Travelling to the USA

You are not being treated any differentally from any one else flying into or in the US.

Be greatful they are trying to ensure that you can spend your kids inheritance yourself rather than it going to them in June.

Also be aware that if the US Intelligence are suspicious of the flight , they will send a fighter up to escort the plane and if the plane deviate from the specificed route it will be shot down - so you are not safe until until you getback into the leafy surrounds of Swindon

Derek

<< >>

Well, its a shame that you guys are being treated as such. What we have here is the effects of political correctness. Since we dont want to hurt the feelings of "Akhmed" from Saudia Arabia or "Mohammad" from pakistan, we have to scrutinize "Sven" from Sweden or Mick from Swindon just as closely otherwise you'll be accused of "racial profiling" and thats a no no.

Alex & Mick

I have to agree with Derek. As I mentioned I travel to the US quite a lot and then while there fly around internally.

On my last trip I travelled on 4 intercontinental flights & 8 internal flights including to & from Canada which also involves immigration in both directions.

The level of security checking did not differ greatly on any of the flights be they international or domestic. If anything the US entry immigration was easier than from the US into Canada.

US people on domestic fights are fully adjusted to the situaton, and since a large % understand the routine at security they tend to help the ones that don't by giving usefull advice about getting ready like taking your computer out, sorting all loose metal objects into coat pockets , loosening shoe laces etc. The flow thru'security is pretty efficient and, the security folks are generally sociable and people manage to keep their tempers, so it gets done with the least amount of hassle.

I have travelled extensively in Europe for the last 10 years and can assure you that it is never more unpleaseant travelling to a & from the US and a lot of times is easier. the only extra delay is immigration and that is just a matter of patience.

regards
GEOFF

quote:

---

It's "George" from Texas you really should be worried about

---

lol

Ill take my chances with George, thank you

[This message was edited by Emil on Sun 28 March 2004 at 21:47.]

hmm.

Judd

Emil said "Since we dont want to hurt the feelings of "Akhmed" from Saudia Arabia or "Mohammad" from pakistan, we have to scrutinize "Sven" from Sweden or Mick from Swindon just as closely"

Actually the reason you search "Sven" is becuase he might have a bomb. Indeed the reason you all have to take your shoes off before getting on a plane is becuase of one "Robert" from Britain.

Matthew

Maybe if 3000 plus innocent people weren’t killed on 911 you wouldn’t have to go through this inconvenience. Sorry for the inconvenience but they are trying to prevent another pointless massacre of innocent people. I’ll bet the people who perished when flown into the World Trade Center Buildings wouldn’t have minded a little inconvenience?

So yeah in a way your griping comes across as a little shallow and selfish.


Mitch

I have no objection to waiting in line for thorough and effective security measures to be taken to ensure that my flight anywhere across the globe is safe not just for me and my fellow passengers, but also for all the people on the ground.

Lets see the machine guns and sniffer dogs as we pass through security checks. I am more than happy for my luggage to be searched for sharp instruments etc. If I were silly enough to leave a pair of nail scissors in my hand luggage then I'd deserve to forfeit them and spend my holiday with long toe nails.

However, my father, a keen golfer tells me of a chap in his party to Portugal who brought a set of golf balls with him in his hand luggage to give to a fellow waiting for him at the airport because golf balls are apparently rediculously expensive in Portugal.

They were confiscated as "potentialy offensive weapons" by some twat of an official before he boarded his plane. In the confines of an aircraft, and without the requisite driving golf clubs they are surely less harmful than, say, a headscarf.

You can strangle someone with a headscarf.



Regards,

Steve.

From what I remember "Robert from the UK" had been identified as a "suspect" as a result of profiling but the chaps at Charles De Gaulle AP did not follow the information up correctly.

As in all cases security is based on good process and correct use of tools - if the security process is sloppy then problems can occur.

And for Mick - you know that the US denand to see your credit card history for the card that was used to buy the tickets from Europe to the US.

The less the number of people travelling to the US from the UK means more room for us that do go and enjoy the country.

Derek

<< >>

It seems a bit whingey to complain about tight airport security while one year ago Mick clearly didn't mind thousands of Iraqis being bombed to kingdom come just to make sure the oil supplies were secure.

But I guess it is quite consistent: the entire world should revolve around Swindonians feeling 100% comfortable.

I have travelled extensively to the US and around Europe and no problems with the security measures in the US, I am a lot happier with some reasonable level of security then the system that was in place a few years ago where for a domestic flight you seemed to walk through a cardboard cut out of one of those metal detectors and put your luggage on a conveyor belt whilst the 'security guard' was chatting to his mate or had tuned the screen into CNBC or something similar, and if you had a light green/pink type credit you could wave in the general direction of the check staff who would glance momentarily without interrupting there conversation with fellow check in staff whilst ignoring the fact that taking twenty minutes to check in one passenger doesn't help them clear the large cue that is forming. The security measures now in place are at least a moderate deterrent.

What does get me is the length of time it takes to clear immigration as a non US citizen and the almost clear certainty that if you have a connecting flight in the US from international you will most likely miss your second flight because it took 3 hours to clear immigration, only three because after 2 1/2 hours of one officer clearing the non US citizens 6 come out all at once to clear the backlog and then sit around doing bugger all as there aren't anymore flights for arriving for 6 hours, at least that is in Houston. Newark, O’Hare have been somewhat more efficient. But given that this will happen, make sure you have a good book.

