Australia to adopt European Cabin Baggage screening allowances re liquids etc

[sinala1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20879350-23349,00.html

The upgraded regime will mirror new rules introduced four weeks ago across the 25-nation European Union, which restricts passengers to carrying no more than 100ml of liquid per container.

Containers with substances including drinks, creams, perfumes, sprays, gels and toothpaste will be required to be carried in a resealable transparent plastic bag.

Exceptions will be made for passengers with medical conditions and baby food intended to be consumed on board.

The EU regulations allow the purchase of duty-free alcohol and perfumes after security checks have been carried out.

The new procedures will involve more lengthy queues for departing passengers as checking of cabin baggage will have to be done by hand.


Having experienced this in the USA, UK and departing SYD enroute HNL/LAS in September, its incredibly inconvenient and irritating not being able to take a bottle of water/coke etc with you, particularly on a long haul flight. As a flight attendant for a LCC in Australia, I really hope if we do adopt these procedures that we also adopt a FREE WATER procedure for our passengers!!!

The question that has to be asked too - is this really worthwhile? If they are going to allow 100ml of liquids/creams etc onboard an aircraft, and Mr/Mrs SuicideBomber want to make one of these liquid bombs, would they be able to succesfully do it with quantities of ingredients limited to 100ml?

As crew are we going to be stopped from buying for eg a bottle of coke in the terminal (as our employer wont give us one) if we want and taking it onboard? Or are liquid purchases (other than duty free, as already stated as being exempted) beyond the security screening exempted???

:ugh:

[Z Force]

Less than 100 ml would be more than enough to disable an aircraft. What's to stop several people bringing fluids on seperately and then mixing them to make a larger explosive device?
I fail to understand how they let liquor on these days.

[CIA Stooge]

To quote from the article
Yesterday's cabinet meeting also discussed exemptions for visiting VIPs, which would allow them to bypass some of the security checks applying to ordinary travellers.
The special provision for VIPs is being introduced in the lead-up to next year's APEC meetings, which will involve the biggest influx of foreign government leaders and officials ever to visit Australia.
Screening of checked baggage on domestic flights will become mandatory at Australia's 11 major airports from next August 1.
This is what gets up people's noses, one rule for the 'elite' and one rule for Joe Public. No doubt exceptions will be made not only for the VIPs but also their husbands, wives, aides, staffers, secretaries, bodyguards and so on. If the rules were to apply to everyone the worst excesses of this post 9/11 security regime would soon be cleared away.
There's also an interesting topic on this "liquid bomb" at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/ which gives another angle on the story.

[Centaurus]

While the vetting of liquids is one thing what is also needed is a firm crack down on the quantity size and weight of hand baggage brought into the cabin. Having done a few trips as passenger lately I am shocked at the bulky if legal suitcaes brought on board with compete disregard for other passenger's safety in event of a high speed abort or high G load incident.

The size and weight of suitcases forced into overhead lockers is staggering and for the life of me I don't know how they are passed by those responsible for vetting them. Flight attendants are scared stiff of protesting and it is not fair that FA's should have to act as the police. Clearly, if airline policy is to close eyes to the huge bags in overhead lockers (which is obviously the case - no pun intended - ) then there is a need for CASA safety inspectors to step in and strictly enforce fair and reasonable rules.

Self regulation by the airline staff simply does not work in these areas of hand baggage because of commercial pressures from the bean counters. The last resort is to have a security man or CASA at the gate-lounges as people file in to the aircraft and stop the culprits in their tracks before they enter the cabin with large heavy cases, duffle bags etc intended for the overhead lockers.

[HardCorePawn]

Here in AKL they use the 'Red Coats' (the guys in the mountie hats) just as you enter the queues before the immigration counters and a little set of scales...

