On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 00:23:04 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 17/04/2022 23:55, Matthew Geier wrote:
>> On 18/4/22 07:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Relying on Schengen doesn't give an absolute right to be in a country.
>>> People can be sent back on the next boat/train/plane if they don't
>>> qualify on grounds of work etc.
>>
>> I've watched Spanish border police remove some one from a cross boarder
>> train from France as it appears they only had a work permit papers on
>> them and not their full ID/Passport.
>>
>> We were delayed about 30 minutes while an argument in multiple languages
>> ensured at the other end of our coach.
>> In the end the passenger was escorted off the train and we departed with
>> them surrounded by half a dozen uniformed border police on the platform.
>> We assume they were put on the next train back into France.
>>
>> The Spanish have also been criticised for causing massive traffic jams
>> on the motorways by insisting on checking EVERYONE who crossed the
>> boarder from France.
>
>All EU states have that right, Schengen or no.
>
You can't look for the persons not entitled to travel under Schengen
without causing 0-100% bother to those who are.

On 20/04/2022 00:38, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 00:23:04 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/2022 23:55, Matthew Geier wrote:
>>> On 18/4/22 07:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Relying on Schengen doesn't give an absolute right to be in a country.
>>>> People can be sent back on the next boat/train/plane if they don't
>>>> qualify on grounds of work etc.
>>>
>>> I've watched Spanish border police remove some one from a cross boarder
>>> train from France as it appears they only had a work permit papers on
>>> them and not their full ID/Passport.
>>>
>>> We were delayed about 30 minutes while an argument in multiple languages
>>> ensured at the other end of our coach.
>>> In the end the passenger was escorted off the train and we departed with
>>> them surrounded by half a dozen uniformed border police on the platform.
>>> We assume they were put on the next train back into France.
>>>
>>> The Spanish have also been criticised for causing massive traffic jams
>>> on the motorways by insisting on checking EVERYONE who crossed the
>>> boarder from France.
>>
>> All EU states have that right, Schengen or no.
>>
> You can't look for the persons not entitled to travel under Schengen
> without causing 0-100% bother to those who are.

Each member state of the European Union has the right to set up border
controls as and when they consider necessary.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 00:38, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 00:23:04 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/04/2022 23:55, Matthew Geier wrote:
>>>> On 18/4/22 07:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Relying on Schengen doesn't give an absolute right to be in a country.
>>>>> People can be sent back on the next boat/train/plane if they don't
>>>>> qualify on grounds of work etc.
>>>>
>>>> I've watched Spanish border police remove some one from a cross boarder
>>>> train from France as it appears they only had a work permit papers on
>>>> them and not their full ID/Passport.
>>>>
>>>> We were delayed about 30 minutes while an argument in multiple languages
>>>> ensured at the other end of our coach.
>>>> In the end the passenger was escorted off the train and we departed with
>>>> them surrounded by half a dozen uniformed border police on the platform.
>>>> We assume they were put on the next train back into France.
>>>>
>>>> The Spanish have also been criticised for causing massive traffic jams
>>>> on the motorways by insisting on checking EVERYONE who crossed the
>>>> boarder from France.
>>>
>>> All EU states have that right, Schengen or no.
>>>
>> You can't look for the persons not entitled to travel under Schengen
>> without causing 0-100% bother to those who are.
>
> Each member state of the European Union has the right to set up border
> controls as and when they consider necessary.
>

Schengen and EU are not the synonymous. Ireland is in the EU but not
Schengen, while Noway and Switzerland are Schengen but not EU.

But, yes, Schengen members can, and sometimes do, apply border checks. But
it's very disruptive when they do.

