Merged: Ciggies Debate - Time to ban Duty Free?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: S/E Australia
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoking Gun At Qantas
Isn't it interesting that at the same time QF has started to roll out the sale of cigarettes again on their LH flights, former tobacco executive Paul Rayner has been appointed to fill a casual vacancy on the Qantas board.
No wonder i'm becoming more and more cynical as time goes by.
Bo!
No wonder i'm becoming more and more cynical as time goes by.
Bo!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
better not let Charlie the monkey fly Qantas
YouTube - HOLY SMOKES!
or maybe its just the wrong week to stop smoking
YouTube - Airplane! -- the wrong week to quit
YouTube - HOLY SMOKES!
or maybe its just the wrong week to stop smoking
YouTube - Airplane! -- the wrong week to quit
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merged: Ciggies Debate - Time to ban Duty Free?
Mods, please move where you think appropriate.
The discussion on QF inflight fag sales makes me wonder if it isn't time to re-think Duty Free.
It would need ICAO presumably, coz Duty free is generally a national concession against gazetted import duty legislation. What's more, Duty Free is an industry with a government given right to make money.
Nevertheless, ceasing Duty Free by withdrawing concessions internationally, would reduce fuel burn , and remove flammable liquids (both booze and perfume ) from the aircraft cabin. Both desireable outcomes.
And since it would remove most of the In-Flight trolly activity it would help improve Cabin Service.
What do you think?
The discussion on QF inflight fag sales makes me wonder if it isn't time to re-think Duty Free.
It would need ICAO presumably, coz Duty free is generally a national concession against gazetted import duty legislation. What's more, Duty Free is an industry with a government given right to make money.
Nevertheless, ceasing Duty Free by withdrawing concessions internationally, would reduce fuel burn , and remove flammable liquids (both booze and perfume ) from the aircraft cabin. Both desireable outcomes.
And since it would remove most of the In-Flight trolly activity it would help improve Cabin Service.
What do you think?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only if the concession remains in place Tipsy.
My point is that to get the stuff off the aircraft, you need to remove the concession.
My point is that to get the stuff off the aircraft, you need to remove the concession.
My point is that to get the stuff off the aircraft, you need to remove the concession.
Only sell duty free in the arrivals area, or simply ban carriage on aircraft.
Moderator
Wod.
I suspect there is legislation and/or international conventions relating to the rights of passengers to purchase duty free goods on ships and aircraft in international waters and international airspace.
It would probably be easier for Australia to restrict duty free sales within it's territory, than in international waters or airspace.
And if your concern is inebriated passengers, what is to stop a passenger boarding the aircraft inebriated, or getting a "full charge" or buying duty free at an intermediate stop? I can't see Changi Airport restricting Australian passengers to the fruit juice bar!
The Australian Duty Free Sales industry employs a lot of people and probably generates significant profits, which are taxed as company profits.
I think you would need to make a much stronger case for anyone to take seriously any denial of duty free sales to international passengers?
Tail Wheel
I suspect there is legislation and/or international conventions relating to the rights of passengers to purchase duty free goods on ships and aircraft in international waters and international airspace.
It would probably be easier for Australia to restrict duty free sales within it's territory, than in international waters or airspace.
And if your concern is inebriated passengers, what is to stop a passenger boarding the aircraft inebriated, or getting a "full charge" or buying duty free at an intermediate stop? I can't see Changi Airport restricting Australian passengers to the fruit juice bar!
The Australian Duty Free Sales industry employs a lot of people and probably generates significant profits, which are taxed as company profits.
I think you would need to make a much stronger case for anyone to take seriously any denial of duty free sales to international passengers?
Tail Wheel
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In a galaxy far, far away.
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously the whole point with duty-free is that it is entirely contingent on passage outside of national boundaries. You're simply not dealing with one nation's government, you're dealing with all of them.
Apart from ICAO, and their maritime opposite numbers having to liaise between themselves and every country that allows duty-free concessions, shutting it down entirely would put many thousands of people into the dole queue, and shut down valuable income channels for many companies.
Additionally, and most importantly, where else am I going to get a litre of Johnny Walker Blue Label at a decent price?
I see the point with regards to volatile liquids in the cabin, but there would be a mountain of public opinion, politicking, and paperwork to get through before it happened.
I'd hope it ends up in the "too hard" basket.
The next step would be to ban spirits on flights entirely (there are probably stronger arguments to do this than to ban duty-free), and that would take alot of the fun out of life.
Apart from ICAO, and their maritime opposite numbers having to liaise between themselves and every country that allows duty-free concessions, shutting it down entirely would put many thousands of people into the dole queue, and shut down valuable income channels for many companies.
Additionally, and most importantly, where else am I going to get a litre of Johnny Walker Blue Label at a decent price?
I see the point with regards to volatile liquids in the cabin, but there would be a mountain of public opinion, politicking, and paperwork to get through before it happened.
