UK Airlines say they should stop bowing to US security demands

[scottbee]

Really interesting article on BBC News this morning on how UK airlines are fed up with US security regulations, that apply to flights into the USA, but not USA domestic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11632944

 

This really sums it up nicely

...He also criticised the US for imposing increased checks on US-bound flights but not on its own domestic services, saying the UK should stop "kowtowing" to US security demands....

I tend to agree having watched the US impose huge restrictions for carry-ons from Canada; but not on USA domestic flights.

[Atomica]

I have to admit I've been very surprised that domestic US flights have the flexibility they do.

 

Flying from YVR or YYZ to the States, we get the full treatment: passport examined and swiped, questioned, randomly searched. Which is fine - they have their job to do, and I want to fly to their country. Fair is fair.

 

But taking a flight from SEA to Long Beach, hardly anyone looked at my passport, and certainly not for more than a second or so. It was like I was already part of "the club" since I was in the US to begin with. No questions. No searches.

 

I frankly get hassled more on domestic flights within Canada.

 

I'm just happy they let us bring carry-on bags onboard again on flights to the US. You can take my water, my gels, liquids, sharp pointy objects, but for God's sake don't take my book!

[dforeigner]

Really interesting article on BBC News this morning on how UK airlines are fed up with US security regulations, that apply to flights into the USA, but not USA domestic. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11632944

 

This really sums it up nicely

...He also criticised the US for imposing increased checks on US-bound flights but not on its own domestic services, saying the UK should stop "kowtowing" to US security demands....

I tend to agree having watched the US impose huge restrictions for carry-ons from Canada; but not on USA domestic flights.

 

They have a rather valid point. Unfortunately, unless they comply with the rules, they will not be allowed to enter US airspace.

 

Sad how fast people forget that the attacks of 911 were all done on board domestic flights. Granted, lately, all the attempts have been on board international flights to the US.

[frugaltravel]

Definitely an interesting article. But it was the UK that imposed stricter carry on limits for quite some time, not the US. All travelers had to grin and bear it. And I had to chuckle at this comment:

 

And he questioned why laptop computers needed to be screened separately.

Laptops are required to be screened separately when traveling solely within Europe. It is not just a US thing.

[fbgd]

But taking a flight from SEA to Long Beach, hardly anyone looked at my passport, and certainly not for more than a second or so. It was like I was already part of "the club" since I was in the US to begin with. No questions. No searches

 

Well that's because you are in a sense. In the UK, New Zealand and Australia (and I'm sure there are a few other countries) you don't even need photo ID to travel by plane, unless the airline require it. You could travel under a pseudonym if you wanted.

[paul929207]

I am not sure that UK airlines can decide not to follow US rules for flights to the US. If they did so, they could be denied the right to land in the US

[Sargent_Schultz]

The technology in use by various countries will never be in sync so these things happen. The UK airlines are free to stop flying to the US if they don't want to comply.

 

Personally, I think they have enough to worry about with all the strikes, etc.

[scottbee]

The technology in use by various countries will never be in sync so these things happen. The UK airlines are free to stop flying to the US if they don't want to comply.

 

Obviously you didn't read the article. It is not UK airlines, but instead the "Board of Airlines Representatives in the UK" (open to any airline that operates in/out/within the UK). The vice-chair of this board is currently Mrs Angela Coleman of Delta Air Lines. This isn't UK airlines complaining, it's virtually every major airline in the world complaining.

 

All they're asking for is for US bound flights to comply with the same rules that the US domestic carriers have to comply with; pointing out the insanity that not all aircraft operating in the USA are equivalently security screened.

 

Flights to the United States out of BLI airport (in the USA) versus flights from YVR (25 miles away) have different security requirements (and most amusing given BLI approach/departure is even handled out of Canada)

 

Personally, I think they have enough to worry about with all the strikes, etc.

 

At least UK, European and Canadian airlines can strike; in the USA the rights of the workers of airlines are severely restricted by the Railway Act. As a supporter of the most unionized airline in the USA (Southwest), I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[scottbee]

Definitely an interesting article. But it was the UK that imposed stricter carry on limits for quite some time, not the US. All travelers had to grin and bear it. And I had to chuckle at this comment:

 

Yes, it was UK airlines that initially banned, and then relaxed to the 100mL (3½ fl oz) rule. This was because the British foiled a plot to blow up North American (both US and Canadian bound) aircraft with a liquid explosive, not unlike the bomb which exploded on PR/Philippine Airlines Flight 434

 

The UK implemented the ban against ALL flights domestic and international; not just those destined for another specific country; not the double standard which this article is addressing.