On 20/04/2022 01:15, Recliner wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 00:38, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 00:23:04 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
>>> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/04/2022 23:55, Matthew Geier wrote:
>>>>> On 18/4/22 07:16, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Relying on Schengen doesn't give an absolute right to be in a country.
>>>>>> People can be sent back on the next boat/train/plane if they don't
>>>>>> qualify on grounds of work etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've watched Spanish border police remove some one from a cross boarder
>>>>> train from France as it appears they only had a work permit papers on
>>>>> them and not their full ID/Passport.
>>>>>
>>>>> We were delayed about 30 minutes while an argument in multiple languages
>>>>> ensured at the other end of our coach.
>>>>> In the end the passenger was escorted off the train and we departed with
>>>>> them surrounded by half a dozen uniformed border police on the platform.
>>>>> We assume they were put on the next train back into France.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Spanish have also been criticised for causing massive traffic jams
>>>>> on the motorways by insisting on checking EVERYONE who crossed the
>>>>> boarder from France.
>>>>
>>>> All EU states have that right, Schengen or no.
>>>>
>>> You can't look for the persons not entitled to travel under Schengen
>>> without causing 0-100% bother to those who are.
>>
>> Each member state of the European Union has the right to set up border
>> controls as and when they consider necessary.
>>
>
> Schengen and EU are not the synonymous. Ireland is in the EU but not
> Schengen, while Noway and Switzerland are Schengen but not EU.
>
> But, yes, Schengen members can, and sometimes do, apply border checks. But
> it's very disruptive when they do.
>

"Mea catedral, mea regulae."

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <6qmp5hhist33r5fkbd65ts4ou9m2mluklc@4ax.com>, at 04:35:45 on
> Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
> remarked:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 21:50:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 10:09:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/04/2022 09:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> The US system seems to know who's due to arrive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it link the data so it knows that Fred Bloggs (UK passport) is the
>>>>>> same person as Fred Blogg (US passport)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what we don't know. It may not even care: the American Fred Bloggs
>>>>> would be welcomed in without problems, even if he wasn't known to be due.
>>>>>
>>>> The trouble will occur when the UK Fred Bloggs departs the USA with
>>>> his USA passport as the UK Fred Bloggs will still be "in" the USA
>>>
>>> No, the UK Bloggs never entered the US, so he couldn't overstay. He would
>>> have had to enter on his US passport.
>>>
>> If he entered on his UK passport then that starts the clock which
>> doesn't get stopped if he fails to leave on his UK passport.
>
> That's how it used to work when the exit-flag was a bit of paper stapled
> in the passport, which the airline check-in desk was supposed to grab
> and forward, when you left. Sometimes they forgot, which is where the
> horror stories arise from.
>
> Now that we have API/PNR/ESTA, electronic manifests and so on, I
> seriously doubt many passengers fall through the same cracks.
>

I've been to several countries in the last 10 or so years which (this may
of course have changed since my last visit) have you keep with your
passport (loose, not stapled) the piece of paper (actually I think only
half of it?) which you filled in on the plane (/ferry), and which is kept
by the passport control person when you leave. Or in one place recently
(Hong Kong maybe?) it was a printed slip which you placed, unsupervised,
into a box when leaving.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <e0co5h9und5a9lls2iboaqmvgoja2f0t1k@4ax.com>, at 16:24:01 on
> Sun, 17 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>> All it needs to do is to match the fingerprint to the one recorded in the
>>>>> biometric passport. No database search required. Same process for the
>>>>> existing facial recognition. Your passport chip contains a copy of your
>>>>> picture. All both methods are trying to do is to check that the passport
>>>>> belongs to the person presenting it. The name and passport number are
>>>>> enough to interrogate databases.
>>>>>
>>>>> My supposition is that Apple are better at designing fingerprint readers
>>>>> than government contractors.
>>>>
>>>> Or, specifically, it spends more on them (both the sensor and the
>>>> computer power to do the processing).
>>>>
>>>> Of course, Apple uses facial recognition rather than fingerprint scans in
>>>> the more professional devices (modern iPad
>>>> Pros). Perhaps that's more secure or more reliable?
>>>
>>> They’ve been desperate to remove anything that creates a bezel. The FaceID
>>> via a camera isn’t as reliable or secure. They’ve not cracked putting the
>>> fingerprint sensor under the glass display.
>>
>> You need an OLED display for that, which my inexpensive Android phone
>> has. The fingerprint recognition through the
>> screen works well with that.
>>
>>> Some of the newer iPads have the sensor on the side power button, in
>>> addition to the option to use FaceID.
>>>
>>> Give the cost of an eGate I’d imagine adding the compute power of an iPad
>>> would be trivial.
>>
>> Yes, you'd think so, so there must be some other barrier. I speculate
>> that it just takes too long and needs too much human supervision to be
>> viable.
>
> I suspect the point that's being missed here is that that the phone
> fingerprint ID feature is almost certainly using a hash of the
> fingerprint (that's definitely how the school-dinners ones worked) and
> have a very limited number of patterns to match.
>
> Almost everyone probably registers just a single fingerprint, although
> my conventional laptop (which has such a facility, available since 2004,
> long before iPhones etc) lets you have at least two.
>

