Airline Security (another myth)

[hedge]

I travel a lot. Hey I am in BKK at the moment. I have been through hundreds of security checkpoint. I wear almost the same type clothes ie shirt and long pants and New Balance runners and a belt every time I travel.

Some places the belt lights up the sensors - others it does not. Once even a piece of steel in the shoes lit up the sensors.

So wow, they caught my shoes !!!

Traveling in and out of AUS we have plastic cutlery. Not even domestic travel in the US has plastic cutlery (unless you are in coach). Traveling out of the UK and Asia (where most of the terrorist reside) you have steel cutlery. Who are we trying to kid ?

Security seems to forget that on a plane there is so much steel, metal and glass that could be used by a terrorist. This is what is really frightening. You are right - most terrorist are pretty dumb - they haven't figured this out yet.

If someone with half a brain wanted is to hijack a plane the forks, palstic knives, wine bottles, soft drink cans etc etc are far more dangerous than any pair of nail clippers - yet we confiscate the nail clippers !!!

Airline security is simply a joke. There is no such thing. and this is what is really frightening.

Funny, I wear a thick gold bracelet that does set off the metal detectors. At LHR, the detector went off and I just indicated at my bracelet which I had negated to take off, and I was on my merry way. At SIN the guards were pretty vigilant and made me take it off.

 

[tintin]

I think that the most rediculous thing is that you are not allowed more than 50ml of liquid.

 

[dot]

I think that the most ridiculous thing is that you are not allowed more than 50ml of liquid.

I think you mean 100ml.

The liquids and pastes ban was as a result of the 2006 English plot to bomb multiple aircraft en route to the LOTFAP, although a few years earlier (1994), a liquid bomb was successfully used to bomb a Philippines Airlines (PR) flight to GMP as part of a test run for Operation Bojinka - one person was killed, the Japanese pax that was sitting on the seat that had the bomb planted undeneath it. That bombing - despite not destroying the plane was a successful proof of concept for using liquid based explosives and in my view should have seen a liquids ban introduced way back in 1994 or so rather than wait until 2006. Had 26K been over the center fuel tank as it is on some other PR 747s, the result could have been much more serious. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434 for more detail

 

[millesm]

on a recent trip to the UK my 15 month old daughter carried a bottle of water through security and was able to keep it. In her back pack were another 2 bottles of water we'd forgotten about. Got through Melbourne (dom), Sydney (Int), Bangkok (stopover) and onto London. She carried the same bottles all the way home through LHR & Singapore. Not once were we ever questioned about carrying 3 bottles of water, not to mention the 2 uht milks we had for her.

At 19 months old she carried 2 bottles on a return trip to Singapore and was allowed to keep them.

 

[anat0l]

on a recent trip to the UK my 15 month old daughter carried a bottle of water through security and was able to keep it. In her back pack were another 2 bottles of water we'd forgotten about. Got through Melbourne (dom), Sydney (Int), Bangkok (stopover) and onto London. She carried the same bottles all the way home through LHR & Singapore. Not once were we ever questioned about carrying 3 bottles of water, not to mention the 2 uht milks we had for her.

At 19 months old she carried 2 bottles on a return trip to Singapore and was allowed to keep them.

Wow. Either you got lucky or.....

.....the daft people at security thought they were just baby food or formula. And a small packet of UHT milk (viz. they give you on the plane) look very innocuous. I'm assuming that the x-rays are able to show what is a liquid and what is not a liquid, but something about those milks make them hard to detect I'd imagine.

Of course, if Evian started making baby formula/food....

On the other hand, when I came back from OzFest #5, I accidentally carried a small carton of milk (made of cardboard, 300mL) with me through MEL T2 security. It was seized (not that I cared).

 

[medhead]

on a recent trip to the UK my 15 month old daughter carried a bottle of water through security and was able to keep it. In her back pack were another 2 bottles of water we'd forgotten about. Got through Melbourne (dom), Sydney (Int), Bangkok (stopover) and onto London. She carried the same bottles all the way home through LHR & Singapore. Not once were we ever questioned about carrying 3 bottles of water, not to mention the 2 uht milks we had for her.

