Airport security returning home to the u.s.

[Paulchili]

 

Presumably, you'd have no objection to, say, German police officers being based at your local airport in America, doing a second search of passengers flying American Airlines to Frankfurt, because American security officers couldnt be trusted to do a good job?

 

Well, it's not exactly as you describe it.

The second security is usually done by local authorities and not US officials - as described by Mura in Lisbon (see post #19).

An exception to that is in Canada (and Abu Dhabi) where both security and immigration is done by US customs & Immigration and thus these "international" flights arrive in US as domestic without additional customs & immigration.

[RJB]

Not all of us feel that "if you don't like it, stay home".

I personally feel that it's ok to have opinions and still not stay home. It seems rather un-American to say that you must like something or else avoid it. Sometimes we choose to deal with certain barriers in order to enjoy a broader experience.

Yes, we all have choices to make, but I can not believe with all that is going on in this world, especially Europe that people are upset with too much security. Opinions are fine, but not the point here. Two choices, put up with the extra security or stay home. I can't think of a third choice.

[PaulMCO]

Expect security to become tighter as new Homeland Security procedures have come into effect.

As pointed out secondary screenings and European gateways are standard but now these are to become more evasive with laptop and explosive swab tests.

 

In Middle East with Eithiad you can now bring your laptops on board as they have adopted the new enhanced procedures.

[Harters]

s these "international" flights arrive in US as domestic without additional customs & immigration.

There is a vaguely similar situation in the UK. When I travel to France on the ferry, I pass through French immigration whilst still in the UK. On the return trip, British border control is in France.

 

 

These are not issues for anyone to get their knickers in a twist. Security is important but needs to be balanced - I come from a city that has been bombed three times by terrorists - twice by Irish terrorists, once by a jihadist.

[njhorseman]

That works both ways. If you can't trust the German security at, say, Frankfurt airport, to do a proper job, then don't visit Germany. Job done!

 

Presumably, you'd have no objection to, say, German police officers being based at your local airport in America, doing a second search of passengers flying American Airlines to Frankfurt, because American security officers couldnt be trusted to do a good job?

 

Germany absolutely has the right to screen me for entry to their country. Try flying to Israel one day and you'll find out about the intense screening every passenger has to go through in order to be allowed to board the airplane.

As was already noted the additional screening was not carried out by US officers at the foreign airports, nor would I expect Germany to have officers stationed in the US.

Everyone flying to the US is going to be subjected to more intense screening very soon under new requirements proposed by the Department of Homeland Security. Any airline not complying with the requirements will lose their ability to fly to the US.

[MarkieMarkNYC]

Yes, we all have choices to make, but I can not believe with all that is going on in this world, especially Europe that people are upset with too much security. Opinions are fine, but not the point here. Two choices, put up with the extra security or stay home. I can't think of a third choice.

Except that a few people have expressed that sentiment.

Fortunately, we have freedom of thought. We don't have to like everything.

And just because something is labeled "security" doesn't mean we are more secure.

But I understand that some people will believe and accept everything they are told to think and they will demand that everyone else think the same way (or stay home). If that works for them, that's fine.

I choose to think for myself and allow others the same freedom.

[njhorseman]

There is a vaguely similar situation in the UK. When I travel to France on the ferry, I pass through French immigration whilst still in the UK. On the return trip, British border control is in France.

 

 

These are not issues for anyone to get their knickers in a twist. Security is important but needs to be balanced - I come from a city that has been bombed three times by terrorists - twice by Irish terrorists, once by a jihadist.

 

You and "urlaub" were the ones who first got your knickers in a twist. You're just getting the push back caused by your near-xenophobic comments.

[Mylisa]

I agree that much of what is done in the name of security in US airports and on US airlines is basically theater.

People see and experience the multiple searches and they feel safer. That doesn't mean they actually are more secure. I work in public safety and in talking to my security colleagues they recognize this.

There really should be no need for secondary screenings if the initial screening was done properly.

