Manchester: Airport Security, Immigration & Border Control
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
Use this prefix for new threads for Manchester Airport
Philbky
Active Member
If Manchester has been rated the most security compliant airport in the UK, something is badly wrong. I'll come back on this in a moment.
Whilst idiots trying to take banned substances and items on board certainly cause delays and are a pain, to say the least, they are not related to my query.
Back to my first sentence. All UK airports should be equally compliant with the same base rules. The bag in question went through all the airports in my original post in a 45 day period last autumn. Whilst non EU countries have different rules, T2 and T3 at Heathrow, which were both used on the trip, have precisely the same rules as T3 at Manchester. As the transit of the bag through both terminals' security systems was effortless and without query, are you trying to tell me the the country's premier airport and main gateway operates a slacker system and nods through items where a conclusive decision cannot be made?
It strikes me that they have newer and better equipment. T2 certainly has newer equipment and it leaves me with no conclusion other than the equipment at Manchester needs a manual back up. To require a traveller with a coat and a camera bag to use 7 trays is ridiculous.
Most people acknowledge the TSA in the US as being very tough. I regularly use Houston Intercontinental. Terminal E handles overseas flights operated by foreign airlines. The security area has just two belts and one full body scanner. Up until a change in schedules, five evenings a week saw the following departures in an hour: one Emirates 777-300, one Qatar 777-200, one BA 777-200 or 777-300 or 747-400 depending on season one TACA EMB 190, an Aeromexico EMB 190 and one Turkish 777-300. The normal passenger mix included oilmen, tourists including women in full burkahs refusing to use the body scanner and having to be patted down, business men and women, infants with parents carrying formula feeds and a mix of languages and dialects worthy of the Tower of Babel, all passengers carrying the usual mix of hand baggage contents.
Progress was never fast but the line was always moving. 25 minutes was the average transit time and my bag was never queried. The maximum number of trays I've ever required was two. I never had, nor will I have, any anxiety about the efficacy of the security as I have seen bags pulled out and opened each time I've been through.
If Houston can handled such a volume efficiently and, like Manchester, has never had an incident as a result of poor security, indeed in the last few months has intercepted guns buried amongst dense items in hand luggage, why is T3 at Manchester such a trial?
Whilst idiots trying to take banned substances and items on board certainly cause delays and are a pain, to say the least, they are not related to my query.
Back to my first sentence. All UK airports should be equally compliant with the same base rules. The bag in question went through all the airports in my original post in a 45 day period last autumn. Whilst non EU countries have different rules, T2 and T3 at Heathrow, which were both used on the trip, have precisely the same rules as T3 at Manchester. As the transit of the bag through both terminals' security systems was effortless and without query, are you trying to tell me the the country's premier airport and main gateway operates a slacker system and nods through items where a conclusive decision cannot be made?
It strikes me that they have newer and better equipment. T2 certainly has newer equipment and it leaves me with no conclusion other than the equipment at Manchester needs a manual back up. To require a traveller with a coat and a camera bag to use 7 trays is ridiculous.
Most people acknowledge the TSA in the US as being very tough. I regularly use Houston Intercontinental. Terminal E handles overseas flights operated by foreign airlines. The security area has just two belts and one full body scanner. Up until a change in schedules, five evenings a week saw the following departures in an hour: one Emirates 777-300, one Qatar 777-200, one BA 777-200 or 777-300 or 747-400 depending on season one TACA EMB 190, an Aeromexico EMB 190 and one Turkish 777-300. The normal passenger mix included oilmen, tourists including women in full burkahs refusing to use the body scanner and having to be patted down, business men and women, infants with parents carrying formula feeds and a mix of languages and dialects worthy of the Tower of Babel, all passengers carrying the usual mix of hand baggage contents.
Progress was never fast but the line was always moving. 25 minutes was the average transit time and my bag was never queried. The maximum number of trays I've ever required was two. I never had, nor will I have, any anxiety about the efficacy of the security as I have seen bags pulled out and opened each time I've been through.
