. I had forgotten it was there. Flying out of Alice Springs in September I was pulled over and told I have a knife in my hand luggage. Mystified I search the bag and the security bloke was absolutely correct. He rightly seized it. So now I've got no penknife to spread my non existent marmalade. Is this an example of joined up thinking on the part of the worldwide aviation security industry? On another point it was Mrs gdiphil's first trip with Ryanair and she was very pleased with the cleanliness of the aircraft, that it was a punctual trip, reasonable leg room, and pleasant staff. She liked the price too.

Gerontocrat

23rd Nov 2006, 21:32

<<<< So can anybody tell me, what is the rule on quantity? >>>>

From the DfT link above:So, despite the obvious common sense, even 1/4 of a 115ml container = no!

Thanks for the answer. I've tabled it to herself - still fuming - who inter alia commented: "Clearly a man who wrote the regulations!"

Gerontocrat

24th Nov 2006, 05:28

<<<< "Clearly a man who wrote the regulations!" >>>>

Someone, somewhere (or a committee, or some other beaucratic group of idiots, national, or international) decided that 100 ml containers of liquids/gels in a plastic bag would not contribute to a explosion or other serious damage to aircraft.

So, who, why, where (& when)?? Yeah, I know, "national security threat" - can't tell you! Rubbish!! :ugh:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for sensible security measures when applied properly. As I understood it, the boffins decided that you needed more than 100ml of any given component. Fine.
However, it seems they then gave this information to whoever drafted the regulation: and whoever that was had failed their 11+ Verbal Reasoning and Common Entrance Maths (their understanding of volumes was, shall we say, limited!).
BTW, the long-haired CO also had two, nicely wrapped 970g Christmas Puddings and two jars of mincemeat (still in their security wrap with security seal in place). The two jars were binned by security (no doubt to be retrieved later), but the puds got through. Go figure, as they say.

ShamRoc

24th Nov 2006, 07:30

ALLDAYDELI

24th Nov 2006, 10:41

Mike Jenvey, absolutely...!!
Its inconvenient but worth proving a point that the same 400ML can be spread through 4x 100ML containers.. I thought the same.

I was stood at LHR T4 downstairs bus stop for Hatton Cross a couple of weeks ago. 2x "temps" (those hired to stand pre-security/departures channel) walked past, seemingly they had just gone off duty and were waiting for a bus also. The 2x lads were bragging to one another about the perfume that they had confiscated that day - and were taking it home... Disgraceful.

lexxity

24th Nov 2006, 19:06

fyrefli

24th Nov 2006, 19:57

You want stupid, how about this? Today at MAN one of my collegues was asked to take her hair bobble out because it had metal in it! My other collegue was asked to take her hair clip out, so now you have the sight of staff redressing themselves and redoing their hair before leaving for their work ares.
FFS.:mad:

Well it's been three months now we've had to put up with this farce. You are the only ones who can do anything about it so stand up, be counted and refuse.

"I'm terribly sorry, I'm not doing that; it's ridiculous."
"Well you can't come through then"
"Well, 150 people arent' going to Malaga/Geneva/Amsterdam/wherever then."

How many times do you think you'd have to do this for the nonsense to end? I realise solidarity and putting oneself on the line for the sake of others went out of fashion in the eighties in the UK but "If you tolerate this..." :)

Cheers,

Rich.

lexxity

25th Nov 2006, 18:24

Don't worry this utter nonsense request was refused and immediately reported to our superiors who will then take it up.

fyrefli

25th Nov 2006, 20:10

Don't worry this utter nonsense request was refused and immediately reported to our superiors who will then take it up.

Excellent!

eastern wiseguy

25th Nov 2006, 22:39

Flew through BHX the other evening.....Mrs EW was told to put her handbag inside a plastic bag she was carrying as one item only was allowed ....guess how long she adhered to that rule?.

On a similar point Mrs EW has become totally hacked off at wandering around in her bare/stocking feet across heaven knows what crap in order that her shoes may be x rayed. She asked at BFS for a pair of covers (a la shower cap ) for her feet...and was lectured about rules ...and how they were only enforcing them.The security bod totally missed the point.:ugh:

Sir Thomas

27th Nov 2006, 20:47

Right,
all you security people on here, quick question.
Why is it that Birmingham is the only place (between several airports all over Europe -that includes the UK-) where i have to take my shoes off every time? Along with every other passenger?
Ciao

Avman

28th Nov 2006, 11:08

It's a Birmingham Airport management initiative to encourage the travelling public to wash their feet and change their socks more often ;)

TightSlot

28th Nov 2006, 21:02

Amongst Crew, BHX is notorious as being 'different' on security: Whatever policy the UK adopts, BHX will always go one step further (and are proud to do so). There is nothing too petty, stupid and pointless for them to consider implementing assisted by a special kind of jobsworth mentality that brings a particular and lasting dark despair to the soul of the passing traveller.