I'd hope it ends up in the "too hard" basket.
The next step would be to ban spirits on flights entirely (there are probably stronger arguments to do this than to ban duty-free), and that would take alot of the fun out of life.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: At home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ban duty free? You're clearly not a driver.
Getting my hands on a nice bottle of scotch at a reasonable price is one of the few things that still puts a smile on my face these days. I'll be loading up today before departing these shores.
If Airlines were worried about the weight and increased fuel burn, they would self regulate. it's not the job of government to reduce airlines fuel burn. Maybe a better solution would be to not allow anyone who is classified as obese to board the aircraft....but that would kill the already struggling US industry.
Getting my hands on a nice bottle of scotch at a reasonable price is one of the few things that still puts a smile on my face these days. I'll be loading up today before departing these shores.
If Airlines were worried about the weight and increased fuel burn, they would self regulate. it's not the job of government to reduce airlines fuel burn. Maybe a better solution would be to not allow anyone who is classified as obese to board the aircraft....but that would kill the already struggling US industry.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: nz
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOD, cleary you are a LAbour left wing nutter of some sort.
what does a lefty do when they dont like something?
Ohh lets "BAN IT" cause thats what school teachers do to naughty kids.
You will also find that most Labour/Lefty's the world over are ex school teachers who have not had a "real" job and they try and run their
respective country's like primary schools.
I cant wait for Helen Clark to get the boot in the next short time. Maybe she can come and live with you
what does a lefty do when they dont like something?
Ohh lets "BAN IT"
cause thats what school teachers do to naughty kids.You will also find that most Labour/Lefty's the world over are ex school teachers who have not had a "real" job and they try and run their
respective country's like primary schools.
I cant wait for Helen Clark to get the boot in the next short time. Maybe she can come and live with you
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: An old flying boat station on Moreton Bay
Age: 84
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Settle lads.
The wee devil symbol was intended to suggest that I wasn't peddling a personal crusade. Just floating the thought to spark a discussion.
I suppose it's working.
The wee devil symbol was intended to suggest that I wasn't peddling a personal crusade. Just floating the thought to spark a discussion.
I suppose it's working.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz
Age: 75
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you are travelling form HK to OZ they will NOT sell you any liquor at the airport duty free stores. they have a sign up which states that the Australina government has banned the carriage of anything other than the 100ml LAGs!!!!
Grandpa Aerotart
Until the Australian Govt outlaws smoking QF is not breaking any laws selling duty free cigarettes on board. They are not forcing them on non smokers and smoking them on board is not allowed so just how the **** is this the business of the nanny anti smoking lobby?
Do you know why smoking will never be banned in Australia?
Because of the enormous tax revenue it generates. Roughly $10 of every packet sold is TAX. Smokers are subsidising non smokers in the health system.
Do you know why smoking will never be banned in Australia?
Because of the enormous tax revenue it generates. Roughly $10 of every packet sold is TAX. Smokers are subsidising non smokers in the health system.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck do you not also think that smokers and their accelerated ailments are not seriously contributing to the health problems of the community and its also ailing health system?
tipsy
tipsy
Grandpa Aerotart
Not nearly as much as the anti smoking lobby would have you believe...they are zealots just like the greenies with global warming.
As an example there is currently NO scientific evidence that second hand smoke is harmful...despite ENORMOUS amounts spent in studies trying to prove that it is. Look at the laws being promulgated on that lack of scientific rigor.
That is not to say non smokers don't find the smoke smell unpleasant but unpleasant is not the same thing as unhealthy.
There is actually some evidence that suggests second hand smoke might actually minimise sundry lung/breathing maladies but like the 'evidence' that suggests it is harmful it is statistically irrelevant because the studies (both ways) cannot come up with statistical indications better than 1.1 which is MILES short of the statistical likelihood of 2.0 needed to even begin thinking about using the data for Govt policy making. The fact that up until the 60s you could smoke pretty well anywhere and most people smoked cinemas (as an example) were chock full of cigarette smoke yet the incidences of childhood asthma was remarkably low. Since smoking has been progressively banned nearly everywhere in the last 30 years asthma has become much more prevalent than it was. Proof of anything? No - but interesting non the less and the subject of medical research.
Other studies have found a correlation between smokers and things like Alzheimers...smokers suffer remarkably less from this disease than non smokers. Also the subject of ongoing medical research.
Did you know that up until 1960 cigarette filters contained Blue asbestos?
Deadly by itself and the medical literature suggests that in concert with the chemicals contained in cigarette smoke the combination is far worse than either by itself. What do you suppose that combination did for the lung cancer statistics up until the mid/late 80s?
Now I am a smoker and one who wants to give it up...again...because it is just intuitively sensible that it cannot be good for you. But I also believe it is not NEAR as bad as the anti smoking lobby zealots would have you believe. My father smoked until he was 60 and is now a healthy 76. My first DAME (who was over 70 and in semi retirement) had been a smoker all his life until his late 50s. He told me the following;
Cancer is a disease of the elderly and as the population demographic ages more people die of cancer. 100 years ago people rarely lived beyond 50-60 (and few died of cancer) now it is commonly closer to 80 and more die of cancer.
