ozstamps

A wonder they did not book you for smuggling precious goods.

Bananas run about $US5 a POUND here right now even in supermarkets.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...816251734.html

PRECISELY for this quarantine reason - our crops got wiped out in Cyclone Larry, and they refuse to allow any imports - from anywhere. @:-)

UA_SEA

I have only had my planes sprayed on Varig flights, to and from ASU. the AA flight I once took out of ASU was not sprayed which I found interesting as ALL of the Varig flights have always been sprayed.

davem_330

I've been sprayed on a UA 744, SFO to Sydney, this was about 7 or 8 years ago.

The explanation given was that United had sprayed the plane properly back
in the US, but the AU gov't didn't get the correct paperwork so they had to
assume the plane had not been sprayed.

gba

I think the general rule is that all planes need to be treated for pests before arrival in Australia.

Generally UA cleans/treats their 747s in such a way that the spraying need not take place when passengers are on board. However, perhaps this particular aircraft was behind schedule for its anti-pest treatments so the spraying with pax on board was necessary.

I'm not sure this is 100% accurate but I think I've heard it somewhere before (probably in a prior flyertalk thread).

SFO_Runner

Maybe this was done for a "Very Special Episode" of Border Security: Australia's Front Line.


Especially SQ 744s via LAX. Har Har!

ajc1970

i bet that the bugs would tell you otherwise

simong

Are you sure they don't allow imports to create a non-tariff trade barrier?

og

Don't even think of bringing in bananas as the beagles what double as drug dogs will tear your throat out as they try to find the bananas (or even an empty plastic bag that used to have bananas in them).

And as for spraying, it seems to happen quite reqularly so its nice not to get it. I just breathe through a handkerchief and / or hold my breath for 10 minutes.

globetrekker84

You can hold your breath for 10 minutes?!

John26

You are quite correct (although I'm not 100% sure either since I wasn't there ).

UA has a disinsection agreement with Australia. As long as the disinsection for that aircraft remains current, they can land without doing top of descent spraying.

Both ex-USA-SYD stations (LAX & SFO) are very good about keeping the 744s current on their disinsection. However, it's possible either the disinsection expired or the Australian government had not processed the updated disinsection documentation.

SFO has the disinsection cans for spraying upon landing into China (and yes, I remember the top of descent spraying on the TWA flights to Europe, too). I'm not sure if SYD uses the same type of cans, though. Also, UA might not have known there was a problem (i.e. if UA's docs are up to date and the Australian government had not updated the renewal, UA might not know about it).

As for the chaos on the ground, this is precisely why it's better to do such spraying at top of descent, where passenger disembarkation time will not be affected.

aisleorwindow

My GRU-LIM RG flight in May was sprayed - quite unpleasant.

ironmanjt

MH still sprays every KUL-SYD flight as of a couple months ago.

ozstamps

No so.

I've flown KUL-SYD First Class on MH 747s about 6 times in the past 2-3 years and never has there been spraying.

Boraxo

I was told that they had stopped this nonsense after numerous complaints, at least with respect to planes from the US.

If in fact that is not true I would like to know for certain as I won't be going anywhere that requires noxious chemicals to be sprayed into my airspace.

Which is really a shame as Australia is at the top of my list of places to visit. Can this procedure be avoided by flying via New Zealand?

globetrekker84

Doesn't New Zealand have even stricter rules than Australia regarding foreign plant- or animal-borne stuff into its rather sensitive and fragile ecosystem?