:suspect:

Sorry - they just wind me up - I'll take another pill and lie down for a bit

vanderaj

29th Nov 2006, 03:20

Um, yes, this is the whole point of a rule that ensures that only one bag per person goes through the machine. That's the only point at which the restriction matters and the only point at which it's applied.
How many bags per person do you think the security screeners should have to look at?

What is the purpose of putting something through a machine? To detect dangerous objects which should not fly.

These rules make no sense. They are creating delays and angering the people who are paying for the service. More to the point, this particular "security" measure reduces actual security.

Putting one bag in another bag will make it that much harder for the underpaid and overworked screening staff to make out dangerous objects. These folks rely on the machine highlighting suspicious objects, and the more objects in a bag, the worse it gets. The XRay screening devices look for molecular weights and particular object edges. When they find them, they are highlighted in different colors. The screeners mostly look for the colors - this is why people seem to occasionally get through with dangerous objects.

Airport security should be safe, efficient and effective, and able to cope with known and previously unknown threats. This measure is none of these. Worse, it costs money, staff, and time for all concerned to implement a useless control, when that money, staff and time could be used for real security.

Real security professionals HATE the term "security" being applied to the theatre at airports:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/tsa_security_ro_1.html

This, and many other measures implemented is NOT about security, it's about being seen to be doing something, no matter how ineffectual it actually is. It's a waste of our time and money. It's no wonder many folks now get the train or the bus rather than spend HOURS at an airport.

The physical security folks who dream up these ridiculous controls must bring their skills up to date. A decent threat model with defense in depth would screen passengers properly once, and not require secondary re-screening at gates, re-screening previously screened pax from connecting flights, and would have coped with the threat posed by the UK would be alleged bombers with no changes. Yet, we are continuously re-screened (badly) for no purpose and the changes made post the UK arrests make absolutely no sense to explosive experts and chemists alike.

Security theatre, pah!

Andrew (who is a security professional by day and too frequent pax)

hotmetal

29th Nov 2006, 11:03

eibun

29th Nov 2006, 11:18

DUB security give everything confiscated to a specific charity - well done boys and girls at DUB.

LHR and other airports should do the same and advertise the fact; it will make it easier on the PAX to accept.

zed3

29th Nov 2006, 13:43

hmmm...pot of marmalade with laxative mixed in ... ready to be confiscated . Oh I'm evil !!!!!!!!!!!!!

hotmetal

29th Nov 2006, 14:48

Somebody suggested shampoo bottle with Immac hair remover in. Very naughty.

carousel

30th Nov 2006, 15:36

IB4138

30th Nov 2006, 17:45

Mrs EW has become totally hacked off at wandering around in her bare/stocking feet across heaven knows what crap in order that her shoes may be x rayed. She asked at BFS for a pair of covers (a la shower cap ) for her feet...and was lectured about rules .

Similar lack of understanding at Manchester, when I requested a shoe horn to get my shoes back on.

They also would not answer as to how often the carpets were cleaned and what steps are taken to prevent the passing on of foot disorders?

radeng

4th Dec 2006, 12:34

>Mrs EW has become totally hacked off at wandering around in her bare/stocking feet across heaven knows what crap in order that her shoes may be x rayed<
I understand the Immigration union rep at LGW complained for exactly that reason and so they started providing plastic foot coverings. Lack of foot coverings could possibly lead an interesting claim for compensation because of a Health and Safety failure to protect the public. Wonder if a complaint to the HSE would get taken up?

Globaliser

15th Jan 2007, 14:23

Putting one bag in another bag will make it that much harder for the underpaid and overworked screening staff to make out dangerous objects. These folks rely on the machine highlighting suspicious objects, and the more objects in a bag, the worse it gets. The XRay screening devices look for molecular weights and particular object edges. When they find them, they are highlighted in different colors. The screeners mostly look for the colors - this is why people seem to occasionally get through with dangerous objects.OK, so maybe you might like to answer the question I posed:-

How many bags per person do you think the security screeners should have to look at?

Curious Pax

15th Jan 2007, 14:37

In that sense, does it matter? Security look at a steady stream of bags, and whether it is 100 bags generated by 100 people, or 40 doesn't make any difference. IF passengers were trained to be prepared for the 1 bag rule before leaving home, then you could argue a beneficial impact on queuing time (possibly). Other than that leave it to the airlines, who have much more interest in restricting the overall quantity of hand baggage due to the storage/safety constraints in the cabin.

Globaliser

15th Jan 2007, 15:48

In that sense, does it matter? Security look at a steady stream of bags, and whether it is 100 bags generated by 100 people, or 40 doesn't make any difference.But if security can only look at 100 bags per minute, then it's the difference between processing 100 passengers per minute or 40 passengers per minute. So yes, it does matter.

flyingfemme

15th Jan 2007, 16:57

How many bags per person do you think the security screeners should have to look at?
As many as the airline will let me carry on. I am the customer. I paid for the ticket and the extra "security" charges.

