Ridiculous security procedures travelling to Australia

[Rebekkap]

hmmm - i wonder if the staff at the australian duty free shops are being paid the difference in their wages for the very high prices we pay?

Goes without saying, doesn't it, that Australian retail workers are getting paid better than workers in most places in Asia?

 

[nonscenic]

i don't see duty free flammability as being a major concern. I can only remember one accident where it was claimed that duty free alcohol fueled a fire post crash (KE). Should we also ban aerosols which are given out in amenity kits? Potential for explosive shrapnel there.

Jet A on the other hand is a proven hazard.

While the duty free might not ignite, the heavy bottles falling from overhead bins in turbulence can be more than just a headache. Overhead lockers appear to be designed with the average density of clothing in mind, rather than the heavy glass often used in bottles.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Goes without saying, doesn't it, that Australian retail workers are getting paid better than workers in most places in Asia?

yes. fair point. I guess for products where the margin is smaller that might explain some of the difference. but for an item like tobacco, the $70 difference between Asia and AU... can't imagine the workers are on $70 an hour or more...

 

[nonscenic]

While the duty free might not ignite, the heavy bottles falling from overhead bins in turbulence can be more than just a headache. Overhead lockers appear to be designed with the average density of clothing in mind, rather than the heavy glass often used in bottles.

Just searching for evidence I came across http://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_may-jun98.pdf, but the investigation didn't identify injuries from falling liquor bottles specifically - just heavy items and those with hard points or wheels.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

While the duty free might not ignite, the heavy bottles falling from overhead bins in turbulence can be more than just a headache. Overhead lockers appear to be designed with the average density of clothing in mind, rather than the heavy glass often used in bottles.

overhead bins have weight limits, these are printed on the inside of the bin itself. my last flight on a 777 had a max weight limit of 32kg for example, and that was for a smaller centre bin (comfortably fit a single rolla-board bag side on plus duty free).

I know people have said they have seen items falling from overhead lockers. the only thing I have seen is a coat or hat which has been placed on top of other items and they have slid off when the bin was opened.

I have not in the 1000 or so flights completed in the last 10 years seen a single incident of anything heavy falling out. guess I have been lucky. and that includes a heavy landing in Cairo on an A340 when an entire 1.5 metre ceiling panel popped off and fell into the aisle. I also understand the BA777 crash at heathrow demonstrated the ability for overhead lockers to maintain their integrity.

 

[mannej]

If you are worried about the heaviness of a bottle of grog, why do BA allow up to 23kgs of hand luggage - id say that is probably 10 times the weight of a bottle of duty free.

I know concentration of force issues do come into play, but I would imagine both do have the potential to injure don't they?

 

[Allan R]

Security checks at Shanghai (Pudong) Airport are also a bit "over the top". After clearing customs and immigration, your passport is checked at the gate, then again (with a bag search) after the gate, then a 3rd time on the air bridge before boarding. No liquids >100ml are allowed on the aircraft. I always buy my liquor on arrival in Sydney and it is definitely more expensive.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Security checks at Shanghai (Pudong) Airport are also a bit "over the top". After clearing customs and immigration, your passport is checked at the gate, then again (with a bag search) after the gate, then a 3rd time on the air bridge before boarding. No liquids >100ml are allowed on the aircraft. I always buy my liquor on arrival in Sydney and it is definitely more expensive.

Although flights to elsewhere (not sure about USA) have none of these. Actually I'm surprised QF isn't lobbying the govt to remove these checks as they must be fairly expensive.

 

[nonscenic]

If you are worried about the heaviness of a bottle of grog, why do BA allow up to 23kgs of hand luggage - id say that is probably 10 times the weight of a bottle of duty free.

I know concentration of force issues do come into play, but I would imagine both do have the potential to injure don't they?

How would Penny, the first class hostess on Great British Airways ("Come fly with me") handle a 23kg cabin bag? yet it is correct that BA allow 23kg of cabin luggage. In the size limitations, this means cabin luggage could be 365 kg per cu m . This is over twice as dense as the ICAO default baggage density to be used by airlines http://www2.icao.int/en/G-CAD/Documents/GLOSSARY.pdf . Some other european operators (eg easyjet) seem to be relaxing cabin baggage weight restrictions - perhaps to reduce airport baggage handling costs, but at what risk to the passengers?
I can see that perhaps modern aircraft may have more robust overhead lockers, and like MEL_Traveler I haven't seen any injuries from items falling out of the overhead, but then I've not encountered extreme turbulence in my travels. I might just stick with selecting the window seat thanks! My argument is that just because duty free grog is cheaper at the far end, it's inefficient to burn aviation fuel just to carry it all.

