Post Office and Royal Mail

[RobF]

Unaccompanied they are not allowed. RM do not set avaition rules they just follow them, it's as simple as that. If I had the inclination I could search the link that proves the avaition rules but it's been done so many times....

You mean unaccompanied as in like a PCP air rifle that didn't travel with me but arrived on a later flight because I made the connection but my luggage didn't?

[Stoogey]

very late in on the topic but, has any one actualy followed up by checking the actual laws? the post office isnt a law agency, as such they cant actualy set laws.
they can say pritty much what they want on their web site etc, but if it contravines the actual law...taint worth the paper it's written on.


i.e. if they arnt backed by the law for real they are indeed tampering with the post.(which i beleive is against the law?).

[angrybear]

very late in on the topic but, has any one actualy followed up by checking the actual laws? the post office isnt a law agency, as such they cant actualy set laws.
they can say pritty much what they want on their web site etc, but if it contravines the actual law...taint worth the paper it's written on.


i.e. if they arnt backed by the law for real they are indeed tampering with the post.(which i beleive is against the law?).

OK well you show me a law that says they must carry any particular named product!!

The Post office is simply the company that runs a number of "shops" where services are booked & paid for, Royal Mail & ParcelForce are the companies that carry the goods from A to B, they are independent companies who themselves have to comply with international law on shipping "dangerous goods" which is why they cannot over rule the CAA (civil aviation authority) over what can & cannot fly as unaccompanied freight. (and unless you have worked within aviation rules you will have no idea just how petty those rules can be).

As the company who carry the goods both RM & PF can also decide what they will or will not carry,
for those of you who don't know they did try to ban guns completely (2005 iirc) but a case was put to the ombudsman that they were the only company providing such a shipping service to the public & they were ordered to continue to provide it, but even that is not a law.

It is within their contract that a suspicious package can be inspected, and stated in their rules that any prohibited item found may be destroyed without recourse to the owner.

[Johnson3392]

very late in on the topic but, has any one actualy followed up by checking the actual laws? the post office isnt a law agency, as such they cant actualy set laws.
they can say pritty much what they want on their web site etc, but if it contravines the actual law...taint worth the paper it's written on.


i.e. if they arnt backed by the law for real they are indeed tampering with the post.(which i beleive is against the law?).

The carriage of Dangerous and Restricted Goods by is covered under current ICAO/IATA regulations. The Post Office do not set the law, as you have pointed out, but they do have to apply the law. That means asking questions about contents and packaging. It might appear jobsworth and time consuming but there are serious penalties for post office staff if they don't abide by this.

If a customer refuses to disclose the contents (or doesn't know - common when people ask to post things on their behalf) then we can and will refuse to accept it. If a customer lies then it is their responsibility. Once a package enters the RM system behind the post office counter, then it cannot be interfered with unless there is clear evidence of it being hazardous and a risk to people, propert and 'planes.

[angrybear]

You mean unaccompanied as in like a PCP air rifle that didn't travel with me but arrived on a later flight because I made the connection but my luggage didn't?

Again that's a different situation, it would have been booked in as accompanied baggage and from there it was an airline mistake that it did not accompany you.

It's also quite likely that it was already loaded in to a flight container & the container itself missed the flight, as the contents had already been approved it would simply remain sealed & go on the next available flight.

[RobF]

Again that's a different situation, it would have been booked in as accompanied baggage and from there it was an airline mistake that it did not accompany you.

It's also quite likely that it was already loaded in to a flight container & the container itself missed the flight, as the contents had already been approved it would simply remain sealed & go on the next available flight.

Nope. Some items made it, some didn't. It was a transfer so the items were unloaded. The problem was further compounded by the items not being stored in Brussels firearms area, they were left in general baggage. The rifle and another firearm marked baggage became separated. One was delivered, another left near the door on an unsecured warehouse.

IATA classes compressed gases as Class 2 Dangerous Goods. Not prohibited goods. They can fly when the correct processes are followed. That is probably not what RM want to do so they don't. Fair enough. But it isn't against flying regs for compressed air to fly unaccompanied or otherwise.

[angrybear]

Nope. Some items made it, some didn't. It was a transfer so the items were unloaded. The problem was further compounded by the items not being stored in Brussels firearms area, they were left in general baggage. The rifle and another firearm marked baggage became separated. One was delivered, another left near the door on an unsecured warehouse.

IATA classes compressed gases as Class 2 Dangerous Goods. Not prohibited goods. They can fly when the correct processes are followed. That is probably not what RM want to do so they don't. Fair enough. But it isn't against flying regs for compressed air to fly unaccompanied or otherwise.

You seem to be trying to demonstrate that a rule doesn't exist because in a totally different set of circumstances, a rule that didn't apply under those circumstances, was not complied with

Compressed gases/pressure vessels are prohibited, in the post, by RM/PF,

Guns in the general post (air mail) are prohibited flight by the CAA.

[Logunner]

Nope. Some items made it, some didn't. It was a transfer so the items were unloaded. The problem was further compounded by the items not being stored in Brussels firearms area, they were left in general baggage. The rifle and another firearm marked baggage became separated. One was delivered, another left near the door on an unsecured warehouse.

IATA classes compressed gases as Class 2 Dangerous Goods. Not prohibited goods. They can fly when the correct processes are followed. That is probably not what RM want to do so they don't. Fair enough. But it isn't against flying regs for compressed air to fly unaccompanied or otherwise.

I suspect the items were 'checked in' by you and therefore will be 'accompanied' so the rules are complied with... granted what happens after that is a lottery but compliance was undertaken in the first instance.

Irrespective of IATA, the CAA set the rules by which RM abide.

[Logunner]

You mean unaccompanied as in like a PCP air rifle that didn't travel with me but arrived on a later flight because I made the connection but my luggage didn't?

And that's RM's fault? Or the CAA's? Or is it just plain old human error?

[Logunner]

All threads on 'posting' turn out like this.... people can't be arsed to follow the rules and it's RM's fault, wonder why that is?

[RobF]

And that's RM's fault? Or the CAA's? Or is it just plain old human error?

I never said it was RM's fault.

You said RM don't carry it because it's the law. The law allows it. IATA Class 2 compressed gases are sent via air frieght both nationally and internationally.

It demands certain procedures are followed. Clearly RM don't want to so they don't allow it. It's not prohibited by law it's prohibited by RM. That's completely understandable. It's a specialist area and they aren't fussed about it.

I don't see a problem with saying RM don't want to do it. What I do is saying that this or that is illegal. That's incorrect otherwise IATA would say prohibited.

CAA don't set the rules. EASA do. CAA can grant exemptions/approvals for those wishing to carry dangerous goods and carry out the inspection. It applies to the carrier not the shipper. The application forms are on their site for Class 1 and other Classes of dangerous goods.

I've been through quite a bit of this when TAP decided to start quoting chapter and verse about not maybe carrying airguns/firearms/dangerous goods and I spoke directly with a CAA person at the CAA's dangerous goods dept. TAP were apparently unable to carry certain items without certain paperwork because of the law, which didn't actually state there was a restriction.