If there aren't enough people to do the screening in a suitable timeframe then they will have to hire some more.

skydriller

15th Jan 2007, 17:21

But if security can only look at 100 bags per minute, then it's the difference between processing 100 passengers per minute or 40 passengers per minute. So yes, it does matter.

And this is my problem as a pax?

No, its the airport that should be speeding up the screening process by adding more security points, or even manning those that are already there would help in most airports....:rolleyes:

Alternatively we could go back to sensible security checks everywhere.....but thats just far too sensible isnt it, especially with all the money to be made from "security".:ugh: :ugh:

Globaliser

16th Jan 2007, 15:11

No, its the airport that should be speeding up the screening process by adding more security points, or even manning those that are already there would help in most airports....:rolleyes: For sure, that would be better. We can all agree on that.

But while we aren't being offered that option, we have the current rules. Are these rules "senseless", "pointless", "meaningless" (as so many people keep on ranting)? No, of course they aren't: They make absolute sense given the limitations which the airports are (rightly or wrongly) working under.

If we're going to criticise, let's criticise the true targets rather than taking kneejerk and wrong potshots at mere symptoms of the real problem.

AUTOGLIDE

16th Jan 2007, 16:18

It's the way the individual airport deals with it. In a proper civilised country, like Germany, you go to FRA or MUC and see scanners in double figures, all manned and working...and barely a queue in sight. You go through the checks and be done with it. In stupid backward countries, like the UK and USA, pax are expected to stand in silly queues behind mobile barriers like at the post office.
My companies solution? Amazing how effective video conferencing can be.

The Red Max

24th Jan 2007, 18:09

Travelling today at a major UK airoport, I went through search expecting to be handed a plastic bag for liquids etc and was astonished when I was told I had to purchase a clear plastic bag for 50p, what next?

zed3

25th Jan 2007, 06:21

Last Sunday booked on BACON from Manchester back to Dusseldorf , 1715 dep. Around 1615 the BA was cancelled ( around 10 pax , suspicious to me that and not the first time ) However , we were put on the 1855 Lufthansa . This meant going from the BA terminal to Terminal 1 . I returned the duty free perfume to the shop and asked if they would get it to Terminal 1 for me - no problem . The 3 tins of shortbread and box of winegums I could take with me , I was told . So downstairs to arrivals with passport (!) through immigration (!) and then to the BA ticket desk for the endorsment . After checking-in with Lufthansa went to pre-security . "Only one bag" . I explained it was Duty free just purchased and flight cancelled , etc . "Only one bag" . after he could see I was not going to give up he let me go to the line . Here again I got "only one bag" line . Again I had to show that I wanted a little common sense to be seen and eventually got through and picked up my perfume ! What a kerfuffle and what a bunch of parrots without any common sense . When will this sort of thing be sorted out by someone ? This must happen frequently , why isn't there a plan of action ?

skydriller

26th Jan 2007, 16:03

I have been avoiding UK airports for business travel whenever possible, but have on occasion had to transit. As a frequent traveller I feel I'm pretty good at knowing what is OK and not for carry-on through security and have my act together etc for passing through X-ray machines, all taken in my stride.

Yesterday I had the mis-fortune to fly home out of Gatwick with the family after a big family get-together at the weekend.

We duely checked in on the internet, and on arriving we went to the BA fast bag drop......My definition of fast is not a 35 minute wait in line, the guy there looked hassled, decide not to joke about it with him...I suspect he has heard it from everyone else based on the comments as we waited.

Now wehead off and wait in line for pre-security. Hand over drink bottle, no probs. Then discover we apparently have too many bags between us. Point out that this is exactly how we flew in 5 days ago, no actually one bag less. As in the title of the thread, Mrs SD's hand bag is apparently her hand baggage allowance, so with french mutterings she attempts to stuff into other bag, success - kind of... Oh, but that child booster seat (now required by law in the UK, remember!) is considered as my hand baggage allowance, and I have a laptop bag. SD junior at this point is asking/whining for a drink, point out nice man has just taken it, can we get it back for a minute.... err, not sure. SD junior really going for it now (good lad!!) and gets drink back to finish in front of nice man. Argue about child seat, pointing out website says different for buggies etc, and my bag is a laptop bag....begrudgingly allowed booster seat & laptop bag.

Arrive at security X-ray machine. I remove laptop. Mrs SD now asked to remove handbag from bag?!?! All coats off, shoes & belts etc. SD junior doesnt want favorite bear to go through X-ray machine, eventually he concedes if he can see it 'go through the tunnel', but isnt happy. Junior and Mrs SD through OK, I get a 'beep'.. With all the goings on with Junior I forget wallet and keys in pocket - of all the basics!!