When I had a fingerprint-ID phone, I found it very useful to have several
digits registered, for the various ways I might use my phone - eg thumb
when holding it, but first finger when it's sitting on the table in front
of me. Also digits from both hands. Plus at least one of my partner's
fingers too…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Am 20.04.2022 um 01:23 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
> On 17/04/2022 23:55, Matthew Geier wrote:
>>
>> The Spanish have also been criticised for causing massive traffic jams
>> on the motorways by insisting on checking EVERYONE who crossed the
>> boarder from France.
>
> All EU states have that right, Schengen or no.

Wrong. The Schengen Acquis from 1997 (transformed into EU legislation
later) gives citizens the right to cross borders without being checked;
it also gives police (not: border police of customes officers) the right
to do spot checks near the border.

EU countries have the right to temporarily suspend the Schengen Acquis
and introduce boder controls for up to 2 years by declaring a security
emergency.

France did that in early 2015 due to the terrorist attacks; several
countries did it in summer 2015 due to the "asylum crisis".

Without offcially suspending the rules, Spain was only entitled to spot
checks rather than to checking everyone.

Rolf

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 20.04.2022 um 01:23 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>> On 17/04/2022 23:55, Matthew Geier wrote:
>>>
>>> The Spanish have also been criticised for causing massive traffic jams
>>> on the motorways by insisting on checking EVERYONE who crossed the
>>> boarder from France.
>>
>> All EU states have that right, Schengen or no.
>
> Wrong. The Schengen Acquis from 1997 (transformed into EU legislation
> later) gives citizens the right to cross borders without being checked;
> it also gives police (not: border police of customes officers) the right
> to do spot checks near the border.
>
> EU countries have the right to temporarily suspend the Schengen Acquis
> and introduce boder controls for up to 2 years by declaring a security
> emergency.
>
> France did that in early 2015 due to the terrorist attacks; several
> countries did it in summer 2015 due to the "asylum crisis".
>
> Without offcially suspending the rules, Spain was only entitled to spot
> checks rather than to checking everyone.
>

Ah, that's interesting. I didn't know that the spot near-border checks
could only be done by the police.

In message <edss5hld054p5o7u1nlfa96crb78hiebe7@4ax.com>, at 09:28:15 on
Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:

>>> Pre-screening is standard IMX, although I haven’t been across to the US
>>> since 2016. I was going there about three times a year at one stage.
>>
>>Roland is talking about American security staff pre-screening people before
>>they can check in to US-bound flights. I've never seen or experienced that,
>>but it may be because it apparently only happens with US carriers, which I
>>always avoid.
>
>I have been subject to this on many occasions, at about the time that
>Roland was a frequent flyer. I was sometimes subject to particular
>scrutiny as I often turned up late (due to delayed incoming flights)
>and had odd routings, such as STN - CDG - PHL - FRA - STN.

The most "extra" screening I encountered was on a trip to the USA about
a month after 9/11, where our whole party was constantly being subjected
to "random" checks. It wasn't random, of course, because our boarding
cards had a tell-tale **** on them.

One possible explanation was that we hadn't paid for our own tickets -
often a red flag. The fact that HMG had bought the tickets was lost on
them. And particularly annoying for one of the group who was a retired
ambassador and not used to being interrogated at all.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t3hd2l$3kr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:51:49 on Sun, 17 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>>>>> I've often wondered if that causes problems on arrival? The
>>>>>>>>>>> airline tells the border authorities in the destination country
>>>>>>>>>>> the list of passports that will be arriving on a flight, but if
>>>>>>>>>>> a dual national chooses to use a different (unexpected) passport
>>>>>>>>>>> on arrival, would the machines reject it as they weren't
>>>>>>>>>>> expecting it? Perhaps they'd accept a local citizen's passport
>>>>>>>>>>> anyway, but not necessarily one from a different country?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know what happens there. My friend has Irish and UK
>>>>>>>>>>passports. She uses her Irish passport for all border
>>>>>>>>>>crossing except for UK arrivals. Passport Control have never batted an eyelid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't have expected a problem at UK arrivals whichever
>>>>>>>>>passport she used. I was thinking more of things like UK-USA,
>>>>>>>>>flying to the US having booked with a UK passport but using
>>>>>>>>>the faster US passports queue on arrival.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The US authorities would take a dim view of their dual citizens going
>>>>>>>> through departure checks at UK airports unless using their US passport.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There aren't any, apart from the airline check-in, and I don't
>>>>>>>know if it matters which passport they show, as long as it's one
>>>>>>> allow them entry into the US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah yes, the famous "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist" US
>>>>>> pre-screening to let you into the queue for check-in. Where you get the
>>>>>> sticker on the back of the passport.
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing in my experience, which may be different to yours. I have
>>>>> never had a US pre-screening before any of my large number of flights to
>>>>> the US.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we know you've reported that. I think the closest we got was
>>>> perhaps it being "a thing" with US-based airlines,
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what we concluded last time this came up: it seems only US
>>> carriers did this. BA and Virgin certainly didn't. I never fly on US
>>> carriers if I can help it, so never encountered this additional check (I
>>> doubt that it happens even on US airlines in the modern era).
>>
>> Define "modern era".
>
>Say, from 2010.