If Houston can handled such a volume efficiently and, like Manchester, has never had an incident as a result of poor security, indeed in the last few months has intercepted guns buried amongst dense items in hand luggage, why is T3 at Manchester such a trial?
Last edited:
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
Is the answer not a straightforward one?
T3 at MAN was built for "X" it is now expected to perform "XX" which it cannot do because it was purpose built to do "X".
The solution is to move airlines from T3 to the new T2, allowing T3 to perform the role "X" which it was designed to do.
T3 at MAN was built for "X" it is now expected to perform "XX" which it cannot do because it was purpose built to do "X".
The solution is to move airlines from T3 to the new T2, allowing T3 to perform the role "X" which it was designed to do.
Going back to the conversation of security (this doesn't respond to @Philbky 's point) but I've heard from many people who moan about the monotony of security staff at Manchester and the pedantic attitudes. Indeed there was one American blogger who travelled with liquid over the amount designated for hand luggage all around the world and then got stopped at MAN. Quite rightly, if the liquid is over 100ml and in hand luggage, that's that. He continued to bring this up in his posts, criticising Manchester and the 'rude' security staff and I find the point made was totally irresponsible. Firstly, security staff aren't there to be nice or chatty; they should be amiable and should keep people safe - the security at Manchester does that. Secondly, 100ml is the cut-off point. Why should people ignorantly believe that 'there will be some deviation' or 'it'll be fine' when the 100ml maximum is quite clear?
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
It is indeed, and the DfT/CAA can provide this evidence, I believe there is info about this on the Internet.
As for the comparason about MAN vs LHR.
-yes, the equipment in LHR T2 is newer, of course it is, it's a brand spanking new terminal.
-yes, I will go as far to say LHR slacks a little, and is reflected in its compliance rating. At LHR, I have witnessed things I will make no attempt to post on here as I will end up in deep sh*t, let's just say, I know which security process I would rather go though. I'm not saying for one second LHR is unsafe or unfit, but it's not great either.
It's a pain that the UK has such differing standards, as we have the situation that PhilBKY is in where the image is that MAN T3 is poor in comparason to other airports. When in fact, it's just doing things how the DfT would like.
Now, I know T3 isn't perfect, far from it. It's unfit for its current purpose, it's doing a job it was never designed to do, and there are plans to sort this out.
At the end of the day, for me, security is security. Each country has its own issues, and frankly, if I need 7 trays to get through, I need 7 trays. It's hardly a huge inconvenience that will ruin the journey. This isn't aimed at you specifically Phil, but I just don't get why people get narked at using multiple trays for their goods. I see it all the time, it's just a tray, so just get on with it. Maybe I just don't get wound up by much I don't know, but I'm just a simple 'get on with it' sort of guy.
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
It is indeed, and the DfT/CAA can provide this evidence, I believe there is info about this on the Internet.
As for the comparason about MAN vs LHR.
-yes, the equipment in LHR T2 is newer, of course it is, it's a brand spanking new terminal.
-yes, I will go as far to say LHR slacks a little, and is reflected in its compliance rating. At LHR, I have witnessed things I will make no attempt to post on here as I will end up in deep sh*t, let's just say, I know which security process I would rather go though. I'm not saying for one second LHR is unsafe or unfit, but it's not great either.
It's a pain that the UK has such differing standards, as we have the situation that PhilBKY is in where the image is that MAN T3 is poor in comparason to other airports. When in fact, it's just doing things how the DfT would like.
Now, I know T3 isn't perfect, far from it. It's unfit for its current purpose, it's doing a job it was never designed to do, and there are plans to sort this out.
At the end of the day, for me, security is security. Each country has its own issues, and frankly, if I need 7 trays to get through, I need 7 trays. It's hardly a huge inconvenience that will ruin the journey. This isn't aimed at you specifically Phil, but I just don't get why people get narked at using multiple trays for their goods. I see it all the time, it's just a tray, so just get on with it. Maybe I just don't get wound up by much I don't know, but I'm just a simple 'get on with it' sort of guy. Like I say, If I have to wait an extra 5 minutes, so be it. If I need several trays, fine. If I need to have a hand search, not bothered. It's security, I expect it, 8 build it into my travel plan and just get on with it.
