FlyingCruiser

Is it an arrogance about the quality of UK security procedures that drives this, or do we objectively have better and safer protocols? I do find it odd transiting from the US to a domestic feeder you have to clear security again. Not fun after a long TA flight overnight.

KARFA

I could ask the same about the US

FlyingCruiser

Indeed! They certainly provide the theatre element well.

poisson

It’s one of my least favorite parts of flying through LHR. And for some reason they love pulling like 50% of bags to secondary screening. I’ve started saving some time by just unpacking half my bag onto the tray.

Nikko5

Interesting that para 19.2 of this document disagrees (document dated last October, so perhaps something has changed since then). https://cidca.aero/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=173611&p=0

skipness1E

If you fly often enough, you can clearly see that certain airports are *relatively less secure* than UK DfT security. I was through one in Europe recently that was openly well known for poor security back in the day and it really felt like theatre. It's partly because the UK sees itself as at higher risk of terror attack and partly the UK establishment gold plates everything it touches. It was the slavish obedience to rules others ignored that partly drove us out of the EU, those "silly" EU rules were often laughed at in France and rigidly enforced here. It's also a cultural thing in the Civil Service.

Not saying that other country's airports are inherently dangerous, just that if someone was looking to attack a UK flight, they'd likely look at a weak spot elsewhere.....hence we re-clear security.

ty97

Even in the US, transfer security is not requirement in the limited circumstances where a flight is arriving from a pre-clearance destination (e.g. Dublin, Canada).

Aside from that, that US doesn't have the concept of transit areas the way many other international airports do so it's just not feasible.

Gallus1

You’re kidding right? If you fly into USA connecting elsewhere you have to go through security then collect all your luggage before checking in again and the whole rigmarole goes on.

the810

Is there anything inherently special about UK domestic flights vs other flights to the UK in terms of their attractiveness to terrorists? If someone wants to blow up a plane to Glasgow, what exactly is achieved by forcing them to blow up a plane from AMS rather than a plane from LHR?

corporate-wage-slave

With the new CT scanners you will be discouraged from doing this, viz. unpacking your bag. With the legacy scanners then it was / is a requirement to remove liquids, PCs, tablets and more complex electronic items. The main cause of secondaries was / is failure to do this. CTs change the game here, and are in North Flight Connections. The liquid restriction goes to 2 litres per item, for example.

ty97

It comes down to which security an entity decides to trust (and thus consider a 'clean' arrival) vs those that they don't. Each country/airport seems to approach this differently for international flights and there's a varied mix of outcomes as a result:
- US considers no international clean (except from pre-clearance locations like DUB, Canada)
- UK only considers UK domestic to be clean
- CDG, I think, considers only Schengen to be clean and all non-Schengen is un-clean?
- FRA/MUC considers places like US, Canada, some others to be clean, but plenty of other non-Schengen destinations are unclean and require transfer security

etc, etc.

Also, the UK has never met a liquid it didn't hate. Don't even dare perspire going through security there or you might need secondary screening.

Gallus1

The security of our aircraft’s and airspace lie with the UK. Would you prefer some other, albeit European country be responsible. The buck stops with you! (Us)

tjcxx

Do you remember the chap who drove his Jeep into the front doors of Glasgow airport? Rescued from his burning car he was sent to hospital. During inquiries he was asked how he was being treated. "It's the food", he said, "it's haggis every day", he lamented. "You do realize you're in the burns unit ?"

the810

My point is that there are plenty of aircraft in the UK airspace that didn't depart from the UK. Even UK aircraft that didn't depart from the UK.

Gallus1

I’m sorry for any confusion. My point is, we should leave the security of you and I to the individuals who are kept accountable for it when it, sadly, goes wrong. I’m not a qualified security expert. There are thousands of individuals in the UK who are and are subsequently advising our government on many levels including airline safety. I’m not referring to basic security guards but security professionals who understand the way infiltration works and can therefore counteract that through procedures. I think we should be grateful we have these advisers, irrespective of which government is in power, and we should adhere to the process for our own safety.