Arrive airside, and I can assure you the stress levels in the family are high.

Despite arriving nearly 2 hours before flight departure, Aircraft is now boarding so head off to gate asap. Get to gate, and greeted by BA girl, first obviously friendly/cheerfull person since arriving in airport. Cabin crew onboard are similar, cheerful despite imminant strike action next week.

I dont consider I did anything differently to any other normal family flying somewhere for a holiday, but the experience was totaly different to when I fly for work, and we only have SD jr, not 3 or 4 kids. I am NEVER flying with my family again to the UK, we will drive in the future. As for trips further afield, how in gods name do you find the space to bring stuff needed for entertaining multiple kids on a flight to the USA or even to Austrailia? It must be a complete nightmare!!

Regards, SD..

lexxity

26th Jan 2007, 19:42

As for trips further afield, how in gods name do you find the space to bring stuff needed for entertaining multiple kids on a flight to the USA or even to Austrailia? It must be a complete nightmare!!

The answer to that is very creative handbaggage packing. We took a trolley bah, his change bag and one other toy bag. We managed to cram in a change of clothes for baby and underwear for us, several toys, favourite blanket, calpol, food, nappies, wipes, nappy sacks, change mat, water (for the baby), nightclothes for the baby and other essential bits and bats. It was a total nightmare when we took Lexx Jr. to the US in November. Taste this, open that, scan the buggy, jackets off, shoes off!!! OH MY GOD! We took his carseat for use onboard and had no problem taking it as handbaggage. (Except the weight.)

SXB

26th Jan 2007, 23:40

SD
I've travelled with my wife and kids 3 times over the last 2 months to the UK and can sympathise with you, the last time I took the tunnel, it's less hassle. Continental airports seem to exercise flexability with regard to hand baggage, especially for those with children. Because, after all, what does it matter ? They check everything and most european airports provide sufficient numbers of security staff and lanes, unlike in the UK.

My wife is also French, her English is pretty awful so she speaks to the UK security staff in French, fortunately they don't understand a word she says, which is better for all concerned....

Eaglestar7

27th Jan 2007, 07:25

"The two jars were binned by security (no doubt to be retrieved later),....."

Hmmm... an interesting point; are all of the items confiscated destroyed or are they now "perks of the job"? Will the marmalade end up on the table in the security operatives restroom being spread by the confiscated penknives?!

Working in Aviation Security I would gladly spend valued time smashing your bottles of confiscated items having been asked "I bet you'll be retrieving that for yourself later", but unfortunately the airport authority don't allow us to do that.

Why on earth people are still taking things like marmalade onto the aircraft when they quite clearly don't need them for the flight is beyond me. Basically it's your own bloody fault if you haven't read the notices throughout the terminal and in national newspapers.

As far as the 1 bag rule goes. I spoke to a gentleman from the DfT last week. He said it is up to the airport whether or not this rule is enforced, but he said if it isn't people wont be going far come the summer. This is because the previous way of doing things, airlines were allowing people to carry as many as four bags per person. So over the course of the day this is the equivalent to tripling the number of passengers.

The airport scanners have a load capacity. (a bit like slots for landing aircraft) If the scanner can take up to 300 bags per hour, then that's 300 people with the 1 bag rule, or 100 people with 3 bags. The choice is yours, queue for an hour this summer with your 3 bags or reduce your load and get through in 15 - 25 minutes.

Mods polite request, please can this finger pointing about security officers taking confiscate items home be stopped. Without reasonable cause for these claims it must be regarded as slander.

skydriller

27th Jan 2007, 08:45

My wife is also French, her English is pretty awful so she speaks to the UK security staff in French, fortunately they don't understand a word she says, which is better for all concerned....

:D :D That made me giggle, because unfortunately mine speaks perfect English....But is very french in her vocal condemnation of stupidity.....

Continental airports seem to exercise flexability with regard to hand baggage, especially for those with children. Because, after all, what does it matter ? They check everything and most european airports provide sufficient numbers of security staff and lanes, unlike in the UK.

I think this is what annoyed Mrs SD the most, It was OK on the flight out, but major hassle on the flight back....it is a UK problem, not an airline travel problem - and from other comments we heard it wasnt just us that noticed.

Basically it's your own bloody fault if you haven't read the notices throughout the terminal and in national newspapers. As far as the 1 bag rule goes. I spoke to a gentleman from the DfT last week. He said it is up to the airport whether or not this rule is enforced, but he said if it isn't people wont be going far come the summer.

Eaglestar,

As I said in my previous post, I'm a frequent traveller, Im English, I know the rules, and even I got caught out with the familly......now see this from the point of view of a foriegner who is visiting or even just transiting. Can you see how awful our country looks to such a person? God help someone who doesnt understand English...