Philbky
Active Member
Seven trays, of which at least 3 would contain items of great value and small enough to be picked up by someone else as the eyes of the staff are not really focussed on the area after the scanner, is a totally unnecessary number. Where I have had a query aimed at my bag, in the UK, EU and elsewhere, a simple delay after the scanner with the bag being opened has sufficed.
To have a queue of bags to be inspected, delaying intending passengers to almost departure time, strikes one as, at least, bad management if not incompetance. It would not have been so ridiculous had, once my bag reached the front of the queue, I had been asked to show that each camera worked and that the lenses were looked through. Neither happened. The bag was opened, a cursory look was taken at the bodies and lenses, the smaller pockets received a quick hand entry without withdrawing anything and that was it. Nothing different to what could have been done immediately after the scanner, as happens at any other airport. If delaying passengers is thought to lead to greater security, someone is kidding themselves.
If the assertion that Heathrow is deficient is correct, then there should have been changes a long time ago. as it is the discrepancy between Manchester and other airports remains.
To have a queue of bags to be inspected, delaying intending passengers to almost departure time, strikes one as, at least, bad management if not incompetance. It would not have been so ridiculous had, once my bag reached the front of the queue, I had been asked to show that each camera worked and that the lenses were looked through. Neither happened. The bag was opened, a cursory look was taken at the bodies and lenses, the smaller pockets received a quick hand entry without withdrawing anything and that was it. Nothing different to what could have been done immediately after the scanner, as happens at any other airport. If delaying passengers is thought to lead to greater security, someone is kidding themselves.
If the assertion that Heathrow is deficient is correct, then there should have been changes a long time ago. as it is the discrepancy between Manchester and other airports remains.
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
Phil,
In the case of your camera, I dint know what to say really. Each X-ray machine, and indeed, each X-ray operator is different. If the crater wanted the bag searched, then they wanted it search. Of course, it's a pain having to wait for that bag, but, such is life, we wait for everything nowadays. As said, I plan it into my journey, and for me, an airport is just a selection of waiting zones. If you are not waiting at check in, you are waiting at security. If you are not waiting at security, you are waiting for a coffee/snack, if you are not waiting for a coffee/snack, you are waiting for the gate to open. Does it really impact on your life that much where you are waiting?
Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but I just have bigger things in my life to worry about than a bag getting searched or where in the airport process I am waiting. I appriciate that may sound incredibly harsh (I know you've just come back to a forum after a break and do genuinely appriciate your input), but, I just honestly see no issue with needing 7 trays or waiting for a bag search, it's just life, simples.
In the case of your camera, I dint know what to say really. Each X-ray machine, and indeed, each X-ray operator is different. If the crater wanted the bag searched, then they wanted it search. Of course, it's a pain having to wait for that bag, but, such is life, we wait for everything nowadays. As said, I plan it into my journey, and for me, an airport is just a selection of waiting zones. If you are not waiting at check in, you are waiting at security. If you are not waiting at security, you are waiting for a coffee/snack, if you are not waiting for a coffee/snack, you are waiting for the gate to open. Does it really impact on your life that much where you are waiting?
Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but I just have bigger things in my life to worry about than a bag getting searched or where in the airport process I am waiting. I appriciate that may sound incredibly harsh (I know you've just come back to a forum after a break and do genuinely appriciate your input), but, I just honestly see no issue with needing 7 trays or waiting for a bag search, it's just life, simples.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #89
Regarding an earlier point about technology advances, so far as x-ray machines go, the equipment has come along way in the last decade but the advances have come from improved software used to interpret the x-rays not because x-rays can achieve more than they used to do. There are a number of new technologies available but they have limitations too.
