My Worst Airport - Tullamarine, Melbourne. What's Yours?

[Renato1]

I just remembered another reason I was annoyed at Melbourne Airport. I walked in to the domestic terminal to travel to Canberra for work. An official comes up to me and says that he requires me to take an explosives test - I don't have to take it, but I won't be able to fly if I don't.

So me - a Defence Employee with a Defence ID card had to undergo an explosives test.

It is interesting to contrast to when our plane landed in Vienna. Big, burly, intimidating-looking Police officers start coming down the long path to the plane door - people were raising their passports to them. We raised ours to one, and he dismissively waved us on like we'd just wasted his time. What they then did was pull up all the Arabs on the plane and give them a grilling.

Note the difference. One airport is nice and equitable, and wastes valuable resources testing the most unlikely people to need testing, while another airport with similar security concerns, instead targets the identifiable group most likely to cause issues.

Looking at the two airports objectively, which would inspire more confidence with respect to security measures?
Regards,
Renato

 

[TomVexille]

Okay, so if it's not Africans it's Arabs. I'm not even going to try and start this argument.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I just remembered another reason I was annoyed at Melbourne Airport. I walked in to the domestic terminal to travel to Canberra for work. An official comes up to me and says that he requires me to take an explosives test - I don't have to take it, but I won't be able to fly if I don't.

So me - a Defence Employee with a Defence ID card had to undergo an explosives test.

It is interesting to contrast to when our plane landed in Vienna. Big, burly, intimidating-looking Police officers start coming down the long path to the plane door - people were raising their passports to them. We raised ours to one, and he dismissively waved us on like we'd just wasted his time. What they then did was pull up all the Arabs on the plane and give them a grilling.

Note the difference. One airport is nice and equitable, and wastes valuable resources testing the most unlikely people to need testing, while another airport with similar security concerns, instead targets the identifiable group most likely to cause issues.

Looking at the two airports objectively, which would inspire more confidence with respect to security measures?
Regards,
Renato

I think you'll find defence service employees are not immune to carrying out terrorist attacks, or shooting their own. With very few exceptions, everyone should be subjected to the same security before boarding a flight.

I would never dream of showing an official government ID at a security or customs checkpoint in the anticipation it would exempt me from a process (unless it was an appropriate diplomatic document).

 

[medhead]

Wasn't Martin Byrant a defence employee at one stage?

Id rather have security that will have an equal chance of catching dodgy people.

 

[anat0l]

Looking at the two airports objectively, which would inspire more confidence with respect to security measures?

Security as you describe it (in these situations, plus many others) is not the primary responsibility of the airport. It is that of the host government; airports can't refuse to have such security measures if it is required by the government, and they have little say in how it is conducted and to what degree. I wouldn't be surprised if the airport isn't even responsible for the recruitment or training of said officers. So pinning blame or what not on the airport is a fairly empty argument.

To some degree, airport layout and design may be forced by relevant government authorities for reasons of security and so on. Also goes to show why there are makeshift messes of mazes at many airports around the world in the vicinity of gates which have flights bound for the USA.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Your notion that the venetians came up and tapped me alone is contrary to what I plainly wrote - that they got me and hundreds of others to go through the EU queues.

Don't get up in arms. I didn't have a notion. I had a question (well two actually), an observation and a suggestion. You were the one who wrote "I thought Heathrow was pretty poor - not because of the layout, but because of the way it deals with white non-EU citizens" and followed it up with "the Venetians came along to the white people at the end of the non-EU queue - and told them to go through the EU passport control areas, and got us out of there." You did not say they "got hundreds" as you now suggest that you did so "plainly" and you made it perfectly clear you believed the venetians selected only the "white" people and you stated that was a contrast (presumably a positive contrast in your eyes) to the "pretty poor" LHR who served all in turn fairly.

Your notion that it is my notion that a good airport is one that shuffles through all the white people ahead of black people is plainly stupid, and dredged up from your politically correct notebook.

That's twice you've tried to deflect attention from your comments by claiming my "notion" is wrong. The word stupid is an apt word however you've applied it to the wrong "perceived" notion! Oh, and I hope you don't mind me recording for prosperity that at least someone thinks I'm politically correct. It's not often I get accused of that so I'm quite chuffed!

a good airport should shuffle through people with legitimate passports ahead of those with illegitimate ones - when it is bleeding obvious which group is legitimate and which isn't.

You don't know when to quit when you're behind, do you? So do I now believe you are implying anyone who holds up a customs queue has an "illegitimate" passport? As you have tied that to your African blockade story, are you suggesting the Africans had "illegitimate" passports? Given that you also wrote "So we had to inch forward, and an hour and forty minutes later we finally got to show our passports and get through", can I assume those "illegitimate" Africans ahead of you were allowed entry? Maybe not the "illegitimate" group you were referring to?

A poor airport is one that sees the bleeding obvious but which due to dumb notions of equity, penalizes the legitimate group.

As I said, you just don't know to quit while you're behind. Let's not allow all those "dumb notions of equality" destroy your holiday......you just barge past all those "illegitimates" as deemed by you, and DEMAND your right of entry......NOW!

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Okay, so if it's not Africans it's Arabs. I'm not even going to try and start this argument.

Come on Tommy - fire up - have a crack - it deserves a right ol' wackin' - I'm countin' on you - don't let us down please!

 

[medhead]

Hang on. Wouldn't it be good to have airport officials who just know who has a dodgy passport and stops them before they get to the official passport checking point. Or perhaps they need a big red button and when a dodgy passport holder gets to the front of the queue, instead of dealing with the problem as it presents, they press the big red button; the floor opens and the person slides down a chute into a swimming pool full of piranhas or sharks.