The Dft man says "Poeple wont be going far come summer". Yes he is right, we will not be flying, we will drive/tunnel/ferry to visit family next time - and they wont be flying to visit us either. Now multiply that by everyone else that gets pissed off and wont come to the UK again for pleasure, then add those that choose not to transit the UK because its too much hassle (Im in that group whenever possible already!). To my mind, the airlines MUST be sufferring as a result, as will UK plc eventually.

Regards, SD..

Final 3 Greens

27th Jan 2007, 09:16

As far as the 1 bag rule goes. I spoke to a gentleman from the DfT last week. He said it is up to the airport whether or not this rule is enforced, but he said if it isn't people wont be going far come the summer.

Its time that the airports increased their flow rates, as they have done through most of Europe.

This argument is just stupid and typical of the cr@p country that the UK has become - negative thinking.

Had a look at the emigration numbers recently?

Eaglestar7

27th Jan 2007, 09:33

1. Its time that the airports increased their flow rates, as they have done through most of Europe.
2. Had a look at the emigration numbers recently?
1A. We can all say that increased scanners and security staff may ease the problem however, this will in turn increase the cost burden on the individual airports concerned. If airlines and passengers alike are not willing to foot the bill what do we do, make the government pay? That would increase taxes wouldn't it?
2A. Don't worry anyway because with all the immigration your local airport will have plentiful numbers of staff come the summer supplied by the former Soviet Eastern Block working for the minimum wage. So if you think things are bad now then watch this space! Oh and are they who they say they are?

CHIVILCOY

27th Jan 2007, 10:30

Arrived in Terminal 1 from Terminal 4 last week through Flight Connections Centre - chaos, everyone stuffing bags into bags some people let through with two bags some not,water that had been issued on the plane taken off us.Wife not allowed through so crams handbag into roller bag I cram laptop into my rollerbag wife covers carry bag which is full of goodies bought on the plane with jacket and manages to get through with me following behind.

After that debacle proceeded to the security - big queues, only two scanners occupied at 1500 on a Friday out of I think six?
People with connections were panicking, husbands arguing with wives, kids screaming,grown men crying having to give up bottles of malt whisky.

Come on government give us a break? How come we travelled seven thousand miles with two previous connections without any of this hassle?

At least my fellow pax were spared having to smell my feet - was told to keep my shoes on.;)

SXB

27th Jan 2007, 10:56

1A. We can all say that increased scanners and security staff may ease the problem however, this will in turn increase the cost burden on the individual airports concerned. If airlines and passengers alike are not willing to foot the bill what do we do, make the government pay? That would increase taxes wouldn't it?
2A. Don't worry anyway because with all the inbound migration your local airport will have plentiful numbers of staff come the summer supplied by the former Soviet Eastern Block working for the minimum wage. So if you think things are bad now then watch this space! Oh and are they who they say they are?

Eaglestar

For point 1A of course increasing the amount of scanners and security staff at certain times and points will improve the problem. I don't know if you get around much but waiting for 2 hours to go through security in a European airport is something unique to the UK, this does not happen on the continent. Some people have suggested that BAA are a bunch of clowns, a quick look at their last financial results proves otherwise, showing an operating profit of £710 million. BAA operate inadequate security because, for the moment, they can get away with it by just saying SECURITY/9-11/London bombings, just like they try and justify anything in the US by saying SECURITY.

BAA has sufficient resources already to provide efficient security cleareance procedures at it's airports, why they don't provide such a service is debatable but, again, they probably feel they can get away with it given the present climate.

For 2A I'm not sure what you mean with such a sweeping statement, are you saying any body from a former soviet union country is not to be trusted ?

I'm with you on the subject of security staff stealing confiscated items, I don't believe that happens on a regular basis and if it does happen the occurence is probably no greater than theft committed by staff in other organisations, like retailing for example (where staff steal more items than shoplifters)

Eaglestar7

27th Jan 2007, 11:06

Come on government give us a break? How come we travelled seven thousand miles with two previous connections without any of this hassle?

Yes relax things, then when someone slips through with a liquid bomb it will still be the fault of us 'nasty jobsworth security officers'.:ugh:

1 bag
No liquids - includes pastes, gels, creams & solid mixtures unless 100ml or less in a resealable plastic bag.How simple is that, what is all the fuss? Come on people, this is for your safety. Yes, it is an inconvenience but the minute something happened - someone has to be the can carrier. If you were responsible for carrying the can would you relax things, seriously?

This is probably what people would have said if anything had happend prior to the liquid rules.

"too little too late"
"a government that didn't live up to it's responsibilities"
"why didn't they do something sooner"

?

CHIVILCOY

27th Jan 2007, 11:13

Eaglestar7

27th Jan 2007, 11:30

Eaglestar wrote;

"No liquids - includes pastes, gels, creams & solid mixtures unless 100ml or less in a plastic resealable bag"

What's the difference between a one litre bottle and ten 100ml bottles?

