security check on ARRIVAL
 

I have just returned from ICELAND.
Flew ICELANDAIR YYZ-KEF.
On ARRIVAL , all pax go through a security check ( hand bags , body etc.), the same as
at any airport on departure.When I questined the reason for it, the only answer I got was:
" it is for your security ".I have to add that at the departure gate in YYZ , an
annoncement was made : " If you bought any duty free bottles , please return them for
a full refund ".
I obviously did not understand that until arrival at KEF .
Anybody know of a similiar situation at other Airports ?
Michael
SEP. 18 2010
UPDATING MY POST
i HAVE JUST RETURNED FROM KEF.THERE WAS NO SECURITY CHECK ON ARRIVAL.
MICHAEL

Not sure if this is routine at KEF (it wasn't the last time I flew there but that was 8 years ago), but some airports, particularly in the Middle East, are known for doing this on all incoming international flights.

Please continue to follow this thread in the TS/S Forum.
Thanks..
Obscure2k
TravelBuzz Moderator

This was not the case when I went to KEF some years ago.

I would file a complaint with Icelandair and with the Icelandic government. That country is really financially hurting and cannot afford to lose tourism kronas due to asinine "security" policies that go way above and beyond the usual amount of stupidity that passengers already face.

Let them know in no uncertain terms that this practice, whether a one-off (like it sounds due to the duty free refunds) or new policy is completely unacceptable.

The person(s) responsible for this decision should be caned and fed to the puffins.

This would certainly be the case for passengers CONNECTING at Keflavik. European airports do have a security checkpoint for arriving transatlantic passengers who are continuing on to other destinations. So if you bought whiskey in Toronto, and you were continuing on to--say--Berlin on Icelandair, it would be confiscated at Keflavik's security checkpoint.

I can't imagine why this would be the case for passengers terminating their journey in Iceland.

Here in the US, some airports have an arrival security check that includes terminating passengers (Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, among others.) But this checkpoint is after customs, so you could put any liquids in your checked baggage at customs, thereby clearing security without the contraband.

Why in the world would anybody consent to such a check? Just decline it. Then what?

RichardKenner,
This has been discussed here on a few threads. Certain airports have their immigration and customs facilities in a "sterile" concourse.

Passengers have access to their checked baggage during customs, and can thus obtain contraband items. Since the passengers have to pass through a "sterile" area to get to the airport exit, they must pass through a TSA security checkpoint to prohibit contraband items from going to the sterile area.

It is a moronic, expensive, and profoundly frustrating system. It's especially onerous if you've passed through multiple checkpoints to board the flight overseas, only to wait in line for the TSA--even if you're not going anywhere.

Since these are problems with airport design, they are unlikely to be fixed anytime soon. I guess they've established that it's cheaper to make everyone suffer the TSA's lines and harassment than it is to have a bus to the non-sterile part of the airport. Orlando--I believe--is the exception: they operate a separate train car for non-connecting passengers.

The
 

THis is called reverse screening and it is most likely done when something gets by the outbound security screening. If the item is not recovered then the airplane gets searched.

EU regulations require segregation of pax originating outside the EEC. Due to the layout of the KEF terminal (where "swing" gates can be converted from Schengen to non-Schengen), the only way to exit a non-EEC gate is to pass via the EEC concourse and its security check.

Only Duty Free purchased within the EEC or on board an EEC carrier and sealed in a tamper proof bag within 24 hour may be carried through these checkpoints.

This applies only to liquids/gels over 100ml - smaller bottles or solids don't have such restrictions

BTW Iceland isn't in the EU though is is part of the EEA which coordinates contact between the EU & EFTA countries

You miss the point. This is an administrative search. That means the passenger must be able to decline the search. If I decline a search on the way to an aircraft, the consequences are that I'm not allowed to fly. This is legal because there is supposedly no right to fly. But what are the consequences if I decline such a search on arrival? I'm not permitted to go home? Unlike flying, I do have a right to go home: I cannot be forced to be searched in order to be able to go one (once I've cleared Customs). Why would people agree to a completely optional search?

When I used to live in Senegal, Dakar airport introduced "security screening" after baggage collection. Everyone had to put their suitcases and handluggage through a huge scanning machine. Ostensibly, that was also "for your security, Sir", in fact it was a tidy little earner for the customs agents who sat there ready to confiscate anything which they liked the look of on the xray machine (namely the electronics goods that a lot of Senegalese were bringing back for their families).
Also at about the same time, a number of arrivals at CDG were accompanied by passport spotchecks at the door of the plane on disembarking. Don't know if this is only done on flights originating in Africa, but I certainly have never experienced it off any other flight arriving in CDG. It considerably slows down the disembarking, I can tell you, as they are extremely fastidious in their inspection of every single passport.
My suspicion on this is that the process has more to do with stopping illegal immigration than any security measure, but who knows?

So sit down, open a book and begin reading like one poster recently did. Wait for the police to show up and to give you a ride to the curb side. This, shows how institutional insanity, drives regulations.

