UK Airport Security

[busty bird]

What can we do to improve UK airport security?

Do you really think all the increased security measures brought in by the DfT over the last 6 months have done anything other than doubling staff work loads and the queues at most outbound controls across the UK!? As well as being a pain in the :mad: for staff and crews!

Another case of Airport Security being more about PR than actual security?

I'm not really sure what the answer is. . . .do you?:confused:

[Human Factor]

Double the numbers and double the pay. It may then attract people capable of doing the job.:ugh:

[busty bird]

Would a national homelands security be the answer to get this increase in pay and increase in numbers? Rather than leave it in the hands of the profit making private companies?

:confused:

[No_Speed_Restriction]

I think a big step forward would be passenger profiling (screw equal rights, lets start being realistic and deal with the issue).

[ShotOne]

we don't need any more numbers -and we certainly don't want security officers to be civil servants on final salary pensions that we'll have to fund.

A sensible and joined-up government security policy might be a starting point. We're sick of different rules at each airport. And why does the ban on liquids apply only to air travel? If there really is a threat, how come you can carry gallons of liquid aboard any bus, train or ship, no questions asked?

[No_Speed_Restriction]

one could easily misidentify the "different rules at different airports" scenario as "make up the rules as you go along". A good example is the "toothpaste knicking brigade" in MAN.

[rubik101]

I can't take 150ml of orange squash to flavour my free water through security but I am allowed to propel a missile with 20000 litres of kerosene in any direction I please. What sense is there in the security system that allows such ridiculous anomolies?

[busty bird]

I'm not sure about the idea of security officers being civil servants either, but how else are we going to get a consistant service / standard at all UK airports? It's never going to happen while private security companies are involved and it's up to the airports to 'interpret' the DfT regs - which seems to end up in them all doing totally differnt things!

For info Petition on the 10 Downing Street site...:)

javascript:ol('http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airportsecurity/');

[No_Speed_Restriction]

anomalies? No, its just the lack of screening, training and profiling (through no fault of the security personnel) which is allowing this to continue.

[busty bird]

"anomalies? No, its just the lack of screening, training and profiling (through no fault of the security personnel) which is allowing this to continue."

OK I get where your coming from - but is it not the governments responsibility to ensure the standards are maintained and developed?

PS did you know security officers have approx 5 seconds to screen each bag that goes through an x-ray. . . .and airports still aren't happy with the pax throughput!?:\

[No_Speed_Restriction]

To be honest, its the government's lack of foresight and "burrying its head in the sand hoping the problem will just go away" that got us into this mess to begin with.

[pacer142]

Would a national homelands security be the answer to get this increase in pay and increase in numbers?


I think the example from the US has proven the answer to that to be a resounding "no". Most security staff in the UK and mainland Europe seem fairly friendly if just as strict.

[paull]

There are lots of passenger who fly infrequently but the average "Bum on seat" is a frequent flier. I have been flying an average of 4 per week for over 20years. Sure, I could flip anytime, I could be a sleeper serving my 25yrs of good behaviour planning for the big one but in reality if you could pull up my travel profile (not my racial profile) and be sure it is me then you can transfer a lot of your effort elsewhere because I am just not high risk.
I remember getting a hard time leaving Israel once, I blew my top in the end and said "I have only got one small bag, why do you not just take it apart!", the reply was "Our aim is not to keep weapons off planes, our aim is to keep terrorists off planes".
In my case the hard time came about not because of skin colour but because I was a Brit living in France, travelling back via Zurich, instead of the Paris flight, Kuwaiti stamps in passport, just met with one of their professors who computes reliability of weapons systems etc., etc., I think they were right to pick me frankly!

[172driver]

"Our aim is not to keep weapons off planes, our aim is to keep terrorists off planes".