[lovemylab]

I have to admit I've been very surprised that domestic US flights have the flexibility they do.

 

Flying from YVR or YYZ to the States, we get the full treatment: passport examined and swiped, questioned, randomly searched. Which is fine - they have their job to do, and I want to fly to their country. Fair is fair.

 

But taking a flight from SEA to Long Beach, hardly anyone looked at my passport, and certainly not for more than a second or so. It was like I was already part of "the club" since I was in the US to begin with. No questions. No searches.

 

I agree completely. Last year I flew from YHZ to EWR and had to show my passport and boarding pass multiple times, had to answer a bunch of questions, had to turn the ipod on and off several times so they knew it wasn't a bomb and was pulled aside for a random search. My carry on items were thoroughly searched as was DH's suitcase that he had checked. We had no cpmplaints as we have nothing to hide and it's their job.

 

The following day I flew from EWR to SJU and barely had to show any ID and wasn't asked a single question other than "how many bags are you checking". There was no searching of my bags and I didn't have to turn the ipod on/off.

[Sargent_Schultz]

Obviously you didn't read the article. It is not UK airlines, but instead the "Board of Airlines Representatives in the UK" (open to any airline that operates in/out/within the UK). The vice-chair of this board is currently Mrs Angela Coleman of Delta Air Lines. This isn't UK airlines complaining, it's virtually every major airline in the world complaining.

 

I was quoting your thread title.

" UK Airlines say they..."

 

I didn't read the article because I had already read one on that subject earlier. In that one, they pointed out that removing laptops was no longer necessary because of the technology they use across the pond. In the US, you still need to remove laptops or have an approved case for them. That is a case of differences in technology used.

 

Just because a foreign country is using a different technology does not mean that the US approves the use of that technology.

 

Airlines certainly do strike in the US including Spirit which went on strike earlier this year, but I'm sure you knew that.

[FlyerTalker]

Let me offer a trade. We'll reduce the security restriction....the UK reduces the ridiculous (IMHO) "carbon tax" on flights to/from the UK (or whatever it is). Especially for premium tickets, that "tax" is BS.

 

Maybe the TSA is actually a shill to provide bargaining chips.

[scottbee]

Let me offer a trade. We'll reduce the security restriction....the UK reduces the ridiculous (IMHO) "carbon tax" on flights to/from the UK (or whatever it is). Especially for premium tickets, that "tax" is BS.

 

Maybe the TSA is actually a shill to provide bargaining chips.

 

How about the USA reducing the ridiculous "Immigration Fee" and "Agricultural Inspection Fee"??

[dforeigner]

How about the USA reducing the ridiculous "Immigration Fee" and "Agricultural Inspection Fee"??

 

Sorry but somebody has to fund their salaries. :D

[paul929207]

Sorry but somebody has to fund their salaries. :D

Remember, it was you UK guys that like to tax the people who couldn't vote. We learned from the experts. :)

[marchanxiety]

We had to pay a departure tax to leave CDG last year. But I'd do just about anything to get out of that place!

[fbgd]

We had to pay a departure tax to leave CDG last year. But I'd do just about anything to get out of that place!

 

Many, many airports levy a departure tax, it's just rolled into the price of the tax element. Good TAs and some booking sites do give a breakout of these charges.

[Bojangles]

I found that here in the U.S. we also take off our shoes and check laptop's seperately. The only thing I notice differently is multiple checks of our I.D. This is true even if we are going from LA to Las Vegas.

[njhorseman]

This article includes a sidebar with seven bullet points comparing US and UK screening procedures, presumably in support of the article's position. Of the seven, there are three where the US and UK are claimed to differ. All three examples are incorrect, and in my opinion this brings the entire article's credibility into question. :

 

Laptops removed - UK; not US on some domestic routes Incorrect. Laptops are separately screened on all US domestic routes. If stored in a TSA approved laptop bag they do not have to be removed from that bag, but the laptop and bag always must be screened apart from the remainder of your carryon items.

 

Shoes removed - UK but not on some European flights; not US domestic

Incorrect. Shoes must be removed on all US domestic flights. This has been true since the "Shoebomber" incident.