Flying El Al at any airport and any airline within and leaving Israel is a great example of what security should look like - which is to say largely invisible. Passengers and visitors are observed before they even arrive at the terminal building and continually observed surreptitiously. I'm always struck at how professional and polite the visible security agents are in Israel - no barking, yelling, etc. Yes, they do profile but they are upfront and honest about it. The difference is that those security people care very deeply about their mission and don't have to rely on poorly paid, undereducated TSA people like we have in the US. I'm sure we all have experienced many times TSA agents who are distracted, focused on jacket and shoe removal at the expense of actually watching people, etc.

 

I agree strongly that El Al security is probably the best in the world. They were the first to secure the cockpit doors and no doubt have many more strong security measures in place. The most important one you mentioned already just plain old observation. El Al does indeed observe their passengers from the moment the passenger enters the airport and even before going over passenger lists ahead of time. Human mannerisms are probably more telling than taking off ones shoes and belt.

 

Bottom line is we all just need to be patient and polite to the security people as A. we have no choice but to submit to the inspections and B. these poor people (only say poor because they have to put up with a lot of rude passengers) are only doing their jobs.

[kerryincork]

I have been through extra checks at the gate at some airports going in to and out of the USA.

 

It seems to me to be determined by the set up of the airport itself. Some airports seem to allow incoming and outgoing passengers to mix together without a security barrier between them.

 

I think they then have extra checks at the gate to make sure none of these passengers try and board flights they shouldn't be on.

 

Sent from my SM-N910F using Forums mobile app

[RJB]

Except that a few people have expressed that sentiment.

Fortunately, we have freedom of thought. We don't have to like everything.

And just because something is labeled "security" doesn't mean we are more secure.

But I understand that some people will believe and accept everything they are told to think and they will demand that everyone else think the same way (or stay home). If that works for them, that's fine.

I choose to think for myself and allow others the same freedom.

I agree with you that we need to think for ourselves, but in this case there seems to be nothing to think about. If we want to fly we have to do it their way. In this country we can get into our cars and drive, but to go overseas we need to to fly. Just the reality of how things are and will be probably forever.

[Harters]

near-xenophobic comments.

Isn't xenophobia an irrational fear of foreigners?

 

If so, you'd be wrong. There's been nothing irrational in my comments on this thread. But, seeing as you choose to chuck gratuitous abuse in my direction, I'll leave you to this threrad without further comment from me.

[MarkieMarkNYC]

I agree with you that we need to think for ourselves, but in this case there seems to be nothing to think about. If we want to fly we have to do it their way. In this country we can get into our cars and drive, but to go overseas we need to to fly. Just the reality of how things are and will be probably forever.

Obviously we have to follow certain rules even when we disagree with them.

But we also have a right to have differing opinions and to express them, and to still travel despite them.

It's pretty clear that my point is that the sentiment "if you don't like it, stay home" is ridiculous and frankly meaningless.

[Sabbycat]

If you don't like it, stay home. When you're entering any foreign country it's up to that country to set the standards and procedures it uses for screening passengers. As I noted in my previous post, I, as US citizen born in the US, have twice been subjected to additional screening when returning to the US. If it can been done to me it certainly can be done to foreign nationals entering the US, or any other country for that matter.

I think you are missing the point that the posters are making. Any additional security screening on the part of the United States government ought to be done by the US Government on US soil.

 

Therefore, your tone and comment is inappropriate. Pls understand the concerns of the posters before making critical comments.

 

With respect the secondary security screenings, I agree with what others are saying. Either the first screening was effective or it wasn't. If it was not, there are bigger problems than a second screening.

 

 

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4

[AZjohn]

I normally don't get into thread that is longer than one page as usually the original post have been side tracked really bad. But, here I go breaking my own rule :)

 

The OP was regarding a secondary screening in a NON-US airport. I think what gets things confusing is "who" and "why" this was/is done.

