Page 1 of 1
Australian drinks executive destroys bottles of Grange
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:05 am
by KMP
A regional manager for Australian drinks giant Fosters says he was forced to destroy two bottles of Penfolds Grange at Melbourne airport due to security restrictions.
Having just come back from Oz with 11 bottles of Seppelts fortifieds in my luggage I think the above story says more about Foster's employees than the difficulties of taking wine onto a plane.
Some of the comments
here are, well, interesting!
Mike
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:38 am
by crusty2
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:29 am
by Mike Hawkins
What a goose. Why wouldn't he just go and buy a cheap sturdy bag, a couple of newspapers (to wrap) and then check them as luggage. It'd probably cost him $50 and save his wine.
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:27 am
by Red Bigot
Mike Hawkins wrote:What a goose. Why wouldn't he just go and buy a cheap sturdy bag, a couple of newspapers (to wrap) and then check them as luggage. It'd probably cost him $50 and save his wine.
Being a Fosters guy, there would be a heap of 2-bottle polystyrene wine packers going for free. We export a couple of 2 or 3 bottle packs in our luggage each time we travel OS.
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:21 pm
by KMP
Just finished reading Campbell Mattinson's tasting notes in "The largest vertical of Penfolds Grange ever conducted ... 1952 - 2005" over on
THE WINE FRONT. The 1980 is described as
"Nice fragrant introduction but the palate is dilute and lacking. Tinny finish – you’d think it had been aged under screwcap (joke). Lots of eucalypt taint too. 83. Now."
I reckon Mr Grant did himself (and Foster's) a favor by breaking that bottle of 1980. Or maybe he was taking it to compare with the 1982 which Campbell described as "Beguiling. Exquisite."
Mike
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:13 pm
by n4sir
After reading the story & associated comments, I just have to wonder how much of this is a media beat-up?
The rules regarding carrying of liquids overseas in cabin luggage are pretty clear, and I have to say that especially given his employment he really should have known better. If the story's accurate he simply got caught out by his own stupidity and/or arrogance and shouldn't blame anyone other than himself.
His whining that they were 'probably worth $3000' is equally questionable, and I seriously hope Fosters don't reimburse him for this loss as the incident (while free publicity) should be viewed as an embarassment - that's my 2c anyway.
Cheers,
Ian
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:18 pm
by crusty2
on release 1982 Grange was about $39 wholesale plus tax (Magnums were about $110 @ cellar door)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:49 pm
by Lincoln
I reckon this is a PR stunt.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:44 am
by Wayno
Prima donna attitude. Rules are rules, alas.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:15 pm
by Murray
Lincoln wrote:I reckon this is a PR stunt.
Wayno wrote:Prima donna attitude. Rules are rules, alas.
There a really key phrase missing from the Decanter article that should be factored in here; from the AAP article:.
"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.
The point of the story here is not $3,000 but the inflexibility of the Customs people. It seems that Customs is not short for Customer.
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:59 pm
by n4sir
Murray wrote:Lincoln wrote:I reckon this is a PR stunt.
Wayno wrote:Prima donna attitude. Rules are rules, alas.
There a really key phrase missing from the Decanter article that should be factored in here; from the AAP article:.
"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. The point of the story here is not $3,000 but the inflexibility of the Customs people. It seems that Customs is not short for Customer.
There was an (admittedly) anonymous comment by someone on the Herald Sun web story saying they actually work at Melbourne Airport security who questioned the accuracy of the story:
As one of the security in Melbourne I can clarify this article and mention the facts involved. Firstly If this person would have told the story to the truth and not twisted it the story would have went alot different. First of all no security uses the word 'Bloody' in the airport, its not really a professional way to speak. And there is no female officer who has an office. When any liquid is confiscated it it disposed of there and then, the locked rubbish bin is less than 10 feet away from the place where it would be confiscated. To add to the facts of this persons 'forgetting about the 100ml restrictions' there is a announcement played over the airport every 10 minutes, and there is also security standing outside reminding passengers of the restrictions. Customs does not screen any passengers for liquids, aresols, or gels when departing the country, that is the job of security. Also there isnt much Emirates can do for passengers once the passenger has passed Customs, as they have been 'departed' from the country they can not go back outside. The emirates staff are at the check in counters and at the gates, not in between. So since the passengers are told when they purchase their tickets, then at the check-in counters, then by annoucements, then by signs displayes around the airport, and then reminded before they walk into customs by security, I beleived that if they havnt remembered the 'LAGS' restrictions by that time then they will not. So thats why once they ge to the security screening points anything over 100mls is confiscated and disposed of.