Exactly - and this is what the politically correct tossers running our government (well, not only ours.....:( ) deliberately forget. :ugh:

[Wannabe1974]

I just thought - the Govt could easily kill 2 birds with one stone! Passenger profiling could easily be made to get rid of a large percentage of air travellers. Hey presto! No need for "green" taxes!
They should pay me for the stuff I come up with...:8

[wee one]

Its all a pointless exercise. No one else gives a sh1t. I have just travelled allover the world and only had to show any liquids at LHR outbound. Noone else , gives a sh1t. I was half as crew and jhalf as pax. I got more grief as crew ex uk than pax inbound to uk.

No one else will green tax pax to fly either. No one else gives a sh1t.

In case Anyone missed my point as pax we are shafted , as crew we are doubly shafted as noone else gives a sh1t.
Pointless starting threads about it. We should all just down tools for a day at a time until its changed.
Oh and yank pilots can jumpseat home from the uk on production of their ud. Go figure

[Airbrake]

Last week my neighbour flew back from India with a nice view of the cockpit thanks to the door being wide open most of the flight. Even he could see the irony when I told him about all of us in the UK with our locked cockpit doors, and no explosive water through security shambles!

[niknak]

How's about this for an alternative?

1) Be as nice and polite as you can possible can be.
2) Do everything asked of you.
3)As you are queing at the gate, be grateful that in your job, u don't have to put up with as much **** as the operatives who are screening you do.
4) Remember that you are not important, you are just an ordinary person flying on an ordinary flght and consequently, are subject to whatever Government Restrictions pertain at the time.
5) Remember that, if these restrictions were not in place and your flight was hi jacked, you'd be the first to squeal and litigate like a stuck pig!
6) Remember, that you are a very ordinary airline user, you deserve no worse than the best security restrictions for the benefit of yourdelf and your fellow passengers.

[spud]

Hmm - a Spin Doctor!

Can't think somehow that convincing ourselves that everything is lovely will improve things.

[ground_star]

How can we improve it?

Perhaps stop pax who set of the explosive trace detector? Instead of filling in a wee form & letting them through.

Madness

[FE Hoppy]

1) Be as nice and polite as you can possible can be.
2) Do everything asked of you.
3)As you are queuing at the gate, be grateful that in your job, u don't have to put up with as much **** as the operatives who are screening you do.
4) Remember that you are not important, you are just an ordinary person flying on an ordinary flight and consequently, are subject to whatever Government Restrictions pertain at the time.
5) Remember that, if these restrictions were not in place and your flight was hi jacked, you'd be the first to squeal and litigate like a stuck pig!
6) Remember, that you are a very ordinary airline user, you deserve no worse than the best security restrictions for the benefit of yourself and your fellow passengers.

1) Why? I will be as nice and polite as I normally am, no more no less.
2) No. If some bint who is payed to give me a plastic bag starts to pretend to be anything more than a vending machine I have every right to tell her where to go.
3)Why should i be grateful for the rewards of my own hard work? I earned every penny that pays for my flight.
4)WRONG! I am the reason everyone at the airport has a job.
5)WRONG! I would most likely be dead. The sham that pretends to be security will not stop anyone who really wants to hi jack the flight.
6)WRONG! I am the customer. Without me there is no airline.

I would like a voluntary vetting process. After 12 years in the military followed by 8 years in the airline world I now train the pilots who control the 1000tonnes of aluminium bomb that takes me back and forth weekly. I am not a threat and if the most qualified security person in the land would like to sit with me for a while and disscuss things I would be very happy. IF at the end of it I could bypass the mongs who make my life hell every time I travel through MAN.

You Know Who You Are!!!!!

[paull]

I set off the explosives sensor in Zurich once, after they vacuumed my laptop.
of course since I did not look like a terrorist they told me exactly what type of tablets I might be carrying that would leave those traces on the keyboard!

I was not carry those tablets, but you can be sure that any terrorist would.
It is the difference between the security folk who wave you through when your obvious metal belt set the alarm off and those you make you take the belt off and try again.

I have got one of these stories for every security feature you might want to discuss. My point - if a frequent flier can get around today's security then we cannot hope to stop a determined attacker with what we are doing today.
It needs a re-think. Of course everyone is working terribly hard but are we not too busy chopping down trees to sharpen our axes?