 

[andye]

Really? Really?

I thought that sounded unlikely too but then I could imagine this scenario:

1. Visitor to Australia wants to go to Sydney. Is routed FCO-DXB-MEL-SYD (say). Has an ordinary time in transit in MEL. Probably a bit less likely to return to Melbourne to pay a visit (Melbourne nice city but not a bucket-list destination)
2. Visitor to Australia is routed FCO-SIN-SYD. Thinks Changi great. Probably a little more likely to visit Singapore itself on a future visit

None particularly logical but not impossible to imagine

 

[mannej]

So me - a Defence Employee with a Defence ID card had to undergo an explosives test.

I am not going to bite with all the stereotype hyperbole, but it seems to me that your issue with MEL is that clearly DKWYA.

That can be the only logical explanation.

 

[dajop]

So me - a Defence Employee with a Defence ID card had to undergo an explosives test.

It is interesting to contrast to when our plane landed in Vienna. Big, burly, intimidating-looking Police officers start coming down the long path to the plane door - people were raising their passports to them. We raised ours to one, and he dismissively waved us on like we'd just wasted his time. What they then did was pull up all the Arabs on the plane and give them a grilling.

Note the difference. One airport is nice and equitable, and wastes valuable resources testing the most unlikely people to need testing, while another airport with similar security concerns, instead targets the identifiable group most likely to cause issues.

Looking at the two airports objectively, which would inspire more confidence with respect to security measures?

I don't know specifically about security checking and profiling, but have had experience of random auditing/checking for compliance. We used both targetted and random methods of selection, and both methods uncovered non-compliant individuals. Without debating the pros and cons of explosive testings, the moment you start compromising random methods you open loopholes for exploitation, remembering that the terrorists and criminals are often patient and in it for the long game.

On your other rather controversial topic, I have witnessed what you are talking about. But to couch in terms of "white people" and "illegitimate passports" does not seem to me a good way of getting people to take you seriously. At MXP one day I arrived from BKK, if my memory serves me correctly. We were queued behind a plane load of people that had come from somewhere that obviously required Visas to enter the EU (IIRC India). Those of from the BKK flight (not just white people, BTW) were ushered into the EU lanes for speedier processing. In my mind, it seemed to be the Visa checks that were the distinguishing factor, not the "illegitimate passport" piece, although I am sure they check these as well for persons originating from countries where entry into EU is desirable.

 

[andye]

My experience of explosives tests is that they seem more likely to be performed on the single suit-wearing traveller

 

[bsb]

Can't understand why anyone would place MEL so low. It's not new like many Asian airports (which still have ridiculous queues even with fast passes) but it's not as bad as BKK FCO LHR JFK LGA LAX CMB DPS TPE BOM DEL KTM DFW..... need I go on???

Zero sympathy for smokers.

 

[dajop]

I second this. Last two times I left and arrived internationally at MEL there was not another passenger in sight. Gate to car park in a matter of minutes.

It really can depend on the time of day. Consistently when catching either EK or SQ flight to SIN departing at 6pm/6:30pm (+ 1 hr during summer), arriving at airport about 60-75 mins before the flight, no check-in queues, no security queues , no immigration queues. Go a few hours earlier with a line of up flights is busier. Go mid morning with loads of Asia departures + US departures can be chaos.

 

[wooley]

My experience of explosives tests is that they seem more likely to be performed on the single suit-wearing traveller

I don't wear a suit, but I must have a look about me... In the past 12 months since I started flying again, I've been selected just over 98% of the time.

Which seems fair enough, I've tested positive a few times now.

 

[AdMEL]

I don't wear a suit, but I must have a look about me... In the past 12 months since I started flying again, I've been selected just over 98% of the time.

Which seems fair enough, I've tested positive a few times now.

That could make life interesting!

A mate I often travel with always get selected, but I rarely do.

 

[wooley]

That could make life interesting!

A mate I often travel with always get selected, but I rarely do.

Surprisingly not as interesting as you'd think.
Generally a retest followed by a few questions and further tests or search of selected items (shoes/clothing and interior of carry on) and you're done.

They're probably used to it with some mining guys? Maybe?

 

[Hvr]

Wasn't Martin Byrant a defence employee at one stage?
<snip>

No, maybe you're thinking of Julian Knight who was discharged from Duntroon prior to his shooting rampage in Melbourne?

 

[ReLoad]

I just remembered another reason I was annoyed at Melbourne Airport. I walked in to the domestic terminal to travel to Canberra for work. An official comes up to me and says that he requires me to take an explosives test - I don't have to take it, but I won't be able to fly if I don't.

So me - a Defence Employee with a Defence ID card had to undergo an explosives test.

It is interesting to contrast to when our plane landed in Vienna. Big, burly, intimidating-looking Police officers start coming down the long path to the plane door - people were raising their passports to them. We raised ours to one, and he dismissively waved us on like we'd just wasted his time. What they then did was pull up all the Arabs on the plane and give them a grilling.

Note the difference. One airport is nice and equitable, and wastes valuable resources testing the most unlikely people to need testing, while another airport with similar security concerns, instead targets the identifiable group most likely to cause issues.

Looking at the two airports objectively, which would inspire more confidence with respect to security measures?
Regards,
Renato

Crikey!!!!

 

[JohnK]

Which terminal John? The new one T3 is not too bad.

T1. I am guessing there's been an upgrade? Perhaps time for return visit.