Philbky
Active Member
User001, as my wife would tell you, we arrive at any airport for any flight three hours before departure, sometimes meaning a long, pointless wait if on a given date there are no delays. Generally delays happen but that isn't my point. Even the inconsistency between Manchester and other UK airports isn't the main point, though it is important. Missing, or as in this case, almost missing a flight is a serious matter especially when you have arrived in good time. Having to try to keep tabs on multiple trays is not easy, especially if there is a delay with the body scanner. But the point I'm trying get across is the pointlessness of delaying a carry on when the very cursory check that was eventually carried out could have been done to the side of the belt, immediately after scanning as has happened from time to time elsewhere.
I would be happy to place a bet that when the infrastructure changes and the equipment at T3 is upgraded, things will change for the better.
I would be happy to place a bet that when the infrastructure changes and the equipment at T3 is upgraded, things will change for the better.
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
Phil,
In terms of delays to the point of nearly missing a flight. In my 10+ years of transiting T3 between 3-4 times a week, arriving with the usual 2 hours until departure, I have never, and I literally mean never have come close to missing a flight.
Yes, there is inconsistencies within the UK, and that is down to the DfT to sort, as it shouldn't be the case but clearly is. I've personally seen Heathrow allow without check, 5 liquid bags go through in one tray for one couple, when the DfT clearly states there should be one bag per passenger.
I've seen Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick allow tools to go through for standard passengers despite the DfT prohibiting them.
I've also seen numerous large liquids go through numerous airports unchecked despite the DfT being clear that no more than 100ml per container, apart from special circumstances (medical, baby drinks etc).
This shows there is a very clear issue with screening standards.
Now, with your camera gear. You state that the bag searcher took out your camera and check the bag containing the camera without checking the actual camera. Has it occurred to you that they wanted to check inside the bag to make sure there were no prohibited items? Cameras and lenses look quite opaque and 'busy' on the X-ray screen, I've seen how they look. I know I'm not trained in X-ray but I would have no hesitation in stopping a camera in a bag either. If the airport has a new scanner that allows a 360 degree view of a bag, then maybe that's where the confidence to allow the bag through comes from?
I know MAG is about to invest in new scanners for hand luggage to the same standard that hold baggage has in T2 and eventually T3. That should stop a lot of these random checks, but for now, just buckle up and get on with it, that's all we can do.
In terms of delays to the point of nearly missing a flight. In my 10+ years of transiting T3 between 3-4 times a week, arriving with the usual 2 hours until departure, I have never, and I literally mean never have come close to missing a flight.
Yes, there is inconsistencies within the UK, and that is down to the DfT to sort, as it shouldn't be the case but clearly is. I've personally seen Heathrow allow without check, 5 liquid bags go through in one tray for one couple, when the DfT clearly states there should be one bag per passenger.
I've seen Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick allow tools to go through for standard passengers despite the DfT prohibiting them.
I've also seen numerous large liquids go through numerous airports unchecked despite the DfT being clear that no more than 100ml per container, apart from special circumstances (medical, baby drinks etc).
This shows there is a very clear issue with screening standards.
Now, with your camera gear. You state that the bag searcher took out your camera and check the bag containing the camera without checking the actual camera. Has it occurred to you that they wanted to check inside the bag to make sure there were no prohibited items? Cameras and lenses look quite opaque and 'busy' on the X-ray screen, I've seen how they look. I know I'm not trained in X-ray but I would have no hesitation in stopping a camera in a bag either. If the airport has a new scanner that allows a 360 degree view of a bag, then maybe that's where the confidence to allow the bag through comes from?
I know MAG is about to invest in new scanners for hand luggage to the same standard that hold baggage has in T2 and eventually T3. That should stop a lot of these random checks, but for now, just buckle up and get on with it, that's all we can do.
Last edited:
Philbky
Active Member
User001,
If you go back to myoriginal post you will see I said:
"Is it that, as I suspect, the equipment in T3 is past its best and until the redevelopment takes place, a large number of bags have to be hand searched. I would estimate that there were 30 bags ahead of mine and a growing line behind."
