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]
Dec 24, 2014, 6:40 pm
#931
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
Unless there is an enormous queue just use the normal signposted route via UK Flight Connections.
Dec 25, 2014, 5:53 am
#934
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Even simpler, implement a system similar to that used in the Schengen area, where passengers are security screened once and are then considered secure and are not further security-screened during connections. To those who claim that the requirements in the UK are greater than in the Schengen area, I would respectfully point out that Heathrow appears to regularly fail EU tests and that is the justification for the "Go-Slow" activity in security. At least that is the reason given by the numpties manning security if you ask why they move so slowly and need to screen each laptop half a dozen times. Eliminating previously screened passengers from trusted airports would slash the number of people having to get through flight connections.
I found it absolutely and totally moronic to be re-subjected to "security" (especially of the LHR T-5 kind) when transiting at LHR after originating in SFO/LAX/JFK/etc.
If the TSA was able to stop me from bringing anything onboard to blow up my JFK-LHR flight, I think I'm pretty good for not blowing up the piddly European connection.
And I'd welcome the reduction in wasted resources (and costs on my ticket) that this would bring about.
Dec 25, 2014, 7:15 am
#936
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mostly UK
Programs: Mucci Extraordinaire, Hilton Diamond, BA Gold (ex BD)
Posts: 11,210
+1
I found it absolutely and totally moronic to be re-subjected to "security" (especially of the LHR T-5 kind) when transiting at LHR after originating in SFO/LAX/JFK/etc.
If the TSA was able to stop me from bringing anything onboard to blow up my JFK-LHR flight, I think I'm pretty good for not blowing up the piddly European connection.
And I'd welcome the reduction in wasted resources (and costs on my ticket) that this would bring about.
I found it absolutely and totally moronic to be re-subjected to "security" (especially of the LHR T-5 kind) when transiting at LHR after originating in SFO/LAX/JFK/etc.
If the TSA was able to stop me from bringing anything onboard to blow up my JFK-LHR flight, I think I'm pretty good for not blowing up the piddly European connection.
And I'd welcome the reduction in wasted resources (and costs on my ticket) that this would bring about.
Dec 25, 2014, 7:46 am
#937
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MAN/BHX
Programs: ABBA
Posts: 6,027
More realistically, I'd like to skip security when I arrive from an ex-man flight and head off to Gibraltar. Next step would be allowing Schengen passengers in without a security pass, then trusted countries.
Dec 25, 2014, 7:51 am
#938
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
The point is about reciprocity (or lack of such being implemented), right?
The EU Schengen country of Germany is fine allowing UK-screened flight passengers to transit Germany without being rescreened in Germany. The Germans are also fine with not rescreening US-screened flight passengers transiting in Germany. But neither the UK nor the US reciprocate in practice with Germany because of a combination of factors -- factors which include but are not limited to differences in airport layouts and in how arriving passengers (may or may not) mingle and are processed for passport control and customs control purposes.
The EU Schengen country of Germany is fine allowing UK-screened flight passengers to transit Germany without being rescreened in Germany. The Germans are also fine with not rescreening US-screened flight passengers transiting in Germany. But neither the UK nor the US reciprocate in practice with Germany because of a combination of factors -- factors which include but are not limited to differences in airport layouts and in how arriving passengers (may or may not) mingle and are processed for passport control and customs control purposes.
Dec 25, 2014, 8:42 am
#939
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, SQ Gold, KQ Platinum, IHG Diamond Ambassador, Hilton Gold, Marriott Silver, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,368
To separate terminals to allow for 'safe' countries not to have to be re-screened would be virtually impossible given the current setup and disruption it would create.
Dec 25, 2014, 10:27 am
#940
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MAN/BHX
Programs: ABBA
Posts: 6,027
Why not disgorge passengers straight into the main terminal, rather than an arrivals flow - at least for "A" gate arrivals, perhaps with a boarding pass check. Just reverse the escalators.
Dec 25, 2014, 11:24 am
#941
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
My empirical but uncontrolled observations suggest to me that smaller airports are "more efficient", at least in the sense they have more friendly and helpful staff members available per passenger. In particular it is rarer to wait more than a few minutes in any kind of queue.
Probably that is the opposite of efficiency from a management perspective, so perhaps you are right!
Dec 25, 2014, 12:01 pm
#942
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SFO, LON
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, Bonvoy Tit, Hilton Dia etc etc
Posts: 2,354
They trust London City security when coming off the LCY-JFK flights - you could technically connect to a UA flight to SFO, say, in T7 and you would not have to re-screen. The US challenge - which is equally asinine to be sure - has to do with the desire to have pax clear customs at the point of entry into the US. When you pre-clear, out of City, Dublin/Shannon on some flights, or Canada, you do not have to go through security screening again.
Dec 25, 2014, 12:46 pm
#943
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 64,082
That's not quite the case: there is another re-screening done at SNN, to cover the bits that LCY won't get right, namely the shoes off routine.
Dec 25, 2014, 1:50 pm
#945
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 2,327
Would be a fairly pointless security screen given there is no metal detector, body scanner or requirement to empty your pockets. You could walk through with a glock strapped to your back and they wouldn't be any the wiser.