FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   China (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/china-613/)
-   -   PVG security was nuts (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/china/1806106-pvg-security-nuts.html)

dmarge18 Dec 3, 2016 9:53 am

I felt the same at PEK last year; completely shocked they wanted all chargers, batteries, wires, electronics out and inspected (without using gloves even!). They tried to confiscate my portable cell phone charger, which led to a decent fight over it and having to demonstrate what it was for. The worst part of security there, however, was the extra security line after you've started walking down the jetway. No gloves searching your bags, and taking all liquids. So if you buy a water in the terminal, you can't take it on. Ridiculous, especially since your throat gets scratchy breathing the air there and you're prepping for a 13 hour flight.

moondog Dec 3, 2016 12:01 pm

Even small power banks aren't okay without proper labeling.

The liquid thing only applies to flights to countries that dislike liquids.

cxfan1960 Dec 3, 2016 2:26 pm

When in China, I always carry a bag for all items that will cause a re-scan:
* Adapters, wires
* Keys, coins, my thick watch, my phones (they don't like anything blocking the view
* LAG, of course
* Power banks, of course too - they must be properly labeled. They sometimes have instructions posted and sometimes verbally communicated to remove power banks for inspection.
* Cameras (if any, but I don't use cameras these days).

Loren Pechtel Dec 3, 2016 4:12 pm


Originally Posted by uanj (Post 27559283)
Which terminal was that? Regular or VIP lane? PVG is getting too busy. I cannot believe how serious the security back-ups have become at peak times.

Terminal 1, regular line, ~8pm.

The lines weren't bad but the digging through everything was annoying, especially as we didn't have time to properly repack at the time.

Loren Pechtel Dec 3, 2016 4:15 pm


Originally Posted by JPDM (Post 27559368)
You said in your original post, "every bit of electronic" which includes iPad and iPhone, cameras, etc. I always have to take these out everywhere. Batteries for sure as well. wires, I don't think so.
Maybe something happened earlier that day and they were more nervous. Or somebody warned them you were coming ;-)

Brick & cord, ipad, kindle, phone, USB charger, power bank (they didn't look at the rating, though), external HD & cables, bag of cables, mouse, bag of foreign-plug adapters and flashlight. Never before has any of that come out anywhere. The only thing different than previously is I decided it had been long enough since I used my ethernet cable that I wasn't going to carry it anymore.

dmarge18 Dec 3, 2016 8:02 pm


Originally Posted by moondog (Post 27561056)
Even small power banks aren't okay without proper labeling.

The liquid thing only applies to flights to countries that dislike liquids.

The flight was to America, and America allows liquids that are purchased or filled after you've gone through security. So that wouldn't be the case here.

mikew99 Dec 3, 2016 10:34 pm


Originally Posted by moondog (Post 27554451)
As I've suggested in other threads, carrying on as little as possible is a key component of my travel strategy.

That's ironic, because carrying on as much as possible is a key component of mine! :D To each his own, I say....

The only issue I had with my departures from PEK and PVG are with my power banks: Tbh there are signs warning about maximum size and such, but I had no idea whether mine were compliant or not. Thankfully they were.

moondog Dec 4, 2016 5:01 am


Originally Posted by dmarge18 (Post 27562538)
The flight was to America, and America allows liquids that are purchased or filled after you've gone through security. So that wouldn't be the case here.

The US is the country I had in mind. I don't know of any others that routinely get secondary screening treatment.

jiejie Dec 4, 2016 8:11 am


Originally Posted by dmarge18 (Post 27562538)
The flight was to America, and America allows liquids that are purchased or filled after you've gone through security. So that wouldn't be the case here.

Yes, it is the case in China for US-bound flights and is quite purposeful. While the US relaxed its post 9-11 rules on allowing liquids purchased past security to be boarded, China decided not to roll back the restriction. I'm sure it's because it's easier to have a clearly-defined, though severe, rule that the staff can uniformly apply to everyone, rather than get into endless arguments with passengers and have to make judgment calls case-by-case a thousand+ times per day on which liquids originated airside and which didn't. As if the gate secondary staff did not have full trust that the primary security screening would catch everything.