[Cuillin]

QUOTE:
1) Be as nice and polite as you can possible can be.
2) Do everything asked of you.
3)As you are queing at the gate, be grateful that in your job, u don't have to put up with as much **** as the operatives who are screening you do.
4) Remember that you are not important, you are just an ordinary person flying on an ordinary flght and consequently, are subject to whatever Government Restrictions pertain at the time.
5) Remember that, if these restrictions were not in place and your flight was hi jacked, you'd be the first to squeal and litigate like a stuck pig!
6) Remember, that you are a very ordinary airline user, you deserve no worse than the best security restrictions for the benefit of yourdelf and your fellow passengers.

I tried to apply all this last week as I queued for 1h45min to go through security at South Terminal, Gatwick.

I also tried to apply this advice as I stepped around the 80 year-old lady who had collapsed whilst in the queue.

The country is going to the dogs and it is all total a**e covering by UK politicians.

[llondel]

paull:
It is the difference between the security folk who wave you through when your obvious metal belt set the alarm off and those you make you take the belt off and try again.I set off the metal detector in a US federal building once, the guard told me to step back and try again, having described how to stop it tripping on my belt without having to remove said belt. I'm sure the technique would work for other small metallic items, but I bet he wouldn't give that advice now.

[AMF]

I do whatever I can to stay the he11 away from BA, or any airline combination that transits through the UK because of their illogical, draconian, across-the-board 1 piece of carry-on luggage policy.

Nobody's ever explained why, in addition to a computer case or purse that can fit under one's seat, does a garment or small roll-on that can easily fit into overhead pose a "security threat"? (because if you question this policy you're informed it's "for your security, sir").

Why can someone board a BA flight in the US, checked-in by BA personnel, with a personal item and a carry-on and fly to the UK, but upon arriving can't transit out without checking one of them? What magically changes enroute?
More patronizing "it's for your security" answers is all you'll get. They act as if you should feel fortunate to be standing in one of their 90-minute quues..queues..qusu....lines.

Also, they seem to have to resources to hire an inordinate amount of employees who do nothing more than wander around the lines barking orders and chastizing those that make up their captive audience.

Yet, once you get past security with your 1 bag at LHR or LGW, there loom large signs advertising the fact that you can now carry on anything you buy in the duty-free shops onto the plane. So someone's duty-free perfume (or whatever) purchase poses no threat, but a bag containing a change of clothes that I'd love to have at my destination when the famously-bad baggage handlers in the UK lose my luggage does?

And anyone who's been in a security line knows that they're slow NOT due to people putting 2 bags on the conveyer to be x-rayed instead of 1, but waiting for people (who've been in line for 30 minutes) who wait until they're at the front of the line to decide to empty their pockets of phones, change, belt, etc. etc......as if the requirement to do so was sprung on them as a big suprise.

I'll take the occasional, surly US screener anyday to a policy that patronizingly treats you like a peasant one moment, then attempts to entice you to shop and carry-on whatever you buy from them the next.

[cirrus01]

Reading these comments on here makes me wonder how much worse it has to get before the masses stop flying .:confused:

I can see that Joe Public will put up with it for their once a year jaunt to the sun, but for the frequent flyers must be asking themselves " Do I really want to do this any more ? "

Most people on these pages have a vested intrest as to how this security issue is being handled and it is worrying that in the main it is confused and shambolic. Grrr.....

[pacer142]

I tried to apply all this last week as I queued for 1h45min to go through security at South Terminal, Gatwick.


And that is indeed a national disgrace.

I use either LCY, BHX or LTN and AMS twice weekly, and have used other airports from time to time. In none of the above four have I *ever* encountered a queue of that length (nor indeed in LHR or LGW, but that's only about 3 times and I was probably lucky, and the queues were still not insignificant).

15 minutes is the *most* that people should have to wait. If that isn't feasible, either employ more staff or cut the number of flights by law if necessary.