This system actually predates the TSA. I think they argue that by entering the sterile area (i.e. walking through the metal detector), you give implied consent to any and all searches that they would like to do until you leave the sterile area. This is how they get away with the wasteful indignity of gate screening, and the costly nuisance of post-customs screening for arriving passengers.

What if you decline the search? I don't THINK there's anything they can really do, but I suppose that your unwillingness to be searched would create probable cause, thereby justifying a required search.

It's especially troublesome in Atlanta. And I'm sure they've thought about it. The TSA re-clearance takes a long time, the non-TSA assistant staff are awful, there is no elite/first class line, etc.

If I understand correctly, Keflavik has the same problem. This is an issue with airport design.

We recently had a trip from North America to Iceland and same thing for us. When we arrived in Iceland at 6:30 a.m. or so local time, the last thing you want to do is stand in line again and go through security on the way out before picking up your checked bags!

Because it is expected to be much slower to wait for police escort to escape from such a badly designed airport[*] than it is to go through the security screening to escape from the airport through the screened area.
[*]I.e. one where there is no way to leave the airport after exiting customs other than to go through the screened area. Unfortunately, such airports are common in the US.

Yup, SEA used to have this nonsense years ago at the S. satellite. I refused the search and the TSA drone threatened to call the police, to which I agreed. The airport cops (ptooey!) arrived, gave me the "security spiel" and some empty threats but in the end had no option but to escort me through the back door. Boy, were they pissed. Tee-hee ^

Let's see. No ticket to another flight. You are at your destination. All you want now is to get out of the airport, find some transportation, and leave. Amazing when all TSA would have to do would be to escort you out of the sterile area. Win-win for everyone concerned. Instead they bluster, threaten, and make a feeble attempt of intimidation through authority.

Congratulations on winning that one.

"Do you want to not fly today?"

Refusing a search does not constitute probable cause.

Your explanation makes perfect sense... but what I don't understand is why the airport is (still) laid out in this way. The rules about segregating passengers have existed for quite a few years now, and other airports have made the necessary alterations... why not KEF? It can't be that onerous to construct an extra passageway that would enable arriving passengers to exit the building without passing through the sterile area...

Don't quote me on this, but it might have something to do with the Duty Free stores at the airport. Icelandic passengers have a propensity to purchase huge quantities of Duty Free alchohol (since local prices tend to be prohibitively high) and the current layout permits pax to access the Duty Free stores upon arrival en route to baggage claim (which also has its own Duty Free store).

Also, the non-Schengen gates and the immigration checkpoint are located right at the end of the terminal - the furthest point away from baggage claim. Considering that no more than 5% of passengers are originating from a non-EU destination and terminating in KEF (versus transfering at KEF which would require a security check anyway or originating at an EU airport in which case Duty Free in sealed bags would be acceptable), there really isn't a significant constituency to justify it.

I'm sure you could refuse the search. But you would have to wait around for LEOs to come and escort you out of the airport. You also might have your record documented so that on future trips you would get SSSS treatment every time. Not worth it, IMHO!

What it sounds like to me.

Before 9/11™ or even TWA 800, experienced this on UA FCO-MIL-IAD. The stop in Milan was supposed to be 20 minutes, barely long enough to load pax for the transatlantic leg. (No one then paid U.S. carrier prices just to go FCO-MIL.) Instead, we were told to exit the plane as rapidly as possible, bringing all carry-on with us. Exiting was not rapid, because some kind of LEOs were running all carry-ons through an x-ray set up in the jetway right outside the plane, clearly not its regular location. Two hours and a gate change later, we were back on the same 747—too many pax to tell if anyone was missing. Much speculation about bank robbers/jewel thieves/etc. but we never found out.

If there's a specific reason, and warrant or equivalent, to do this to catch a bad guy I have no objection. For random "because we can" snipe hunts, I do.

No legitimate reason exists to document your record as you are only following the rules as they exist. In addition, why should you even have to show ID to get out?

I disagree. It is always "worth it" to exercise one's rights, especially in the face of ludicrously stupid "security" policies.

No, didn't happen. Remain calm and polite, they would like nothing more than you to give them a resaon to escalate.

Opinions differ (obviously) on what is "worth it".

Until few years ago, Serbian customs at BEG used to the exactly the same thing - scanning all [checked and hand] luggage of all incoming passengers - to prevent any smuggling and avoidance of duty. Now they have red and green exits.

I flew in from CAI today at CDG and there was a passport control in the jetway. But I am not really sure what they were looking for, as I surely didn't have right to enter France [nor was I intending - only transiting to UK]

cross-reference related post
 

see also: FT: "Another visit to the USA...and another empty threat by the TSA", April 6, 2009

i always thoufght after Customs you just go through one way doors to the greeting area.

bumpingit up.

No, some airports such as ATL have as their only egress after customs and immigration a trip back into the sterile area to get landside.