Don't forget the 100ml liquid rule

[kpc]

Is that Grange? Smashing | The Daily Telegraph

It is enough to make grown men cry:!::shock::evil:

 

[Reggie]

Is that Grange? Smashing | The Daily Telegraph

It is enough to make grown men cry:!::shock::evil:

I dont drink wine, but even I woulod be mad. Why wasn't he able to put it in his checked luggage? Emeriates were willing to find it for him.

 

[straitman]

Is that Grange? Smashing | The Daily Telegraph

It is enough to make grown men cry:!::shock::evil:

Even the TSA were more user friendly in Boston this year when I accidently left a bottle of wine in my carry on bag ....and mine was only Wolf Blaas.

They advised me (politely) to go back and check it in without any prompting.

 

[kyle]

I would have smashed the bottles too if I were in that situation so as not to benefit any dodgy airport staff.

 

[JohnK]

Totally sad and inflexible. He should have been allowed to put it in his checked luggage especially as the carrier was prepared to go and find his bags.

Another sad individual exerting their authority. Well done the world is truly a safer place without the two bottles of Grange....

 

[Dave Noble]

I dont drink wine, but even I woulod be mad. Why wasn't he able to put it in his checked luggage? Emeriates were willing to find it for him.

Remember , there is only one side of the story here.

To be honest, I cannot see how he can have gone through the initial security checkpoint prior to emmigration desks without knowing about the 100ml rule ; it may have been a deliberate conscious decision on his part to attempt to break the 100ml rules for which he has paid the price

Dave

 

[ejb]

The world is a sadder place when there is no room for common sense.

Letting him put them in his bags or even providing storage surely would have been the sensible thing to do.

It is the same as plastic knives on board but steel forks, nail clippers being removed at check points, and whatever rule they dream up next to make us feel "safe".

 

[Dave Noble]

The world is a sadder place when there is no room for common sense.

Letting him put them in his bags or even providing storage surely would have been the sensible thing to do..

Common sense would have been not to try to take 1.5L of liquids through the airport when 0.1L is the limit

The sensible thing would have been for him to comply with the regulations in force, not for the regulations to be ignored because the bottles of wine were expensive

Dave

 

[turtlemichael]

Common sense would have been not to try to take 1.5L of liquids through the airport when 0.1L is the limit

The sensible thing would have been for him to comply with the regulations in force, not for the regulations to be ignored because the bottles of wine were expensive

Dave

Did you have a rough New Year's Eve Dave?

 

[Dave Noble]

Did you have a rough New Year's Eve Dave?

No, I just don't find it v newsworthy that someone tried to break the liquids ban rule , got caught and was unable to take it; all it shows to me is that the airport staff did what they are supposed to do rather than the tabloid making the staff to be the bad guys

I may or may not agree with the liquids ban rule, but it does exist and has been in place for quite a while

Dave

 

[turtlemichael]

No, I just don't find it v newsworthy that someone tried to break the liquids ban rule , got caught and was unable to take it; all it shows to me is that the airport staff did what they are supposed to do rather than the tabloid making the staff to be the bad guys

I may or may not agree with the liquids ban rule, but it does exist and has been in place for quite a while

Dave

What is newsworthy is often very strange to me too. One man's news is another man's fish and chip wrapper (unless banned of course!)

However, the lack of common sense is the apparent refusal of the authorities to allow him to take advantage of the alternative arrangement offered by Emirates. It would also have been worth his while to put it into storage. Silliness like that brings the enforcement of the rules into contempt.

 

[straitman]

No, I just don't find it v newsworthy that someone tried to break the liquids ban rule , got caught and was unable to take it; all it shows to me is that the airport staff did what they are supposed to do rather than the tabloid making the staff to be the bad guys

I may or may not agree with the liquids ban rule, but it does exist and has been in place for quite a while

Dave

Dave,

Saying that he 'tried to break the liquids ban rule' is in itself is a assumption is it not :?:

 

[Dave Noble]

Dave,

Saying that he 'tried to break the liquids ban rule' is in itself is a assumption is it not :?:

tried was perhaps the wrong word since it does, I agree, imply intent and there may have been no intent; I do find it unlikely that he can have missed all the information about the liquids ban, since it does seem to be prominant, but I agree , it could have been innocent

Dave

 

[kpc]

The newsworthiness (is there such a word?) of the article is the smashing of the 2 bottles of Grange (for wine lovers...I personally have tasted the stuff and can't imagine why it is so popular and expensive!). The lack of common sense by the airport, as mentioned by others above, is the other isssue
To me, life and rules should never be "black and white", but I guess it is "to each their own"

 

[Dave Noble]

However, the lack of common sense is the apparent refusal of the authorities to allow him to take advantage of the alternative arrangement offered by Emirates. It would also have been worth his while to put it into storage. Silliness like that brings the enforcement of the rules into contempt.