[pacer142]

And anyone who's been in a security line knows that they're slow NOT due to people putting 2 bags on the conveyer to be x-rayed instead of 1, but waiting for people (who've been in line for 30 minutes) who wait until they're at the front of the line to decide to empty their pockets of phones, change, belt, etc. etc......as if the requirement to do so was sprung on them as a big suprise.


In all seriousness here is a suggestion for how to speed it all up, 2 bags or otherwise (and that was the excuse for that policy, incidentally).

Before you get to the screening *queue*, provide a supply of thick-ish re-usable (for environmental purposes) clear plastic carrier bags, plus the toiletries bags if practicable. Provide a row of tables at this point, a floating member of staff for advice and a set of notices roughly thus:-

"Remove your shoes and place in one clear bag. If you are wearing a coat remove this and place in another clear bag. If you are carrying a laptop or other large electrical equipment, place this in a third bag. Place all items from your pockets in a fourth bag. Present all these bags plus your one carry-on luggage item to the security screener at the X-ray machine. Anyone not complying to this notice, or anyone found with non-permitted items as shown, will be refused security screening and will be told to return to this table to complete this then the back of the queue, regardless of its length".

I've long thought this would be a good idea, as it's far easier to carry a load of clear plastic carrier bags than it is a big pile of trays (which is what it's getting to). I also find that random shoe screening is slower than just doing everyone's and being done with it (I commented this to the BHX screener a couple of weeks ago when I asked when getting ready if he wanted my shoes, and he said he wasn't allowed to decide until he'd put my bags on the X-ray. We both agreed this was silly and I just gave him my shoes anyway).

[Single Spey]

Random, in fact any, shoe screening is a health hazard. Why should I have to walk across a floor in my socks that is A) contaminated by the dirt from everyone elses shoes, and B) is not disinfected?

And AFAIK it is only done because the bottom couple of inches of the screening macjines doesn't do any screening. So why not put a small ramp in the arch that you can stand on?

The most effective means of detecting explosives etc is to use trained sniffer dogs. I would suggest that in every terminal from the check in area all through the departure lounges there should be a number of trained handlers and dogs, to replace the security check procedure. And before anyone says that this would allow passengers to carry sharp items on board - I thought the whole point of locked cockpit doors was to deny control of the aircraft to anyone who posessed any weapons and threatened the cabin crew. Does this mean that cockpit doors are not as safe as advertised?

[pacer142]

Random, in fact any, shoe screening is a health hazard. Why should I have to walk across a floor in my socks that is A) contaminated by the dirt from everyone elses shoes, and B) is not disinfected?


Frankly I think you are being a bit paranoid. I've been flying twice weekly for the best part of 8 months now, and the shoe business has been going on for most of it. I don't appear to have caught any nasty diseases as a result, nor do I think anyone else will.

It is inconvenient, yes, but I actually find it more inconvenient getting my laptop out of my bag, or having a pile of about 4 trays to screen (hence why I suggested replacing the trays with plastic bags).


And AFAIK it is only done because the bottom couple of inches of the screening macjines doesn't do any screening. So why not put a small ramp in the arch that you can stand on?


Metal detectors, which is what the "offending" detectors are at least in the UK and Europe where the "blow" type machines are pretty much unknown, do not detect explosives, wherever on/in the body they may be concealed. They detect metal. The shoe carnival isn't intended to stop people putting knives in shoes, else they probably would do what you suggest. It's to stop people putting explosives in them.

It is worth noting that (before this all started) I used to have a pair of hiking shoes which had metal framework in the sole. They'd alarm so often that I just ended up putting them straight on the belt to avoid the hassle. Thus, some metal detectors *do* detect metal at the bottom. But that's not the point.


I thought the whole point of locked cockpit doors was to deny control of the aircraft to anyone who posessed any weapons and threatened the cabin crew. Does this mean that cockpit doors are not as safe as advertised?


Unless planes were built whereby there was no physical access from the cockpit to the cabin, which might itself be a safety issue in terms of what happens if the pilot/copilot became ill or needed for some reason to check something out in the cabin, the door is only as strong as the human with the code/key to access it, or to influence its access. Thus, even if it were 6" thick steel with 10 locks, 5 keys going to the cabin crew and 5 to random passengers/air marshals/whatever, there may still be a way to get in.