Things like heart disease and emphasema were definately directly related to smoking and for that reason alone I should give up sometime...and I will...hopefully soon.
If it is true that smokers live shorter lives then the burden they make on the health system later in life is shorter than those who have never smoked.
It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that we are at the mercy of sundry single issue advocasy groups all pushing agendas. Global Warming is another example, there are many others.
As an example there is currently NO scientific evidence that second hand smoke is harmful...despite ENORMOUS amounts spent in studies trying to prove that it is. Look at the laws being promulgated on that lack of scientific rigor.
That is not to say non smokers don't find the smoke smell unpleasant but unpleasant is not the same thing as unhealthy.
There is actually some evidence that suggests second hand smoke might actually minimise sundry lung/breathing maladies but like the 'evidence' that suggests it is harmful it is statistically irrelevant because the studies (both ways) cannot come up with statistical indications better than 1.1 which is MILES short of the statistical likelihood of 2.0 needed to even begin thinking about using the data for Govt policy making. The fact that up until the 60s you could smoke pretty well anywhere and most people smoked cinemas (as an example) were chock full of cigarette smoke yet the incidences of childhood asthma was remarkably low. Since smoking has been progressively banned nearly everywhere in the last 30 years asthma has become much more prevalent than it was. Proof of anything? No - but interesting non the less and the subject of medical research.
Other studies have found a correlation between smokers and things like Alzheimers...smokers suffer remarkably less from this disease than non smokers. Also the subject of ongoing medical research.
Did you know that up until 1960 cigarette filters contained Blue asbestos?
Deadly by itself and the medical literature suggests that in concert with the chemicals contained in cigarette smoke the combination is far worse than either by itself. What do you suppose that combination did for the lung cancer statistics up until the mid/late 80s?
Now I am a smoker and one who wants to give it up...again...because it is just intuitively sensible that it cannot be good for you. But I also believe it is not NEAR as bad as the anti smoking lobby zealots would have you believe. My father smoked until he was 60 and is now a healthy 76. My first DAME (who was over 70 and in semi retirement) had been a smoker all his life until his late 50s. He told me the following;
Cancer is a disease of the elderly and as the population demographic ages more people die of cancer. 100 years ago people rarely lived beyond 50-60 (and few died of cancer) now it is commonly closer to 80 and more die of cancer.
Things like heart disease and emphasema were definately directly related to smoking and for that reason alone I should give up sometime...and I will...hopefully soon.
If it is true that smokers live shorter lives then the burden they make on the health system later in life is shorter than those who have never smoked.
It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that we are at the mercy of sundry single issue advocasy groups all pushing agendas. Global Warming is another example, there are many others.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,977
Received 105 Likes
on
60 Posts
Until the Australian Govt outlaws smoking
But also; can you imagine the unrest that such a ban would produce?
I suspect it would be a similar situation to when the US Govt. enacted prohibition back in the 1920s.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In a galaxy far, far away.
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just throwing some numbers around...
I figure maybe 5 million smokers in Australia.
Guesstimated average amount smoked per smoker: 1 pack every 2 days.
Equates to roughly 2.5 million packets per day.
$10 tax per pack, that's $25 million per day.
Over a year that's $9.125 billion.
I dunno what the figures are for daily expenditure within the health care system are for smoking realted illnesses tipsy2, but I'd guess that $25 million per day would just about cover it, and leave you enough change to pick up some duty-free smokes on your way out.
As Chimbu Chuckles states, that's why they will not ban smoking, but they are not shy of making life bloody difficult for smokers while they try to make it look like they care.
Cigarette taxes paved the way for the kind of thinking where they can just stack huge taxes onto things like alco pops, and claim it all to be for altruistic reasons. "No, it's not for the money at all, we're just looking out for you, because you're obviously too dumb to look after yourself".
I figure maybe 5 million smokers in Australia.
Guesstimated average amount smoked per smoker: 1 pack every 2 days.
Equates to roughly 2.5 million packets per day.
$10 tax per pack, that's $25 million per day.
Over a year that's $9.125 billion.
I dunno what the figures are for daily expenditure within the health care system are for smoking realted illnesses tipsy2, but I'd guess that $25 million per day would just about cover it, and leave you enough change to pick up some duty-free smokes on your way out.
As Chimbu Chuckles states, that's why they will not ban smoking, but they are not shy of making life bloody difficult for smokers while they try to make it look like they care.
Cigarette taxes paved the way for the kind of thinking where they can just stack huge taxes onto things like alco pops, and claim it all to be for altruistic reasons. "No, it's not for the money at all, we're just looking out for you, because you're obviously too dumb to look after yourself".
hijack