Ridiculous security procedures travelling to Australia

[nonscenic]

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.

Yes my argument applies to anything being carried unnecessarily in either direction. By all means purchase souvenirs or bring back that unique liqueur, but do we really need to travel with "stuff" to fill our carry on and checked baggage limits? If we only took with us what is really necessary then baggage checks in airport security would be quicker and overhead lockers not as heavy.

 

[mannej]

Yes my argument applies to anything being carried unnecessarily in either direction. By all means purchase souvenirs or bring back that unique liqueur, but do we really need to travel with "stuff" to fill our carry on and checked baggage limits? If we only took with us what is really necessary then baggage checks in airport security would be quicker and overhead lockers not as heavy.

Then why travel?

Why wouldn't I purchase items at under half the price that I could back home? Why shouldn't one be able to fill their checked and carry on limits?

Security would not be any quicker.

 

[jimmy_041]

Apparently, it has been happening for a while now.

I was warned about the duty free alcohol rule by some friends in HK, so didn't buy any until I hit home but I saw some pretty angry people have to hand over bottles.
I haven't checked whether the airlines or government are warning people but I certainly didn't read about it in any of my travel documents.

 

[drsmithy]

Then why travel?

If the reason you're travelling is to buy stuff, then I think you need to look into amazon.com.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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.

lol! anyone who drinks their fair share before and during flying is likely to be more of a hazard than any item of luggage!!

 

[mosanator]

I do recall the warning being given to us when we were coming back from Europe last year with our stop in Singapore on QF6. I didn't see any additional security or cordons in place and I don't recall anyone having anything taken from them. In that regard, do you have to just hand it over, drop it into a bin or what?

I know if it was me I would be throwing it into a bin and ensuring it broke. Or volunteer to go to the back of the line and at least have a wee drinky from the bottle !!!! LOL.

 

[nonscenic]

Then why travel?

Why wouldn't I purchase items at under half the price that I could back home? Why shouldn't one be able to fill their checked and carry on limits?

Security would not be any quicker.

By all means use your allowance for taking medications, mobility support devices or childrens requirements, but if you travel just to get cheap items, then the internet is a more efficient way to obtain things from overseas cheaply. They may even come by air freight, but won't need catering, seats or flight attendants if they come by themselves.

If people travelled lighter, security searches would be quicker, but more importantly boarding would be quicker (no "hunt the empty locker" game to play) and the wait at the luggage carousels shorter if less luggage were taken.

 

[mannej]

People traveling light still does not equal shorter security.

You are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. Cheap shopping is a draw card to a lot of destinations. Atleast by purchasing it in person you make sure you get the right size. People are entitled to go shopping overseas, so let them.

It Is crazy that you are able to purchase DF from some airports to bring back in but not others.

 

[nonscenic]

Besides ridiculous security to Australia, there are Australian and overseas protocols affecting flights from Australia. I recall on QF93 MEL - LAX in Aug 2010 the announcement while taxying at MEL for takeoff that "due to US security procedures pax weren't to congregate in groups of more than 6 during the flight including near the toilets". There was the sound of laughter from the passengers. Later I pondered over what idiot determined that it would take 6 people to pose a security risk.

 

[juddles]

... Later I pondered over what idiot determined that it would take 6 people to pose a security risk....

Although I understand where you are coming from, you need to be fair.

It may seem stupid to specify 6 people, but think of it from this angle: Yes, it could almost certainly pose a problem if 50 people formed a scrum somewhere in the plane. Likewise 49 people. So to control this sort of thing crew need rules they can refer to to prevent such gatherings. So some poor bugger has to define a number (in this case 6) of people that is unacceptable. He or she would be more of an idiot, IMHO, if they simply specified a ¨crowd¨rather than a number, as this would be impossible to enforce.

 

[nonscenic]

Yes, it could almost certainly pose a problem if 50 people formed a scrum somewhere in the plane. Likewise 49 people. So to control this sort of thing crew need rules they can refer to to prevent such gatherings. So some poor bugger has to define a number (in this case 6) of people that is unacceptable. He or she would be more of an idiot, IMHO, if they simply specified a ¨crowd¨rather than a number, as this would be impossible to enforce.

