Jan 20, 2015, 5:28 am
Last edit by: hillrider
LHR charges for the cost of this screening to the passengers. For example, if you transited LHR on a round-trip in economy class from the US, you paid GBP 54.39 (USD 83.10) for this (on the ticket under tax/fee "UB").
EU Regulations state that "transfer passengers and their cabin baggage may be exempted from screening, if: (a) they arrive from a Member State [...] or (b) they arrive from a third country where the security standards applied are recognised as equivalent to the common basic standards [...] [E.g. the USA]"
SECURITY CONTROL both ways:
NO SECURITY CONTROL either way (Schengen to USA or v.v.):
NO SECURITY CONTROL from Schengen to USA (control on the way back from USA to Schengen):
EU Regulations state that "transfer passengers and their cabin baggage may be exempted from screening, if: (a) they arrive from a Member State [...] or (b) they arrive from a third country where the security standards applied are recognised as equivalent to the common basic standards [...] [E.g. the USA]"
Security control when connecting between USA and Schengen flights (European airports competing for LHR traffic)
SECURITY CONTROL both ways:
- LHR
NO SECURITY CONTROL either way (Schengen to USA or v.v.):
- FRA (A/Z-gates only) [Lufthansa hub]
- MUC [Lufthansa hub]
- AMS (from mid 2015 when reconstruction works finish) [KLM hub]
- HEL
- ZRH [SWISS hub]
- CPH
NO SECURITY CONTROL from Schengen to USA (control on the way back from USA to Schengen):
- VIE
- WAW
- ARN
- OSL
T5 security is a total disaster! [inc Fast Track issues]
Nov 4, 2014, 5:57 am
#61
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London, Copenhagen
Programs: SK*G, BA Gold, IHG Plat AMB
Posts: 969
"We're sorry for the queues Matt. Sadly, the staffing of security personnel is not within our control I'm afraid. ^Gareth"
What a surprise reply...!
ETA: or was this the original tweet?
What a surprise reply...!
ETA: or was this the original tweet?
But the excuse of having no control over security staffing is laughable.
Nov 4, 2014, 6:01 am
#62
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA; SQ; Hyatt; Hilton
Posts: 422
I faced long waits at security on Saturday (North) and Monday (South) mornings, abandoning fast track both times (well fast track at North just merged with the general queue immediately after the barriers). I watched the security officers monitoring the x-ray displays and they seemed to look at each bag for ages. I assumed that heightened security meant there was a minimum time they needed to look at each image, which would explain why everyone else is going so slowly, in order to not highlight the weak link in the chain. On Monday morning, the queue of bags for secondary screening at my scanner was backed up to the top of the conveyor, so the whole operation had to stop while that was reduced. I took the unusual step of checking a bag to minimise the chances of being offloaded.
One thing which might get you through quicker is to book a wheelchair, as they skip the queues, but of course they will just take you to the lounge and then abandon you there to miss your flight.
One thing which might get you through quicker is to book a wheelchair, as they skip the queues, but of course they will just take you to the lounge and then abandon you there to miss your flight.
Nov 4, 2014, 6:02 am
#63
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,211
I can imagine working at your local Tesco check out is much more rewarding than a LHR security check full of crabbit passengers.
Nov 4, 2014, 6:10 am
#64
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kent, UK
Programs: BA Gold, SPG Platinum, Marriott Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,809
But we are dealing with monopolies here. Where would BA go if it wasn't Heathrow?
I support the idea of some sort of rebate for BA if queues are not within agreed limits.
Perhaps this is the reason. If so, it would be nice if this was communicated to the passengers wouldn't it? When there have been extra security measures in place there has been notice given to passengers to allow for extra time. Why not this time?
Nov 4, 2014, 6:15 am
#65
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
Perhaps this is the reason. If so, it would be nice if this was communicated to the passengers wouldn't it? When there have been extra security measures in place there has been notice given to passengers to allow for extra time. Why not this time?
Nov 4, 2014, 6:17 am
#66
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London-etc
Posts: 3,893
The front staff used to be temp agent (not sure if they still are). The screening staff are permanent I think.
Nov 4, 2014, 6:20 am
#68
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MAN/BHX
Programs: ABBA
Posts: 6,027
Since T5 was designed I now have to
* Remove my belt (and thus put it back on)
* remove my ipad and laptops
* remove my watch
* wait for the random swabbing
At least we don't have the silly shoe rule any more.
British Airways' relaxation of the cabin baggage allowance has created this problem as well as the nightmare we have trying to get a full A319, A320 or B767 away on time. On a recent Warsaw flight, I had to get 30 bags tagged up and put in the hold before we could close the door, costing us a 12 minute penalty and the aircraft losing its slot.
Nov 4, 2014, 6:27 am
#71
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
Nov 4, 2014, 6:31 am
#72
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: BOS
Programs: BA - Blue > Bronze > Silver > Bronze > Blue
Posts: 6,812
Even on a good day the LHR T5 security work really slowly. They walk slowly, they move the security trays slowly, they scan the bags slowly in the bag scanner, they are just slow, slow, slow. They are all uniformly slow.
Pretty much every other airport I go through has staff moving faster: Stansted, Amsterdam, Chicago, San Francisco, Copenhagen, Dallas-Fort Worth, are only a few that come to mind from recent travel.
I don't know their thoughts or any other circumstances, but their behaviour seems to exactly match that of someone who is trying to do their job as slowly as possible, acting as if they want to do as little as possible in the time they are being paid to be at work.
Pretty much every other airport I go through has staff moving faster: Stansted, Amsterdam, Chicago, San Francisco, Copenhagen, Dallas-Fort Worth, are only a few that come to mind from recent travel.
I don't know their thoughts or any other circumstances, but their behaviour seems to exactly match that of someone who is trying to do their job as slowly as possible, acting as if they want to do as little as possible in the time they are being paid to be at work.
There does seem to be some endemic attitude issue normally, but not exclusively, resultant of personnel management problems (in my admittedly limited experience)
Last edited by Cap'n Benj; Nov 4, 2014 at 6:41 am Reason: that to than
Nov 4, 2014, 6:40 am
#74
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,211
The profile of GLA security staff is completely different from those at LHR for instance and it shows. That's probably down to having a larger pool of applicants to choose from as well as a much smaller turnover of staff.
Not that I've ever had a bad experience at LHR during my non frequent visits....apart from the first time at T5 when some student types on summer working vacation shouted orders at me.