But I guess it can be pretty grim for no EU citizens arriving at Heathrow T3 first thing in the morning.

Matthew

IMHO the increased security at airports is a justified response to the percieved increased threat of terrorist attacks. If the checking processes are not yet terribly efficient, then let's hope that sufficient resources are eventually applied that the time spent queueing can be reduced. But, honestly, what did we expect after 9/11? That the airport authorities should do nothing?

That being said, my feeling is still that the best use of anti-terrorist resources would be a meaningful attempt at understanding and removing the root causes of terrorism itself. There is an awful lot that both the UK and the US governments could do differently if we are serious about removing terrorist threats rather than simply 'having a war' against them.

Until then, we're just sticking ever-bigger plasters over ever-deeper wounds. New threats will appear; we'll find new ways of detecting them; the queues will get longer...

For Steven Toy;

Imagine being hit over the head with 3 golf balls swung in a sock. Sounds like something I'd find pretty offensive, wouldn't you?

Regards,
Steve.

I for one take great delight in imagining Steven Toy being hit over the head with three golf balls in a sock.

<Mick>Might knock some sense into him</Mick>

Matthew

Well then we better ban socks, ice in the drinks, the little booze bottles, watches or anything else that could easily be stuffed into a sock, scarf, teeshirt or anything else that may enable these inocuous items to be made into a weapon. - too much McGuyver maybe.

I guess my point is that just about anything can be made into a weapon in a few seconds, so where do we draw the line....

Also, don't want to start a war with my southerly neighbours but remember it was not just the US that lost people in the Trade centre attacks, the casualties were world wide. While it happened on US soil the attack was against us all.

Running and ducking....

regards,

michael

Airplanes would be much safer without the passengers.

Here's a theory:

Put everyone in a capsule. drug them up to make them unconcious, and wake them up on arrival and unloading.

It would make the trip to Oz much more tolerable, and you could pack a lot more cargo (people) in.

DS

OTD - Tronic - Substance

David,

That’s the best idea I have ever read for air travel! Have you ever thought of working for the government?

My personal experience was that O’Hare moved better than Heathrow. I forgot to take my watch off at Heathrow and it set off the detector; the guard became very familiar with me. It was the best squeeze I had the entire trip! I didn’t think that the wait in any of the lines was excessively long. IIRC Heathrow will also search your bag without your permission.

John Litwin

In five years, no-one will think anything of this security screening. This is the way of the world now and it isn't going to go back to how it was, so just chill out and accept it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Slater:
Here's a theory:

Put everyone in a capsule. drug them up to make them unconcious, and wake them up on arrival and unloading.

---

Hey- I've self-prescribed this method for years!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by John L:
David,

That’s the best idea I have ever read for air travel! Have you ever thought of working for the government?

My personal experience was that O’Hare moved better than Heathrow. I forgot to take my watch off at Heathrow and it set off the detector; the guard became very familiar with me. It was the best squeeze I had the entire trip! I didn’t think that the wait in any of the lines was excessively long. IIRC Heathrow will also search your bag without your permission.

John Litwin

---

Ah, but if you refuse to have your bag searched in the US.... but at least they behave with some pretence of politeness, unlike the immigration officers (or most of them).

Matthew

Yes, The US immigration officers all have to go on the advanced surliness course, not just the beginners or intermediate ones.

One memorable moment, after the first hour's queuing, 6am in the morning

Me: "Hello" (smiling)

Him: Total Blank. No eye contact. Looks at documents. Not a word uttered.

Him: Leaves booth, goes to ever expanding queue and SCREAMS at them "Why can't you people fill in the forms properly? Put in your destimation in the US!'

Him: Returns to booth, glowers at me and The Wife, forehead throbbing.

Me: "Err, the air crew advised us not to fill that in as we are not stopping, but going to a connecting flight?"

Him: [Emits low groan...]

Me: [Fill in 'Destination = Travelling to NZ]

Him: Lots of heavy stamping of papers, no discussion, shoves papers at us.

Needless to say ' Have a nice day' or 'Welcome to America' were not part of the exchange.




DS

OTD - PLex - Future Influence

David
If I had to guess, was this at JFK?

I only travel with hand luggage to the US and touch wood have been lucky with immigration queues, but the sheer volume of disgruntled anecdotal evidence does point to the current mechanism being a problem. With the increased threat it's a given that we need security to be as tight as drum, but surely randomly checking open bags is intrusive, yet not remotely effective and thus not very reassuring.

Assuming that there are scanners that can easily identify any dangerous substances in baggage, why can't they be scanned, cleared for loading and securely shrouded or shrinkwrapped in one process. With all the flight details on the wrap, once airside, any bags with no wrap or a tampered wrap could be removed and examined. If belt and braces were required for transit, the process could be repeated before the onward flight. I don't feel that random bag checks is an especially clever or effective deterrent to terrorists and would be much happier in the knowledge that each bag in the hold had been scanned and sealed in a secure area and that a device could not be easily be placed in an open bag by somebody airside.

I've no doubt that there's a very good reason why this can't work, and I'm missing something obvious, but what the hell is it? What am I missing here?

Maybe planes should be redesigned with cargo areas effectively outside the main sealed body with a blast proof barrier between it and the passengers, so any blast just blows off the luggage.
Probably not possible.
Forget it..

Mick

Things just became even more unpleasant for visitors from the UK- you'll be photographed and fingerprinted as though you're a criminal.