Alcohol confiscated at Bangkok Airport in transit - isn't it a scam?

[harvyk]

Just to add to the thread, out of POM you will have LAGs >100ml confiscated at the gate, or you can buy at the duty free shop and they'll deliver to the gate without issue.

I can't work out why they think a POM-CNS 1.5 hour flight is in danger of some idiot blowing it up but a CNS-BNE 2 hour dom flight is not. I've just walked through CNS Dom security with 2 x 1 litre bottles and 2 x 500ml waters + 1 can of Bundy I didn't drink last night! Seems a bit silly to me, but what would I know.

The difference is that our gov't controls the security at our airports, whereas for external ports we take it on their word that their security screening is up to scratch.

It's part of the reason why transiting international-international LAG rules still apply even here in AU, but transiting dom-dom is considered fine.

I suspect part of the reason why US / NZ are treated just that little bit better is because we trust them and their processes just that bit more than others (5 eye's anyone?).

Of course LAG rules are a pretty good example of security theatre. If they honestly thought my 1 litre bottle of water was a genuine threat they would be feeding it into proper bomb disposal equipment immediately rather than getting me to place it into a bin in a public area which all pax are funnelled through.

 

[ermen]

LOL!

But how is this regulation met?

4.22F Offence—operator of inbound flight from non-exempt country
(1) For paragraph 44(2)(a) of the Act, the operator of an aircraft that is operating an inbound international air service commits an offence if:
(a) the aircraft is flying to Australia from an airport in a non-exempt country; and
(b) the aircraft operator does not put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that passengers on the aircraft do not have a LAG product in their possession, during the relevant times, unless the LAG product is:
(i) in a LAGs container that is in a sealed LAGs bag; or
(ii) an exempt duty free item; or
(iii) a LAG product that was supplied to the passenger by the aircraft operator during the flight; or
(iv) a permitted item.
Penalty: 200 penalty units.
​

The airline must have some assurance, that sealed LAG bags are always used. Perhaps certain airports now guarantee that this will always be the case? Or the retailer cops the 200 penalty units as part of their lease?

But without the gate checks, even bottles of water could get through. And that seems to violate the sealed LAG bag requirement.

Mmmmm...

its actually the airline the cops the fine.
but they would argue that the fact that having airport security of the airport IS the procedure + LAG bag is used.

in fact, is security at other ports being overzealous when the confiscate a product in a LAG bag from another port (ie can we sue the airline?)

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The difference is that our gov't controls the security at our airports, whereas for external ports we take it on their word that their security screening is up to scratch. It's part of the reason why transiting international-international LAG rules still apply even here in AU, but transiting dom-dom is considered fine.

Really? What screening is better in AU? I walked through a metal detector, same as I do in POM. My bag gets x-rayed, same as it does in POM. It's not the screening as they openly allow LAGS on domestic so why is that? If a bottle of grog can house explosives int, then surely it can also domestically? The "our screening is better" line does not work when they don't even bother screening.

Departing AU, LAGS >100mm are also confiscated, so it can't be that "our screening" is better, otherwise they wouldn't need to do that, would they?

 

[harvyk]

Really? What screening is better in AU? <snip>

We control it, that's the difference, the gov't feels more confident in security screening it directly controls rather than security screening that happens in another country.

Never said it was better, worse or equal to any other countries security screening.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

We control it, that's the difference,

But what are "we" controlling? As far as LAGS >100ml domestically is concerning, absolutely nothing is the answer. Whether the Gov't feels better or not is immaterial to what I posted, that being I cannot understand the difference.

The AU Gov't controls the international departure screening out of AU, yet they still limit LAGS to <100ml, so that in itself indicates they believe, rightly or wrongly, that security can't detect the threat and presumably that they pose a threat. So why is it that domestic security is better or domestic LAGS > 100ml pose no threat?

As I said, I cannot understand the difference, but IMHO, it has absolutely nothing to do with foreign screening ability, or lack thereof, unless of course the Gov't is actually saying our own departure security is also cough. I think the truth is that they are actually saying that there is a risk of non-detection and to limit the risk, they impose the limits. That all OK with me … but surely that should then equally apply domestically?

 

[CRAKYL]

Scam or not, this has been in place for many years and the amounts of alcohol, perfume and after shave, discarded by travellers remains significant. The more significant question is, why are we in this day and age being screened for water/alcohol/perfume etc when we re-enter the country after security in foreign countries, when no other country undertakes this practice? I travel globally and when I ask the question in Dubai/HK/US/BKK/Singapore/China/South America etc...nobody has been able to provide any feedback or knows why the practice exists?
The costs associated to these screenings is significant and only adds to the overall ticket cost at home. The highest level of security is normally in the US, yet these practices are not undertaken. Are we that far behind everyone that we don't trust everyone else's security practices globally? no education regarding any of the screenings from anyones perspective...an absolute waste of time and money ....

 

[harvyk]

But what are "we" controlling? <snip>

We control our intelligence agencies which feed risk data to the various agencies which are tasked with keeping our airports secure. The countries which we trust more than others in terms of LAG's (LAGP's?) we also share security and intelligence data with.

Remember that the person doing the bag scans is there to stop the crazies and to make us feel good. The actual protection is done well before anyone gets near an airport.

 

[harvyk]

<snip>The highest level of security is normally in the US, yet these practices are not undertaken. Are we that far behind everyone that we don't trust everyone else's security practices globally? <snip>

Could you please elaborate on what you mean? AFAIK the US has LAG rules on all flights including DOM, and I do believe that all pax must re go security screening when they arrive on an International flight and transfer to another one.