 

One personal experience I had was the countless connections I have taken through LHR (UK). There was always a secondary screening for connecting passengers flying in from a different country connecting to US (likely to other counties also). I could never understand why this was happening because if I was screened before I got on a flight to LHR why did I have to do another one? It only took one of those countless connections to understand why.

 

As I was once again going through the 2nd screening a family ahead of me was pulled to the side as many officers (UK officers) came rushing in. Next thing I know they were pulling out six 24 inch long knifes in this family carry on's (think of Rambo knifes). 20 min later as they took them away and I got to go through I asked how in the world did they get knifes this far after just getting off a flight. I was then informed not every country does the same security screening as the UK does.

 

Needless to say the age of innocence (or ignorance) was over and then understood that not all airports play by the same rules. Way too many connecting aircraft coming into hubs from all over the world. I personally have no problems with whatever extra safety protocol's I and fellow passengers have to go through to increase safety (we all know it likely will never be 100%). Many think it's just a show of force and doesn't work. I know eyes are always watching peoples reaction to that show of force (talk to anyone that works in law enforcement).

 

I agree it can be a huge pain in the butt to go through all these safety screenings but, I have seen it stop some bad guys and I just go with the flow to let them do their job trying to keep the rest of us safer. Guess I have nothing to hide but everything to loose.

[njhorseman]

I think you are missing the point that the posters are making. Any additional security screening on the part of the United States government ought to be done by the US Government on US soil.

 

Therefore, your tone and comment is inappropriate. Pls understand the concerns of the posters before making critical comments.

 

With respect the secondary security screenings, I agree with what others are saying. Either the first screening was effective or it wasn't. If it was not, there are bigger problems than a second screening.

 

 

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4

 

You're so wrong. The idea is to prevent terrorists from boarding an airplane headed for the US. That screening has to be done in the countries where passengers board, not after the airplane lands in the US. Do you remember the "shoe bomber" and the "underwear bomber"? Both boarded airplanes outside the US that were headed for the US. Fortunately neither was successful in blowing up the aircraft. US security experts are concerned that ISIS has developed a bomb that can be encased in a laptop computer and that is one of the main reasons for stepping up security checks before passengers board the plane.

 

So you see, when you understand what the actual facts are and understand the purpose of the additional screening you'll conclude that I am correct and it's the others that are wrong.

Edited July 2, 2017 by njhorseman

[njhorseman]

Isn't xenophobia an irrational fear of foreigners?

 

If so, you'd be wrong. There's been nothing irrational in my comments on this thread. But, seeing as you choose to chuck gratuitous abuse in my direction, I'll leave you to this threrad without further comment from me.

 

Yes, fear of foreigners Your words earlier today in post #20, affirming what urlaub said earlier:

 

"Is it just with American airlines (in which case I don't have a problem), or does American security also double check on flights to the US by, say, Lufthansa, British Airways or KLM (in which case I agree with you)?"

 

 

Your saying, as well as urlaub saying that it's only OK for the US to double check US carriers, but not German, British or Dutch carriers definitely carries the stench of potential xenophobia.

[RJB]

You're so wrong. The idea is to prevent terrorists from boarding an airplane headed for the US. That screening has to be done in the countries where passengers board, not after the airplane lands in the US. Do you remember the "shoe bomber" and the "underwear bomber"? Both boarded airplanes outside the US that were headed for the US. Fortunately neither was successful in blowing up the aircraft. US security experts are concerned that ISIS has developed a bomb that can be encased in a laptop computer and that is one of the main reasons for stepping up security checks before passengers board the plane.

 

So you see, when you understand what the actual facts are and understand the purpose of the additional screening you'll conclude that I am correct and it's the others that are wrong.

It is a no contest. You are 100% Correct. Need to get these people before they board a plane. Afterwards too late.

[scdreamer]

This is nothing new.

 

It has been quite common for quite a few years for there to be a secondary security gate check on flights departing European airports for the United States, especially on US carriers. We travel a lot to the continent and the UK, and have had this occur numerous times. The only downside is in buying bottled water after the initial security - then having to leave it behind when checking on to the plane.