I'd guess they thought it was baby food which is allowed.

FRA security got quite excited about the singing barbie dolls in my daughters backpacks. Stick like, plastic things with wires and batteries inside them.

Needless to say the girls were quite tense while barbie went away for private screening.

 

[roego]

I juist want to know why I can fly from Kuala Lumpur direct to Brisbane and but duty free spirits
If I have to take the Malaysia Airline city circle flight via Sydney. I cannot. I am locked in transit in Sydney and go in through a security again with a bottle I can buy there, but I cannot bring a bottle with me and go through the security????

 

[SeatBackForward]

As long as we continue to assume that Terrorists will never fly first class - everything will be ok

 

[serfty]

I juist want to know why I can fly from Kuala Lumpur direct to Brisbane and but duty free spirits...

That's just the way it is ... if it's an issue, then don't fly via SYD.

I know it's not really that logical (as this entire thread indicates) ...

 

[NM]

I juist want to know why I can fly from Kuala Lumpur direct to Brisbane and but duty free spirits

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with security. It is all about protecting the duty-free sales businesses in Australian airports. When the liquids bans came into operation, the duty-free shops realised they were about to lose a hugh amount of outbound sales (anyine with a connecting flight won't purchase). Of course ths has potential financial impact on the airport owners who make a lot of money from renting shop space to the DF shops.

So to help protect the Australian DF operators business, rules were set in place that ensure the only practical way for some people to purchase DF liquids is to do so upon arrival into Australia.

I think that SIN airport complained bitterly to the Australian rule makers and came up with their process for purchasing and delivery to the gate. But the fiasco in HKG where all flights to Australia get an extra manual search on the jetway, just goes to show the ridiculous nature of the current situation. HKG security is good enough for all other Asian countries, all of Europe, Africa etc. Its just USA and Australia that have this attitude of imposing greater restrictions in order to protect their local DF shops and Airport owners financial interests.

 

[dajop]

Its just USA and Australia that have this attitude of imposing greater restrictions in order to protect their local DF shops and Airport owners financial interests.

Australia definitely. But USA? My most recent entry points have been ORD & JFK, and I can't recall passing DF outlets enroute to immigration. Not to say that they're not there but certainly didn't figure prominently - unlike the Disney style way you are now basically dumped into a DF store when you disembark plane at Melbourne, and I assume other Australian airports as well.

 

[NM]

Australia definitely. But USA?

Its possible the USA has been dropped from this extra screening requirement at HKG, just showing how ridiculous the Australian requirement really is.

 

[medhead]

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with security. It is all about protecting the duty-free sales businesses in Australian airports. When the liquids bans came into operation, the duty-free shops realised they were about to lose a hugh amount of outbound sales (anyine with a connecting flight won't purchase). Of course ths has potential financial impact on the airport owners who make a lot of money from renting shop space to the DF shops.

So to help protect the Australian DF operators business, rules were set in place that ensure the only practical way for some people to purchase DF liquids is to do so upon arrival into Australia.

I think that SIN airport complained bitterly to the Australian rule makers and came up with their process for purchasing and delivery to the gate. But the fiasco in HKG where all flights to Australia get an extra manual search on the jetway, just goes to show the ridiculous nature of the current situation. HKG security is good enough for all other Asian countries, all of Europe, Africa etc. Its just USA and Australia that have this attitude of imposing greater restrictions in order to protect their local DF shops and Airport owners financial interests.

I think this is only looking at the issue from one side. Australian DF only lose sales for people who have to transit. e.g. going to LHR/FRA via SIN. And then the sale is only lost because of the security screening at SIN. So I'm not sure exactly why SIN would complain about Australia.

But there is nothing stopping a purchase in Australia if going direct to your destination.

Why do I need to be screened in SIN after getting off my flight from SYD and having never left the airport? That is the important question!

But once they have decided to screen there is no point arguing about whether or not the full process should be followed. The screening is there for a real threat but it is being misapplied in some cases.

 

[JohnK]

Airline security a myth? Enough said....