Jean2019

Outward and return travel kit - courtesy of Intercontinental Hotel’s mini-bar(s) .....




Thanks All,

itsmeitisss

But only if you are Joanna Lumley

krispy84

Followed by the obligatory “darling”.

Can be used as a question, a statement and a demand.

DeathSlam

I had understood this to be the case for many years, Both duty free and paid.
All the traveller responses on this thread would seem to indicate otherwise and that duty paid is ok.
There may be a difference between what is acceptable in practice and what is in the rules.
If you don't make a twonk of yourself I can imagine CC have better things to do.
Break the seal on duty free bag and it's not going to make it through a security check, but since you're on a direct flight that might not be a consideration.,

navylad

I’m more worried about the light fingered people on the thread than those drinking sensible.

Steve in Olympia

Page 114 of the current issue (Sept. ‘19) of High Life states, “Customers should not consume alcohol brought on to the aircraft by themselves or another customer.”

DYKWIA

As per Post 3 on this very thread.

hypercrypt

As an engineer, I would take me definition of should not from RFC 2119 - https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Smid

This was discussed extensively when BOB was brought in: Bring on Board... The exact rules on alcohol? BA allows it?

The basic legality is it is not illegal. It is up to the airlines to say if its allowed. "Low cost"* airlines tend to ban them, often because their customers are more likely to be downing a bottle of duty free at 6am, and then having a fight.

When BA changed the rules so there was a reason to "Bring on board", this was deemed to be ok.

There is often a lot of referral to it being illegal, indeed, on "low cost" airlines, who probably use that phrase because it is a bit moot as to whether its illegal in the country, versus illegal on their airline because they can say what is legal onboard.

It might actually be illegal over continental US, and US airlines.

* "Low cost" is quoted by me, because I regard this as a marketing term rather than any particularly low costs, unless you are fine flying at 5am on a Wednesday morning. For instance a jet2 flight with luggage and booked seat next July from Birmingham to Budapest currently sells as £50 more than Club Europe London to Budapest on the same days.

hewittj1

Or the old "I'm flying back to Saudi" trick !!

DeathSlam

Thanks for the pointer. It's an interesting read.
I think the answer is "It depends" and "Are you being a d*ck or obviously p*ssed".
Clearly not illegal by UK law at time of press.
Being allowed to consume alcohol but not being allowed to be drunk is a bit like being allowed to eat food but not be overweight. If you want a definition of drunk see above.
The intention here is that we don't have a safety problem with intoxicated passengers. This happens frequently and an airline that ignores it is not meeting their duty of care. Setting down a standard for this is going to be difficult. A complete moron who downs 2L of duty free vodka in 30 mins and causes a diversion due to their behaviour is clearly committing a criminal offensive. On the other side of the scale a frequent traveller who has 50 or 100mL of their favourite beverage that isn't available for BoB so should not be dissuaded. A set of three people who crack open a bottle of rum and go through it with free cokes and ice I can see as being either side of the line. I have certainly drunk more than that in CC monitored beverage distribution and only once in 30 travelling years on BA been told 'last one' but never actually denied.

Keep it Riel

"Should not" rather than "Must not" because its not illegal so they can't stop you (provided you're not drunk). "Should not" so they deter weak willed rule followers, thereby increasing the market for their BOB offering...

Call me a cynic...