 

[drsmithy]

While the duty free might not ignite, the heavy bottles falling from overhead bins in turbulence can be more than just a headache. Overhead lockers appear to be designed with the average density of clothing in mind, rather than the heavy glass often used in bottles.

A couple of 40oz (1125ml) bottles will weigh ca. 2.5-3kg. I'd guess even a small carryon would weigh over 5kg.

Heck, a bigger laptop (15-17") can weigh a few kilograms on its own.

I have to say these arguments against carrying booze onboard are even sillier than the conspiracy theories.

 

[Clayton J Scott]

... My argument is that just because duty free grog is cheaper at the far end, it's inefficient to burn aviation fuel just to carry it all.

Sigh... really? So it isn't about safety? I have had a laptop hit me in the shoulder, now that hurt, and was heavy, maybe we ban them? You may want to quantify your argument with facts, likelihood x consequence should be a good start...

 

[nonscenic]

Sigh... really? So it isn't about safety? I have had a laptop hit me in the shoulder, now that hurt, and was heavy, maybe we ban them? You may want to quantify your argument with facts, likelihood x consequence should be a good start...

Yes a laptop is heavy but it is an item that you need at either end of your flight and the cost of fuel in carrying it, together with the risk of injury is seen as acceptable. My point is that some items of carryon such as duty free grog can be bought after the trip and the risk of injury (and fuel costs) can be more easily avoided. To return to the forum topic, if duty free grog was prohibited, then airport security screening, and the arrangements for gate deliveries could be streamlined. There is also the risk that terrorists could infiltrate the duty free shops and arrange to bypass security. Removing carry on liquids would seal up one potential security weakness, while improving passenger safety and reduce fuel costs.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes a laptop is heavy but it is an item that you need at either end of your flight and the cost of fuel in carrying it, together with the risk of injury is seen as acceptable. My point is that some items of carryon such as duty free grog can be bought after the trip and the risk of injury (and fuel costs) can be more easily avoided. To return to the forum topic, if duty free grog was prohibited, then airport security screening, and the arrangements for gate deliveries could be streamlined. There is also the risk that terrorists could infiltrate the duty free shops and arrange to bypass security. Removing carry on liquids would seal up one potential security weakness, while improving passenger safety and reduce fuel costs.

banning alcohol but no other liquids would be unreasonable and unfair. and some people might only travel with a small carry on, why shouldn't they be allowed to carry one bottle of alcohol when someone else is carrying their full 10kg limit?

the current rules (rarely if ever enforced) state that duty free must be part of your carry on allowance. if they enforced that then you might have an argument. but it would require every airline to comply otherwise you'd just take then airline tat allowed you to carry whatever you wanted.

 

[drsmithy]

Yes a laptop is heavy but it is an item that you need at either end of your flight and the cost of fuel in carrying it, together with the risk of injury is seen as acceptable. My point is that some items of carryon such as duty free grog can be bought after the trip and the risk of injury (and fuel costs) can be more easily avoided. To return to the forum topic, if duty free grog was prohibited, then airport security screening, and the arrangements for gate deliveries could be streamlined. There is also the risk that terrorists could infiltrate the duty free shops and arrange to bypass security. Removing carry on liquids would seal up one potential security weakness, while improving passenger safety and reduce fuel costs.

The whole "liquid explosives" thing is a complete furphy from the get-go, so in real life there's no "security weakness" to "seal up".

However, assuming for a few minutes it wasn't, if the terr'ists can get at the duty free booze, then they can get at the softdrinks and other liquids on sale in the airport as well, far more easily. Unless you seriously want to argue the $5 bottles of water are handled and secured more (or even equally as) carefully than the $500 bottles of Scotch ?

Let's also not forget the liquids that some people will _absolutely_need_ to carry onboard with them and therefore cannot be banned, like medicines. Again, a trivial avenue of attack if we're prepared to entertain the whole "liquid explosives" idea.

Look, if you're anti-alcohol just come out and say it. Don't try and wrap your bias in these silly ideas that don't even stand up to a cursory analysis.

 

[mannej]

How do you quantify the fuel costs to carry Duty Free as inefficient? I fail to see any valid argument to that one.
Could you not argue the same about any good purchased overseas for a fraction of the price you pay over here?

