Airport Security and Customs Thread...

[david]

Just when I was getting my hopes up with the announcement of new high-tech equipment at airports which would allow more liquids in onboard hand luggage...
I had a very bad experience yesterday which I wanted to share with everyone as a warning !!!
I was travelling from Manchester airport which has the new equipment. I had a 100 ml bottle of discontinued Narciso Rodriguez for Him, (unboxed).
It was put in the machine which had a square shaft, into which the bottle is laid. After a long wait and an exercise involving measuring the dimensions of the bottle, (in a clamp device on the side of the machine). Measured on its side/ on its back/ upright etc, I was told that the bottle/contents had not passed the test. Apparently they had tried twice and it had failed the test twice, so it would have to be confiscated and destroyed.
I told them to spray the liquid or let me spray it to show it was perfume.
I was told that was not allowed. I pleaded with them saying it was a rare and expensive perfume no longer manufactured, but they just kept telling me it had failed 'the test'.
I asked if they could hold it and I would collect it on my return journey, (you can usually do this for a fee of €10).
They told me this was not possible. I don't think I have ever been so angry in my life. I wanted to punch the woman in the face and flatten her.
Nothing I could do to save this predicament ! The bottle was a rare find bought in a perfumery for £70 and now I will have to look online for a much higher price. I was heartbroken and extremely angry.
I will never ever take any perfumes in hand luggage again. I do not trust this machine that gets it so wrong or the brainless people working in airport security.
I do not want anyone else to go through this, so it is an advanced warning from me.

On another topic regarding customs checks...
I fly regularly and have never had problems entering EU from UK or vice versa. Nobody ever checks me...in fact I never see anyone. This goes for Manchester airport and Nice airport. Perhaps I have been very lucky, or they are understaffed nowadays/ or more concerned with drug traffickers etc.
I would be interested to know other members experiences ???

 

[hednic]

Sorry to hear of your awful experience.

 

[_Nicolas_]

Authoritarianism apparently being the general trend politically and too many low IQ individuals is a terrible combination, these are the sort of robotic jobsworths we all end up having to deal with! Very sorry to hear of your dreadful experience and thanks for the warning, @david.

 

[enframing]

I'm sorry to hear that, terrible. I usually check any bag with perfume.

Was checking your bag not an option? When I had an issue (wine keys) they always offer me to go check the bag...

I managed to fly to and from San Francisco from Los Angeles while carrying on multiple perfumes, no issues. I have to say I was surprised.

 

[N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer]

Sorry to hear of this unfortunate experience.

 

[N.CAL Fragrance Reviewer]

I'm sorry to hear that, terrible. I usually check any bag with perfume.

Was checking your bag not an option? When I had an issue (wine keys) they always offer me to go check the bag...

I managed to fly to and from San Francisco from Los Angeles while carrying on multiple perfumes, no issues. I have to say I was surprised.

Did you purchase these during travel or just brought them with you? I've always made it habit to just brings decants over bottles.

 

[enframing]

Did you purchase these during travel or just brought them with you? I've always made it habit to just brings decants over bottles.

I brought full bottles in original packaging and brought back others. No issues, on Southwest. The wine key is what gets me into trouble, but I have gotten through with one before, international terminal.

 

[Jean-Sté]

I feel very sorry for you !

 

[pfranka]

That's just awful and so frustrating...
I hope you find a wonderful new bottle at a great price! 🪷

 

[Redneck Perfumisto]

I'm shocked. In the US, if you can fit all your liquids into a 1-quart ziploc plastic bag, and no single piece is above 100 mL / 3.4 fl. oz., then you're OK. Demands beyond that are foul play, IMO.

I strongly suspect that those people you dealt with were either WRONG, or have implemented a policy, such as demanding that the bottle fit a certain machine for their convenience, which is beyond the global rules. My recommendation under such circumstances - if you know that you are fully obeying the idiotic globalist rules - is to demand to see the supervisor, and then the person above that, if need be.

I've learned to be far more of a pest to the bureaucrats and their little minions, than they are to me.

Have you demanded compensation? I think you have a case.

 

[Renato]

Here are the rules.