Nonsense.

Ok so we relax things - Chivilcoy

Can we have a 'name and address supplied', so when the **** hits the fan we know who to point the finger at.:hmm: I notice no answer to my other points then?

SXB

27th Jan 2007, 11:36

I notice no answer to my other points then?

Eaglestar
I'd say you're the one not answering valid points raised by other posters

mathers_wales_uk

27th Jan 2007, 12:16

I used to work as a Check-In agent at Cardiff Airport, even though it is a small airport with 2m passengers a year, we still have the same problem as the larger airport. Passengers turning up at the security point with more than one bag, bag larger than specified, large liquids in bag. To be honest theres signs at Check-In, boxes to measure the size of your bag at every check-in but a lot of passengers decide that they will risk it and try and sneak it through.

They go up to security then get refused, so their back down at check-in to check-in the luggage thats been refused. They then go back up to security, probably get their hand bag searched because they got liquids in there and not in a seethrough plastic bag.

Then by that time, all passengers are on board the a/c, dispatchers allready looking for their bag and theres a 60% chance of them missing their flight because they didn't listen in the first place.

I see this very often, and even though all the guidance is given on the airline website/ airport website / check-In desks / security point peope still don't understand it.

And why does passengers insist on turning up at Security Central Search when the flight has been called, even though their security number on their boarding card is 010?

:ok:

Glad im a A/C Dispatcher now

SXB

27th Jan 2007, 12:33

So it's all the customers fault ? We've already established on this thread that the limit of 1 item of hand luggage is something being imposed by the airport and not the DfT. One of the reasons some passengers turn up with more than one piece is because the rest of Europe allows this and it is not, as you infer in your post, because they are stupid.

You're the second person on this thread, working at an airport, to infer that it's all customers fault.

Just take a moment to sit back and remember why your airport exists.

CHIVILCOY

27th Jan 2007, 13:01

Eaglestar 7

My comments are not aimed at you nor any security personnel working at our airports.I have found them to be mostly charming working under terrible conditions.

My views of how stupid some of the rules are mostly aimed at whoever brought them out in the first place the D of T.?

mathers_wales_uk

You have to remember that not all travellers are seasoned professionals and with the rule changes it's not surprising people get confused or "try it on".

The main confusion is at airports where people are connecting from one flight to another and the fact that regulations vary from one country with the UK seemingly making their own rules.
I would like to know how the duty free shops are doing cause from what I have seen nobody is buying.

SXB

27th Jan 2007, 13:02

I cannot speak for BAA. Security makes no money and companies will never invest in something that makes not money.

Agreed.

The point was how does a person from Eastern Europe gain CTC clearance with 10 years of history?

Very good point. If their history cannot be checked then they shouldn't be employed. That said we now have, a degree, of free movement of labour within the EU so points like this need to be agreed between the member states. I don't know how clearance is obtained but if it's simply a check of the police computer it probably won't show up any covictions for someone coming from Latvia.

Globaliser

27th Jan 2007, 15:34

What's the difference between a one litre bottle and ten 100ml bottles?A: You can't get ten 100ml bottles into the plastic bag.

lexxity

27th Jan 2007, 18:22

Occasionaly it is the passengers fault because they do deliberately try it on, but for the most part it is not. People forget that they are carrying a tube of handcream or were in a hurry and forgot their plastic bag. What doesn't help is the jobsworths who instead of handing the passenger a clear bag, insist on sending the passenger back to check in, the check in agent going and fetching more plastic bags from the same security staff member, bagging the item up and sending said pax back. That is what is totally bonkers and drives pax and staff to distraction! Yes this does happen and regularly at MAN.

The other thing that is driving everyone mad is the total inconistency with which rules are applied. i.e. I passed through central search at work the other day behind a chap who was pulled up with solid stick (not a gel) deodorant he was giving a real dressing down, which is just embarrassing for everyone, for bringing something through which is now a liquid apparently. Guess what I had and have had in my bag for yonks?

A solid stick deodorant.

skydriller

27th Jan 2007, 18:31

You're the second person on this thread, working at an airport, to infer that it's all customers fault. Just take a moment to sit back and remember why your airport exists.
This was a point I was trying to make too, though not directing my comment at security individuals, rather to the UK airline industry. How many other than myself are trying to avoid flying to/through/from the UK?
Someone mentioned Duty Free - this is something I have not considered purchasing anywhere worldwide since the fluid rules were introduced, purely because there is no garantee you will be allowed to carry it on a connecting flight. If I didnt live in France where booze is pretty cheap I guess I probably would have tried by now though.
To those who maybe dont travel frequently, I can assure you that the rest of Europe is not like the UK.
Regards, SD..

CHIVILCOY

27th Jan 2007, 19:13

A: You can't get ten 100ml bottles into the plastic bag.

You can if there is two of you.