 

[fresherbill]

The CSM on a QF flight into Singapore gave me a bottle of very nice bubbly as he saw that it was my birthday. I was so chuffed. It only occurred to me when I was on the ground that I'd have trouble getting it to my final destination, KUL. The QF lounge staff dutifully confirmed this and commiserated. They couldn't even accept it as a gift from me. Sure enough, the bottle was confiscated at the gate. So my birthday present ended up being a confiscation notice from Changi airport.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

We control our intelligence agencies which feed risk data to the various agencies which are tasked with keeping our airports secure. The countries which we trust more than others in terms of LAG's (LAGP's?) we also share security and intelligence data with.

Remember that the person doing the bag scans is there to stop the crazies and to make us feel good. The actual protection is done well before anyone gets near an airport.

I guess we can sit in the revolving doorway forever, but the question as to why outbound int and not dom has still not been answered. Do the spooks only deal effectively with domestic terrorism? 911 proved beyond doubt that terrorism and fanaticism can disastrously happen on domestic flights, but I really think this conversation has already gone too far and with respect, I'll choose to bow out of it.

 

[harvyk]

I guess we can sit in the revolving doorway forever, but the question as to why outbound int and not dom has still not been answered. Do the spooks only deal effectively with domestic terrorism? 911 proved beyond doubt that terrorism and fanaticism can disastrously happen on domestic flights, but I really think this conversation has already gone too far and with respect, I'll choose to bow out of it.

Don't worry, I never said I agreed with it, I just said that's the reason. There is a whole lot of politics that goes into these decisions which is beyond airline safety.

 

[CRAKYL]

Could you please elaborate on what you mean? AFAIK the US has LAG rules on all flights including DOM, and I do believe that all pax must re go security screening when they arrive on an International flight and transfer to another one.

Flown into the US from AU, HK, Canada and Mexico in the last 6 months. No checks undertaken for bottled water etc before any of these flights...we are isolating ourselves with archaic practices

 

[lastrow]

The method I always use is to buy the max DF booze I am allowed (2 one litre bottles) at the departure DF shop, have them bag it up and store it until I return. Ok maybe I might pay more than in many places over seas but when I get home I still have what I paid for. Is GST payable on DF purchased in Australia?

 

[harvyk]

The method I always use is to buy the max DF booze I am allowed (2 one litre bottles) at the departure DF shop, have them bag it up and store it until I return. Ok maybe I might pay more than in many places over seas but when I get home I still have what I paid for. Is GST payable on DF purchased in Australia?

I do the same, AFAIK no GST on DF purchases.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

We flew BKK/MEL on JQ30 connecting with JQ5 MEL/BNE which was the now defunct MEL/BNE/HNL service.

Got through the security check at the gate in BKK with 2 x 187ml bottles of wine because it was buried at the bottom of our carry on. It's a hand search not an X-ray machine so they obviously just had a token look.

It ended up getting confiscated in MEL when we went through transit security ag the international terminal as it was spotted on the scanner.

 

[serfty]

It's part of the reason why transiting international-international LAG rules still apply even here in AU, but transiting dom-dom is considered fine.

... although if your D/F is in a sealed tamperproof bag it can be taken through international transit without confiscation. e.g. SIN-xMEL-AKL.

 

[harvyk]

This conversation reminds a little about a story my grandfather has told me. He was in Northern Ireland (back when bombings where a frequent event). His job often took him to secure area's. At one such area he was stopped by a guard who searched him and found a bottle of spirits. The guard was very insistent that he open it and was to take a swig. The rational was that if it was something bad it'd kill him first.

Perhaps that's what they should start doing, if you want to take a bottle of more than 100ml's of liquid on board, you have to be prepared to open it and drink / use it, potentially at random. I'm not aware of any explosives (or other bad stuff) that has a great taste, and wouldn't kill you / make you very sick very quickly if you were to drink it.

 

[Archipelago]

This conversation reminds a little about a story my grandfather has told me. He was in Northern Ireland (back when bombings where a frequent event). His job often took him to secure area's. At one such area he was stopped by a guard who searched him and found a bottle of spirits. The guard was very insistent that he open it and was to take a swig. The rational was that if it was something bad it'd kill him first.

Perhaps that's what they should start doing, if you want to take a bottle of more than 100ml's of liquid on board, you have to be prepared to open it and drink / use it, potentially at random. I'm not aware of any explosives (or other bad stuff) that has a great taste, and wouldn't kill you / make you very sick very quickly if you were to drink it.

I propose that harvyk's grandfather's security guard be in charge of all future regulations regarding the carrying of duty free alcohol on board international flights. Most sense yet

 

[Hvr]

At one such area he was stopped by a guard who searched him and found a bottle of spirits. The guard was very insistent that he open it and was to take a swig. The rational was that if it was something bad it'd kill him first.

I propose that harvyk's grandfather's security guard be in charge of all future regulations regarding the carrying of duty free alcohol on board international flights. Most sense yet

It sounds like a good idea but once the bottle is open pax will believe they have carte blanche to continue drinking on board. There are already too many instances of people misbehaving due to excessive alcohol consumption.

 

[Archipelago]

It sounds like a good idea but once the bottle is open pax will believe they have carte blanche to continue drinking on board. There are already too many instances of people misbehaving due to excessive alcohol consumption.

My post was more on the tongue-in-cheek side, rather than a serious suggestion that everyone gets stuck into their booze from the jetway to their seat....