Hand luggage restrictions at UK airports

Hand luggage restrictions at UK airports - carry-on luggage, checked-in baggage, restricted items and liquids, electronic devices carried from Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia

www.gov.uk

You're items were stolen by airport staff - since by the rules, one can plainly take a 100ml bottle of perfume through, providing it's in a plastic bag (same rules as since 2006).

Write letters of complaint to the UK government for the theft, and your government about how the UK Government steals from your government's citizens.'.

Talking of crazy airport staff, leaving Copenhagen airport four and a half years ago, I had three small bottles of perfumes in my plastic bag - no problem. But they then confiscated a small can of tuna that wasn't in the plastic bag, because they said there must be oil on top of the tuna inside the can.
Regards,
Renato

 

[chypre]

So just adding to the posts above... Yes, you can take bottles of 100ml and below, provided they're in transparent resealable bags (like ziploc bags). Some airports have ziploc bags at security specifically for this purpose of putting bottled liquids for travellers caught unaware.

Another issue I was thinking is that with new technology there is sometimes a transition period of staff learning how to operate it correctly, so maybe that's what it was. Let's hope they learn to iron out problems soon. But I agree with others that you should write in.

Airport staff have always been skittish about liquids. I remember once even before the liquids rule was put in, I had a mostly used bottle of perfume, with, honestly, 1ml of perfume left, and the security officers actually asked me to take it out and dispose of it. I didn't, of course, I just emptied the bottle on my arms and glared at them (thankfully it was an extremely light scent with almost zero projection).

 

[david]

I'm shocked. In the US, if you can fit all your liquids into a 1-quart ziploc plastic bag, and no single piece is above 100 mL / 3.4 fl. oz., then you're OK. Demands beyond that are foul play, IMO.

I strongly suspect that those people you dealt with were either WRONG, or have implemented a policy, such as demanding that the bottle fit a certain machine for their convenience, which is beyond the global rules. My recommendation under such circumstances - if you know that you are fully obeying the idiotic globalist rules - is to demand to see the supervisor, and then the person above that, if need be.

I've learned to be far more of a pest to the bureaucrats and their little minions, than they are to me.

Have you demanded compensation? I think you have a case.

The line manager acually came over to me to tell me the bad news.

 

[david]

So just adding to the posts above... Yes, you can take bottles of 100ml and below, provided they're in transparent resealable bags (like ziploc bags). Some airports have ziploc bags at security specifically for this purpose of putting bottled liquids for travellers caught unaware.

Another issue I was thinking is that with new technology there is sometimes a transition period of staff learning how to operate it correctly, so maybe that's what it was. Let's hope they learn to iron out problems soon. But I agree with others that you should write in.

Airport staff have always been skittish about liquids. I remember once even before the liquids rule was put in, I had a mostly used bottle of perfume, with, honestly, 1ml of perfume left, and the security officers actually asked me to take it out and dispose of it. I didn't, of course, I just emptied the bottle on my arms and glared at them (thankfully it was an extremely light scent with almost zero projection).

I was carrying the bottle of perfume in a sealed ziploc bag, (I always do that). Still they took it out and tested it.

 

[Franco65]

Truly sorry!
They must have some vintage lovers who wanted to pocket your treasure!

 

[chypre]

I was carrying the bottle of perfume in a sealed ziploc bag, (I always do that). Still they took it out and tested it.

Wow, that's insane. Those machines seem to be more trouble than they're worth.

 

[sagebrush]

Sorry to read about your awful experience. Agree that you should raise a complaint.

 

[Renato]

The line manager acually came over to me to tell me the bad news.

Well, I've posted the UK Rules above.

This is the advantage of always having checked-in baggage when flying.

When you stand your ground and demand that the CEO of the airport comes and shows the rules to you, whereby his or her line manager is stealing your property in violation of those very UK rules - the plane can't take off without you.

Alternatively, demand a signed certificate of what was confiscated and for whar reason. Make sure the name and signature match the ID of the signatory (people don't like signing something that can get them fired).