Thus, in that sense, they are indeed not impenetrable. I don't think anyone's advertised that they were; they are just more secure than the old type which could easily be kicked in by one not particularly large person.

[PAXboy]

At LGW North, last Thursday, they had some scanner queues removing shoes and some not. I picked the queue that did not! The operative said that the DoT required them to scan one third of all shoes and they had found it easier to do it by queue. "It's difficult enough to get people to remove their shoes - more so if we had to pick every third person in each queue." So, watch out for which queue you are being directed into.

As to signs and prep tables Pacer 142: Yes, this is a another very sensible idea that will not work. You might get the regulars and the observant reading the signs and following instructions but that would be no more than a third or half of the pax. All the rest need to be told what to do. Nothing personal, 142, I just don't think they will read and comprehend. Also, those who do not speak English as a first language will rely upon watching what others are told to do.

Regarding scanners, I have long thought that the scanner on departure at Isle of Man was set to a more sensitive level but the staff deny that, "Our scanner is calibrated to be the same as every other scanner at UK airports." Last Sunday (with shoes off) it noted my belt. No other scanner at any other airport picks out the small metal buckle on that belt. As I removed it and went back through the arch, I commented to the operative that their scanner was set more sensitively than any others. He just smiled.

Official edict: This level of nonsense will continue until it is replaced by a higher level of nonsense. :(:(

[boofhead]

Niknak and others are missing something important, demonstrated by the recent smuggling of weapons and drugs onto an airplane from FLA to PR; nothing that is being done by the security Nazis has any effect on hijacking or airplane mayhem. It is Airport security, not Airplane security that they do. Unless the focus is changed, it will continue to be a complete waste of time and energy, and continue to drive people away from flying without making us any safer.

There has never been a case where airport security has caught a terrorist, and given the way they work, they never will.

[busty bird]

I have never read such a load of :mad: about improving the current security systems!! Very disappointing!
:ugh:

As for the whole idea of putting tables and more notices up - believe me this does NOT work - passengers are not interested in reading notices and they think they know it all already, when in fact they know very little of the actual restrictions.:ugh:

My problem is with the restrictions that were brought in by the DfT - as far as I can gather as a knee jerk reaction to the discovery of what may well have been a very real threat to flights leaving the UK.
The restrictions were brought in with very little if any thought to the practical and operation impact it would have on security areas, security staff work loads, and other airport staff for that matter - as well as the impact on the staff and crew and passengers being subjected to all the complicated restrictions which the DfT foolishly thought would be 'better' than a total ban on liquids.

I still maintain the problem is with the DfT and the fact that each and every airport is interpreting the regulations differently and enforcing them differently - which leads to the conflicts and confusions for all!

Perfect example is the shoe screening - I know for a fact that MAN tried to simplify the procedures some months ago to prevent a slow up of the pax throughput by designating dedicated 'shoe lanes'. They were promptly informed by the DfT that this was not compliant as someone could bypass the checks if they wanted... Yet as mentioned it is still being tried at other airports - there is just such a lack of joined up thinking between the airports and by the DfT who seem happy to let the airports 'make it up as they go along' until they decide they don't like it and they threaten deficiancy notices unless it is changed.:=

I point the finger with DfT and the goverment for not assisting the airports by consulting them in the first place. . . and then not making the restrictions clear to ensure all airport are keeping to same standard.

So how do we get to the DfT??:rolleyes:

[Vulcan55]

I have read with great interest the comments and ideas that people have made on this thread.

It has infact lead to me posting my first comment on pprune, so here I go....:)

The original concept behind security was as a deterant and not a fool proof system of total security- this being back in the 70s when aircraft were being hijacked on a regular basis across the world.
The idea that a security staff force which only has the basics in training would deter a determined terrorist, I agree is farcical.