It seems, you have answered the question in the affirmative. It would seem that, to meet the required standard, hand searching in T3 is necessary to a far greater extent than elsewhere. I have never seen so many bags taken out of line anywhere else for special attention.
Again, as stated before, I was very much aware of the technolgy in the 1990s. I operated equipment in factory conditions and observed from the operator's position in real life conditions at both Heathrow and Gatwick.
It did, of course, occur to me that the cursory search may have been all that was necessary. What hit me between the eyes was the nonsense of not doing such a search "in line". It should not be beyond the wit of man (or should that be MAG?) to do what is seemingly done elsewhere, i.e.have the operator decide if a cursory or deeper search is required. Cursory searches done at the end of the conveyor, deeper searches to one side. I could bore you with a very long list of airports where this is done effectively, based on the lack of incidents connected to those airports. That method doesn't necessarily speed up the passage of items through and beyond the scanner but it does mean that only passengers whose bags require a detailed search are significantly delayed and the bags needing a cursory look are not stuck behind those that need something more. For the airport it means fewer people milling around at the end of the belts, getting ever more frustrated, and walking away after a seemingly futile cursory inspection, with mutterings of "jobsworth" and similar.
Back in 1997 a speaker from Smiths giving a paper at one of my conferences said that for the public to accept whatever level of security is necessary, it has to be seen to be necessary, proportionate and not antagonistic to the innocent traveller. Food for thought there.
You mention liquids. At Heathrow I have seen the nonsense of a child having brought through a part consumed bottle of drink having it removed, even when the parent and child said the child would finish the drink there and then. Necessary, proportionate, not antagonistic? As the parent angrily said "how is a drink going to pose a threat once drunk?" to which the answer was a shrug of the shoulders.
Security is paramount but in the effort to maintain the highest standards sometimes common sense and a little bit of planning would make life easier for operators and passengers. Some governments don't help. We all know the problems of runaway lithium batteries. Now, on some flights they have to be placed in the hold in whatever equipment they power, after years of being banned for safety reasons. I'd rather take my chance on their being one bomb on board than there being possibly up to 200 potential fire starters, out of reach and unabled to be contained, a few feet below my seat on an ETOPS widebody flight, but perhaps we shouldn't go there!
If you go back to myoriginal post you will see I said:
"Is it that, as I suspect, the equipment in T3 is past its best and until the redevelopment takes place, a large number of bags have to be hand searched. I would estimate that there were 30 bags ahead of mine and a growing line behind."
It seems, you have answered the question in the affirmative. It would seem that, to meet the required standard, hand searching in T3 is necessary to a far greater extent than elsewhere. I have never seen so many bags taken out of line anywhere else for special attention.
Again, as stated before, I was very much aware of the technolgy in the 1990s. I operated equipment in factory conditions and observed from the operator's position in real life conditions at both Heathrow and Gatwick.
It did, of course, occur to me that the cursory search may have been all that was necessary. What hit me between the eyes was the nonsense of not doing such a search "in line". It should not be beyond the wit of man (or should that be MAG?) to do what is seemingly done elsewhere, i.e.have the operator decide if a cursory or deeper search is required. Cursory searches done at the end of the conveyor, deeper searches to one side. I could bore you with a very long list of airports where this is done effectively, based on the lack of incidents connected to those airports. That method doesn't necessarily speed up the passage of items through and beyond the scanner but it does mean that only passengers whose bags require a detailed search are significantly delayed and the bags needing a cursory look are not stuck behind those that need something more. For the airport it means fewer people milling around at the end of the belts, getting ever more frustrated, and walking away after a seemingly futile cursory inspection, with mutterings of "jobsworth" and similar.
Back in 1997 a speaker from Smiths giving a paper at one of my conferences said that for the public to accept whatever level of security is necessary, it has to be seen to be necessary, proportionate and not antagonistic to the innocent traveller. Food for thought there.