I think others have confirmed it's still happening.

>>>> which of course loyal US citizens are more likely to patronise. (Not
>>>> least because they are probably on its FF programme due to domestic
>>>> travel).
>>>
>>> Not really. All the trans-Atlantic airlines are members of the three major
>>> alliances, so their FF loyalties extend to foreign airlines in the same
>>> alliance.
>>
>> Getting points credited cross-alliances is a nightmare.
>
>I assume you meant to mention that this was sometimes the case 15-20 years
>ago, when you still flew?

The most recent occasion I had a FF issue was a flight to Prague in
2012, but I'll concede that's longer ago than I expected. Time flies,
too.

>> And BA was always one of the worst (never doing it automatically).
>
>Again, presumably you mean you had one such experience 20 years ago?
>
>Not, of course to defend BA's unreliable IT.

It happened a lot, because my most common transatlantic route was
London-Dallas, and communication between BA and AA was not the best.

>> Restricting yourself to a [European] carrier in your own Alliance isn't
>> likely to increase the choice of routes, so I'll stick with the idea
>> that most USA-ians will fly with a local carrier.
>
>Not in a era of code-shares. They probably don't even know they've booked
>to travel on a foreign airline's plane.

Americans are fiercely loyal to local brands. They absolutely know if
for example their Delta flight happens to be with Air France, and quite
understandably fearful of being served frogs legs with a Gallic shrug.

>>> But US government staff on official trips are supposed to fly on US
>>> airlines if possible. I don't know how strictly this is enforced. For
>>> example, is it enough to book a US airline flight number, knowing very well
>>> that it's actually a code-share with a superior European or Asian airline?
>>
>> Or even with a worse one.
>
>Ah, I detect the famous Perry dry humour!

