Double liquid bag search coming back in Australia

[Austman]

With SQ ( I would imagine it applies to all transiting airlines though) if you are routed through Munich.....all drinks including any bought duty free get placed into a rubbish bin.

The time I transited there, there was a lot of expensive un-opened alcohol being binned!

EU rules! Only a few airports outside the EU are allowed to be the origin of acceptable LAGs.

 

[whoistheg]

Sorry my Singapore secondary scan was probably 18 months ago.

coughet also scanned a second time, in fact i think coughet scanned
before i walked in the door to check in.

i guess its not as bad as USA where you need shoes and belts off, but still.

Given how slow they are to hand out drinks on flights (sometimes upto 1:30) after
take off you would think a small 100ml bottle of Fiji water from the Qantas club
sealed, would of been allowed..

 

[Austman]

Up to 10 x 100mls (or less) are allowed if they can fit into a 1 litre zip clear plastic bag. Also some airports (like SIN) have water fountains after the last check point where you can fill empty water bottles.

 

[JohnK]

They don't sell to people travelling to Australia in HK. They wouldn't let me buy more than 100ml of perfume, not to mention the alcohol I wanted! At least with SQ you can buy it and pick it up after the second gate.

The same in BKK regarding duty free alcohol.

FWIW I purchased 2x 1.136mL of Jack Daniel in SIN last week and ~AUD74.06 was charged to credit card. In SYD I could have purchased 2x 1L Jack Daniels for ~AUD75 including their credit card surcharge.

That is a joke.

 

[NM]

Do you want the "official" reason, the "practical" reason, or the "conspiracy" theory?

Personally, I thinks its a combination of all three.

Official Reason:

Any airport that permits the entry of LAGs into the departure area will require an "at the door" screening before boarding. Some airports, such as HKG, allow people in transit to carry LAGs through the transit screening point so long as they meet certain criteria, such as being in a tamper-evident transparent bag that shows the purchase receipt from the same day (i.e. was purchased at an airport earlier in the trip). While this may be acceptable to the authorities that operate that airport, the Australian authorities class this as a risk and hence do not consider LAGs carried by passengers at that airport to have been properly screened.

The Australian authorities make an exception for airports where the retail shops will package the LAGs appropriately and deliver them to the aircraft door (or secure area after LAG screening". Singapore is an example of where the airport retail shops will package appropriately and deliver to the airport boarding gate area (after screening). While it would be technically feasible for shops at an airport like HKG to do the same, with collection along the boarding bridge, this is not a service offered by the shops.

The Practical Reason:

The rules were put in place when paranoia was rife and over-reactions justified. Its now just too hard to go back and change the rules. However, I am tempted to ask just how many dangerous LAGs/goods have been found to get through the airport security screening processes at these airports. It would be interesting to see statistics that reveal the actual benefit and risk exposure that has been mitigated. Its a bit like saying that I have installed an ultrasound transmitter near my front door that is used to keep elephants away from my house - its works perfectly - never seen an elephant in my front yard.

Conspiracy Theory:

By not permitting passengers departing towards Australia to carry LAGs purchased at the departure airport, passengers are more likely to purchase their duty-free products inbound upon arrival into Australia. This allows the Australian airport duty-free shops to charge higher prices as they have a "captive" market since the passengers cannot take advantage of the lower prices available for the same products at overseas airports.

So the Australian DF shops can charge more for the products. The Australian airport owners can charge higher rent to the DF shops because they know they shops can make higher profits. So its in the interest of the airport owners and the DF shop owners to keep the status quo happening. There are some people who believe those who stand to benefit financially have lobbied the Australian authorities not to relax these rules.

 

[yo yo ma]

It happens in Bali too and they are relentless.

Same in Port Moresby

 

[yo yo ma]

Binned temporarily!

Exactly right... especially in POM

 

[coles525]

Happens Hong Kong, I refused them to dump my bottle (plastic) of coke, so drank it in front of them and took the empty home!

 

[medhead]

Sorry my Singapore secondary scan was probably 18 months ago.
..

As best I recall the security screening at the gate in Singapore is the primary screening. I do not recall any screening prior to that point from entering the airport.

 

[serfty]

As best I recall the security screening at the gate in Singapore is the primary screening. I do not recall any screening prior to that point from entering the airport.

correct ... The only WTMD/security screening at SIN is at the gates.

 

[Pushka]

Great post NM.

I'm always surprised that there is no screening at entry into airports like Singapore. More personal and property damage could be done in an airport if someone was so inclined, than on a plane.

 

[NM]

Great post NM.

I'm always surprised that there is no screening at entry into airports like Singapore. More personal and property damage could be done in an airport if someone was so inclined, than on a plane.

There is some "random" screening just after some of the immigration check-points. But its not applied to all passengers. I have been "selected" for the check a few times. Its just carry-on bag x-ray, not any personal scan of any kind. That all happens at the gate.