Presumably the chances of 50 passengers forming a scrum would be highest on an Air New Zealand flight. Yes, as I pondered I did see the decision maker as a "poor bugger" rather than an "idiot" but it highlights the difficulty of any security planning.
I doubt whether the cabin staff would declare an inflight emergency if they saw seven people queueing for the loos , but in reality any security protocol cannot allow the operators to exercise judgement in a given situation. Security is never consistent because the operatives are paid to comply with procedures, not exercise judgement that might result in personal liability if they make a wrong judgement.

Airport security often relies on technology, which is wrongly assumed to have a Probability of Detection of 1 and a zero False Alarm Rate (I remember my false positive to the explosives test at LAX at this point!), while it would be easy to build an explosives device that would be undetectable in normal scanners, and explosive tests using ionisation detectors give false alarms to various innocent sources (including dyes in new leather clothes and clothing washed in oxygen bleaches like Napisan). Amidst this deception of security the issue of liquids has resulted in a lack of international consistency as each nation has different illusions as to what might pose the largest risk.

 

[Clayton J Scott]

Although I understand where you are coming from, you need to be fair.

It may seem stupid to specify 6 people, but think of it from this angle: Yes, it could almost certainly pose a problem if 50 people formed a scrum somewhere in the plane. Likewise 49 people. So to control this sort of thing crew need rules they can refer to to prevent such gatherings. So some poor bugger has to define a number (in this case 6) of people that is unacceptable. He or she would be more of an idiot, IMHO, if they simply specified a ¨crowd¨rather than a number, as this would be impossible to enforce.

I believe the perfect response to that announcement is laughter, copious amounts of laughter combined with head shakes. Of all the hair brained rubbish security measures this one takes the cake. Have you ever seen 50 people gather on a plane? I have seen 6 odd squirming on the spot in desperate need of a toilet, maybe this is the security risk...

Unbelievable, undefendable in a court of common sense...

 

[nonscenic]

I have seen 6 odd squirming on the spot in desperate need of a toilet, maybe this is the security risk...

Unbelievable, undefendable in a court of common sense...

It was only in last year's ignobel prizes that an Australian Neurosurgeon was awarded for his research that showed people busting to go to the loo were more likely to act irrationally
Aussie researchers among IgNobel winners - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[juddles]

I believe the perfect response to that announcement is laughter, copious amounts of laughter combined with head shakes. Of all the hair brained rubbish security measures this one takes the cake. Have you ever seen 50 people gather on a plane? I have seen 6 odd squirming on the spot in desperate need of a toilet, maybe this is the security risk...

Unbelievable, undefendable in a court of common sense...

Clayton, rather than throw stones without proposing specific alternatives, perhaps you could specify what YOU would decree in this regard, and let´s see how well you can defend yourself from the stones we can throw at you

 

[Clayton J Scott]

Clayton, rather than throw stones without proposing specific alternatives, perhaps you could specify what YOU would decree in this regard, and let´s see how well you can defend yourself from the stones we can throw at you

Fair point, I propose one security measure at the gate, a comprehensive bag scan, a metal detection and then limits on the amount of DF of any description on the plane. Once you have passed the security scan you are free to continue to your destination unmolested by further red tape and process.

Any discussion about tax conspiracies, pricing rorts, government trading schemes, profit margins etc are all off the mark. Pure and simple it is a case of control the masses by perpetuating the fear that behind every Bush is a terrorist.

 

[juddles]

Clayton, all further of my posts here ¨to¨ you are solely for the sake of lively discussion - so please do not be offended, etc! In a sideways method they reflect my problems with many of the associated discussion streams. Anyway, here goes:

You expressed disdain at the notion of the ¨6 people¨ rule. What would you propose that is different? Where would you set the number? 2, 6, 50? Or do you belive that pax should be able to do what they want? Yes, commonsense is clear that 7 pax waiting for the toilet is different to 5 people just being a pain. So how do you resolve this? What specific rule would you make regarding gatherings? Or do you think it is sound to leave it to commonsense where crew have no solid position to operate from? And in forming whatever opinion you have, why are you in a better position to make such a proposal than the people who´s career it is to know the problems from the airlines side? Have you ever actually taked to the peope who make such decisions and asked them why they do what they do? Or have you sat, as we all have, in the comfort of our internet armchairs, and simply given two minutes thought to a problem that professionals live with?

