Thread: Qantas, your thoughts

I have to agree with Vlad. Further to this, some well known tricks of the trade utilised to hide/clear the fact that you have just fired said fire-arm (for whatever reason) and wish to avoid the detection of the powder residue on your skin etc simply shower with any anti-bacterial skin wash like PhisoFex or similar.....don't have time for a shower?.....eat a nice juicy orange and be liberal with the juice over your skin. The citric acids do wonders for messing up skin swabs taken from your hands and face.

I say well known....that is, well known to the folk who have reason to know, whether they be the good guys or the bad guys. So really there should be no big problems at the airport if you are organised and in the know. And if such trips are taken so frequently as a matter of course, you SHOULD know.

Drugs however, may pose a different set of problems, and I'm not going there for obvious reasons.

But none of that has anything to do with Qantas per se, as you stated it is an airport issue.

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

It is not a word. An acronym. There is no acceptable alternate spelling.

Quick And Nasty Try Another Service??????

By the way, both spellings lead you to the correct website if your typing and/or spelling is as good as mine????

Crikey Arthur you opened a can of worms with this one!
'Buenos Dias', I've probably spelt that wrong so should be taken out and shot at best or have any other comment/opinion ignored 'cos my Spanish is so poor'. Don't worry your English is far better than my Spanish.
Venturing back on topic just for a bit of a change, I've travelled internally on all of the current airlines and QANTAS is without doubt the most professional. A bit like the old British Airways (BOAC) 'a minimum of fuss'.
IMHO Virgin would have to be the least 'professional' of the internal carriers. The welcoming 'mums and dads, boys and girls' from the flight crew is a bit corny and the various light hearted 'jokes' on the PA by the flight crew I find a bit wearysome. Probably the worst I have had was on a flight Melb - Mackay with a cabin crew more interested in socialising with staff travelling in Row 1 than with the other passengers. This was accompanied by excessively loud 'jokes' with an openly 'gay' in your face flight attendant cracking poor taste jokes with the above passengers with punchlines such as ..........'douchebag'......... easily heard by us and others in Row 5. No cabin crew discipline at all, God knows what would have transpired in an emergency. Totally unprofessional. Won't be travelling Virgin again. Next on my hit list would be Jet Star (psuedo QANTAS), or perhaps QANTAS rejects. Travelled with them in their early days, no seat allocation. It was like opening the doors for the Myer Boxing Day sale when boarding was called. Talk about a mad rush and survival of the fittest, very unseemly and dangerous to the young, infirm or frail. Also for some strange reason Jet Star would 'rope off' the half dozen or so rows above the wings and not have people sitting in them, never quite worked out why ? 'Tiger' the newest entrant seems to have good cabin crew but arcane boarding and baggage rules. These you can put up with if you know before hand but unfortunately they cancel flights at the drop of a hat and take 4 to 6 weeks to refund your fare, probably hoping you wont follow up. Only to be used if you don't care about when (or if) you get to your destination.
Which leaves us with QANTAS. Profesional, understated and competant cabin crew. No fuss, helpful and the best in flight tucker of the lot. I always feel comfortable and assured when travelling with QANTAS.
QANTAS isn't the cheapest but IMHO they are the best internal airline in the country.

Deano

Originally Posted by VladTepes

Righto fella (aka clean32) I don't beleive it matters but you seem to.

No I don't travel as frequently as you BUT i have travelled on a lot of different airlines in all bar one continent on the planet, to over 30 countries at various times - so yes I do have a bit of "experience". Happier now?

Let's look at your comment where you said



I can confidently say you are showing a lack of knowledge (a.k.a. You are full of it).

I have direct experience.

I have handled firearms during my work, shortly prior to travel.

I have handled firearms when packing and clearing them privately, prior to shipping them by air.

I have frequently been the 'random" person chosen for the swabs.

I have NEVER, repeat NEVER had a positive reading on these machines.

Why ? Because they aren't generally set up to test for the major components in gunpowder - as these are very low risk. The machines have a limitation as to how many channels can be programmed - that is, how many substances they can recognise Therefore they are programmed with substances that are higher risk.. explosives mainly.

Barringer (Smiths) is the major player in the industry and these are the common instruments.

Smiths Detection - IONSCAN 500DT

Smiths Detection - IONSCAN 400B

Also you are confused as the "full body scans" you are referring to and the "chemical scans" are different in purpose. What you refer to as a chemical scan is in fact substance detection using a technology known as Ion mobility spectrometry. A swab is wiped on the area to be tested - say your shirtsleeves, then placed in the machine for analysis.

Moe on IMS: Ion mobility spectrometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The body scans, on the other hand use low dose radiation (millimetre-wave) to see through your clothes (in laymans terms). The intention is to detect any item (guns, knives, explosives etc) concealed on or about the body.