There's so many question marks over the printed version of the story it sounds like a beat-up, and his estimate of the two bottles being 'probably worth $3000' is the icing on this rather suspect version of events. IMO the point of the story is not the inflexibility of customs, it's that a hot-shot of Fosters thought he was above the carry-on luggage rules and had a huge dummy-spit when he got caught out. From what I've read airport security simply did their job, while he's an arrogant tool and deserves absolutely no sympathy.
Cheers,
Ian
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:15 pm
by Wayno
Roger that Ian, I agree. And he did admit to forgetting the rules.
I was a bit annoyed about them discarding a 125ml contact lens fluid container when I travelled recently but at least I had read the signs and hoped to skirt through (apparently squeezing 25ml out into one of their bins isn't on, I did try it).
It's all rather well signed and bottles of Grange, 'works of art' or nay shouldn't be any different to my contact lens fluid, I reckon (just not quite as flavoursome).
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:40 pm
by Glen
Lincoln wrote:I reckon this is a PR stunt.
This would be akin to an executive from Mercedes trashing a car for no other reason than to garner cheap (but expensive) advertising!
This shows a complete lack of professionalism and a scant disregard for the product, he deserves major disciplinary action. Fosters should be ashamed and embarrassed that an employee treated their icon product like that. He should now be made Territory Sales Rep of the Northern Territories for the Matthew Lang brand....back to the bottom of the shitkicking ladder he goes!
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:54 pm
by Tristram Shandy
I had exactly this problem back in May when this law first came in. I was flying from Adelaide to NZ on business and was taking a couple of bottles of premium Australian wine with me (I seem to recall a 99 Signature and a 91 St.Henri) to share with some friends in Dunedin.
Customs politely but firmly informed me that the wine would not be allowed as cabin luggage, and suggested that I go back to the airline to see if I could have it put through as regular luggage. They were not exactly apologetic but they were not bloody minded either. I was a bit angry, but I've learned not to tire myself out by swimming against the tide.
The airlines were quite understanding and retrieved my bag. Took a bit of stuffing around on the airport floor to get the bottles into a safe location, but everything turned out fine in the end.
For what it's worth, I think the restrictions are pointless, won't prevent terrorism and are an inconvenience - but they are in place, and have been given some press coverage over the past months. Sounds like our friend enjoys turning minor mishaps into major confrontations. This has the happy result of allowing for the grand dramatic gesture. Which is then followed by the self-righteous lament.
I'm afraid it just doens't push my buttons. In the end it's all just grape juice. Get a life.
Tristram
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:03 pm
by Maximus
All said is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the laws are BLOODY RIDICULOUS! This whole terrorist knee-jerk reaction is stupid. Stupid I tell ya! If anyone's desperate enough, they'll stab pilots in the jugular with a biro or something. Where there's a will, there's a way. Why hurt us, the poor (let's face facts people), completely harmless wine enthusiast who just wants to be a bit protective of their precious grape juice.
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:09 pm
by monghead
Hear, Hear Max and Tristram... Couldn't agree more.
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:49 pm
by Wayno
Or a smashed champagne bottle...?
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:54 pm
by Paullie
I agree. And what of the deadly black belt 77 tip Dan who can kill a person with one small jab of a pressure point, is he to leave his karate skills at home?
Another anti terrorism measure I came across the other day. When transferring USD into an overseas bank account, you must supply a street address of the recipient, it never used to be the case. How the hell am I supposed to send money to Nigeria now.
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:36 am
by GraemeG
Maximus wrote:All said is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the laws are BLOODY RIDICULOUS! This whole terrorist knee-jerk reaction is stupid. Stupid I tell ya! If anyone's desperate enough, they'll stab pilots in the jugular with a biro or something. Where there's a will, there's a way. Why hurt us, the poor (let's face facts people), completely harmless wine enthusiast who just wants to be a bit protective of their precious grape juice.
I used to think, looking back at history, how easily people were pushed around in the past. Reading about the bizarre rules of the 'blackout' in London in the early days of World War 2 for instance - how on earth could a population be effectively coerced not to show any unexposed light over an entire capital city? It boggled the mind! And yet the rationale was the same. Fear of foreigners. Fear of attack. Politicians wanting to be seen to DO something. Didn't matter whether it was effective or not - the point was it was a rule that demonstrated there was a threat, and they were taking it seriously. People flaunting the rule can be labelled as troublemakers, stirrers, threats to national security.
It's depressing how little things change.
Graeme