So it pays to work those biceps and make out like that slightly more than 110 linear cm bag with the lead bricks in it is light as a feather... least they make you try to repack it :=

Having said that, to my knowledge they do not care how many pieces of hand baggage you have, just that none of them weigh more than 7kgs :ugh:

My personal favourite experience was the day QF 'downgraded' my 189 flight from SYD to AKL from a 76 to a 73... the unhappy chappies at the checkin gate enquiring as to why they needed to handover the 3 duvets & 4 pillows, DVD player, 12 bottles of duty free so it could be safely stored 'down below' :ugh:

[WilliamOK]

It seems to me that the only reason they bring in these new 'security' measures, is to give the illusion to the general public that they are doing something about security.....It won't be effective at all, but at least thier voters and constituents will think it will be safer......

IMHO

[topend3]

what we should dread is screening of baggage at the hundreds of regional ports in australia that handle jet services, that currently conduct passenger screening. Another thing I haven't been able to work out is how jet RPT pax are screened, yet jet charter remains non-screened out of the mines.

[Sunfish]

Wow! Thanks Cabinet, for making air travel even more inconvenient than it was before.

[WilliamOK]

As long as they don't roll out the security measures a la ASIC Security controlled areas.

IE to all airports that receive RPT services.........

That might be a bit too much.. :rolleyes:

[Stubby]

Its great to see that the insanity of passenger screening continues :ugh:
Next it will be full strip search and cavity checks for flight crew :*

[WalterMitty]

And will the several dozen to several hundred per aircraft molotov cocktails be withdrawn also? Anyone with a few bottles of vodka could bring down a jet. What a joke of a policy until every volatile source is removed from the aircraft. Personally I am all for the removal of spirits but until that happens then all the present restictions will achieve is nothing!

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Crackdown on flying with liquids

The Sydney Morning Herald December 8, 2006 - 9:21AM


Air travellers entering and leaving Australia will face new restrictions on liquids carried in hand luggage from early next year.

The move follows the arrest in the United Kingdom of terrorism suspects plotting to blow up airliners using the ingredients of liquid explosive smuggled aboard in hand luggage.

Transport Minister Mark Vaile said today that the government would introduce the new hand luggage restrictions in late March.

"As a result of vulnerabilities exposed in the UK in August with regard to liquids being carried in hand luggage onto international flights, the government this week has taken a decision that as of March 31 next year, all international travellers, both outbound and inbound, ... will need to be restricted in the carriage of liquids, aerosols and gels to 100 millilitre containers," he told ABC Radio.

"Those containers will need to be carried in a one litre clear plastic bag in hand luggage and separately screened in the way, for example, that laptop computer batteries are separately screened."

Mr Vaile said the regulations did not apply to liquids in checked luggage, only hand luggage.

He said there would be exceptions for passengers with medical conditions who needed particular medications and also for quantities of baby milk or baby food required for the flight.

They would still have to be screened, he said, adding that experience abroad had shown that the extra screening did not cause much inconvenience or delay.


This Government is totally insane.

(1) Laptop batteries are NOT separately screened. Shows just how in touch with reality Vaile really is.

(2) "Inbound" passengers as well, huh? So Australia is about to tell all airports having flights heading to Aus to tighten up? Even the UK doesn't actually have that for flights inbound from Asia!

(3) Food? If the European experience is anything to go by (crews having to ditch pasta and celery sticks, for crissakes), it is going to be entertaining to watch. Everyone knows airlines such as Skippy give you bugger-all to eat in the first place!

(4) Attention all "terrorists": this only applies to international flights. So please feel free to continue taking your overnight kit on the SYD/MEL run, containing your 175ml tube of toothpaste, 250ml bottle of aftershave and 200ml tube of KY. That's ok, but we'll arrest you if you try taking that to Auckland.....

(5) "....did not cause much inconvenience or delay." What the...? What planet is Vaile on?

F..K :ugh:

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Just think of the extra dollars Jetstar will make by selling water. You see, there has been some good come out of it! :sad:

[plainmaker]

Just a small legal point.

Establishments serving 'food' in most states in Australia are obliged to make water available free of charge if the customer is partaking thereof - it is part of their licence. Numerous cases about places charging for glasses of water and how they circumvent it.:=

If we go through the rigmarole of certifying that the edible portion of what is served on board can be classified as food, then I would submit that the airlines will no longer be able to charge for water.