See who cracks.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. - Plus they've violated the rule of Equity - I'm pretty sure that they haven't confiscated everyone else's legal 100ml bottles of scent in ziplock bags. Equity is an important legal principle in Government administration (as opposed to the silly use of the word now being bandied about in the USA). If a delegate has authority to change the rules locally, the change has to be applied to everyone. It can't be selectively applied whimsically to random or targeted individuals.

 

[Andyjreid]

Sorry to hear about your experience mate and gutted for you as NRPH was/is a phenomenal fragrance.

I was stopped coming back to Scotland from Amsterdam where they are already using the new scanning technology and have already done away with the need to separate liquids etc. Not only did my carry on case get pulled for a search, so did my much smaller back pack. My case had a bottle cap opener (not a spikey wine one) that I had brought back as a souvenir for my brother and my pack had the clear bag with toiletries and a 50ml Dior Homme Intense in it. When I questioned them about what was wrong and the reason for being pulled for a search they said that they wanted to check that the bottle opener wasn't a weapon and when I referred to my backpack they just said "it doesn't matter". The only thing it could have been was fragrance so maybe the new system is going to take a while before it becomes uniform across the globe.

As a side note I always buy smaller bottles of my favourite fragrances to take with me when travelling and would never take anything that is rare or discontinued unless I didn't have another option.

 

[david]

I did have a 15 kg hold luggage, but I decided to take one bottle in hand luggage due to the 15 kg weight limit. I have always done this without problems, so it's due to this new equipment.
I will never ever take any perfumes in hand luggage again. I have learned my lesson now. I will instead take a 100 ml bottle of putrid piss, (or even worse secretions)... in the hope they open it and smell it !
...and if they cause trouble I will say it's for a laboratory examination.

 

[david]

Well, I've posted the UK Rules above.

This is the advantage of always having checked-in baggage when flying.

When you stand your ground and demand that the CEO of the airport comes and shows the rules to you, whereby his or her line manager is stealing your property in violation of those very UK rules - the plane can't take off without you.

Alternatively, demand a signed certificate of what was confiscated and for whar reason. Make sure the name and signature match the ID of the signatory (people don't like signing something that can get them fired).

See who cracks.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. - Plus they've violated the rule of Equity - I'm pretty sure that they haven't confiscated everyone else's legal 100ml bottles of scent in ziplock bags. Equity is an important legal principle in Government administration (as opposed to the silly use of the word now being bandied about in the USA). If a delegate has authority to change the rules locally, the change has to be applied to everyone. It can't be selectively applied whimsically to random or targeted individuals.

Trouble is, the very first sentence of the UK government rules states that security has the right to refuse even items that are normally allowed as carry on items. They win every time...

 

[Redneck Perfumisto]

The line manager acually came over to me to tell me the bad news.

Thank you. This detail confirms my suspicions. The line manager or their boss is almost certainly at fault. This is why one has to keep pushing up the chain of command, demanding documentation and explicit citing of rules, while showing intent to go all the way.

What typically happens, if the guilty party knows you will miss your flight and demand compensation for it, is that they will relent by reason of another hidden illicit policy.

 

[Redneck Perfumisto]

Trouble is, the very first sentence of the UK government rules states that security has the right to refuse even items that are normally allowed as carry on items. They win every time...

Yup. Their final rule is that they can break the rules and you can't. Fascist pigs.

But I don't give up there. Keep pushing the bastards. Demand reasons. Demand that those reasons be published. Demand compensation. Demand that the damned dimensions be published.

They're dimestore sadists. They need to be treated as such.

 

[enframing]

I will instead take a 100 ml bottle of putrid piss, (or even worse secretions)... in the hope they open it and smell it !
...and if they cause trouble I will say it's for a laboratory examination.

I love this idea and hope I get to read about the interaction here.

 

[Renato]

Trouble is, the very first sentence of the UK government rules states that security has the right to refuse even items that are normally allowed as carry on items. They win every time...

The Rules say
"Airport security staff will not let anything through that they consider dangerous - even if it’s normally allowed in hand luggage."

The Anglo system has over-arching rules applicable to all government regulations and procedures.
Did they tell you why the bottle of perfume was considered dangerous and afford you the opportunity to respond?

If the answer is "No", they have violated the principle of Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness.