Here's one example Smiths Detection - eqo

So as you can see the two are entirely different in purpose, not alternatives to one another.

Hope this helps

Cool

But I think I said body scans and random chemical scans. As in scans two different possess done at different times in different places.
I didn’t say chemical swabs I said scans. Its a sniffer like hand held machine that gets waved though your Baggage.
weapons handling, I said extensive
Different weapons have different chemical charges as well, powder may be the most common in Australia but may or may not be the most common in other countries or organizations. in Australia the 303 comes to mind with its cordite charge and not a powder charge. There are plenty of other systems as well from RPG to rocket assisted 155 NATO projectiles neither of which use powder unless that are knockoffs.

As to your swab machines being calibrated for different chemicals. Well that makes sense. And along the same lines would be that different airports would concentrate on looking for different things. for example, explosives out of Kurdistan or drugs out of Bangkok for example.

But to say im full off *** because I have been held up after a scan is just. well I don’t know how you could make such a claim really, its not like you were there.

But keep hunting you seem to be having fun trying to pull to bits any thing I post

Originally Posted by clean32

[COLOR=black]
But keep hunting you seem to be having fun trying to pull to bits any thing I post

.

Yep

Originally Posted by clean32

[COLOR=black]I didn’t say chemical swabs I said scans. Its a sniffer like hand held machine that gets waved though your Baggage.

OK granted, you experienced scans not swabs. Nevertheless it works on the same technology.
Smiths Detection - SABRE 4000

Originally Posted by clean32

weapons handling, I said extensive

You said firearms, not weapons.
Also it doesn't matter whether it's extensive or not, a minute trace of the substance in question is detectable.

Originally Posted by clean32

Different weapons have different chemical charges as well, powder may be the most common in Australia but may or may not be the most common in other countries or organizations. in Australia the 303 comes to mind with its cordite charge and not a powder charge.

You using ex-mil ammo left over from the war are you? Maybe even the Boer war Modern cartridges are loaded with smokeless powder not cordite.

Originally Posted by clean32

There are plenty of other systems as well from RPG to rocket assisted 155 NATO projectiles neither of which use powder unless that are knockoffs.

Without getting into technicalities and niggling issues, I'll give you that one.

Originally Posted by clean32

As to your swab machines being calibrated for different chemicals. Well that makes sense. And along the same lines would be that different airports would concentrate on looking for different things. for example, explosives out of Kurdistan or drugs out of Bangkok for example.

yep and in fact many operate in both modes at the same time - can simultaneously check for narcs and explosives etc.

Originally Posted by clean32

But to say im full off *** because I have been held up after a scan is just. well I don’t know how you could make such a claim really, its not like you were there.

I didn't say that, nor did I infer or mean that. I was merely highlighting your lack of understanding of the technology. I may have said it in a way that could be misinterpreted - so I'm sorry if that's the case.


Cheers

Originally Posted by DeanoH

Next on my hit list would be Jet Star (psuedo QANTAS), or perhaps QANTAS rejects. Travelled with them in their early days, no seat allocation.

We travel mostly with Jetstar and have never had a problem. We do our own seat allocation when we book the tickets on line.

Originally Posted by VladTepes

.

Originally Posted by VladTepes

Yep

OK granted, you experienced scans not swabs. Nevertheless it works on the same technology.
Smiths Detection - SABRE 4000

You said firearms, not weapons.
Also it doesn't matter whether it's extensive or not, a minute trace of the substance in question is detectable.

You using ex-mil ammo left over from the war are you? Maybe even the Boer war Modern cartridges are loaded with smokeless powder not cordite.

That’s my point. In Australia the only differently charged small arms is the 303 that I can think of. But it is an error to assume that all modern small arms are charged with powder as you know it. Each government or agency has there own reasons, some have been explained to me but usually not nor is it smart to ask too many questions (usually)

Originally Posted by VladTepes

.

Originally Posted by VladTepes

Without getting into technicalities and niggling issues, I'll give you that one.

yep and in fact many operate in both modes at the same time - can simultaneously check for narcs and explosives etc.

I didn't say that, nor did I infer or mean that. I was merely highlighting your lack of understanding of the technology. I may have said it in a way that could be misinterpreted - so I'm sorry if that's the case.

Cheers

I will take your last comment as read, and admit that I have no knowledge of how these sniffer systems work. I have never looked into it and have no interest apart from the fact that is an amazing bit of kit. In fact I am amazed with how fast technology is progressing. As I commented before, the more modern airports are the easiest to get though.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WSJop5sG2c"]YouTube- Chaser QANTAS Ad[/nomedia]