|
Security screening at Heathrow
Why doesnt the security screening at Heathrow have some expedited screening for passengers coming from US/Canada flights holding citizenship and a global entry or nexus type trusted traveller program holder?
I mean one would assume the US would have the most stringest security protocols so if the pax has already gone through their process and are sterile then why give hard time to such passengers during transit especially with tight connections? For example I have Canadian citizenship with Nexus/Global entry and was coming from DFW. But they made me go through the whole deal + perfume inspection + turning on all electronics including my smart watch and I almost missed my flight at the last boarding call. Im sure they can streamline such passengers? |
|
Partly no doubt because of the sheer difficulty of separating the passengers into two groups based on where they've flown in from. Once they've landed and disembarked, all the passengers are mixed up together, so at the point of entry to any special security queue there'd need to be detailed checks of used boarding passes to make sure that they were (a) from the same day, and (b) matched the name on the holder's passport, which in turn would have to be matched to the person. In addition, there'd still have to be the usual checks relating to the next flight.
|
Presumably for much the same reason as the US does not give expedited clearance to people coming from the UK, where, if anything, the security screening is more stringent still.
|
Originally Posted by Zulazai
(Post 25467457)
Why doesnt the security screening at Heathrow have some expedited screening for passengers coming from US/Canada flights holding citizenship and a global entry or nexus type trusted traveller program holder?
I mean one would assume the US would have the most stringest security protocols so if the pax has already gone through their process and are sterile then why give hard time to such passengers during transit especially with tight connections? For example I have Canadian citizenship with Nexus/Global entry and was coming from DFW. But they made me go through the whole deal + perfume inspection + turning on all electronics including my smart watch and I almost missed my flight at the last boarding call. Im sure they can streamline such passengers? Assuming the US is the most stringent is also a bad thing. |
I can sort of see where the OP is coming from.
The UK is pretty much alone in the EU in requiring everybody to be rescreened. The EU has common airport security standards, and normally anybody who has cleared security in either the combined EU/Schengen area, or in the USA (which has signed up to the EU standards), does not have to re-clear security when in transit, unless airport lay-out makes this necessary (as was the case at Schiphol until a few weeks ago). The UK, in typical UK fashion, decided to opt out of the common standards. Of course even if the UK were to end its opt-out (pigs might fly!) the current arrangements would continue for the foreseeable future, because of the way LHR is laid out. It took years for AMS to complete the redesign that now allows passengers from all "safe" countries to transit without re-clearing security. |
Don't transfer in London.
Difficult to see, given the disaster that is Flight Connections at Heathrow and the likelihood of having to change terminals, why anyone would want to do this anyway! |
Originally Posted by Raffles
(Post 25471540)
Don't transfer in London.
Difficult to see, given the disaster that is Flight Connections at Heathrow and the likelihood of having to change terminals, why anyone would want to do this anyway! As an aside, I've never managed to connect at FRA without having to reclear security. |
Originally Posted by Raffles
(Post 25471540)
Don't transfer in London.
Difficult to see, given the disaster that is Flight Connections at Heathrow and the likelihood of having to change terminals, why anyone would want to do this anyway! |
Originally Posted by Mizter T
(Post 25475670)
Given that the hub aspect is one of Heathrow's core arguments for a 3rd runway, it remains somewhat bewildering why they seemingly can't get Flight Connections right.
Anyone who claims that it 'increases the destinations available' should ponder why Heathrow flies to fewer destinations that Amsterdam or Frankfurt. Adding APD would solve all these problems as LHR transfers would be prohibitively more expensive than transfers via AMS etc. |
Why should they and what is so special about the US/Canadian screening? All I see is complaints about how rubbish they are.
|
Originally Posted by Raffles
(Post 25475957)
Adding APD would solve all these problems as LHR transfers would be prohibitively more expensive than transfers via AMS etc.
Originally Posted by Silver Fox
(Post 25475970)
Why should they and what is so special about the US/Canadian screening? All I see is complaints about how rubbish they are.
Originally Posted by Aviatrix
(Post 25470878)
The EU has common airport security standards, and normally anybody who has cleared security in either the combined EU/Schengen area, or in the USA (which has signed up to the EU standards), does not have to re-clear security when in transit
|
Originally Posted by :D!
(Post 25476030)
Not too sure about "prohibitively", BA will have to suck up some of the cost, otherwise our so-called ex-EU tickets would already be more expensive.
This: although I was under the impression that it is the EU that has signed up to the US standards (by default) |
Originally Posted by Raffles
(Post 25475957)
The 'hub' issue is actually the biggest problem at Heathrow. Huge number of people passing through, contributing nothing (you don't even pay APD) and clogging up the system.
Anyone who claims that it 'increases the destinations available' should ponder why Heathrow flies to fewer destinations that Amsterdam or Frankfurt. 13.16 These effects would be supported by the strengthening of Heathrow’s hub status that additional capacity would make possible. With expansion, airlines operating from Heathrow could compete more effectively for transfer passengers with other European and international hubs. Attracting transfer passengers should not be seen as an end in itself. But they can be a decisive factor in determining the viability of a route which is economically advantageous to the UK. Without expansion, the number of international transfer passengers at Heathrow is forecast to fall from 20 million a year in 2014 to 8 million or fewer by 2050; with expansion this pattern of decline could be reversed, seeing up to 30 million international transfer passengers by 2050. Expansion in capacity would also enable the airport to operate more efficiently as a hub, as network carriers could use the new slots that become available to move more towards operating arrivals and departures in wave patterns, maximising the number of connections available for passengers. Of course as you suggest Raffles there's the seemingly contradictory point that the number of destinations served by Heathrow has actually gone down over recent years, perhaps particularly since the EU-US Open Skies agreement replaced Bermuda II in 2008 (opening up Heathrow) and lucrative transatlantic routes have seen frequencies increase. Personally, regarding the Heathrow 3rd runway, I take what I imagine for FlyerTalk is essentially the heretical position of being against it! |
Transfer passengers still pay a facilities fee, and APD would just make Heathrow even less competitive than it already is.
I personally feel Heathrow security is proportionate and not too cumbersome. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:18 pm. |
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.