If they arbitrarily confiscate something from you that they do not do exactly the same for all others, they are violating the principle of Equity.

They will have internal policy and procedures detailing how they are to act in their decision making - and those won't say they can act in a God-like fashion and do not have to comply with these principles. Else, plainly, failure to follow these principles is likely to lead to corruption.

I'm a former Public Servant who in my career wound up in numerous fights over these two principles with bosses who thought they could disregard these principles and tread on me and other staff. I always won.
Regards,
Renato

P.S. I suggest writing to the appropriate Minister, title it "Theft By Airport Customs Officers", state what happened, what your loss was, and opine for the reasons I outlined above that his or her officers are in breach of those two principles and should be dismissed. See what happens. If they ignore you, well vengeance is easy - plenty of places on the internet you can post about UK government first stealing, and then covering up the theft of your perfume (e.g. Discussion pages at Trip Advisor). As well as writing to the appropriate Shadow Minister.

 

[Mak-7]

Wow, this is really lame. Such basic things always upset me, because there are individuals who steal by millions and billions, corruption at customs, but instead of fughting those - regular folks suffer, and not even over something serious, over a bottle of perfume...which they sell similar size and volume at duty free, and those, as long as in duty free bag, pass just fine, but personal item - has to have an issue.

Also, where is common sense?
This shouldnt be an issue...

 

[Scent Detective]

I'm sorry to hear about this...truly.

I always have these types of nightmares when flying with perfumes. Because of my concerns of loosing some vintage perfume or one that I dearly love, I only pack small sample sizes of things I won't be devastated by loosing in my zip lock bag.

 

[slpfrsly]

They told me this was not possible. I don't think I have ever been so angry in my life. I wanted to punch the woman in the face and flatten her.

If that's true then I envy the charmed life you must have led for this - an annoying dispute with customer service/low level bureaucracy - to be one of the most negatively emotive experiences you've ever had. As annoying as this situation sounds, it's just a fragrance; it's not important in the grand scheme of things. Narciso Rodriguez only just discontinued this as well, so it's hardly an irreplaceable or priceless material good, either.

In fact, check this out:

• Full 100ml bottle of the EDT, sold 10 days ago for £63: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/narciso-rodriguez-for-him-100ml-EDT-/364207476428
• 95% full bottle of the EDP, for sale at £100 with offers available: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/295588899149

Even with Brexit, it should be easy enough for someone in the UK to post this to you in France. Or, maybe you could look on ebay.fr as I'm sure someone will be selling a bottle eventually. So all things considered, this is obviously a fragrance that can be easily repurchased, and for less than three figures. That doesn't make it right, but it makes your reaction even stranger: it's not as rare as you seem to think it is.

As annoying as this whole saga reads, your reaction is wildly over the top. Unless this is some kind of meta joke that's gone flying over my head, wanting to knock out a woman (however jobsworthy that woman may be) is the most wtf thing that leaps out from this post. Of all the things to be infuriated with in the modern world, of all the petty jobsworths and parasitic officials who make life slightly less bearable, even when you take in to account the possibility/likelihood that this was confiscated by someone because they wanted to steal it for themselves, wanting to physically attack a woman over it is some admission. How much is the £60-80 it costs to replace your bottle worth to you? Nearly as much as a criminal record for assault?

I would be interested to know other members experiences ???

Yeah, absolutely fine. I rarely fly but when I do, I don't take bottles of fragrance with me. Not only is it inviting this sort of confiscation, but it's not necessary to have more than 10ml of fragrance on any trip or event I have been on.

 

[Scent Detective]

If that's true then I envy the charmed life you must have led for this - an annoying dispute with customer service/low level bureaucracy - to be one of the most negatively emotive experiences you've ever had. As annoying as this situation sounds, it's just a fragrance; it's not important in the grand scheme of things. Narciso Rodriguez only just discontinued this as well, so it's hardly an irreplaceable or priceless material good, either.

