HKG Departures - No Liquids !

[Mrmaxwell]

Once the next generation of X-ray scanners come online that are able to scan for explosive liquids then this policy will be dead I assume?

Stupid rule that without explanation seems to benefit local duty free and nothing more....If I am a wannabe liquid bomber I'll make sure I depart from the USA rather than Thailand :-|

 

[medhead]

Stupid rule that without explanation seems to benefit local duty free and nothing more....If I am a wannabe liquid bomber I'll make sure I depart from the USA rather than Thailand :-|

Que? There is liquids restrictions in the US as well.

 

[NM]

Just sad that its endorsed by the Australian Government openly as shown in the signage!

Well they have blame someone :evil:

 

[ethernet]

Falls into
1) People Thing
2) Security Thing
3) Trade protection thing - Blockpoints

Someone needs to write to Infrastructure and get the words 'unless the scanner is liquid threat discrimination enabled'.

The correct deal is to ask sg, BKK and intermediate checkpoints whether their scanners are liquid capable - and if they are - demand equity, wrongs to be righted.

 

[Hermes]

It has nothing to do with HKG or LHR or any other airport. It is an Australian Government regulation. Why?

 

[Timba-Jet]

It has nothing to do with HKG or LHR or any other airport. It is an Australian Government regulation. Why?

Not sure, but maybe if Julia or Kevin get caught out by this silly rule, then the government might change it.

 

[Hermes]

OK, we're all agreed. It is a stupid rule, but no one knows why it was brought in. I'll inquire of the Minister and report back (don't hold your breath).

 

[NM]

OK, we're all agreed. It is a stupid rule, but no one knows why it was brought in. I'll inquire of the Minister and report back (don't hold your breath).

It has been posted many times on this forum. The reason is political lobbying by those that stand to make money from this restriction - namely the Australian airport DF shop owners (who can charge higher prices and make more profit due to reduced competition) and the airport property owners (who can charge higher rents to the airport DF shop owners due to them being able to make higher profits due to reduced competition from overseas shops).

 

[Hermes]

It has been posted many times on this forum. The reason is political lobbying by those that stand to make money from this restriction - namely the Australian airport DF shop owners (who can charge higher prices and make more profit due to reduced competition) and the airport property owners (who can charge higher rents to the airport DF shop owners due to them being able to make higher profits due to reduced competition from overseas shops).

Are we to infer, then, that only Australian and American DF shop owners are successful lobbyists? Surely such vendors are similarly self-interested in Britain, South Africa and all the rest.

(Not all newish members, me included, have read all relevant posts, so ask questions. My initial posts on this subject were in a new thread, not this one. Somehow the two have got tangled.)

 

[simongr]

Are we to infer, then, that only Australian and American DF shop owners are successful lobbyists? Surely such vendors are similarly self-interested in Britain, South Africa and all the rest.

Don't forget that not all countries allow purchases of DF on arrival (the UK isnt real duty free on arrival) so it's not as big an issue.

 

[samh004]

Are we to infer, then, that only Australian and American DF shop owners are successful lobbyists? Surely such vendors are similarly self-interested in Britain, South Africa and all the rest.

(Not all newish members, me included, have read all relevant posts, so ask questions. My initial posts on this subject were in a new thread, not this one. Somehow the two have got tangled.)

It was merged, but thats what the search box at top right is for, with the right keywords you’d have found many a thread on the issue.

 

[NM]

Are we to infer, then, that only Australian and American DF shop owners are successful lobbyists? Surely such vendors are similarly self-interested in Britain, South Africa and all the rest.

(Not all newish members, me included, have read all relevant posts, so ask questions. My initial posts on this subject were in a new thread, not this one. Somehow the two have got tangled.)

Don't forget that not all countries allow purchases of DF on arrival (the UK isnt real duty free on arrival) so it's not as big an issue.

Markets vary greatly by country. As Simon says, many countries do not allow F purchases on arrival, including USA.

There is no justifiable security reason for Australia to warrant a secondary screening for LAGs at the departure gate at airports like HKG and BKK. Its all about protecting the profits of the Australian-based DF shops.

 

[Hermes]

Marketa vary greatly by country. As Simon says, many countries do not allow F purchases on arrival, including USA.

There is no justifiable security reason for Australia to warrant a secondary screening for LAGs at the departure gate at airports like HKG and BKK. Its all about protecting the profits of the Australian-based DF shops.

If the US doesn't allow DF purchases on arrival then the protection argument doesn't work there. And since the range of purchases at arrival halls in Australia is minuscule compared with departures, it seems tenuous here.

 

[NM]

If the US doesn't allow DF purchases on arrival then the protection argument doesn't work there. And since the range of purchases at arrival halls in Australia is minuscule compared with departures, it seems tenuous here.

I am not making any comment about US policy. My comments relate to why the Australian government see fit to retain their current policy.

Arrivals duty free purchases are limited by the Customs Act to Alcohol, Tobacco and Perfume. Outbound DF purchases are not limited to just these products, but the "savings" on most other products is limited to the GST as few other items have "duty" added for domestic sales.

 

[Mal]

Arrivals duty free purchases are limited by the Customs Act to Alcohol, Tobacco and Perfume. Outbound DF purchases are not limited to just these products, but the "savings" on most other products is limited to the GST as few other items have "duty" added for domestic sales.

Actually, that changed a few years ago and Inbound DF now has cameras, ipods, and other gear of questionable value.

 

[MatF]

Well, I hadn't seen this thread before.

I did find it extremely odd that we had our carry on bags searched and 2 x 600ml bottles of water (that we picked up in the lounge, after security, as per normal) taken from us as we were boarding a HKG-SYD flight in January.
I thought it may have been a specific threat and thought nothing more of it. Didn't know it was routine.

Duty Free issues aside, it does suck, as it means you have to rely on enough water being provided during the flight.

 

[ethernet]

The FOI Act has been changed , effective now.
Now someone CAN ask, and one hopes an honest and forthright explanation available. Newspapers should delight in discovering the real reason. If they believe a specific threat has been ongoing for 3 years, it becomes 'general'.

Is the ban still effective?

 

[Mal]

Is the ban still effective?

Yes - AFAIK, although I haven't been through HKG for a little while. As per an earlier post by me ... Hong Kong DF operators *are* allowed to deliver to the gate. But they don't. It is very strange. What is the reason behind that?

From QF site:

Liquids, gels and aerosols purchased from duty free stores in Hong Kong airports, located after security screening points, will be allowed onboard, however, once purchased, they must be delivered to the gate by Duty Free store staff. The Duty Free goods can then be returned to the passenger once they have passed through the secondary screening point.

The goods must be in a transparent, sealed plastic bag. Receipts of the purchased duty free items must be attached or enclosed in the bag and must be clearly seen.