Final 3 Greens

27th Jan 2007, 19:49

EagleStar

As SXB says, 2 hour waits in Europe are pretty unknown outside the 2nd world country known as the UK.

Like <5 minutes this morning, at Orly, even though it was very busy, and that is in a regime that allows 2 pcs of hand baggage.

By the way, do you know the difference in meaning between the words EMIGRATION and IMMIGRATION?

SXB

27th Jan 2007, 21:51

Skydriller
How many other than myself are trying to avoid flying to/through/from the UK? I also now avoid transiting via the UK, at first I said I wouldn't change my travel habits simply because terrorists had targeted the UK but now I have. Transiting through LHR is now and extremely unpleasant experience.

EagleStar
You have to appreciate how those of us who live in continental Europe feel about transiting UK airports, we are subjected to ridculously long waits in the security queues which don't happen elsewhere in Europe. For example I regularly use FRA, one of the worlds major airports, yet never wait more than a few minutes to pass security.

My problem is not with the people who actually work in the security lanes but rather those who operate the airports, something is obviously not right. If an airport like FRA can run an efficient security operation then LHR and LGW should be able to do the same. As far as I know all three of those airports are operating under the same EU security directives.

What is your view on this ?

maxter

28th Jan 2007, 02:18

OK, so maybe you might like to answer the question I posed:-
How many bags per person do you think the security screeners should have to look at?

As many as the airline I am booked on deem safe as 'carry on' baggage. Simple I would have thought.

trouble is the whole security thing appears to be run by 'brainless pee wees' who have never heard of the KISS theory.

Final 3 Greens

28th Jan 2007, 07:45

Dear EagleStar

Why do you apparently think that I am an airline pilot? I am a consultant and frequent traveler, i.e. my airport insecurity fees pay for the system and as a customer I will say what I wish about poor service.

With the very greatest of respect, I don't get in thrall to the "we protect you" argument, because during the course of the year, I tend to (inadvertently) leave the odd swiss army knife in my hand luggage and it has never yet been found at a UK airport, only DUB and FRA (where they most graciously kept it in the office for me to collect the next time I arrived there.) Ergo the UK system has holes in it, so one cannot justify the longer wait by claiming more rigour.

Israeli security protects me, but that involves proper profiling by highly trained and capable individuals. It also takes considerable time and patience to endure, but the risk level justifies it.

So why do I keep "slagging", as you so eloquently phrase it?
Lets do the maths.

Last year I flew over 100 sectors, so lets say 100 to keep it simple.
If I have to wait for 10 minutes, which is about the normal experience, then in a year, I spend slightly more than 16.5 hours in a security queue. This is quite acceptable and a reasonable overhead to be expected when traveling.

If I take the typical time in the UK, which seems to be about 20 minutes, that means that I would spend 33 hours per year in the queue, which is not reasonable.

As to making a suggestion as what should be done - go to FRA ask them what they do and then copy it. They achieve significantly faster throughput, whilst accommodating my 2 pieces of hand luggage, when dealing with a very large volume of passengers.

flyingfemme

28th Jan 2007, 10:15

When all is said and done, we are the customers........... not "passengers"..... customers. We pay the wages and are entitled to respect. If we don't like the way we are being treated then we can vote with our feet.

Personally I haven't taken an airline flight since all this liquid/one carryon farce began. I don't need to travel nearly as often as I like to. Now that air travel has become such a PITA I am choosing not to. 1p fares notwithstanding.......

SXB

28th Jan 2007, 10:45

I would be interested to know if the security at the previously mentioned airports are run by companies or government agents

Eaglestar
FRA is owned and operated by Fraport AG which is a private sector company. The security staff are civilians. I'm not aware that their bag or body search ratios are different from UK airports, though they may be of course. What is noticeable at FRA is the number of security lanes, there are a lot of them and the number which are open is, always, directly related to the number of passengers travelling. That said, FRA isn't perfect, on a recent trip to Tbilisi I waited nearly 15 minutes in Terminal 2 to go through security but that's the exception.

At my local airport, SXB, they have different search ratios for different destinations. All boarding passes are checked at security and if you are travelling to the UK you will receive a body and bag search, no exceptions. The security staff at SXB are probably the most professional I've come across anywhere in the world, polite, efficient,thorough and all speaking at least 2 languages. Of course SXB is a small regional airport and cannot be compared to LHR, LGW or FRA.

As for civilians or government agents carrrying out security checks over my last few trips I've noticed that in Tbilisi, Belgrade, Yerevan, Kiev and Baku the security checks are done by police officers and not civilians. I'm not sure that this is done because it's believed they are better at performing security checks but more to do with the fact that these airports are government owned and they have access to Police services, probably, at zero cost. Also the countries I mentioned have very large police services, far more officers per head than in Germany and the UK. None of the airports I mentioned could be descibed as particularly well run....