In fact, check this out:

• Full 100ml bottle of the EDT, sold 10 days ago for £63: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/narciso-rodriguez-for-him-100ml-EDT-/364207476428
• 95% full bottle of the EDP, for sale at £100 with offers available: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/295588899149

Even with Brexit, it should be easy enough for someone in the UK to post this to you in France. Or, maybe you could look on ebay.fr as I'm sure someone will be selling a bottle eventually. So all things considered, this is obviously a fragrance that can be easily repurchased, and for less than three figures. That doesn't make it right, but it makes your reaction even stranger: it's not as rare as you seem to think it is.

As annoying as this whole saga reads, your reaction is wildly over the top. Unless this is some kind of meta joke that's gone flying over my head, wanting to knock out a woman (however jobsworthy that woman may be) is the most wtf thing that leaps out from this post. Of all the things to be infuriated with in the modern world, of all the petty jobsworths and parasitic officials who make life slightly less bearable, even when you take in to account the possibility/likelihood that this was confiscated by someone because they wanted to steal it for themselves, wanting to physically attack a woman over it is some admission. How much is the £60-80 it costs to replace your bottle worth to you? Nearly as much as a criminal record for assault?


Yeah, absolutely fine. I rarely fly but when I do, I don't take bottles of fragrance with me. Not only is it inviting this sort of confiscation, but it's not necessary to have more than 10ml of fragrance on any trip or event I have been on.

The actual point IMO is that he was upset, but he didn't hit anyone. If he had hit the woman or anyone else, that would be a different story. That would be over the top. Being upset over a situation may not be the best way to handle things, but I know I've been upset before and probably will be again over something...but I never get violent. The real measure of a person is what they do with their emotions, not that they have them, because we all have them and we have to work through them. From everything we know in this post, it sounds like David got upset, then overcame it and moved on...

 

[slpfrsly]

The actual point IMO is that he was upset, but he didn't hit anyone. If he had hit the woman or anyone else, that would be a different story. That would be over the top. Being upset over a situation may not be the best way to handle things, but I know I've been upset before and probably will be again over something...but I never get violent. The real measure of a person is what they do with their emotions, not that they have them, because we all have them and we have to work through them. From everything we know in this post, it sounds like David got upset, then overcame it and moved on...

I disagree. To even consider hitting a woman, let alone to admit to it so brazenly after the fact, negates all the righteous anger that is being expressed in this post. I am surprised that no one else picked up on this admission tbh.

 

[pfranka]

I disagree. To even consider hitting a woman, let alone to admit to it so brazenly after the fact, negates all the righteous anger that is being expressed in this post. I am surprised that no one else picked up on this admission tbh.

Your post made me think, and honestly I just skipped over it in my mind blocking it out (like clicking the fast-forward-10-seconds on Netflix whenever there's a big brawl (happens a lot)). There's so much violence in the media/entertainment/news that I've begun to ignore it? Not saying it's right or good! I was a bit shocked that I had breezed over it, and I never assumed that the OP was serious, just angry, despite the way he expressed it.

 

[slpfrsly]

Your post made me think, and honestly I just skipped over it in my mind blocking it out (like clicking the fast-forward-10-seconds on Netflix whenever there's a big brawl (happens a lot)). There's so much violence in the media/entertainment/news that I've begun to ignore it? Not saying it's right or good! I was a bit shocked that I had breezed over it, and I never assumed that the OP was serious, just angry, despite the way he expressed it.