At a value of $3000, if on a flexible enough ticket, I might have considered getting offloaded , going back landside and rebooking on another service rather than getting rid of that value of wine

Dave

 

[Reggie]

Remember , there is only one side of the story here.

To be honest, I cannot see how he can have gone through the initial security checkpoint prior to emmigration desks without knowing about the 100ml rule ; it may have been a deliberate conscious decision on his part to attempt to break the 100ml rules for which he has paid the price

Dave

Yes he was forgetful, silly or stupid for breaking the rules. However is there a rule that says the items need to be destroyed, or should the pax have been able to check it. Even in the LOFAP, Straitman was able to check a bottle of wine. I remeber pax at other Australian airports being given the option to dispose or go back and check it in. So we have no 100ml rule, but what is it after that, dispose or be allowed to recheck, or is it up to the individual security person's mood?

 

[serfty]

At a value of $3000, if on a flexible enough ticket, I might have considered getting offloaded , going back landside and rebooking on another service rather than getting rid of that value of wine

Dave

A more than common sense move, but not everyone is likely to thinks of such things during what was obviously a stressful moment. Like a lot of these things, I'm sure there's more to this that is being reported!

But he'd forgotten about the 100ml of liquids rule applying to carry on luggage, and although the precious Grange slipped through Customs he came unstuck at the final security check.

"I had the lady from hell, who said 'No sir, this is going to be bloody destroyed' even though the Emirates people were happy to find my baggage and pack it for me," he said.

"I said this is like a work of art, it's irreplaceable, do you know what you're doing here.

"She had them in her office and I said I wanted to put them in the wheelie bin myself.

"I was worried that they'd just go downstairs and someone would open the bin and there's two bottles of Grange, so I smashed them.

Issues:

• He had already got the bottles through customs. So I guess it was a gate search where they were noticed.
• Even that's strange as you can buy bottles of wine after customes x-ray in the departures duty free stores.
• How did the bottles end up in "... her office ...".
• Why would the "lady from hell" not permit the bottles to be placed in his luggage?

 

[Dave Noble]

Yes he was forgetful, silly or stupid for breaking the rules. However is there a rule that says the items need to be destroyed, or should the pax have been able to check it. Even in the LOFAP, Straitman was able to check a bottle of wine. I remeber pax at other Australian airports being given the option to dispose or go back and check it in. So we have no 100ml rule, but what is it after that, dispose or be allowed to recheck, or is it up to the individual security person's mood?

I don't know if it has changed, but there used to be a liquids check prior to emmigration checks at MEL and if inadvertently found there, then easy to just go back and check in if something is overlooked

If there is a checkpoint there still, then it would be hard not to realise (imo) that 1.5L of wine would be > 0.1L liquid even if not spotted

It reads that the wine was spotted at a secondary check at boarding at which point it would be too late to go back to check in and check it in for that flight

It could have been completely innocent, but if he went through an initial security point where liquids have to be put in bags , I think it would be unlikely that he didnt know what he was doing and suspect that he was hoping to get away without checking the wine

 

[Dave Noble]

A more than common sense move, but not everyone is likely to thinks of such things during what was obviously a stressful moment. Like a lot of these things, I'm sure there's more to this that is being reported!Issues:

• He had already got the bottles through customs. So I guess it was a gate search where they were noticed.
• Even that's strange as you can buy bottles of wine after customes x-ray in the departures duty free stores.
• How did the bottles end up in "... her office ...".
• Why would the "lady from hell" not permit the bottles to be placed in his luggage?

Bottles purchased in DF shops are in a sealed bag arnt they which these wouldnt have been?

I am confused about the office; mayhaps in the debate, they moved to an office

Dave

 

[Reggie]

I don't know if it has changed, but there used to be a liquids check prior to emmigration checks at MEL and if inadvertently found there, then easy to just go back and check in if something is overlooked

If there is a checkpoint there still, then it would be hard not to realise (imo) that 1.5L of wine would be > 0.1L liquid even if not spotted

It reads that the wine was spotted at a secondary check at boarding at which point it would be too late to go back to check in and check it in for that flight

It could have been completely innocent, but if he went through an initial security point where liquids have to be put in bags , I think it would be unlikely that he didnt know what he was doing and suspect that he was hoping to get away without checking the wine

I think he is probably meaning emmigration, not customs, was the first check.

A secondary check at boarding? What about the other 100 pax that had bought duty free, airside, how do they know where it came from? They are talking about a final security check, I still thin they are reffering to the usual.

Also if it did pass security screening there are some really big problems.