A warning to those flying out of Frankfurt Airport. The BAA website informs you that you can "fly with everything you buy after security", and this has been true for the 14 different airports all over the world that I have used over the recent past with the exception of Frankfurt.

I purchased water and a soft drink airside after going through the security check. However, Frankfurt have another unannounced scan check just before the gate where these items were confiscated even though they had been purchased after my bags had been checked when it was demonstrated that I was not carrying anything illicit.

Why does Frankfurt see the need to add a second security check? Surely this infers that either the first one is not secure enough or they don't trust their own employees that work airside? Either way, the problem lies with the airport and not inconvenienced passangers who are dealt with as common smugglers and a danger to fellow travellers.

I know that a lot of people will say that all is fair in the name of safety, but surely once I have been scanned and deemed as not carrying anything untoward, I should be considered safe?

The airport staff told me that the double scan of travellers was world policy, but I can tell them that it certainly is not.

I flew recently from Helsinki to Istanbul and back. The security in Helsinki was double, and the one in Istanbul was TRIPLE.

If you were flying back to the states - the second check has been there for a long time. I'm not sure "who's" rule it is - but they're strict and they're thorough - especially on that second check!

But there was no second check when I flew to Miami (or back) 2 weeks ago from Heathrow.
I'm not talking about a simple check at the gates. There was a full bag and body scan just like the first one (belt, shoes, wristwatch etc off). What I'd like to know is if the first check was thorough enough, what possibly could you have obtained before the second check and where could you have obtained it from?

The same thing happened to us in Munich last year. We went through security and then I purchased a bottle of water thinking I would be able to take it on the flight with me. I quickly arrived at the second security point and was told, rudely, to drink it. I took a sip thinking he meant to taste it before I could take it further. I was then told to drink all of it NOW (I used caps in the word now because it was emphasized strongly by the security person). I looked at him confused and just threw the bottle of water in the trash can while he laughed and waved me through.

I couldn't understand why I could not take the water that I had purchased after the security check with me but I wasnt' going to argue about it as it wasn't that important to me. I was annoyed by the rudeness of the security person but wasn't going to make an issue of that either. I just figured it was a good scam as I am sure I was not the first person to purchase a drink after the first secuity check only to have to be rid of it at the second check, which I didn't know was going to occur. Lesson learned, no big deal, but I will know better next time.

At Heathrow, there is a "random" check at the gate on all flights to the USA. I wonder if this is the paranoid US government insisting on this and the Germans saying okay, we'll just check everybody on USA flights.

Security measures are important, I don't question them but what the hell is the first security check for if they check you again and only on flights to the USA?

Yet of course there are people who will say this is fine and wouldn't mind a third check or a retinal scan or perhaps the fingerprinting of everybody, including US citizens.

Paranoia, unfortunately, reigns in this day and age.

From the BAA website

<<< Exceptions
You can 'fly with everything you buy' after security. The exception is Australia. You cannot bring in any liquids over 100ml into Australia. If you are transferring to another flight before you reach your final destination, particularly within the EU, store staff may need to place your purchases in a special sealed bag. Please note if you are flying directly to the USA or Canada, you will be allowed to carry liquids. However if you are transferring within the USA or Canada you will need to place your purchases over 100ml in your hold baggage, which all passengers have to pick up before transferring to their next flight. A few other countries may have introduced individual restrictions and our staff will be able to advise you on this. >>>

Try reading the rules next time

Try knowing my destination!

I was flying from Frankfurt to Birmingham. Where did I say that I was travelling to the States?

Any other smart comments?

Sorry...I thought the extra security was only for flights to the USA (I've been through Frankfurt twice)

Accept my humblest apologies!

I went through both Frankfurt and Munich last year and the security at both was intense. Not only did were we not allowed to take on liquids we bought after going through security, my friend and I, along with everyone else, were manhandled from head to toe by large menacing security people. After the first time my friend remarked "Gee, it's been a long time since I've had sex this early in the morning!"

Just to place an addendum to this thread:

I flew from London Gatwick to Montpellier (and back) earlier this week and was greeted by a sign in the shopping hall at Gatwick which read -

"Everything you buy including liquids is allowed on your flight"

There was another sign with the same message, but included information about transits.

There were also warnings that there may be a second security check on random passengers at the gate but message on the above sign stood.

Therefore, again I disput the Germans assertion that this is a world wide policy and they are just making it up as they go along.

BTW, security at Montpellier just couldn't be bothered. I put my own items on the scanner, got my own box for my jacket - keys - money etc and walked through the scanner myself. All the time nobody even bothered to watch me.

The German security guard was mistaken in saying water's banned worldwide. But, to be honest, this is a detail.

On May 14, websites began reporting that security had been stepped up on flights to the US from Germany for at least the previous two weeks as a result of evidence some terrorist spectacular was being planned on some flights out of Germany. Since no Western security service announces everything, it's a reasonable assumption that the Germans have included flights to the UK on their list of high-priority flights to monitor since at least late April.

Under those circumstances, the important thing is to brief security people what to look out for: the details of who else is looking for the same thing really don't matter. Security staff are paid to search, not to be experts in airport policy in Wagga Wagga.

Are they overreacting? Well, just remember the last time a plane was blown up in the UK. The bomb was put on the plane at Frankfurt.

I had colleagues on Pan Am 103. I suspect their relatives can imagine worse things than a waterless hour-long flight.

I agree up to a point with what you're saying.