 

[nonscenic]

From the British Airways Baggage Info page. Looks like "Penny" won't have to do the lifting of those 23kg cabin bags into the overhead lockers herself with all those Herculean infants and two year olds who are allowed to take 23kg each. I would have thought the operatives at airport security would be complaining of lifting such weights.
[h=3]Your maximum number of hand baggage items[/h][h=2]Number of hand baggage items[/h][TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TH] Passenger[/TH]
[TH] Type of baggage allowed[/TH]
[TH] Weight[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Adults and children(aged 2 and over)[/TD]
[TD]One bag
and
One laptop-sized bag, handbag or briefcase[/TD]
[TD]23kg (51lbs).
You must be able to lift the bag into the overhead locker unaided.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Infants (under 2 years)[/TD]
[TD]One bag (for items your infant may require during the flight)[/TD]
[TD]You must be able to lift the bag into the overhead locker unaided.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Clayton J Scott]

Clayton, all further of my posts here ¨to¨ you are solely for the sake of lively discussion - so please do not be offended, etc! In a sideways method they reflect my problems with many of the associated discussion streams. Anyway, here goes:

You expressed disdain at the notion of the ¨6 people¨ rule. What would you propose that is different? Where would you set the number? 2, 6, 50? Or do you belive that pax should be able to do what they want? Yes, commonsense is clear that 7 pax waiting for the toilet is different to 5 people just being a pain. So how do you resolve this? What specific rule would you make regarding gatherings? Or do you think it is sound to leave it to commonsense where crew have no solid position to operate from? And in forming whatever opinion you have, why are you in a better position to make such a proposal than the people who´s career it is to know the problems from the airlines side? Have you ever actually taked to the peope who make such decisions and asked them why they do what they do? Or have you sat, as we all have, in the comfort of our internet armchairs, and simply given two minutes thought to a problem that professionals live with?

No offence taken or given that I can tell

The 6 PAX rule may be a valid rule, but not one for the PA system. Something perhaps for the security specialists on board to monitor. A simple solution to a rare problem.

The thing with forums and opinions is we are all able to express them, be it from an arm chair with little thought or from a professional point of view. In my case I work with a number of large organisations across a number of industries including the airline and rail industries assisting them with implementing effective Risk, Safety and Compliance processes and systems. Having said that it really doesnt put me in any better position than the next person on this subject.

 

[browski]

Clayton, all further of my posts here ¨to¨ you are solely for the sake of lively discussion - so please do not be offended, etc! In a sideways method they reflect my problems with many of the associated discussion streams. Anyway, here goes:

You expressed disdain at the notion of the ¨6 people¨ rule. What would you propose that is different? Where would you set the number? 2, 6, 50? Or do you belive that pax should be able to do what they want? Yes, commonsense is clear that 7 pax waiting for the toilet is different to 5 people just being a pain. So how do you resolve this? What specific rule would you make regarding gatherings? Or do you think it is sound to leave it to commonsense where crew have no solid position to operate from? And in forming whatever opinion you have, why are you in a better position to make such a proposal than the people who´s career it is to know the problems from the airlines side? Have you ever actually taked to the peope who make such decisions and asked them why they do what they do? Or have you sat, as we all have, in the comfort of our internet armchairs, and simply given two minutes thought to a problem that professionals live with?

I think I'll let this picture settle the argument as to the absurdity of the 6 people rule. Luckily not enforced by the airlines who know the rule is created by the undernourished.

Redirect Notice

 

[drsmithy]

You expressed disdain at the notion of the ¨6 people¨ rule. What would you propose that is different?

I propose we go back to the system that worked just fine for decades: crew get to exercise their judgement and passengers have to do what they're told.

Given how stupidly trivial it would be for 6, 12, or 50 people on a single plane to co-ordinate whatever they wanted without ever leaving their seats just by using ad-hoc wifi and some IM software, the idea that not letting groups larger than 6 congregate actually achieves something is beyond ridiculous.

Of all the idiotic "security" measures that have been imposed since 2001, the only one that actually has some reasoning behind it that would improve security is reinforcing and securing the entrance to the flight deck. Everything else is just theatre, or a justification for authorities to fish for other offences like drug possession.