[twochromic]

I don't quite understand why some of you here think these secondary procedures are something new. I've flown back from Lima 6-7 times since 2001, and each time there has been secondary screening at the gate. Similar at Manchester, Schiphol, Heathrow, Lisbon, Dusseldorf and almost every other major airport I've used. Except for Canada and a few Euro places, all this is conducted by non-US officials.

 

It's nothing new, and there is nothing you can do about it if you want to board the flight. I simply keep my opinion on how effective it is to myself.

[Mylisa]

It is a no contest. You are 100% Correct. Need to get these people before they board a plane. Afterwards too late.

 

 

Oh for heavens sake. They haven't caught anyone with a bomb before they've boarded. There's the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber and of course the 9/11 low lives. They have caught bombs being shipped to Chicago. So they seem to be good with luggage and package screening. They continue to pat down the occasional child and grandma terrorist to keep us safe and basically make us get undressed and X-ray us and as of late considering putting electronics in the hold (great idea all those batteries together). I know someone's gonna say that we don't know who they've caught but believe me if there was a big catch we would have heard about it. I hope that the security measures are a deterrent and that they continue to find new methods to deter. But I absolutely refuse to live in fear. sometimes I think the politicians want us to be afraid. It's very convienent. And they really like us to have a Them who's not like us to hate. Seems like We're repeating history.

[urlaub]

Bottom line is that you are flying to and landing in the US. If it is a problem you should stay home or go somewhere else. We need to say as safe as possible.

 

That is the problem. You need to have alle the procedures to come to Europe also. I hope Europe will do this soon for US citizens! I will see you if in NYC a Europeen officer will control your American passport. I hope they do it also like Esta what we need to do. USA with all the weapons in private hands is the most unsafe country I know. And not tourists like we make your country unsafe. This is what you do for yourself.

[urlaub]

Yes, fear of foreigners Your words earlier today in post #20, affirming what urlaub said earlier:

 

"Is it just with American airlines (in which case I don't have a problem), or does American security also double check on flights to the US by, say, Lufthansa, British Airways or KLM (in which case I agree with you)?"

 

 

Your saying, as well as urlaub saying that it's only OK for the US to double check US carriers, but not German, British or Dutch carriers definitely carries the stench of potential xenophobia.

When we fly from Frankfurt we use Lufthansa. And I am definitely not against security check. But I don't want to have the check from a foreign country person.

In Frankfurt we go through security and we have also the passport control. Later at the gate there is a second control and this control is made by Americans. This is what me makes angry.

[Paulchili]

When we fly from Frankfurt we use Lufthansa. And I am definitely not against security check. But I don't want to have the check from a foreign country person.

In Frankfurt we go through security and we have also the passport control. Later at the gate there is a second control and this control is made by Americans. This is what me makes angry.

 

We have flown through and from Frankfurt many times in the past but I have never seen an American security person at the gate (or anywhere else at the airport).

Is this new? Do they wear uniforms of US Immigration and Naturalization?

[urlaub]

We have flown through and from Frankfurt many times in the past but I have never seen an American security person at the gate (or anywhere else at the airport).

Is this new?

I cannot say how long but in the last 3 to 4 years

[njhorseman]

When we fly from Frankfurt we use Lufthansa. And I am definitely not against security check. But I don't want to have the check from a foreign country person.

In Frankfurt we go through security and we have also the passport control. Later at the gate there is a second control and this control is made by Americans. This is what me makes angry.

 

If there were Americans making a secondary security check at a German airport then presumably that had to be approved by the German government. American law enforcement couldn't just barge its way into the Frankfurt airport and take over security processing.

 

I really question whether the secondary screening was actually being carried out by US law enforcement. In my experience secondary screening was done by airline employees, who may have been Americans or nationals of the country in which the airport was located. As others have noted this is nothing new. It first happened to me years ago.

Edited July 3, 2017 by njhorseman