My point is that your handluggage and personal items have been examined, just like in all other airports, at a security checkpoint before you are allowed airside. It is then the same group of people that examine you a second time. Basic Lean management techniques tells you that you should get it right first time and that therefore the second check/examination adds no value and is therefore waste - UNLESS the German airport authorities feel that you have an opportunity to obtain explosives etc ONCE YOU HAVE PASSED THEIR SECURITY. Again, I repeat that I feel that this is an indicment against their own emplyoees in that they don't trust anyone that works airside and feel that the first security examination is inadequate. It is up to them to sort that matter out. The fact that it was merely a bottle of water and Diet Coke is irrelevant as it is the thought that the first security check may get it wrong that is the issue here.

It makes me feel nervous when travelling through Germany if they feel that the first security checkpoint is not efficient enough. It's not as if there are two different agencies at work.

I also agree that there are a lot of things worse than travelling without water, but to take your point to its logical conclusion perhaps we should travel with no luggage whatsoever or not even be allowed to travel at all. What about internal public transport - should we make everyone that steps on to a bus go through a scanner first? After all, the last terrorist activity in the UK was on a bus and tube.

I'll repeat my gripe yet again so that nobody can misunderstand my point. It is not that I had water taken off me per se but that the German authorities feel that, after being security checked (which involved walking through a scanner with my belt, shoes and wristwatch off and then having a manual body search - as did everyone else) that there was an opportunity that between that checkpoint and the gate - some 250 yards along a corridor - that I could have obtained some dangerous substance from either the two duty free shops or the restaurant is quite a startling commentary on the mistrust of the German authorities to both travellers and their own staff.

"is quite a startling commentary on the mistrust of the German authorities to both travellers and their own staff."

Security isn't an exercise in lean management, where you set your QC standards, do some 7 sigma maths and decide that one duff car in every million gets all the tradeoffs right.

It's an exercise with constantly moving targets: risks change daily, and what you have to do changes too.

Now I've not been through Frankfurt lately. But at most European airports, arriving passengers on most international flights can mix with those about to depart. And you CAN'T screen every airport worker with 100% - or even 90% - reliability.

Competent security agencies will live with remote risks most of the time: when there's evidence of a higher attack risk, they have to start dealing with remoter possibilities - like the bent till operator, or the flight attendant on an arriving plane.

Underlying all this, I'd suggest, is one crucial fact: you don't hire front-line security staff for imagination, cultural breadth or tact. What matters above everything else is dour, 100% reliability to do a really tedious job to the same level of accuracy every time. And their managers are paid precisely NOT to trust people. This really is one job where the apparent customer must NEVER be allowed to come first.

Don't get me wrong: I get pissed off too, and I get especially pissed off when people give me duff information. But ultimately, we expect these people to err on the side of excess caution. And the people directing them know more about threat assessment (even though it'll often be wrong) than we do.

I truly feel sorry for anyone who believes this has anything to do with security.

By the way... the guys who allegedly wanted to blow up a plane with liquids... have they been tried and convicted yet?

PrincessofPenguins, what pray tell does it have to do with if not with security?

If your country had the Islamic population of Germany and you had experienced Munich '68 and thought there was any likelihood at all of its being repeated, what would you do?

And yes, Richard Reeves has been tried and is serving time in the US.

Why do you put your own petty convenience above your own safety and that of fellow passengers?

Would you prefer showing up hours before the flight for an El Al profiling and screening?

Yes, it would be nice if airports were consistent. They aren't. Get over it.

We all have to go through this crap because one American life is so much more important than the life of any other national. Don't mention Iraq.

And is the OP offended because this heppened at all, or because it happened in Frankfurt?

Tell you what - I just wish the rest of the world had said - right - it's America that has caused the problem. So let's tackle this another way. All airlines would have refused to take American passengers. Therefore Americans could fly only with American carriers and those could have been monitored and guarded and scanned - and if you wanted to travel on one your undies could have been sniffed for explosives by the dogs (must be American dogs of course, otherwise untrustworthy); your eyeballs scanned and all your personal details recorded on FBI files.

But because so many western governments are US arselickers, they just lay down and acquiesced to the outrageous infringements of personal liberty we now see.

OK, let's assume here that they are most interested items that can help to carry out a terrorist attack, not your contraband bottle of spring water. One who would carry such articles would likely be a professionally trained terrorist. As security workers are trained to spot these people and implements, the terrorists are trained to avoid being detected. If someone is highly motivated to pass a banned substance past security, there is a decent possibility they will succeed once. Each time they pass through a separate security checkpoint, the odds are less that they will be able to evade detection. Clearly multiple checkspoints are more secure, your inconvenience notwithstanding.

chimani...

Believe me I'm no fan of much that's gong on too in terms of security and I hate when I am singled out for one of those "random" checks when leaving Heathrow for the United States which I believe are done at the request of the US government.

But I was also in London on 7/7 and while the magnitude of the attach there was not the same as the WTC, it showed the deep contempt that many have for the UK too as well as many of the other Western countries and no it's not because your government at present is very friendly with the USA. They hate the UK, they hate the USA, they hate Australia, they hate Spain or have you forgotten about the attack there.

I won't defend the US's position when they refused to cooperate with Britain during the troubles in Northern Ireland and refused to return suspected terrorists. That was wrong and the problem of terrorism was finally driven home on 11 September.

But you know something....more Britons were killed in the WTC attack than in any other terrorist attack in history...and if these vermin can ever blow up a plane bound say from London to the USA, it is highly doubtful that only Americans will die.

So it's not just an American problem, it's all of our problems and to throw this anti American tirade out is totally inappropriate.

I work in a field with something to do with Airport Security and I can guarantee you that most of the checks going on at present have little to do with security per se but a lot to do with making people "feel" secure or indeed unsecure.

Most of the checks have no foundation regarding security at all - and anyway the terrorists spend their time thinking up new dastardly ways of blowing stuff up - they are not concentrating on how to explode things using lip balm and foie gras.