You mention liquids. At Heathrow I have seen the nonsense of a child having brought through a part consumed bottle of drink having it removed, even when the parent and child said the child would finish the drink there and then. Necessary, proportionate, not antagonistic? As the parent angrily said "how is a drink going to pose a threat once drunk?" to which the answer was a shrug of the shoulders.
Security is paramount but in the effort to maintain the highest standards sometimes common sense and a little bit of planning would make life easier for operators and passengers. Some governments don't help. We all know the problems of runaway lithium batteries. Now, on some flights they have to be placed in the hold in whatever equipment they power, after years of being banned for safety reasons. I'd rather take my chance on their being one bomb on board than there being possibly up to 200 potential fire starters, out of reach and unabled to be contained, a few feet below my seat on an ETOPS widebody flight, but perhaps we shouldn't go there!
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
Phil,
In terms of your searching method where 'cursory searches' should have their own lane, could you tell me which airports have that feature as I have been through well over 100 airports, and maybe I have not looked properly, I don't know, but, I've not seen this in practice anywhere? I've seen lanes where it is a 'one on one' approach where the X-ray operator just shouts to the bag searcher and then the bag can go, but I don't see how this could work at MAN as the X-ray operators now sit in a control room screening bags on all operational lanes, and do not have the means to single out bags. It's either clear, or it isn't, and that applies to all UK airports as far as I'm aware.
Then even if it was possible to kick a bag down the clear lane for but still need a quick check, how do you propose making that bag clear to a secondary searcher that it needs searching? How do you make sure a passenger doesn't get to the bag first? What happens if there is something suspect in the bag after all? How do you pay for a secondary searcher in an already tight budget? As it was told to me, security is a huge loss maker for airports, but is nessicary for operation.
I don't know, maybe your approach needs further clarification but I don't see how that method would ever be readable? As for making it clear to people that a search is nessecary, well, it comes back to the arguement that due to differing standards in UK airports, it means passengers don't know what's right and what's wrong. This now includes yourself whereby you have a real bee in the bonnet over this camera search when it wasn't stopped at Heathrow, yet the DfT state all large electrical SMS needs to be clear and visible to the X-ray operator, but thanks to Heathrow not following the standards, you then didn't follow them at MAN and now leaves you feeling MAN was way over the top, when already said MAAn is proven to be the best for complying with DfT standards.
What I will say is, MAN must be doing something right when the US prefers MAN screening for security stops too, such as PK and KU, as well as soon to be Biman.
In terms of your searching method where 'cursory searches' should have their own lane, could you tell me which airports have that feature as I have been through well over 100 airports, and maybe I have not looked properly, I don't know, but, I've not seen this in practice anywhere? I've seen lanes where it is a 'one on one' approach where the X-ray operator just shouts to the bag searcher and then the bag can go, but I don't see how this could work at MAN as the X-ray operators now sit in a control room screening bags on all operational lanes, and do not have the means to single out bags. It's either clear, or it isn't, and that applies to all UK airports as far as I'm aware.
Then even if it was possible to kick a bag down the clear lane for but still need a quick check, how do you propose making that bag clear to a secondary searcher that it needs searching? How do you make sure a passenger doesn't get to the bag first? What happens if there is something suspect in the bag after all? How do you pay for a secondary searcher in an already tight budget? As it was told to me, security is a huge loss maker for airports, but is nessicary for operation.
I don't know, maybe your approach needs further clarification but I don't see how that method would ever be readable? As for making it clear to people that a search is nessecary, well, it comes back to the arguement that due to differing standards in UK airports, it means passengers don't know what's right and what's wrong. This now includes yourself whereby you have a real bee in the bonnet over this camera search when it wasn't stopped at Heathrow, yet the DfT state all large electrical SMS needs to be clear and visible to the X-ray operator, but thanks to Heathrow not following the standards, you then didn't follow them at MAN and now leaves you feeling MAN was way over the top, when already said MAAn is proven to be the best for complying with DfT standards.
What I will say is, MAN must be doing something right when the US prefers MAN screening for security stops too, such as PK and KU, as well as soon to be Biman.