I won't drag this point any further than it needs to go after this, because it's barely related to the purpose of this forum, but I think brushing over that comment is a good demonstration of both normalcy bias and habituation. It's not your fault, this isn't a personal criticism in any way, but it's a useful (and honest) admission on your part. As you say, becoming desensitised to verbal proclamations of 'toughness' and aggression is common, in part due to frequency/spread of fictitious demonstrations in the media. That would be becoming habituated to - or, in other words, just getting used to - hearing or reading statements like this and thinking nothing of it; this is because nothing does happen when you're in a cinema or at home, hearing the words broadcast over speakers, watching the violence on a screen. You don't have the 'normal' physiological response to violence (or expressions of violent intent and desire) when you're munching on popcorn and your eyes are enchanted by 60Hz or whatever. On the other hand, there's also normalcy bias at play as well, which is a lack of preparedness for when something unexpected and/or catastrophic happens. You can see this at a personal level, where someone is stunned by something they didn't expect could or would happen - in fact, their conviction that something bad is unlikely to happen only exacerbates the likelihood of it happening (and makes it even worse due to lack of preparation/awareness). A good example of these two things in combination - habituation and normalcy bias - can be seen perfectly in a fairly recent story (as it can in a number of other 'viral' videos, if you have not experienced it in your own life) which I will link below; the natural instincts of the people involved are clearly dulled/compromised to the point of not registering the very explicit and obvious threat that could (and does) occur. Be warned, this is a gruesome story, but the video (which is graphic so, again, be warned) may be worth watching for anyone interested just because of how pertinent it is to what I'm describing. The danger is staring them right in the face, yet it doesn't properly register: this is almost certainly because of normlacy bias ("bad things don't normally happen, so nothing bad will happen now"). For those who don't want to watch the above video, then a similar phenomenon would be seeing people who've presumably watched too much Disney:

Perhaps it goes without saying, but contemporary conditioning of the population through broadcast media (in all forms) is so effective that, even after the fact, you see people trying to rationalise something catastrophic by discounting it. When a narrative or understanding of something is built up via conditioning to the point that a portion of the population confuse the conditioning with the real thing, they will discount anything that contradicts the conditioned response and/or narrative as it doesn't fit the experience they have become accustomed to. In other words, if it's not like the movies or TV, it gets disregarded or diminished; the fiction becomes reality, and reality (the event) is recast as an anomaly.

I think it's better to take people at their word, rather than try to cover for them against what they have admitted to as face value fact ("they were joking", "it wasn't serious" etc). When people tell you who they are, believe them. Feeling so infuriated by having a perfume confiscated (I won't repeat my earlier post about how easy it is to replace etc) to the point of wanting to physically attack a woman is in no way shape or form proportionate or normal. Even on a website for fragrance enthusiasts, as I said, I'm amazed no one else had the reaction I did (or at least, no one else commented).

 

[sjg3839]

I might have sprayed the whole bottle in the garbage before I let them rob me. Now smell this for the next 8 hours.

 

[davidcalgary29]

Just got back from a trip to the Bahamas. I decided to take a 10mL sprayer decant of Original Vetiver, which was, of course, securely packaged and placed in a ziploc baggie; this attracted much interest from security, who pulled it out and faddled with it during secondary screening. Someone must have jiggled something loose, as the entire thing came open during transit, spreading Vetiver all around the inside of my carryon. Lesson learned! Next time I'm taking the Burlington 1819, so I can stick my head in my carryon and inhale citrusy bliss after unpleasant security screenings.

 

[ultravisitor]

I've always made it habit to just brings decants over bottles.

Same. I only like to travel with travel sprays or sample-size atomizers because I don't want to chance anything happening to my actual bottles.

 

[Ifti]

As is the surveillance state they may have seen your profile picture and already judges you, put you in a box and made up their mind 🤣

 

[saminlondon]

Can we stop policing the poor OP please?

 

[_Nicolas_]

I disagree. To even consider hitting a woman, let alone to admit to it so brazenly after the fact, negates all the righteous anger that is being expressed in this post. I am surprised that no one else picked up on this admission tbh.

 

[Ifti]

Can we stop policing the poor OP please?

Um kinda no! Lol or not lol. Kinda shown himself up really with his (updated) profile image. If you're going to put that sorta stuff out publicly - what would you expect? I hoped BN was a place for decency, decorum and tolerance. I understand people hide behind online personas and all that jazz to spread their own issues like hate/anger/rage amongst other things. 'Online' doesn't make it any less real. We start treading dangerous lines folks. The line has to be somewhere. I'd hoped to be pulled up if I started to push out offensive cr*p too.

I disagree. To even consider hitting a woman, let alone to admit to it so brazenly after the fact, negates all the righteous anger that is being expressed in this post. I am surprised that no one else picked up on this admission tbh.

Hear hear.

Again not personal at all OP - 😘

 

[Ifti]

PS. I've a half full Narciso FH - not really fond of it - your'e welcome to take it offa me hands if/when you're in the UK