Globaliser

28th Jan 2007, 15:03

You can if there is two of you.Then you need two people prepared to commit suicide instead of one.

fyrefli

28th Jan 2007, 16:37

During the immediate period after the last major security threat, we had a bag ratio of 100% regardless of what we had seen on the scanner. The body ratio was also 100% regardless of who alarmed the gate. So as you can imagine, the workload was enormous and the number of 'lanes' open have to be reduced to facilitate the correct procedure. No airport will ever pay for people to be sat around months on end just in case the search ratios return to 100%.

So, there we have it from the horse's mouth:

It's a sham
It's obvious to any intelligent passenger it's a sham
Cost is more important than any genuine benefit to security
Cost is more important than the people who in the end pay your wages because they're perceived as a captive audience
Both cost and rulesets are more important than giving the workers the time to meaningfully make judgements on what they're seeing

Furthermore:

Many airports within the UK are operated by G4S paying around £6.00 to £6.50 per hour. The security officers are often working 12 hour shifts with some starting as early as 3am.

Pay and conditions are so crap, even if the staff aren't so psychologically hampered by a system that imposes arbitrary quotas on something that is supposed to be decision-based, they're probably too knackered to make those decisions accurately in a pressure situation anyway.

And if it's such a pain to process two bags per passenger, why can't this laptop stay in its bag? (Yes, I know what the official answer is; no, you can't give mutually exclusive answers to different questions without intelligent people joining them back together again.)

heidelberg

28th Jan 2007, 17:27

(a) My home base is DUB, and it allows me bring separately - one cabin bag
PLUS my laptop.
(b) I fly to a UK airport and on my return flight my laptop must be placed
WITHIN my cabin bag before I am allowed entry into security area.
(c) Before I place my cabin bag on the scanning belt I am obliged to take my
laptop out and have it screened on its own.
(d) After my Cabin bag and laptop have been 'processed' I can now proceed through the terminal, airside with my cabin bag and laptop
as two separate items!!!
Where in the name of all that is good is the logic in this?
The UK authorities should wake up and realise many pax like me are refusing to transit LHR/LGW or any UK airport on long haul flights to Far East/Oz etc. In fact next month (Feb 14) I am flying to Oz and my one criteria was to book a flight that avoided UK airports - out and back.
Thank you Gulf Air who now fly DUB/SYD via BAH.
Travelling Business Class I can avail of GF's carry on baggage allowances. If I was traveling through a UK airport this would NOT be possible - am I correct in this assumption?

lexxity

28th Jan 2007, 18:20

Travelling Business Class I can avail of GF's carry on baggage allowances. If I was traveling through a UK airport this would NOT be possible - am I correct in this assumption?

Correct. :ugh: :ugh:

One more itty bitty little point, why is it when I am given a pat down and/or my bag searched whilst I am on duty am I always told that it is easier to "do me" than someone else? That's going to catch the terrorists. I understand that occasionally I will be required to be a pat down, but it is usually 3 out of 4 times that I pass through security. Where is the logic in that?

Final 3 Greens

28th Jan 2007, 20:29

Eaglestar

You are technically breaking the law by intentionally carrying a potential weapon regardless of its size.

What part of the word inadvertently are you you having trouble with?

From the Oxford Dictionary

inadvertent
· adj. not resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning.
– DERIVATIVES inadvertence n. inadvertency n. inadvertently adv.
Oh I forgot, you were not able to answer when asked to differentiate emigration and immigration.

I mustn't be too hard on you.

huge bins of guns

Words fail me :ugh:

Heidelberg

Where in the name of all that is good is the logic in this?

That's a good question - I honestly believe that the relevant people in the UK are either (a) totally detached from the coalface or (b) don't care about the self inflicted damage to the aviation business in the UK.

I've just booked a trip with several sectors in J class - it could have involved a change in London and used a UK carrier, but why should I restrict myself to 1 pc and a bootful of inconvenience, when I can take 2 in other airports, in compliance with EU regs? So the business has gone, once more, to a Middle Eastern carrier.

Of course, Eaglestar and co will tell you and me that we are taking a huge risk doing this.

SXB

28th Jan 2007, 21:25

If the airport in Europe has a lower bag ratio to search then this in tern would free up more staff for other duties such as operating an additional scanner. The ratios can vary from week to week in the UK and other times they can stay the same for many months depending on the information supplied to use from the DfT.Eaglestar
I'm not sure what the bag ratio to serach is at an airport like FRA actually is, on a a normal day, but, for sure it certainly isn't 1 in 4 for example, this is obvious from when you wait in line. They certainly are not checking anywhere near that.

One thing that's crystal clear though, the security guys at FRA are empowered to exercise discretion. people with kids are ignored when they have more than the allowed 2 bags. My experience in the UK is that security is not allowed to exercise any discretion at all, is that so ?