 

Pre-flight passengers records given to US authorities - UK; not US domestic

Incorrect. The purpose of the Secure Flight program, which has been phasing into effect for the past year or so, is to allow the government to prescreen passenger records against terrorist watchlists in advance of the flight.

 

 

[njhorseman]

Obviously you didn't read the article. It is not UK airlines, but instead the "Board of Airlines Representatives in the UK" (open to any airline that operates in/out/within the UK). The vice-chair of this board is currently Mrs Angela Coleman of Delta Air Lines. This isn't UK airlines complaining, it's virtually every major airline in the world complaining.

 

All they're asking for is for US bound flights to comply with the same rules that the US domestic carriers have to comply with; pointing out the insanity that not all aircraft operating in the USA are equivalently security screened.

 

Flights to the United States out of BLI airport (in the USA) versus flights from YVR (25 miles away) have different security requirements (and most amusing given BLI approach/departure is even handled out of Canada)

 

 

 

At least UK, European and Canadian airlines can strike; in the USA the rights of the workers of airlines are severely restricted by the Railway Act. As a supporter of the most unionized airline in the USA (Southwest), I'm surprised you didn't know that.

 

I read the article, and your interpretation focuses on one of many issues cited, US security requirements. That is by no means the sole or even principal thrust of the article. You even prove it by the one sentence you've taken out of context and cited to support your biased interpretaion:

 

"This really sums it up nicely

...

He also criticised

the US for imposing increased checks on US-bound flights but not on its own domestic services, saying the UK should stop "kowtowing" to US security demands....""

You've failed to give the proper weight to the words I've put in bold, in particular the word "also". It means the complaints about US security are an additional complaint, certainly not the sole or primary complaint, and that is clear as day to anyone reading the article without a preordained bias. The article starts with a complaint about the requirements for checking laptops and shoes...which are required both the US and UK (see my previous post on the article's gross inaccuracies.) Then, before your out of context quote, the UK Transport Department says they do not plan to change laptop and shoe screening.

 

Further, both the title of the article and the thread title you've selected say "UK airlines say". Every individual quoted in the article and identified by name represents some aspect of the UK airline industry, whether airline, aviation authority, government official, etc. Further, while the trade association cited may have non-UK members and some non-UK officers, you can't assume that the association's position represents the unanimous opinion of those members or even officers. Perhaps the US members of the association don't agree with the position. If US members were in agreement, why were only UK members cited? It would offer a lot of strength to the position being taken if they could cite the agreement of US members.

 

 

[MMDown Under]

From the article - "Security checks shouldn't be scrapped, but we shouldn't upset travellers with excessive checks”.

 

My husband and I have stopped flying to and from the US because of over zealous security checks.

 

Much to my surprise, I was selected for an intrusive "pat down" on my return from Vancouver to Australia recently.

 

I am a retired female senior, who was travelling alone. It was 11.30 pm. To say that I was upset goes without saying. Not only was I uncomfortable with the level of the search, I was very concerned about the safety of my belongings, which had passed through the security scanner.

 

The lady who did the search was as nice as could be, said my belongings were safe, etc. yet I felt like bursting into tears.

 

Next time I leave Canada, it will be by ship!

[fbgd]

My husband and I have stopped flying to and from the US because of over zealous security checks.

 

Much to my surprise, I was selected for an intrusive "pat down" on my return from Vancouver to Australia recently.

 

I am a retired female senior, who was travelling alone. It was 11.30 pm. To say that I was upset goes without saying. Not only was I uncomfortable with the level of the search, I was very concerned about the safety of my belongings, which had passed through the security scanner.

 

The lady who did the search was as nice as could be, said my belongings were safe, etc. yet I felt like bursting into tears.

 

Next time I leave Canada, it will be by ship!

 

I didn't realise Vancouver was now part of the US...:confused:

[Sargent_Schultz]

I didn't realise Vancouver was now part of the US...:confused:

 

I'm pretty sure it isn't part of the UK? Is it discussed in the article. :confused:

[njhorseman]

I didn't realise Vancouver was now part of the US...:confused:

 

I suspect the poster meant that they already didn't fly to and from the US because of what they view as excessive security checks, and now they've been subject to the same on a flight from Canada. The juxtaposition of the two sentences and the wording is making it look like they're saying Vancouver is in the US.

[njhorseman]

I'm pretty sure it isn't part of the UK? Is it discussed in the article. :confused:

 

No...this has nothing to do with what was written in the article, just a comment by a poster about their own experiences.