Quart Bag to become a Litre Bag for Oz from next year.

[serfty]

Airport safety grip tightens | Herald Sun

It appears that tomorrow an announcement is to be made that Oz Aviation rules regarding carry-on liquids will be changed to match those for EU and LOTFAP.

Airport safety grip tightens

John Masanauskas and Ian McPhedran

December 07, 2006 12:00am

AIRLINE passengers are expected to have to abide by strict new rules on cabin baggage from next year.

The quantity of liquids allowed aboard will be restricted and tighter hand-luggage limits enforced.

The new measures, due to come into force early in the year, are likely to cause longer delays at airport security checkpoints.

Federal Cabinet's national security committee has considered the new rules, which reflect similar changes recently introduced by the European Union. ...

...
Under EU regulations, passengers are now restricted to carrying no more than 100ml of liquid a container. These include drinks, shampoo, suntan lotion, gels, perfumes, and toothpaste.

All such items must be carried in a watertight and transparent container with a maximum capacity of one litre.

There are exemptions for people with medical conditions and for baby food that is to be consumed during the flight.

Duty-free articles bought inside the airport once the passenger has passed through security are also exempt. ...

...
Australians flying to the US have already encountered similar measures since the August plot. ...

 

[Dave Noble]

Well, if they do do this, it will sort out the problems mentioned in http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/community/open-discussion/mis-use-of-hand-luggage-8480.html about excessive sized handluggage being allowed onboard

Dave

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Well, if they do do this, it will sort out the problems mentioned in http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/community/open-discussion/mis-use-of-hand-luggage-8480.html about excessive sized handluggage being allowed onboard

Dave

Okay, so we need a new (more restrictive) law passed, in order to get compliance with the current regs? Jeeze, we really are losing the plot! Apart from the (unspeakable) liquid rule, there is nothing really new here. Currently no carrier* operating in Oz allows you to exceed 115 linear cm for your carryon.

If they do decide to enforce the only one carryon allowed, that could be interesting for the biz traveller with their massive Dell bag and mini-suitcase. I'll look on with amusement as they try to stuff the 3kg laptop into the carryon, then go over the 7kg limit per piece, then abuse the world at large as they have to check the whole lot in and thus add an extra 20 mins to the race to get to the Taxi rank on Friday evening.

I can see rail making a huge comeback if these sort of shenanigans keep up. Just as well for QF that the VFT was never built.

mt

*Certainly no domestic and (I believe) none of the major internationals - but I haven't flown OS on enough carriers to be certain.

 

[Dave Noble]

Okay, so we need a new (more restrictive) law passed, in order to get compliance with the current regs? Jeeze, we really are losing the plot! Apart from the (unspeakable) liquid rule, there is nothing really new here. Currently no carrier* operating in Oz allows you to exceed 115 linear cm for your carryon.

Yes they do ; they publish rules but don't tend to enforce them. Consistent enforcement would be a good thing, whether by enforcing their own current regulations or having legal force .

Dave

 

[Gazza]

My word, won’t this be interesting!

Personally I would like to see a system whereby if the bag is dimensionally OK the weight is not an issue. Of course it will be necessary for you to be able to lift the bag over your head (without assistance) so you can stow it.

Not keen on the liquids limits though. Why is everyone so paranoid about security nowadays? Terrorism doesn’t even rank in the top 5 causes of air fatalities.

If you were Al Gebra (or whoever) you can wreak mayhem without going over 100ml in liquids onto planes. Won’t go into specific for obvious reasons but those from a law enforcement/military background will know what I am talking about.

Gazza

 

[Altair]

If you were Al Gebra (or whoever) you can wreak mayhem without going over 100ml in liquids onto planes. Won’t go into specific for obvious reasons but those from a law enforcement/military background will know what I am talking about.

Gazza

I agree and I know what substances and combinations of these small liquid amounts can easily cause planes to fall out of the sky. The security regulations are always at least one step behind the activities of terorists.
If the security people were serious about preventing terrrorists from bringing on board or on the aircraft items that would bring a planes down then we would not have carry-on, all bags would get a serious physical search with x-ray and explosive testing. Passengers would have a patdown or the total body x-ray and explosive testing etc. This would be too costly and put many people off air travel altogether by the inconvenience and would cause the industry to experience major collapses. The most effective way fo prevention is through the work of the intelligence services and that will never be 100% effective. Questions at checkin, photo ids, TSA antics, "no fly lists" etc are not that effective and divert money from the effective methods.

 

[kpc]

31st March 2007 is the deadline for this new "rule":evil:
Crackdown on flying with liquids - Travel - smh.com.au

 

[oz_mark]

Ripped off. A quart is bigger than a litre.

 

[simongr]

Given most of my travel this year has been UK/US this change in the law wont really affect me and as such I am not concerned about it. I always check luggage so I dont mind having my wash kit in the hold. I can appreciate that people who like to carry lugage on board this will be a change. I guess it might affect me in that might make the luggae collection even slower than normal as more luggage is checked.

One thing of interest is why we are safe now but wont be safe from 31 March..... I certainly wont be flying in late March as all the terrorists rush to get the liquid bombs on board before the change

 

[serfty]

... I always check luggage so I dont mind having my wash kit in the hold. I can appreciate that people who like to carry lugage on board this will be a change. ...

