Why is there security screening for transit passengers

[brissyflyer]

Its annoying and I am curious as to why it is that transit passengers have to go through security screening. Fair enough in airports such as KUL where screening is at the gate but why when for example transit through Sydney on the way to Brisbane when all you are doing is hopping off the plane for a short time then back on again. Last month transiting through SYD on the way back from CDG & KUL they even did the explosives test and frisking.

Is it a case of countries thinking that their security is the only reliable one or what?

Peter

 

[straitman]

Its annoying and I am curious as to why it is that transit passengers have to go through security screening. Fair enough in airports such as KUL where screening is at the gate but why when for example transit through Sydney on the way to Brisbane when all you are doing is hopping off the plane for a short time then back on again. Last month transiting through SYD on the way back from CDG & KUL they even did the explosives test and frisking.

Is it a case of countries thinking that their security is the only reliable one or what?

Peter

brissyflyer,

A variety of reasons comes to mind. The essential one is to do with perceptions of quality of screenings and agreements of what is acceptable.

The classic example of this was in AKL a couple of years ago when you went through the NZ Gov't security screening and then had to go through another at the gate before getting on a QF flight. I was told that this had more to do with dotting the i's and crossing the t's than any thing else. ie their paperwork requirements didn't quite line up.

It's fixed now thankfully :!:

 

[dajop]

Sometimes they even do it upon arrival at an airport where they do security screening at gates, yet none upon entry to the airport from the street (I am thinking SIN here). Happened to me twice - once coming from HKT, and once from MNL, had go throught the whole security screening thing after getting off the plane (if I'd walked off the street I wouldn't have gone through screening at all) and of course again when boarding connecting flight. Must be entirely random though because a week before no screening from MNL (although I noticed on that earlier flight there was a full hand luggage screen at the gate - something that didn't happen on the later flight).

 

[Travel Guru]

Ask yourself this, if you were on that international flight after the domestic leg, would you want the domestic passengers screened, or would you be happy to trust that they hadn't:

A. Left a suspicious parcel on the plane??

or perhaps...

B. Carried a large quantity of liquid explosive for an international passenger??


Sure security screening is an inconvenience, but you'd be one beer short of a 6 pack if you honestly thought it was pointless in todays world.

TG

 

[brissyflyer]

Ask yourself this, if you were on that international flight after the domestic leg, would you want the domestic passengers screened, or would you be happy to trust that they hadn't:

A. Left a suspicious parcel on the plane??

or perhaps...

B. Carried a large quantity of liquid explosive for an international passenger??


Sure security screening is an inconvenience, but you'd be one beer short of a 6 pack if you honestly thought it was pointless in todays world.

TG

Actually in this case there are no domestic passengers, everyone in transit has already been screened in KUL and the rest of the passengers are joining the flight in SYD and would obviously have been screened.

I guess it is mainly a case of different countries basically not trusting each others security procedures.

And I do not think security screening is pointless overall, but it does seem that way in the case of international transit when you have already been screened and all you are doing is entering the terminal and getting back on the same plane.

BTW I do realise that in airports with screening points at the gate then obviously there is nothing you can do about it, I am only talking about airports such as SYD where you are entering straight into the secured area.

 

[Travel Guru]

I understand what you're saying.

I guess you're right that it's a case where some countries are tougher on screening than others, and it could also be a case where different countries have different requirements for what is or isn't allowed (eg. the one bag rule in LON)

In the end, who knows, but I guess its better to be overscreened than under.

TG

 

[coco50]

This happened to me returning from HKG to MEL. Had to deplane at T1 SYD for transfer still at T1 to AC for flight to MEL. Once off the AC went through security before going up escalator to main level then up escalator to QC. We were airside all the time. Why the screening? We had been screened at HKG.

 

[oz_mark]

Sometimes they even do it upon arrival at an airport where they do security screening at gates, yet none upon entry to the airport from the street (I am thinking SIN here). Happened to me twice - once coming from HKT, and once from MNL, had go throught the whole security screening thing after getting off the plane (if I'd walked off the street I wouldn't have gone through screening at all) and of course again when boarding connecting flight. Must be entirely random though because a week before no screening from MNL (although I noticed on that earlier flight there was a full hand luggage screen at the gate - something that didn't happen on the later flight).

SIN randomly does it on arriving flights (Manila and Jakarta flights seem to get it more often than others).

As for SYD, all you would need is a flight from somewhere that they don't trust the screening of, and short of keeping everyone separate, you would need to screen everybody.

 

[medhead]

This sounds similar to the logic that has regional passengers at ADL forced through screening into the main secure area before they can exit the secured area to go to baggage claim.

(Rather than going out the door before the screening point across the valet packing area, through another door to arrive at baggage claim)

 

[JohnK]

A variety of reasons comes to mind. The essential one is to do with perceptions of quality of screenings and agreements of what is acceptable.

I think one of the reasons could be not having trust in the security procedures and screening at the point of origin.