There were plenty of worse carriers than the US-based ones. SABENA is
one that springs to mind. And who would volunteer to fly EgyptAir
instead of BMI? The brand names change over the years, but the principle
remains the same.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3hd2l$3kr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:51:49 on Sun, 17 Apr
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've often wondered if that causes problems on arrival? The
>>>>>>>>>>>> airline tells the border authorities in the destination country
>>>>>>>>>>>> the list of passports that will be arriving on a flight, but if
>>>>>>>>>>>> a dual national chooses to use a different (unexpected) passport
>>>>>>>>>>>> on arrival, would the machines reject it as they weren't
>>>>>>>>>>>> expecting it? Perhaps they'd accept a local citizen's passport
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway, but not necessarily one from a different country?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know what happens there. My friend has Irish and UK
>>>>>>>>>>> passports. She uses her Irish passport for all border
>>>>>>>>>>> crossing except for UK arrivals. Passport Control have never batted an eyelid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't have expected a problem at UK arrivals whichever
>>>>>>>>>> passport she used. I was thinking more of things like UK-USA,
>>>>>>>>>> flying to the US having booked with a UK passport but using
>>>>>>>>>> the faster US passports queue on arrival.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The US authorities would take a dim view of their dual citizens going
>>>>>>>>> through departure checks at UK airports unless using their US passport.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There aren't any, apart from the airline check-in, and I don't
>>>>>>>> know if it matters which passport they show, as long as it's one
>>>>>>>> allow them entry into the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah yes, the famous "I haven't seen it, so it doesn't exist" US
>>>>>>> pre-screening to let you into the queue for check-in. Where you get the
>>>>>>> sticker on the back of the passport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No such thing in my experience, which may be different to yours. I have
>>>>>> never had a US pre-screening before any of my large number of flights to
>>>>>> the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we know you've reported that. I think the closest we got was
>>>>> perhaps it being "a thing" with US-based airlines,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's what we concluded last time this came up: it seems only US
>>>> carriers did this. BA and Virgin certainly didn't. I never fly on US
>>>> carriers if I can help it, so never encountered this additional check (I
>>>> doubt that it happens even on US airlines in the modern era).
>>>
>>> Define "modern era".
>>
>> Say, from 2010.
>
> I think others have confirmed it's still happening.
>
>>>>> which of course loyal US citizens are more likely to patronise. (Not
>>>>> least because they are probably on its FF programme due to domestic
>>>>> travel).
>>>>
>>>> Not really. All the trans-Atlantic airlines are members of the three major
>>>> alliances, so their FF loyalties extend to foreign airlines in the same
>>>> alliance.
>>>
>>> Getting points credited cross-alliances is a nightmare.
>>
>> I assume you meant to mention that this was sometimes the case 15-20 years
>> ago, when you still flew?
>
> The most recent occasion I had a FF issue was a flight to Prague in
> 2012, but I'll concede that's longer ago than I expected. Time flies,
> too.
>
>>> And BA was always one of the worst (never doing it automatically).
>>
>> Again, presumably you mean you had one such experience 20 years ago?
>>
>> Not, of course to defend BA's unreliable IT.
>
> It happened a lot, because my most common transatlantic route was
> London-Dallas, and communication between BA and AA was not the best.

Yes, but the OneWorld computer systems have been replaced since the distant
days when you flew.

>
>>> Restricting yourself to a [European] carrier in your own Alliance isn't
>>> likely to increase the choice of routes, so I'll stick with the idea
>>> that most USA-ians will fly with a local carrier.
>>
>> Not in a era of code-shares. They probably don't even know they've booked
>> to travel on a foreign airline's plane.
>
> Americans are fiercely loyal to local brands. They absolutely know if
> for example their Delta flight happens to be with Air France, and quite
> understandably fearful of being served frogs legs with a Gallic shrug.

How would a typical American even know that DL8672 was actually going to be
on AF Airbus A359? They'd know when they boarded, but not when they
booked.

>
>>>> But US government staff on official trips are supposed to fly on US
>>>> airlines if possible. I don't know how strictly this is enforced. For
>>>> example, is it enough to book a US airline flight number, knowing very well
>>>> that it's actually a code-share with a superior European or Asian airline?
>>>
>>> Or even with a worse one.
>>
>> Ah, I detect the famous Perry dry humour!
>
> There were plenty of worse carriers than the US-based ones. SABENA is
> one that springs to mind.

I don't think even† Sabena was as bad as US carriers, but it died decades
ago, so why mention it now?
[†Such A Bloody Experience Never Again]

> And who would volunteer to fly EgyptAir instead of BMI?

What has an African and a long-defunct British airline got to do with a
comparison with US carriers?

> The brand names change over the years, but the principle
> remains the same.

Yes: always avoid US carriers in favour of Asian or European alternatives.

On 20/04/2022 01:15, Recliner wrote:

> But, yes, Schengen members can, and sometimes do, apply border checks. But
> it's very disruptive when they do.

I saw Germany appearing to implement a pretty simple system for deciding
who got checked, which meant the majority of people weren't affected...

--
Arthur Figgis

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 11:52:37 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>> Am 20.04.2022 um 01:23 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>>> On 17/04/2022 23:55, Matthew Geier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Spanish have also been criticised for causing massive traffic jams
>>>> on the motorways by insisting on checking EVERYONE who crossed the
>>>> boarder from France.
>>>
>>> All EU states have that right, Schengen or no.
>>
>> Wrong. The Schengen Acquis from 1997 (transformed into EU legislation
>> later) gives citizens the right to cross borders without being checked;
>> it also gives police (not: border police of customes officers) the right
>> to do spot checks near the border.
>>
>> EU countries have the right to temporarily suspend the Schengen Acquis
>> and introduce boder controls for up to 2 years by declaring a security
>> emergency.
>>
>> France did that in early 2015 due to the terrorist attacks; several
>> countries did it in summer 2015 due to the "asylum crisis".
>>
>> Without offcially suspending the rules, Spain was only entitled to spot
>> checks rather than to checking everyone.
>>
>
>Ah, that's interesting. I didn't know that the spot near-border checks
>could only be done by the police.
>
"Police" can describe very different bodies in different countries.
Border protection (and railway policing) in Germany is a function of
staff within the Federal Police.