The at-the-gate full screening is not unique to Singapore. Similar process is applied at KUL, but there is also a mandatory pre-screening after immigration. No screening for inbound passengers though - they just enter the combined departure/arrival terminal.

By performing the screening at the departure gate, there is no requirement to isolate arriving and departing passengers, simplifying the overall design. It also means that passengers don't get caught in a long queue for security and miss their flight.

 

[Austman]

Does anyone know why Australia seems to be the only country that enforces a double back search for liquids?

I understand the first pass at the Xray machines for 100ml.. but the extra one at the gate just seem stupid ?

Just came back from Fiji and all the people who bought water for the flight from the airport had to dump it all.

Given they bought it after the first Xray screening seems bonkers.

I have had this 3 times now in SG/HK/Fiji..

What is the reason ?

The main reason is that Australia does not permit carry-on LAGs >100ml on flights to Australia. This means in many airports a secondary LAG check has to be done at the gate itself. Those are the airports (in non-exempt countries) where the primary LAG check is done before the gate and passengers have access to >100ml LAGs after the primary check.

Exceptions can be made for DF purchases: DF carry-on LAGs >100ml must be delivered to the gate on the last leg of all flights to Australia unless the flight is from an exempt country. Exempt countries are only New Zealand and USA. You'll note that you can buy DF in NZ just like you can when departing Australia. They might send it to the gate in the USA, but that's due to US customs rules and not Australian LAG laws.

So every country other than NZ and USA must deliver >100ml carry-on DF LAGs to the gate. Some airports and airlines either can't or choose not to deliver LAGs to the gate.

I like the conspiracy theory too. Trouble is of course the lack of proof of it. I'd be looking more at why only one DF retailer is operating at an Australian airport.

 

[whoistheg]

ok.

So im guessing the 100mL screening was implemented due to a request from the USA over a failed terror attempt ?

Given that the US has stopped this screening how come Australia still persists with it ?

 

[Aussie_flyer]

ok.

So im guessing the 100mL screening was implemented due to a request from the USA over a failed terror attempt ?

Given that the US has stopped this screening how come Australia still persists with it ?

Well we are persisting with the electronic device nonsense too so why not?

 

[medhead]

There is some "random" screening just after some of the immigration check-points. But its not applied to all passengers. I have been "selected" for the check a few times. Its just carry-on bag x-ray, not any personal scan of any kind. That all happens at the gate.

The at-the-gate full screening is not unique to Singapore. Similar process is applied at KUL, but there is also a mandatory pre-screening after immigration. No screening for inbound passengers though - they just enter the combined departure/arrival terminal.

By performing the screening at the departure gate, there is no requirement to isolate arriving and departing passengers, simplifying the overall design. It also means that passengers don't get caught in a long queue for security and miss their flight.

Not to mention the fact that you can't just wander into Singapore airport. Instead you have to but an airline ticket and present your passport for stamping before getting into the airport to "cause damage".

 

[Pushka]

ok.

So im guessing the 100mL screening was implemented due to a request from the USA over a failed terror attempt ?

Given that the US has stopped this screening how come Australia still persists with it ?

Where were you when the world was stopped taking on any hand luggage for some weeks due to a terrorist threat. It was implemented on the spot and people had to leave their luggage behind.

 

[casanovawa]

ok.

So im guessing the 100mL screening was implemented due to a request from the USA over a failed terror attempt ?

Given that the US has stopped this screening how come Australia still persists with it ?

While no doubt some of these restrictions were sparked by plots against or involving the US, Australians have also been the target of bomb attacks in Bali and probably detected threats aimed at Australia eminating from several terrorist groups throughout Asia, and we have more than enough of our own OTT security types to ramp up the hysteria and security measures and then be very slow in bringing them down... Thery're almost like fuel surcharges in that respect...

 

[whoistheg]

Given i cannot remember what happened last week, let alone almost 8 years ago
it stems from the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot in the UK

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rule was created by the U.N

<snip>
The inconvenient rules were created by the U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) after a 2006 terrorist plot to make a bomb on board an airplane using ingredients carried in such liquid containers.
<snip>

http://globalnews.ca/news/863472/ai...y-be-phased-out-starting-as-early-as-january/

 

[under the radar]

Where were you when the world was stopped taking on any hand luggage for some weeks due to a terrorist threat. It was implemented on the spot and people had to leave their luggage behind.

I empathize with you Pushka....because I understand what your first post was referring to... re SIN.(and seems a few other airports) .pax can freely enter the huge high volume pax/inbound/outbound/retail area without EVERY cabin bag being screened..even in OZ domestic.pax/general public MUST go thru screening BEFORE entering the mass arrivals/departures area of a terminal.. I think Pushka is just highlighting that SIN (and some other) airports could be more 'vulnerable' to an 'event' deeper inside its terminals...