China is also ultra-sensitive and paranoid that any explosive might slip through on a US carrier or US-bound flight, maybe more so than with most other countries.

moondog Dec 4, 2016 8:41 am


Originally Posted by jiejie (Post 27563928)
Yes, it is the case in China for US-bound flights and is quite purposeful. While the US relaxed its post 9-11 rules on allowing liquids purchased past security to be boarded, China decided not to roll back the restriction. I'm sure it's because it's easier to have a clearly-defined, though severe, rule that the staff can uniformly apply to everyone, rather than get into endless arguments with passengers and have to make judgment calls case-by-case a thousand+ times per day on which liquids originated airside and which didn't. As if the gate secondary staff did not have full trust that the primary security screening would catch everything.

China is also ultra-sensitive and paranoid that any explosive might slip through on a US carrier or US-bound flight, maybe more so than with most other countries.

My hunch is that --these days-- the liquids ban is implemented partially at the behest of involved airlines (who need to allot for the secondary security). Furthermore, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of liquids they catch will have been procured after primary security (not much passes by those guys).

anacapamalibu Dec 4, 2016 8:50 am

As a result of the failed 06 transatlantic plot targeting US, involving soft drink cans..batteries..wires..cameras, doesn't seem unreasonable for China to spend extra money on security proceedures or make airlines pay.

Loren Pechtel Dec 4, 2016 11:43 am


Originally Posted by anacapamalibu (Post 27564040)
As a result of the failed 06 transatlantic plot targeting US, involving soft drink cans..batteries..wires..cameras, doesn't seem unreasonable for China to spend extra money on security proceedures or make airlines pay.

That was 10 years ago. The ban on liquids came considerably later.

And it certainly doesn't explain what happened this time. This is by far not my first time through PVG since 06.

moondog Dec 4, 2016 12:09 pm


Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel (Post 27564615)
That was 10 years ago. The ban on liquids came considerably later.

And it certainly doesn't explain what happened this time. This is by far not my first time through PVG since 06.

I don't have the energy to research the exact timeline of the liquids ban saga today, but I am certain of the order of events:

1. somebody attempted to bomb a US bound airplane using liquids
2. the US responded with 3-1-1
-for a short spell, this applied to US bound flights (in addition to internal flights)
3. apart from dutifully respecting the "US bound flights" policy, China implemented its own version of 3-1-1 for domestic flights
4. the "US bound flights" policy is no longer a big deal for the US, but enforcement still happens in China (sometimes)

anacapamalibu Dec 4, 2016 1:38 pm


Originally Posted by moondog (Post 27564729)
I don't have the energy to research the exact timeline of the liquids ban saga today, but I am certain of the order of events:

1. somebody attempted to bomb a US bound airplane using liquids
August 10, 2006 made public
2. the US responded with 3-1-1
announced 3-1-1 on September 26, 2006
-for a short spell, this applied to US bound flights (in addition to internal flights)
3. apart from dutifully respecting the "US bound flights" policy, China implemented its own version of 3-1-1 for domestic flights
March 15, 2008
4. the "US bound flights" policy is no longer a big deal for the US, but enforcement still happens in China (sometimes)


Daner Dec 4, 2016 2:31 pm


Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel (Post 27554017)
Finally, I had the flight-legal Letherman tool--they declared it a "small knife", it wouldn't fly.

I assume that you are referring to the Style PS (http://www.leatherman.com/style-ps-2...iendly&start=2)

I always have my Style PS with me on a ring with a Gerber Shard and a house key, so I have learned that China and South Africa have rules prohibiting tools (pliers) in carry-on luggage. The Shard has never raised an eyebrow anywhere, and the Style PS has made it through PVG and JNB (but not PEK or CPT).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:35 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.