The problem is that since the Department for Transport employed ex tax inspectors, VAT inspectors, ex fisheries inspectors....:ugh: we now have the situation of amateurs dictating government legislation and policies with no thought for the consequences of their actions. The government allows this situation to continue to spiral out of control.

I have over 30 years aviation security experience and can assure you all that people within the industry do not agree with a number of the policies that the DfT have introduced - but day after day we have to adhere to these policies, and listen to DfT inspectors pontificating about what they will do to security staff and airports if we do not adhere to these policies.:=

Another side of the argument is airports driving down the costs of security staffing and subsequently 'dumbing down' of the role of security officers as salaries are reduced and inadequate manning in place. This is turn leads to large queues - which were seen at most UK airports even before the latest restrictions were introduced.:rolleyes:

I could go on. . . . but I'll leave it there for now. Look forward to reading more with interest!

[manx crab]

Paxboy

You will be pleased to learn that LGW are getting seven more scanners for the summer. This will of course leave even more out of use as the queues grow ever longer. When I last went through North Terminal only two out of nine were in use. Pathetic.

You were lucky in the IOM, everytime I have been through since August it has been shoes, belts and watch. The minister has just been questioned about overzealous security in the IOM and denied it is so.

What makes it worse is that us Manxies then have to go through UK security to get anywhere, oh for direct flights to Europe:)

[pacer142]

You will be pleased to learn that LGW are getting seven more scanners for the summer. This will of course leave even more out of use as the queues grow ever longer. When I last went through North Terminal only two out of nine were in use. Pathetic.


It's about time the supermarket principle was applied to them, i.e. if there is a queue of more than 2 open another one. If they are short of staff, recruit more. If that costs money, put it on the price of a ticket. People probably will not notice, just as they probably won't really notice Gordon Brown's additional tax take.

[PAXboy]

Pacer 142 If they are short of staff, recruit more. If that costs money, put it on the price of a ticket.
Whhaaaaaat???

The airports are already paid the agreed amount of money per pax and the reason they do not have enough teams at work is because they have consistently under recruited. They pocket the differerance and you want to give them more??? :*

[birdonthewire]

and why is nightstop kit not considered 'tools to do the job'?

[Final 3 Greens]

Cirrus01 asked the frequent flyers must be asking themselves " Do I really want to do this any more ?

As an expat frequent flyer living outside the UK, I no longer correspond via the UK.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

I use LHR T3 regularly. As a dirty smelly smoker I drop my disposable lighter in the security bin provided as per instructions in the scanner queue.

I then go to the World News shop in duty free and buy a new one !! Why insist we divest ourselves of these things then have them on sale in the "sanitised" area ? Is it commercial ?

NEO

[Dysonsphere]

There has never been a case where airport security has caught a terrorist, and given the way they work, they never will.

boofhead

Dont you remember the pregant woman caught at Heathrow years ago, complete with bomb that she didnt even know she had however it was EL Al check in

[bnt]

The part that confuses me is why passengers, who have already been screened at the point of boarding, have to go through it all again in the UK. I landed at LHR from Denver last Friday, and all the way from T4 we were kept isolated from the outside, no contact with anyone but other screened "airside" pax and airport staff.

Then we arrive at T1 by bus, wait 20 mins to get in to the Flight Connections screening area, then another 20mins to actually get to the screening. Baa.

OK, so it's possible that screening at point of departure is not up to UK standards, but it seems my experiences in the USA are not as bad now. Can't Heathrow tell the difference between a properly screened passenger (Europe, North America) and one originating where screening is lax?