Am 21.04.2022 um 02:17 schrieb Charles Ellson:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 11:52:37 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>> Am 20.04.2022 um 01:23 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>> On 17/04/2022 23:55, Matthew Geier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Spanish have also been criticised for causing massive traffic jams
>>>>> on the motorways by insisting on checking EVERYONE who crossed the
>>>>> boarder from France.
>>>>
>>>> All EU states have that right, Schengen or no.
>>>
>>> Wrong. The Schengen Acquis from 1997 (transformed into EU legislation
>>> later) gives citizens the right to cross borders without being checked;
>>> it also gives police (not: border police of customes officers) the right
>>> to do spot checks near the border.
>>>
>>> EU countries have the right to temporarily suspend the Schengen Acquis
>>> and introduce boder controls for up to 2 years by declaring a security
>>> emergency.
>>>
>>> France did that in early 2015 due to the terrorist attacks; several
>>> countries did it in summer 2015 due to the "asylum crisis".
>>>
>>> Without offcially suspending the rules, Spain was only entitled to spot
>>> checks rather than to checking everyone.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, that's interesting. I didn't know that the spot near-border checks
>> could only be done by the police.
>>
> "Police" can describe very different bodies in different countries.
> Border protection (and railway policing) in Germany is a function of
> staff within the Federal Police.

This is a result of the Schengen agreement;-)

Border guards don't have the legal permission to stop and search other
than at a physical border crossing, Police do.
After Schengen, border guards needed that ability, so the "border
guards" units were given police training and police powers and re-named
"Federal police".
Due to rail privatisation, the railway police didn't have a meaningful
legal standing any more either, so they were merged into the new federal
police.

Rolf

In message <t3pcjo$st1$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:56 on Wed, 20 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>> The most recent occasion I had a FF issue was a flight to Prague in
>> 2012, but I'll concede that's longer ago than I expected. Time flies,
>> too.
>>
>>>> And BA was always one of the worst (never doing it automatically).
>>>
>>> Again, presumably you mean you had one such experience 20 years ago?
>>>
>>> Not, of course to defend BA's unreliable IT.
>>
>> It happened a lot, because my most common transatlantic route was
>> London-Dallas, and communication between BA and AA was not the best.
>
>Yes, but the OneWorld computer systems have been replaced since the distant
>days when you flew.

Glad to hear it (but distance is in the eye of the beholder, and you
have a very strange view of it).

>>>> Restricting yourself to a [European] carrier in your own Alliance isn't
>>>> likely to increase the choice of routes, so I'll stick with the idea
>>>> that most USA-ians will fly with a local carrier.
>>>
>>> Not in a era of code-shares. They probably don't even know they've booked
>>> to travel on a foreign airline's plane.
>>
>> Americans are fiercely loyal to local brands. They absolutely know if
>> for example their Delta flight happens to be with Air France, and quite
>> understandably fearful of being served frogs legs with a Gallic shrug.
>
>How would a typical American even know that DL8672 was actually going to be
>on AF Airbus A359? They'd know when they boarded, but not when they
>booked.

Booking sites tell you, and separately the four-digit flight number is a
dead give-away.

>>>>> But US government staff on official trips are supposed to fly on US
>>>>> airlines if possible. I don't know how strictly this is enforced. For
>>>>> example, is it enough to book a US airline flight number, knowing
>>>>>very well
>>>>> that it's actually a code-share with a superior European or Asian airline?
>>>>
>>>> Or even with a worse one.
>>>
>>> Ah, I detect the famous Perry dry humour!
>>
>> There were plenty of worse carriers than the US-based ones. SABENA is
>> one that springs to mind.
>
>I don't think even† Sabena was as bad as US carriers, but it died decades
>ago, so why mention it now?

It was significantly worse than the US carriers at the time, but perhaps
you've got less experience of such matters than you claim.

>[†Such A Bloody Experience Never Again]
>
>> And who would volunteer to fly EgyptAir instead of BMI?
>
>What has an African and a long-defunct British airline got to do with a
>comparison with US carriers?