Also a change for people who like to have a shower while in transit, irrespective of whether they check luggage or not.

 

[simongr]

Ahh - Ihadnt thought about that. I tend to use the in flight amenity kit if I shower between flights - although am slightly nervous as allergic to sulphur so can't use those kits too much.

 

[JohnK]

Ripped off. A quart is bigger than a litre.

Look on the bright side, at least it is metric.

 

[dajop]

Look on the bright side, at least it is metric.

And the other bright side 100ml > 3 oz.

Once you get organised the first time it's not as bad as it sounds. I can fit toothpaste (can buy <100ml) , shaving gel, deodorant (these are <100ml), aftershave, moisturiser, shampoo, conditioner and hair gel into a small bag (thanks mainly to Hilton hotels, and some decanting).

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Also a change for people who like to have a shower while in transit, irrespective of whether they check luggage or not.

Yup. If I am spending 2-3 consecutive days travelling I need to shower en route. Other times I may have meetings and straight from them to airport - not too bad in cooler climates but need shower if in tropics.

 

[cssaus]

And the other bright side 100ml > 3 oz.

Once you get organised the first time it's not as bad as it sounds. I can fit toothpaste (can buy <100ml) , shaving gel, deodorant (these are <100ml), aftershave, moisturiser, shampoo, conditioner and hair gel into a small bag (thanks mainly to Hilton hotels, and some decanting).

I think it's going to be a real effort to try and find items of the appropriate size that are acceptable. Wouldn't be a bad idea if we were to start a "sticky" that identified acceptable items and where they can be bought.

Putting into context the size of the bag, it's essentially the size of a 18cm x 17cm Glad self-seal sandwich bag.

If travelling to the USA and you're wanting to stick with hand luggage only, check the following website:

MyWetstuff.com

 

[kpc]

But Prime Minister John Howard said that the government will look at applying the restrictions to domestic flights as well.

Now I am getting very annoyed...:evil::evil:

Crackdown on flying with liquids - Travel - smh.com.au

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Now I am getting very annoyed...:evil::evil:

Crackdown on flying with liquids - Travel - smh.com.au

and so it begins... just remember, you are doing your bit in the "War on Terror".

Part of me will get used to it, the same way I've gotten used to removing my shoes, my laptop, leaving my pocket knife at home etc. The other part of me will get increasingly ticked off that 'they' keep winning.
I'm sure someone has crunched the numbers about the % chance of losing a plane vs the 'death by 1000 annoyances' and decided that we too need to increase the sales of ziplocks.

I'm too young to remember the "Reds under Beds" mentality of the Menzies era, but I'm beginning to appreciate what it may have been like.

mt

 

[ethernet]

This is plane stupid. I suggest it is a ploy to confiscate water bottles, and have the concessions on the other side 're-sell' overpriced water to those that are not lounge FF members. Oh, and duty free items allowed - perfumes 95% alcohol, duty free electricals/cameras, lighters - no wonder it is called security theatre. So I will have to FREEZE my water bottle now.

This move will kill older people. You see inadequate hydration causes thrombosis/strokes and other nasties. Those oldies/pensioner sorts may have an episode, and your plane will be delayed while their luggage is pulled. Lack of water slows them down, causes cardiac episodes, given the increased 'excitement'. If they do it midflight, plane will have to turn back. Make no mistake, medically, this restriction WILL kill the fragile faster.
Airlines have reported people going AWOL - seems lack of water affects their hearing as well, as they wander off to seek a water fountain that is not there.

My last flight was a success. I got my tinned pineapple through, and they let a can punch through with it too, and the disposable jaffle maker, and I cooked up a storm. My tin can top looked more wicked than the borrowed steel knife from one of the concessions. Though they did look carefully for something else.

As for the new liquids rule, I will ensure my water bottle is FROZEN solid - then its not a liquid, is it?. I get cross, because it only takes a laser wand a second to tell you if the contents of a water bottle is water, or contains something else.

 

[JohnK]

and so it begins... just remember, you are doing your bit in the "War on Terror".

So called "terrorists" have already won their war! We have changed our lives because of fear of what they might do. As mentioned by a few people already if someone is willing to bring an aircraft down banning or restricting liquids is not going to stop them.

We have become too paranoid for our own good!

 

[alect]

And the other bright side 100ml > 3 oz.

Once you get organised the first time it's not as bad as it sounds. I can fit toothpaste (can buy <100ml) , shaving gel, deodorant (these are <100ml), aftershave, moisturiser, shampoo, conditioner and hair gel into a small bag (thanks mainly to Hilton hotels, and some decanting).

Yes and there are stories of those travelling from EU to US and a container <100ml becoming too dangerous and being confiscated in the US b/c it is >3oz

Agreed - living in the LOFTAP I have been playing this game since August - in fact I was in HEL on Aug 10 and travelled back to LAX via FRA (thankfully since they did not by then have any of the LHR restrictions yet) on Aug 12. I have had a ZipLoc bag since then, and simply replace some of the contents as they run out. I have found that amenity kits have really come into their own because their contents are perfectly sized for this (eg toothpaste, mouthwash, shaving gel/cream). For the one item which I could not find in a small enough contained, I found an empty container (I think my wife's eye cream) and moved some of the cream into this smaller container.