Security screening AFTER the flight?

[Happy Dude]

Just flew back from Burnie on Rex into MEL. Actually it was more like bounced rather than flew.

I found it very useless and mildly discomforting that the security screen was done at MEL after the flight. Whilst I'm sure there's a lot of people that change to another flight and won't pass through another screening point, the fact that they enquired about the safety of my sound level meter after the flight proves just how ridiculous the new safety measures, which we're paying handsomely for, have become.

I doubt Burnie is high on the list for terrorism, nor is it Heathrow, but surely the security screening should take place before the flight? What's the deal?

 

[NM]

Its all about risk assessment and cost. To implement full security screening at all regional airports that have flights to major airports would be very expensive and in this day and age of user-pays, guess who is going to be footing the bill.

So those people responsible for determining the policy of where and when security screening is required have decided that the risk of not not screening at small regional ports is low enough to not warrant the cost.

But when you arrive at a major airport (MEL in your case) it is irrelevant that you have just arrived on an aircraft. Before you can enter the secure part of the terminal you must be screened just the same as someone who arrived by taxi. So the airport must know which passengers have already been screened (at their departure port) and which have not. If you have been screened already, then you can enter the terminal without rescreening (as you would if you arrived from SYD), otherwise you have to be screened before entering the terminal.

There are several airports in the USA where international arrivals passengers must be rescreened after they have passed through immigration and customs due to the design of the airport. After clearing customs, the bags of arriving passengers are then onto a conveyer and carried to the main terminal baggage collection carousels and to get there the passengers have to walk through the secure section of the main terminal. That means they must be screened again just to go collect their luggage. Means that you cannot bring in duty-free liquids even if they were purchased airside at the departing port because they will be confiscated on arrival between Customs and final baggage collection. The trick there is to place the booze into your bag at the customs checkpoint so you are not carrying it with you through the terminal.

So just what was the SPL on-board the Rex flight?

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

SIN has this for some flights too, where they don't trust the screening at the departure airport. Again this makes sense given the design of the airport - comingling of arrival and departing passengers.

Seems to happen on maybe 50% of Jakarta flights and 20% of Bangkok flights, plus selected other origins (eg DPS) which I don't have a big enough sample to comment on from my own experience.

 

[d15.in.oz]

The great thing about being bussed into T2 SYD regional arrivals or walking into QF BNE regional arrivals, is some thought has gone into things…and if you are exiting the terminal you don’t get screened "just to exit"! I recall Rex made a big fuss at the new T1 ADL, and finally got its own regional arrival set up!

So those people responsible for determining the policy of where and when security screening is required have decided that the risk of not not screening at small regional ports is low enough to not warrant the cost.

And in true public service traditions, you can see the implications of this cost saving at certain regional ports, where jet services mean screening stations exist. As soon as the jets clear out, the x-rays are turned off & the personnel go on an extended paid break - with those getting onto a dash 8 or Saab walking straight past the unmanned station onto the planes!

 

[garyjohn951]

yeh better the bomb goes off on a Dash 8 than a 747, less people dead
good policy

 

[Dave Noble]

yeh better the bomb goes off on a Dash 8 than a 747, less people dead
good policy

More relevently, it is much less likely that someone would want to explode a bomb on a small regional crash 8 rather than a large aircraft with what is more likely to have nationals of multiple countries

On arrival into a location such as Melbourne or Sydney where the security levels are higher, the choice would be to bus the passengers to a point where they arrive in the arrivals hall area then for passengers connecting then having to go to the departures checkpoint or to have all the passengers on board go through a security check and enter into the gate area of the terminal.

Dave

 

[simongr]

I didnt think that these procedures were new - I am sure I went through this flying in from Merimbula one time - a long time ago (not pre 9/11 though)

 

[dajop]

More relevently, it is much less likely that someone would want to explode a bomb on a small regional crash 8 rather than a large aircraft with what is more likely to have nationals of multiple countries

And furthermore, very little fuel on small props compared to most jets, (especially a fully loaded 747 departing for the US).

On arrival into a location such as Melbourne or Sydney where the security levels are higher, the choice would be to bus the passengers to a point where they arrive in the arrivals hall area then for passengers connecting then having to go to the departures checkpoint ...

Until the recent expansion of DJ to Pier B at MEL, all Rex flights used to disembark pax into landside, with neatly partioned exit into the pier (no bus, just a walk back down to the main terminal).

And over at QF, the same thing happens (ie security check prior to enter airport), and therefore I assume at MEL it is more expensive to run buses than the security checkpoints.

 

[serfty]

I have experience this several times; coming from BME & AYQ to ASP for connecting flights I have been directed down the left side (west) of the terminal building to 'land side' via a secure gate. From there it was back through security screening for my flight out of there.

 

[sue_in_oz]

I have also been screened post flight from Burnie - QF in Sep 2005, so indeed nothing new here. As I was going on to SYD & had carry on it was definitely appropriate.

Kind regards

Sue

 

[Happy Dude]

I hear what your saying NM but expense can't possibly be a reason for not having a screening point prior to boarding a plane. After all, that is exactly what's being levied when I bought my ticket. Surely the cost of additional security means just that....additional security (even some security would have been welcome)? But I'm with you and guessing the perhaps it's on the way at Burnie and they're tackling places in order of risk.

It's a given that the likelihood of a terrorism attack involving a small regional centre like Burnie is lower than a SYD or MEL, as Dave Noble pointed out, but anyone looking to making a statement (and let's face it, any incident involving an airplane gets maximum media coverage these days), could accomplish that task so easily by targeting the small regional airlines where government bean counters have decided that security is not financially worthwhile, despite charging for it.