See below.

>> The brand names change over the years, but the principle remains the
>>same.
>
>Yes: always avoid US carriers in favour of Asian or European alternatives.

The principle here is "buy from local suppliers you are familiar with,
not pig in a poke foreigners.

Anyway, if you never use US carriers, comments on their quality is moot.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3pcjo$st1$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:56 on Wed, 20 Apr
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> The most recent occasion I had a FF issue was a flight to Prague in
>>> 2012, but I'll concede that's longer ago than I expected. Time flies,
>>> too.
>>>
>>>>> And BA was always one of the worst (never doing it automatically).
>>>>
>>>> Again, presumably you mean you had one such experience 20 years ago?
>>>>
>>>> Not, of course to defend BA's unreliable IT.
>>>
>>> It happened a lot, because my most common transatlantic route was
>>> London-Dallas, and communication between BA and AA was not the best.
>>
>> Yes, but the OneWorld computer systems have been replaced since the distant
>> days when you flew.
>
> Glad to hear it (but distance is in the eye of the beholder, and you
> have a very strange view of it).
>
>>>>> Restricting yourself to a [European] carrier in your own Alliance isn't
>>>>> likely to increase the choice of routes, so I'll stick with the idea
>>>>> that most USA-ians will fly with a local carrier.
>>>>
>>>> Not in a era of code-shares. They probably don't even know they've booked
>>>> to travel on a foreign airline's plane.
>>>
>>> Americans are fiercely loyal to local brands. They absolutely know if
>>> for example their Delta flight happens to be with Air France, and quite
>>> understandably fearful of being served frogs legs with a Gallic shrug.
>>
>> How would a typical American even know that DL8672 was actually going to be
>> on AF Airbus A359? They'd know when they boarded, but not when they
>> booked.
>
> Booking sites tell you, and separately the four-digit flight number is a
> dead give-away.
>
>>>>>> But US government staff on official trips are supposed to fly on US
>>>>>> airlines if possible. I don't know how strictly this is enforced. For
>>>>>> example, is it enough to book a US airline flight number, knowing
>>>>>> very well
>>>>>> that it's actually a code-share with a superior European or Asian airline?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or even with a worse one.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, I detect the famous Perry dry humour!
>>>
>>> There were plenty of worse carriers than the US-based ones. SABENA is
>>> one that springs to mind.
>>
>> I don't think even† Sabena was as bad as US carriers, but it died decades
>> ago, so why mention it now?
>
> It was significantly worse than the US carriers at the time, but perhaps
> you've got less experience of such matters than you claim.

I flew both at the time, and the US carriers were even worse than Sabena.

>
>> [†Such A Bloody Experience Never Again]
>>
>>> And who would volunteer to fly EgyptAir instead of BMI?
>>
>> What has an African and a long-defunct British airline got to do with a
>> comparison with US carriers?
>
> See below.

So you thought bmi was American and Egyptair European??

>
>>> The brand names change over the years, but the principle remains the
>>> same.
>>
>> Yes: always avoid US carriers in favour of Asian or European alternatives.
>
> The principle here is "buy from local suppliers you are familiar with,
> not pig in a poke foreigners.
>
> Anyway, if you never use US carriers, comments on their quality is moot.

I use them when there's no alternative.

In message <t3rc5a$ttm$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:37:30 on Thu, 21 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>> There were plenty of worse carriers than the US-based ones. SABENA is
>>>> one that springs to mind.
>>>
>>> I don't think even† Sabena was as bad as US carriers, but it died decades
>>> ago, so why mention it now?
>>
>> It was significantly worse than the US carriers at the time, but perhaps
>> you've got less experience of such matters than you claim.
>
>I flew both at the time, and the US carriers were even worse than Sabena.

The best at the time was British Caledonian, which ironically codeshared
with Sabena. I flew AA a lot, and they were better than BA.

>>> [†Such A Bloody Experience Never Again]
>>>
>>>> And who would volunteer to fly EgyptAir instead of BMI?
>>>
>>> What has an African and a long-defunct British airline got to do with a
>>> comparison with US carriers?
>>
>> See below.
>
>So you thought bmi was American and Egyptair European??

Analogy comprehension failure. It's about picking a local brand as a
known quantity, rather than a foreign brand you have no information
about. (As well as the "buy British"/"MAGA" aspect.)
--
Roland Perry