I've only had one experience of a bag (small shoulder bag) being subject to a second (manual) check.
It was in T1 a couple of years ago. I have to say it didn't strike me that the process was the height of efficiency in that there was no orderly queue or checking of the bags in sequence as they appeared for inspection. The delay for us was only about 10 minutes but it was apparent that some passengers were getting frustrated or annoyed trying to see where their bag was or when it was going to be inspected. I think we have to accept that some passengers, whether frequent flyers or not, find airports stressful at the best of times and getting through security if it doesn't go smoothly is not likely to help.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that secondary checks aren't important - security is paramount - but my impression was that the way staff organised the process could be improved. Maybe things have improved since or that was not typical.
It was in T1 a couple of years ago. I have to say it didn't strike me that the process was the height of efficiency in that there was no orderly queue or checking of the bags in sequence as they appeared for inspection. The delay for us was only about 10 minutes but it was apparent that some passengers were getting frustrated or annoyed trying to see where their bag was or when it was going to be inspected. I think we have to accept that some passengers, whether frequent flyers or not, find airports stressful at the best of times and getting through security if it doesn't go smoothly is not likely to help.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that secondary checks aren't important - security is paramount - but my impression was that the way staff organised the process could be improved. Maybe things have improved since or that was not typical.
Philbky
Active Member
User 001, you have misinterpreted what I have written. I didn't say cursory checks should have there own lane. What I said was "Cursory searches done at the end of the conveyor, deeper searches to one side" and as you know, that is done just about everywhere else, including the list in my first post on this topic. To put it to you again, a bag goes through the scanner. If the operator is unhappy he/she calls the bag as it emerges from the scanner. It is looked at in line by an agent who, if satisfied with a cursory search, lets the bag go. If not it is pulled to one side for a detailed search. That way a queue of bags rarely develops In the last four years I have seen this happen and been subject to this system at Heathrow T2, T3, T5, Liverpool, Shannon, Dublin, Cork, Frankfurt, Houston Intercontinental, Los Angeles, Kahului, Kona, Honolulu, Sydney, Melbourne, Alice Springs, Cairns, Adelaide, Auckland, Christchurch, Rarotonga, Singapore, Hong Kong, I could go on.
If Manchester operates a centralised screening area, away from the scanner lanes, it is not helping itself especially in the crowded choke point that is T3 security. In effect the system is designed to cause delays. If you are making a case that the problem is down to budget, then we are in a crazy scenario where the paramount issue of efficient security is being hamstrung by budget constraints. That should be totally unacceptable.
It has been reported elsewhere that agents in T3 security are under pressure and find the conditions difficult. On the face of it, it is difficult to criticise a system which is rated the most compliant with the standards expected but this is coming at a cost and with no real advantage in security over any other airport in the UK on the basis of either threats stopped or threats missed.
As for the use of Manchester being preferred by the US for the screening of PIA, Kuwait and Biman, that is not true. The airport is accepted as a re-screening airport by the TSA as are Heathrow, Gatwick, Dublin and Shannon in the British Isles.
The reason PIA use it is due to slot availability and, more importantly, Halal catering. Shannon used to have the PIA flights but the cost of Halal catering proved extortionate as it was the only airline requiring the service.
The Kuwait flight is moving for one reason only, the downgrading of Shannon's fire service rating from 9 which means there will not be enough manned fire trucks for the length of the 777-300 on a scheduled passenger service, another cost cutting measure. Shannon's security facilities are perfectly acceptable to the US which has its own Customs, Immigration and Security pre-clearance facilities on the airport, though Kuwait chose not to schedule the flight at a time to use them, as they are not open all day. The airline has been subject to a political argument between the US and Kuwait and Kuwait dropped a flight from Kuwait to New York and vice versa over Heathrow due to the argument so was unlikely to have gone back to Heathrow. I understand MAG would have preferred the flight to have gone to Stansted but agreed to Manchester as part of the discussions on the upcoming Kuwait to Manchester service.
