Avada wrote: » A visual check is not sufficient for detecting a forged document. Scanning it is the quickest way to do it, which is what they do at present.
TheChizler wrote: » And if you present a drivers licence or other non scannable form of documentation? Never taken more than 2 or 3 seconds to get through with my licence in other airports.
trellheim wrote: » Indeed they are, I'd never noticed, thanks for the fact-filled update. Well done on rubbishing the mirror example. the phrase "Common Travel" mean nothing to you here ? It was operated successfully in Dublin Airport for many, many years even after the 2004 act was passed. Queues will drop to easy levels if CTA passengers are segregated. This could happen tomorrow
trellheim wrote: » Indeed they are, I'd never noticed, thanks for the fact-filled update. Well done on rubbishing the mirror example. the phrase "Common Travel" mean nothing to you here ? It was operated successfully in Dublin Airport for many, many years even after the 2004 act was passed. Queues will drop to easy levels if CTA passengers are segregated. This could happen tomorrow Full conflict of interest : I do not work for DAA or any associated agencies.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » I don't know what the issue is with closed down self scanning machines. Does anyone know? But even before they were "decommissioned" they were positioned in the most fekkin awkward of places. If and when they are re-instated there should be a fast track lane for them to the left as you enter the dreaded T1 immigration shack. Scan, out the door. Instead they were placed in the middle of the other booths. No one knew whether they could use them or not, no one said anything including the pink shirted DAA power shower. What a thundering disaster this is.
Queues would drop and the large number of people who would currently be refused leave to land from CTA flights would go undetected. Then, posters on here would be giving out that Immigration are doing a terrible job, blah blah blah....
Avada wrote: » They were a disaster, but they were only a (prolonged) trial.
trellheim wrote: » Link to the "large numbers" please. your second sentence makes me laugh as you are completely and utterly missing the thread title.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » Do you know why the trial failed?
Avada wrote: » It didn't, permanent gates will be installed in both terminals shortly.
hu!me wrote: » @Spanish Eyes It didn't someone posted earlier that there will be permanent replacements coming in the autumn.
trellheim wrote: » And you can walk right past them if you are Irish off a CTA flight , nothing to stop you.
trellheim wrote: » Your mention of FOI ? Come off it. If you have the data post it. Do you not see that "data might exist; I couldn't possibly say" is not a sound basis for an argument.
Would you do it. Honestly now.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » UK has more reason to demand ID and passports from arriving CTA passengers. They don't know whether they are Irish/UK citizens or not do they? What is the exact problem here in Ireland so?
hu!me wrote: » can't post link but google the-number-denied-entry-into-ireland-rises-significantly Irish times articles. Doesn't break down where they arrived from but given significant proportion of UK flights/passengers arriving in Ireland plus different visa regimes I would be surprised if there wasn't a significant number that arrived from within the CTA.
plodder wrote: » Regardless of how many are denied entry at Dublin airport, nobody can know how many of those people subsequently gain entry through the land border at NI or through sea ports.