On to a less alarmist topic: I didn't get a chance to measure the internal noise level on the plane because on the way back, the FA took my SLM and stowed it in an overhead locker which was not near where I was sitting, and I couldn't have been coughd to get up. On the way over, there wasn't any overhead lockers and the plane was almost empty but I still thought "I'll measure it on the way back". D'oh!

 

[Happy Dude]

I have also been screened post flight from Burnie - QF in Sep 2005, so indeed nothing new here. As I was going on to SYD & had carry on it was definitely appropriate.

Kind regards

Sue

I'm not saying that's a new procedure, infact IIRC it was the same on my last trip from Burnie on QF in Nov 05 and on the return leg of a trip to Mildura in 2002. But I am saying it's a useless one (from my perspective - a non-transiting passenger) that seems to leave a very obvious and easily exploited hole in the security net that we're paying a lot of money for.

 

[Dave Noble]

But I am saying it's a useless one (from my perspective - a non-transiting passenger) that seems to leave a very obvious and easily exploited hole in the security net that we're paying a lot of money for.

Indeed it serves no useful purpose as a passenger arriving, however the options are to have passengers clear security and be delivered airside ( probably most useful for those connecting and probably not that much of an inconveniance I would say to those terminating) or to provice a bus to deliver all the passengers to a non-sterile area and then for those connecting on to go upstairs and clear security at the regular checkpoints

I don't see a security hole; Security has determined that the risk at some of the provincial airports is lower and that they need a lower security requirement

Dave

 

[jaxjax]

This process for flights from BWT to MEL has been in place for some time. Certainly well before 9/11, even back as far as the late 1980s/early 1990s when security at other larger regional airports was improved (ie the pen at LST). The lack of QF flights to BWT means its unlikely the expenditure is going to be outlayed there, compared with DPO which has both carriers, more flights and security screening as a result.

Cheers,

jaX

 

[dajop]

It's a given that the likelihood of a terrorism attack involving a small regional centre like Burnie is lower than a SYD or MEL, as Dave Noble pointed out, but anyone looking to making a statement (and let's face it, any incident involving an airplane gets maximum media coverage these days), could accomplish that task so easily by targeting the small regional airlines where government bean counters have decided that security is not financially worthwhile, despite charging for it.

I guess the question is where does the line get drawn? Terrorists have elsewhere in the world achieved similar aims by targetting trains and buses - which carry more pax than a 34 seat SAAB. WOuld we put up with the cost of security screeing prior to boarding trains/buses? Also are you paying extra for security at regional airports, as it is really hard to tell where all the levies go to these days!

 

[clifford]

There are several airports in the USA where international arrivals passengers must be rescreened after they have passed through immigration and customs due to the design of the airport. After clearing customs, the bags of arriving passengers are then onto a conveyer and carried to the main terminal baggage collection carousels and to get there the passengers have to walk through the secure section of the main terminal. That means they must be screened again just to go collect their luggage. Means that you cannot bring in duty-free liquids even if they were purchased airside at the departing port because they will be confiscated on arrival between Customs and final baggage collection. The trick there is to place the booze into your bag at the customs checkpoint so you are not carrying it with you through the terminal.
quote]

Where are these airports, NM? Haven't come across them myself (and maybe it's an airline issue).

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

I guess the question is where does the line get drawn? Terrorists have elsewhere in the world achieved similar aims by targetting trains and buses - which carry more pax than a 34 seat SAAB. WOuld we put up with the cost of security screeing prior to boarding trains/buses? Also are you paying extra for security at regional airports, as it is really hard to tell where all the levies go to these days!

Exactly. If you are that worried about security then don't take the Sydney Harbour Bridge or tunnels. In fact don't visit a major airport at all - think of all the landside areas that anyone could access and cause mischief! Ditto trains, buses, ferries, flyovers, etc.

 

[Happy Dude]

Exactly. If you are that worried about security then don't take the Sydney Harbour Bridge or tunnels. In fact don't visit a major airport at all - think of all the landside areas that anyone could access and cause mischief! Ditto trains, buses, ferries, flyovers, etc.

You have entirely missed the point Kiwi the brave. I wasn't initiating a discussion on the comparative safety of transport systems or landmarks. Beside, we are not paying additional money for that infrastructure to be "secured".

Dave, wouldn't the simplest and most effective option be to actually screen people at Burnie before they get on the plane?

It wasn't inconvenient being screened, just rather mystifying. And I guess they have their reasons for putting the cart before the horse, but I would accept that money could be one of them.

As for the security hole, if one wished to re-create a Lockerbie for example, albeit on a smaller scale, it seems as though it would be easy. It is precisely because security was minimal that Lockerbie and 9/11 occurred in the first place (although who'd have fore-thought that 9/11 was even remotely plausible?), and now we're paying more for airport security to supposedly ensure that it doesn't happen again. As dajop points out, the airport into a building jig is up. Except at provincial airports apparently.

Also, whilst I don't know the exact breakdown of airport costs levied, but airports certainly passed the cost, or most of it, on to us to provide the additional security. Perhaps someone else here can remember the price increase involved post 9/11?

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

My point is, the focus on airline security is funny because terrorists have many other potential targets that are more easily accessed and potentially cause just as big an effect. Imagine if the harbour bridge was blown up on new years eve, for example?

 

[d15.in.oz]

...Imagine if the harbour bridge was blown up on new years eve, for example?

Those of us in Sydney, probably do not want to imagine anyone is insane enough to do that, thanks Kiwi Flyer.

Although, may I add, there are probably heaps of people in the service of the government, that are paid generously to do that kind of imagining on our behalf, so we don’t have to!