Originally Posted by
csycsycsy
But back to HKIA, all they need is a one way door/path that allows pax in departures to rejoin the arrivals stream and then let immigration decide whether the pax can be landed (OP is not trying to enter HK twice).
OP is allowed to use CX F's lounges, they can spend the whole time at CX's dime (not cheap), or CX can help OP 'get ride of themselves'. There is no extra immigration staff work than if OP just entered HK directly, only the security scan when first entering departures is 'wasted', balanced with how much economic spend OP might do in HK, and even if not, a degree of tourism good-will.
If OP was a HKie, I can understand airport 'forcing' them to cancel the ticket, but not for an international visitor.
I see where you come from.
I'm struggling to come up with a reason why airports don't build such door/path.
They just don't.
Can you name an international airport with centralised (not gate) security who has such a door? I can't.
I can think of only one reason.
Restricted area is meant to be a secured area.
It may be seen as an impairment to security if there is an easy way to get out and back into such a facaility - the number of times passengers can move through the secured area should be minimised.
Are you trying to catch a lapse at the security checkpoint, for instance.
I don't have any ICAO doc to back this up (c.f. I can't cite any ICAO doc
Hong Kong First Family forces CX to break airport safety rules ).
Hoping someone can point me to security recommendations/best practices/requirements to either prove or disprove my point.
(I think this hypothesis also supports why Leung
Chung-Yan was not quickly returned to arrivals to retrieve her bag in the 2016 incident, rather, her bag was brought to her).
Similarly, in security at gate airports like KUL/SIN T1-T3, is it easy to exit the security area?