Here's the funny part - how I make my life more difficult. I took a single case to the USA, with another soft bag and a small laptop, that both fit inside the main case on the way out. I had my tiny toiletries in a see-through bag, as requested.
At Dublin I forgot to take the toiletries out of the case, but remembered the laptop. No problems at screening.
At Heathrow T4, I moved the toiletries to a jacket pocket, but forgot to take them out for separate screening. No problems there.
At Denver I had a little more stuff to bring back, thought I might have to check my case in the hold, tried to repack a little, then thought better of it. So I kept the soft bag with me, took out the laptop for screening, but couldn't find the toiletries in my case. I thought I'd misplaced them while repacking. No problems at screening (which took no more than 5 mins total).
At Heathrow T1 Flight Connections, I took my laptop out, and put the soft bag in the case, so I was carrying the single case and the laptop in its slip case. If security had asked, I could just say "I took it out for screening". No problems there, apart from the general insanity I describe above.When I got home to Dublin, I found my toiletries had been at the bottom of the soft bag all the way home. What's all this stuff about "separate screening", then?

[pacer142]

The airports are already paid the agreed amount of money per pax and the reason they do not have enough teams at work is because they have consistently under recruited.

Part of the reason is that the airports are pressured by the airlines (especially O'Leary's lot) to keep that fee low. Thus the fee should be increased by way of legislation such that the required level of security staffing is provided, not the bare "race to the bottom" minimum. That's why some airports are installing turnstiles and levying their own charge, and that is wrong - that extra charge, if it is necessary, should be on the ticket price.

I don't imagine that Schiphol is cheap to run, as by most peoples' estimation it is probably overstaffed, but it is *certainly* worth the money in terms of lack of stress over security delays.

[pacer142]

I then go to the World News shop in duty free and buy a new one !! Why insist we divest ourselves of these things then have them on sale in the "sanitised" area ? Is it commercial ?


Most probably - but then of all things that are allowed on planes and shouldn't be, lighters and matches take the biscuit.

You can't smoke on any plane, so why allow any such smoking materials aboard?

[pacer142]

OK, so it's possible that screening at point of departure is not up to UK standards, but it seems my experiences in the USA are not as bad now. Can't Heathrow tell the difference between a properly screened passenger (Europe, North America) and one originating where screening is lax?

I imagine there is not enough space at LHR to plan gate usage accordingly. AMS, of course, has "boundary" security on the Schengenland terminal and gate security on the rest for this very reason.

Just about every other UK airport I've been to separates arrivals and departures like LHR does.

[GANNET FAN]

2 Weeks ago, the security queue to the scanners was quiet and her indoors went through the normal scanner but I was asked to be screened in the private X ray bit.

I asked to see the result of the photos. Wish I hadn't !!

Its seriously revealing, good for bombs etc but not quite so good for morale!!

Gotta lose weight

[Curious Pax]

I don't imagine that Schiphol is cheap to run, as by most peoples' estimation it is probably overstaffed, but it is *certainly* worth the money in terms of lack of stress over security delays.

As is often the case, it depends when you travel. Flew AMS-CDG on Friday evening, and the security queue for Schengen pax was 30 minutes and growing!

[fyrefli]

When I got home to Dublin, I found my toiletries had been at the bottom of the soft bag all the way home. What's all this stuff about "separate screening", then?

My mate - an infrequent flyer - came over to see us at the weekend. They took away his shaving foam and let him keep his razor :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[MyData]

At LBA last week, early morning scrum.

Lady in front of me has knee high boots (rather fetching).

Asked by security to remove said boots for the scanner. A flat reply of "No, they are a real pain to get off and on again". "Oh, OK, just go through then..."

Now I know that only a % of people have to have shoes / boots scanned. But to flatly refuse with no good reason was quite a surprise. I must try that next time and see how far I get :hmm:

[BackPacker]

Curious,

The Schengen security line is always busy at AMS. If I see this I typically go to the passport/security check located behind the KLM counters, walk through the international terminal and enter the Schengen area through the security checks near the D-pier. Saves a few minutes. OTOH - It doesn't make the plane depart any sooner.

I've also done it the other way around. I was in the Schengen area because I was booked on a flight to a Schengen country. I walked to passport control close to the D-pier, to get into the international terminal, and the nice lady asked to see my boarding card as well. "Sir, you're boarding at the C pier, which is behind you." "Yes, I know, but the McDonalds is over there!" Slight moment of hesitation. "Okay sir, have a nice meal". (This was a while ago. They've got more catering in the Schengen area right now.)