And i won't go anywhere near the employer's obligation to ensure that EVERY employee must have access to liquid as part of the OH and S obligation - free of charge.

Can we expect a further ticket surcharge for 'fluid embellishment'. :D

Plainmaker

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Seems to me that our glorious leaders in Oz are having problems trying to find suitable bogeymen for next years' election.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs

[Victor India]

on the positive side of security - i was frisked by a female staff member recently at the New Bangkok Airport (not going to try to pronounce) and found her most enthusiastic. All round, a pleasurable security experience...

:}

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Obviously your experience led to a happy ending?? :uhoh:

[Centaurus]

Friendliest thing I ever saw was at Manila when a female security guard was assigned to watch closely as loaders worked inside the cargo holds of our 737 passing out bags to the trolleys on the tarmac. Once the hold was emptied the loader jumped from the cargo compartment down to the tarmac to be frisked by the female security lady in case he had stolen things from the bags.

She patted him from head to toe then reached down and with a big smile squeezed the area of his family jewels. The big smile was mutual and it was a sheer delight to see them both rolling in laughter as did the other loaders waiting their turn to be frisked. Try that in Australia and the unions would scream harassment.

[Taildragger67]

Sinala,

My understanding and experience of the European situation is that anything bought airside (not just booze at the duty-free) can be carried on board; it's the taking stuff into the sterile area that they're getting at. So if you nip into the term and grab a 375ml Coke, you'd be fine - at least you would be at Heathrow.

Topend,

hundreds of regional ports in australia that handle jet services

I didn't think there were 'hundreds' of such ports in Aus?!

Plainmaker,

I'd been having similar thoughts; I recall some years ago, when certain amphetamines were hitting the club scene and there were reports about punters dehydrating, grumbles about nightclubs only providing hot water out of the taps and charging silly amounts for bottled water leading to it being mandatory to provide potable water out of the taps and charging reasonable prices for the bottled stuff. I can't see why airline transport would be different to that.

In fact:
NSW law (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+417+1996+pt.8-sec.86f+0+N?dq=Document%20Types%3D%22Acts,%20Regs%22,%20Year %3D%221996%22,%20Exact%20Phrase%3D%22liquor%20regulation%22, %20Search%20In%3D%22Text%22) - pretty clear;
Western Australia policy (http://www.orgl.wa.gov.au/liquor/policy/water.pdf) - note on page 2, mentions of "circumstances where patrons are prevented from bringing their own supplies" and "events of extended duration" as circumstances where a one-off event may be mandated to provide water;
Queensland policy (http://www.liquor.qld.gov.au/Licensees/Licensee+responsibilities/Provision+of+drinking+water) - free/reasonably priced water now mandatory in licenced premises;
Victoria policy (http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/b0222c68d27626e2ca256c8c001a3d2d/1caaee41075afec8ca256e220077406d/$FILE/Att.A%20Final%20Version15Jan.pdf)

[air doris]

All aircraft that I operate on and I would assume aircraft operated by other carriers in Australia carry potable (drinking) water available out of water fountains. That has been and always will be freely available to pax. No one can "charge" for that. Bottled water however is a packaged product and unless I was travelling on a full service carrier I would expect to pay for it. I do think that the LCC's out of duty of care should at least have a jug of it on their service carts as a free option for those not willing to buy the bottled water. Is this already an option?

[Icarus2001]

Taildragger thanks for the research. So if an aircraft is a licensed area for the purpose of selling alcohol then they must provide free water in accordance with the laws of which state? Where they are a registered company perhaps?

[Taildragger67]

Not sure about that one; the 'vibe', Dennis, of the Constitution was to cede certain powers up to the Feds and jealously guard the rest. Just where that line is drawn has kept many a lawyer in quids since 1901 and has been the High Court's main source of work.

That said, the fact that at least one State refers to another's laws is pretty good guidance that it'd be a brave operator not to take at least the minimum into account. Then again doubtless some prat would bring an exception under s.51(i) of the Constitution (Fed Gov to regulate interstate trade) unless the Feds have enacted something similar.

But I'd run with whatever State the registered operator of the aircraft is registered in as a start and see how you get on.