Last week I went from Dublin to LHR, the first time I had been in Dublin in 6-7 years.

Airport screening there required that all shoes be removed -- all. The only thing that could go through the metal detector was bare or stocking feet.

All laptops had to be removed.

And, all belts had to be removed -- even if they contained no metal. One young girl had a pair of baggy pants like sweatpants that were held up by a string type belt. That rope belt had to come of and she went through the metal detector holding up her pants.

Personally, I consider that very unsporting of her.

In the US, such changes would probably forbid passengers from wearing belts and forbid them from holding on to their pants while walking through the WTMD. "I have to SEE your HANDS!" The TSA would say.

Something tells me that these changes will be a short-lived reaction to the bombing.

What non-metallic weapon could one hide in a belt? I guess that one could make a belt out of Semtex, but there are plenty of other accessories that could be used for such a purpose.

Above all, isn't it worth reminding everyone that Richard Reid was NOT SUCCESFUL? Nobody got hurt. And I think it's also worth mentioning that Reid was originally denied boarding by ICTS. In other words: the shoe bomber didn't hurt anyone (except for emotional pain), and he was only allowed to board due to a miscommunication among airport staff.

Getting back to Richard Reid, since he did not pass the ICTS sniff test initially and was denied boarding, was it a mis-communication that he boarded the following day? I don't recall the full details, now that I think of it -- all I recall is he did not pass ICTS security, was re-booked, and flew the next day.

If one does not pass ICTS security on the first try, were they (American Airlines) really supposed to re-book him for the flight the next day? Perhaps he slid through the cracks with ICTS the next day by an ICTS employee that wasn't on the ball. If he did get a second chance, ICTS should also been aware of it on day #2.

Typically it doesn't take much for me to get through ICTS security (they can be annoying, though); however, I've seen some of the better ICTS employees effectively profile individuals at stations such as LGW which then sets the tone & content of the interview and any additional searches at check-in. ICTS protocol seems a bit different depending on European airport as well. MAD is the strictest I've ever experienced while in the UK & even AMS it is less strict (probably more strict at this point in time). FCO is stricter than LGW or AMS, but not as bad as Madrid.

Last but not least, do US carriers use ICTS / additional security in Dublin? Isn't there US Customs & Immigrations pre-clearance there, or is that just Shannon?

SDF_Traveler

And when the pants fall to reveal the fact that someone has gone "commando" they�ll get arrested for indecent exposure.

Last Dec. Dublin spotted and confiscated my little folding Swiss nail scissors; I'd forgotten to take them out of my shaving kit. They were a very high quality pair, I still miss them.
They'd passed security at ORD and ATL on my outbound, and I never noticed them in three days in Dublin. So, it seems they have sharper eyes than the TSA's who'd checked me. Yet those eyes still aren't sharp enough to see the rope belt on a girls sweat pants. Pretty seedy...

SDF_Traveler,
You have the story straight. Reid had a fake passport, was travelling on "a supsicious itinerary" (I just know that it was one-way), and he had paid in cash. ICTS caught his fake passport and referred him to the French Police. He was denied boarding.

The following day, Reid just tried again. Perhaps he used a different passport or a different ticket. I don't know. But the ICTS staff must not have recognized him or must have decided that everything was kosher involving his travel documents and itinerary.

You're right, the ICTS, Securicor, and other agents can vary tremendously from station to station. I agree, Madrid is by far the most stringent. I've always found Amsterdam to be quite picky as well. The friendliest are in Buenos Aires; they're downright welcoming. And I've encountered thorough but extremely friendly agents at Stockholm/Arlanda as well... they're doing their jobs, not putting on a show.

I always thought of ICTS as the premier security agency beyond El Al. I think they were started by El Al and TWA security consultants. But after the Reid incident, I fail to see how they're in any way useful in protecting passenger security. But our friends in the US Government require these interviews from "high risk" airports.

Passengers departing from Dublin to the USA also have immigration preclearance. These passengers must clear ICTS screening as well.

Dublin Airport is a zoo, which is why they are addiing another terminal, at the best of times. This latest stupidity will not make flying safer, actually most likely the exact opposite. Slowing down the screening process will likely increase the crowd density in the Terminal prior to pax screening, making it a better target for any terrorist to cause mayhem if they so decide.

When will we learn. Stupidity will not defeat terrorism, intelligence and education will.

Nicely put Orlando_Flyer.

The facts:
1. Nobody has ever been injured as a result of a shoe bomb.

2. There have been multiple incidents of loss-of-life due to terrorists opening fire in crowded, chaotic ticketing areas (Rome, Vienna, Los Angeles, to name a few.)

But the clever security screeners have decided to focus their attention the shoes. Sometimes I wonder if there is a blind donkey who makes all of the decisions related to airport security worldwide.

Shh! I'm sure the TSA has made "SSI" former director Admiral Stone's decision making process! Cow-flop bingo at its best!