Transit 'Security' ''Enhancement''!!!???

[Finman]

Just returned from Canada and the scheduled flight to LGW had a scheduled stop in Glasgow to disembark a few pax before continuing to LGW.

All the 'Transit' pax were required to disembark and endure a full security check: belts off, shoes off etc etc before being invited to reboard. The flight crew were not obliged to follow suit. We had to take all our belongings however any fluids in excess of 100ml were to be left on board as we would not be allowed to reboard with them.

Just another 'security' measure to piss off pax which seems wholly unnecessary, ill thought out and inconsistent in its application.

Any security bod out there wish to explain?

[kaikohe76]

I would think that most Airport Security Staff would not know the meaning of the word `explain`. Come on you are asking a far too difficult question for them to wrestle with.

[fincastle84]

With which airline did you fly? There used to be the same system at LAX for pax in transit from AKL to LHR. Eventually ANZ threatened to cancel the service which quickly brought an end to such rubbish. Maybe you should complain to your airline. You'd be wasting your time on the GLA security numpties.

[ianjlloyd]

ianlloyd

As an all too regular passenger at Glasgow Airport can I say a few words in favour of the security staff (not including the airport management)? In my experience they are human beings who bring a human touch and even a sense of humour to their work. Much more so that at any other UK airport I use. They may have to enforce stupid rules but from my experiences, it is most unfair to class them as 'numpties' Blame the message sender, not the messenger.

[Fly3]

Nice people they may be but this is just anther case of the lunatics taking over the asylum. Do they really think that a passenger could have conjured up some sort of security threat during the crossing or are they just trying to justify their jobs by increasing the numbers of people going through screening?

[Finman]

The people at GLA were only 'following orders' from the 'numpties' in the DOT.

Interesting that no one from the 'security' department are willing to explain or justify this policy. Why? Because they can't.

[Businesstraveller]

Maybe you'll like this one then...

I Transitted through Moscow last month - both international flights and therefore visa free.
Disembarked at Moscow and proceded straight to a full passport/security check - without actually leaving the secure area of the terminal. Then transferred (via a bus) to the next terminal to then repeat the passport/security procedure before being allowed to board the next aircraft.
On the way back there was no disembarkation passport/security check and only a passport check before embarking the 2nd leg of the journey.
Don't you just love inconsistancy!

[Skipness One Echo]

Is this common in the UK

Is this the norm? In the old days a disembark and a straight fuel and go from a friendly first world country was quite straightforward. Are we saying that all multi stop flights that arrive from abroad and carry on to anther UK airport go through this pantomime

ie MAN-GLA-YYC won't but YYC-GLA-MAN always does?
Or was it a "one off"?

Thanks

[Finman]

No thanks to the security numpties I have unearthed the following new BS:

In accordance with the new European Regulation a Security Search must be conducted:
• if the aircraft arrives into a Critical Part of an EU Airport from a country outside the EU .

= the aircraft must undergo a security search. Nothing said about the pax; so I expect over-zealous security departments make their own interpretation of what additional inconvenience the pax must endure!