As for the security and terrorist argument, banning Duty Free alcohol would not lead to a more efficient process. It is only one small factor in the scheme of things, and as authorities have been showed, the terrorists have been able to find ways through, and AFAIK none of these weaknesses have involved Duty Free alcohol.

 

[Clayton J Scott]

How do you quantify the fuel costs to carry Duty Free as inefficient? I fail to see any valid argument to that one.
Could you not argue the same about any good purchased overseas for a fraction of the price you pay over here?

As for the security and terrorist argument, banning Duty Free alcohol would not lead to a more efficient process. It is only one small factor in the scheme of things, and as authorities have been showed, the terrorists have been able to find ways through, and AFAIK none of these weaknesses have involved Duty Free alcohol.

you cannot quantify the costs, you will be hard pressed to find a body of evidence to support implementing rigorous reviews of the safety procedures around DF anything. The argument is quite rediculous.

It still comes back to beuracratic nonsense that has us jumping through hoops to cross borders. It will only get worse

 

[nonscenic]

The whole "liquid explosives" thing is a complete furphy from the get-go, so in real life there's no "security weakness" to "seal up".

However, assuming for a few minutes it wasn't, if the terr'ists can get at the duty free booze, then they can get at the softdrinks and other liquids on sale in the airport as well, far more easily. Unless you seriously want to argue the $5 bottles of water are handled and secured more (or even equally as) carefully than the $500 bottles of Scotch ?

Let's also not forget the liquids that some people will _absolutely_need_ to carry onboard with them, like medicines. Again, a trivial avenue of attack if we're prepared to entertain the whole "liquid explosives" idea.

Look, if you're anti-alcohol just come out and say it. Don't try and wrap your bias in these silly ideas that don't even stand up to a cursory analysis.

No security procedure (at least any that passengers would accept) will eliminate a terrorist risk, and those that are implemented are vulnerable because they rely on the performance and integrity of those employed to implement them. The liquids ban is surely one where vested interests have played on one risk factor.
I don't have any anti-alcohol bias, indeed I drink my fair share in the QP and on board. What I am saying is that buying duty free bottles of liquid overseas to use at the destination when the same liquids are available locally is a waste of fuel and adds to the hazards on board flights. If we all travelled lighter and simpler then all would improve their flying experience and reduce the risks.
By all means passengers should be able to take on liquids that they need to consume during their flight - I have seen toddler's milk bottles confiscated at security in Heathrow, while seeing that items that are prohibited in some countries are ok elsewhere. Knitting needles are a potential weapon by Australian domestic standards but quite ok on a flight I did to Alaska from Seattle, knives up to 6cm long are ok in (parts of ) Europe.
Some passengers need to be saved from their own stupidity, like the family I was stuck behind at the checkin counter at Toronto who were wanting to take 4* 1 gallon flasks of fruit juice as carry on for their children.

 

[mannej]

Again does your argument not apply to any good purchased overseas.

If someone travels within their limits with DF Alcohol, how is it anymore of a waste of fuel compared to someone traveling within the limits with no DF alcohol?

The security and weight arguments are not sound sorry.

 

[EmilyHoward]

I have been reading this thread with interest. Last night I came back from Manila via HK on Cathay CX137. Just at the bottom of the ramp before heading onto the plane both my hand luggage bags were searched in every compartment. I asked the guy what they were looking for and he said "Chow and drink".

When I was boarding the plane I asked the CSM and one another if they wanted to search my stuff as every other person had! Now, they said to me "No we are not interested in searching your stuff and we would rather not have to but it is your Government that is making us do it."

So what does everyone make of that?

EH

 

[drsmithy]

What I am saying is that buying duty free bottles of liquid overseas to use at the destination when the same liquids are available locally is a waste of fuel and adds to the hazards on board flights.

And the point is that it does so no more than any other carryon. Laptops, books, changes of clothes, food, cosmetics, etc, etc.

All of these can be quite validly argued as "a waste of fuel adding to the hazards on board flights". Different people will, of course, have different perspectives on those things, but none of them is objectively any more or less "necessary" than a couple of bottles of grog. Someone whose only carryon is a 40oz of Vodka unquestionably presents a lesser hazard than someone with a 17" laptop housing a Lithium-ion battery.

Some passengers need to be saved from their own stupidity, like the family I was stuck behind at the checkin counter at Toronto who were wanting to take 4* 1 gallon flasks of fruit juice as carry on for their children.

These people aren't "stupid", they're (probably) just very infrequent fliers who aren't aware of the insanity that has engulfed air travel regulators over the last decade.