BA chairman attacks US airport security checks

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

The chairman of British Airways has attacked some airport security checks and has called for the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to stop "kowtowing" to US security demands.

Practices such as forcing people to take off their shoes, and checking laptops separately, should be abandoned, Martin Broughton said.

He also criticised the increased checks that the US imposes on passengers arriving on international flights.

The US stepped up security in January in the wake of an alleged bomb plot. It introduced tougher screening rules, including body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks, for passengers arriving from 14 nations which the authorities deem to be a security risk.

Passengers from any foreign country may also be checked at random.

Speaking at the UK Airport Operators' Association annual conference, Mr Broughton - who is also chairman of Liverpool FC^‡(resolve) - said the UK should only agree to security checks that the US requires for passengers on domestic flights.

"America does not do internally a lot of the things they demand that we do," he was quoted as saying in the FT. "We shouldn't stand for that. We should say, 'we'll only do things which we consider to be essential and that you Americans also consider essential'."

Airport security worldwide has risen since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

[inspector_blakey]

What's more concerning about US airport security is this; you are made to go through increasingly elaborate and invasive rituals and charades at the behest of the "motivated", "professional" and "highly trained" (read " frequently indolent, slovenly, inattentive, rude and officious") officers of the Transportation Security Administration, the government agency which deals with the vast majority of airport security in the US. However, said TSA^▸ (Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.) officers have an appalling track record when it comes to actually detecting specimen bomb and weapon components (see here). The one saving grace is that, as yet, most of them aren't armed. Bottom line is that is seems largely to consist of what's termed "security theatre", and in all honesty I'd have more faith in UK^▸ (United Kingdom) airport security who are also generally more courteous (although that's admittedly not a ringing endorsement when measured against the benchmark of the TSA).

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Minister may allow changes to UK^▸ (United Kingdom) air security checks

The transport secretary has signalled his willingness to change the regulations on security checks at British airports.

Philip Hammond was responding to senior figures in the airline industry who had backed the BA^» (British Airways - about) chairman's attack on measures imposed by the US.

Martin Broughton said many of the checks were "completely redundant".

Mr Hammond said he would be allowing airlines to look at ways of "easing the passenger experience".

Mr Broughton had 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.

He said practices such as forcing passengers to take off their shoes should be abandoned, and questioned why laptop computers needed to be screened separately.

Responding to the BA chairman's comments, former head of policy at the US Department of Homeland Security, Stewart Baker, said practices such as taking shoes off and limiting the amount of liquids taken on board were in place on domestic flights in the US.

However Chris Yates, air security analyst at Jane's Information Group, said while a lot of measures were in place they were not applied consistently in all US airports.

Mr Baker said Mr Broughton was inferring that the UK was a 'US poodle', but that this was not the case.

"It does sound as though he was kind of venting, rather than engaged in a careful analysis. I've sort of learned that when Brits play the 'poodle card', it's more emotional than rational and it sounded like he was playing the poodle card."

Mr Hammond responded to the row by saying the government would give airport operators permission, through changing the regulations, to look at the way they carry out security procedures.

"[They can] do them differently if they believe that that can reduce the queuing and ease the passenger experience," he said.

But he said he could not order the US to relax restrictions on passengers travelling to the states.

He added: "I have to defend the right of every country to define the security requirements that it places on flights entering its airspace."

BAA, which operates six British airports including Heathrow and Glasgow, was supportive of Mr Broughton's comments.

Its chief executive, Colin Matthews, said passenger safety was paramount but admitted security checks could be better organised.

He said: "We could do a better job if we could redesign it with the end in mind and have a single coherent process. It would be much better, too, if passengers weren't confused by having different arrangements at both ends of the journey."

Earlier Mike Carrivick, of BAR UK, which represents more than 80 airlines, said the industry should "step back and have a look at the whole situation".

He added: "Every time there is a new security scare, an extra layer is added on to procedures. We need to step back and have a look at the whole situation. Standards change fairly regularly and this puts pressure on airports and airlines. We need to decide what we are trying to do and how best to do it."

The US stepped up security in January in the wake of an alleged bomb plot.

It introduced tougher screening rules, including body pat-down searches and carry-on baggage checks, for passengers arriving from 14 nations which the authorities deem to be a security risk.

Passengers from any foreign country may also be checked at random.

[inspector_blakey]

After reading this story in a bit more detail, a couple of things occur to me: firstly, in my experience the TSA^▸ (Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.) do require that you remove your shoes for security checks on domestic US flights - the security process at international airports appears to be identical for domestic or international flights. And last time I went through Heathrow onto a transatlantic flight the official glanced at my shoes and told me not to take them off, they would be fine (although maybe that's because my number was picked out of the hat and I was packed off to the body scanner). So I'm a bit puzzled by some of the claims that Broughton makes.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I have two pairs of leather shoes - both manufactured by Clarks - which are marked 'Airport Friendly' on the soles.

And each time I've worn them, travelling through Bristol International Airport, on domestic flights to Manchester or Edinburgh, I've been ordered to remove them and place them in a tray to go through the scanner.

So just what does that cheery 'Airport Friendly' logo mean?  A load of cobblers, apparently. 

[inspector_blakey]

A load of cobblers, apparently. 

Ba-doom, ching!

Seriously though, I was wondering if the TSA^▸ (Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.) applies different security standards at domestic vs. international airports. All the ones I've used recently have been international airports except Reagan National in DC^▸ (Direct Current), it was a couple of years ago (so after the shoes-off and liquids farces) but I don't remember the security check being much different. Mind you, they may be ultra-careful at DCA since the take-off flight path takes you along the Potomac River and very close to the various memorials and government buildings...

[Tim]

they should jhave a separate lane for atheists - "don't believe in life after death sir, step this way sir, of course you may keep your shoes on"