As far as Biman is concerned it is showing a possible service over Manchester because it already has rights between Manchester and Dhaka which it uses periodically.
If Manchester operates a centralised screening area, away from the scanner lanes, it is not helping itself especially in the crowded choke point that is T3 security. In effect the system is designed to cause delays. If you are making a case that the problem is down to budget, then we are in a crazy scenario where the paramount issue of efficient security is being hamstrung by budget constraints. That should be totally unacceptable.
It has been reported elsewhere that agents in T3 security are under pressure and find the conditions difficult. On the face of it, it is difficult to criticise a system which is rated the most compliant with the standards expected but this is coming at a cost and with no real advantage in security over any other airport in the UK on the basis of either threats stopped or threats missed.
As for the use of Manchester being preferred by the US for the screening of PIA, Kuwait and Biman, that is not true. The airport is accepted as a re-screening airport by the TSA as are Heathrow, Gatwick, Dublin and Shannon in the British Isles.
The reason PIA use it is due to slot availability and, more importantly, Halal catering. Shannon used to have the PIA flights but the cost of Halal catering proved extortionate as it was the only airline requiring the service.
The Kuwait flight is moving for one reason only, the downgrading of Shannon's fire service rating from 9 which means there will not be enough manned fire trucks for the length of the 777-300 on a scheduled passenger service, another cost cutting measure. Shannon's security facilities are perfectly acceptable to the US which has its own Customs, Immigration and Security pre-clearance facilities on the airport, though Kuwait chose not to schedule the flight at a time to use them, as they are not open all day. The airline has been subject to a political argument between the US and Kuwait and Kuwait dropped a flight from Kuwait to New York and vice versa over Heathrow due to the argument so was unlikely to have gone back to Heathrow. I understand MAG would have preferred the flight to have gone to Stansted but agreed to Manchester as part of the discussions on the upcoming Kuwait to Manchester service.
As far as Biman is concerned it is showing a possible service over Manchester because it already has rights between Manchester and Dhaka which it uses periodically.
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
Phil,
I fear this debate could rage on forever more here, clearly we are not seeing eye to eye on this topic so I'm curtailing my part here. That's not because I don't have a response or otherwise, it's simply that I fear this will end up in a circutous loop that will never really be resolved.
I fear this debate could rage on forever more here, clearly we are not seeing eye to eye on this topic so I'm curtailing my part here. That's not because I don't have a response or otherwise, it's simply that I fear this will end up in a circutous loop that will never really be resolved.
- Moderator
- #97
Good to see a full debate, but as User001 has said it seems to have run its course.
I'm glad that common sense has prevailed in the end.
I'm glad that common sense has prevailed in the end.
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
I think last night hits home that no where is safe, no where is off limits and that it is so unexpected.
This is why for me, it frustrates me so much when people ***** about security queues, they are trying to stop things like last night. If that means I have to stand in a queue for an hour, fine. If that means my bag gets pulled for a cursarory check, so be it. I would rather loose an hour of my life than loose it full stop.
This is why for me, it frustrates me so much when people ***** about security queues, they are trying to stop things like last night. If that means I have to stand in a queue for an hour, fine. If that means my bag gets pulled for a cursarory check, so be it. I would rather loose an hour of my life than loose it full stop.
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
Here here.
It is all very well to aspire to perform the security function more efficiently, but the ultimate task is to make us all safe. If it takes the security men and women longer than we would like to do their job and make us safe, that is fine by me.
One things for sure, the security forces will analyse this latest atrocity and learn what needs to be learned to try and ensure this is not repeated. They do this quetly, they are not feted, and I am grateful for their efforts.
It is all very well to aspire to perform the security function more efficiently, but the ultimate task is to make us all safe. If it takes the security men and women longer than we would like to do their job and make us safe, that is fine by me.
One things for sure, the security forces will analyse this latest atrocity and learn what needs to be learned to try and ensure this is not repeated. They do this quetly, they are not feted, and I am grateful for their efforts.
