Shipping Perfume

[DuNezDeBuzier]

... NOT ONE FLIGHT has ended in disaster as a result of a bottle of perfume.

Our politics might be quite similar, but no matter.

Neither you, nor anyone else, knows this ^ for a fact. IATA reports that about 4 in a million flight departures result an accident. There have been at least 2 instances in recent years where cargo/freight jets have gone down due to fires in the cargo holds that were chalked up to lithium batteries igniting. Were there mislabeled flammable liquids (perfume) on board that accelerated the fire? The whole point is that nobody would know. Why? Because if they were not truthfully declared as perfume at the time the mailer posted with the carrier (perhaps the USPS), they would not have then been properly labeled as category 3 hazmat, would not have shown up on any flight manifests as such, and would not have been positioned accordingly in the cargo hold along with other category 3 hazmat cargo.

Perfume is a flammable liquid and, as such, has been subject to Federal Hazardous Materials legislation since at least 1960. Those laws require the proper labeling of hazardous materials which would include proper markings and labels that would give the handlers a better chance at minimizing the effects of an incident throughout the transportation process. Some carriers (UPS, FedEx) are willing to provide air transport of hazmat and pay to train their personnel to follow the laws. They charge accordingly. Some carriers (USPS) are not willing to provide air transport of category 3 hazmat, (e.g. perfume) and that spares them the expense of training their personnel accordingly. They don’t accept that business but ensuring that those parcels do not make it into their mail-stream is totally dependent on the truthful declarations made by the mailers at the point of origin. Once mislabeled packages of actual hazmat get into their mail-stream they are sorted and almost always are then handled by other contracted out carriers (e.g. UPS, FedEx, etc.) for air transport, etc. These other carriers are the ones with the jets. Their ability to accurately handle all the cargo they haul is, thus, largely dependent upon the strength of the upstream controls of the USPS at keeping mislabeled hazmat out of the mail-stream.

I started a thread on the general forum with the intent of getting to the detail of exactly what, if any, actual rules (whether USPS, RM*, etc.) had changed or if what we’re now seeing is simply a heightened level of monitoring / enforcement of rules that were already in place (for decades, perhaps). My hope was to encourage a quick understanding between the possible consequences of taking the easy route, i.e. lying to your local post office to get them to ship your category 3 hazmat at hazmat prices, similar to how I laid it out above. I also had as much hope that an increased understanding might just influence future posts. In other words, we can strive to understand the issue and the reasoning behind it. We don’t have to agree with it, but I was hoping we all could approach it as adults. By converse example, getting all livid and throwing a rant because your mislabeled hazmat transported under false pretense and at non-hazmat prices either did not get to its destination or was destroyed… well that is just not adult behavior; rather it is grown up baby behavior. To mis-paraphrase Ms. Rand: You can ignore carrier rules regarding transporting perfume, but you cannot ignore the possible consequences of ignoring carrier rules regarding transporting perfume.

*As I understand it currently, many BNrs are in communication with RM personnel in attempts to sort out the availability of domestic ground transport. Good luck getting that done quickly. I visited the RM site just yesterday, observed glaring contradictory information between pages and leaflets, and registered a complaint.

[johngreenink]

I agree that this is a complex problem with many sides. I think it's natural for some people to wonder why quite suddenly there is a heightened alert placed on the shipping of certain items. I wasn't even aware of any restrictions on shipping perfumes until 2-3 years ago. Back then, it was my impression that this particular regulation was toothless and bureaucratic: I was reading at another site about someone who tried to return perfume to a well known, established perfume house, and the package was denied by the USPS. He was then told by this perfume house to refer to the contents as 'cosmetics', and all would be OK. So, if you have established perfume houses telling consumers to ignore the rules, what are consumers supposed to learn from that? I'd have assumed that if they've been in the business since the beginning of the previous century, then they must know what they're doing.

Arguments on the side of why these regulations seem archaic and overreaching:
- Clearly people have been sending perfumes, solvents, paint, etc, without incident for decades.
- In places all over the world, there is a 'close the barn door after the horse has escaped' mentality about regulations.
- Because this is so prevalent, we ('the people') tend to question the legitimacy of these rules. And guess what? We have a right to do that.

Arguments on the side of why these rules are important:
- Clearly perfumes contain alcohol and therefore are highly flammable and dangerous and should be treated as such.
- Whether these regulations are perceived as fair or unfair, the rules are the rules.
- If there is potential to do harm through shipping, we should err on the side of safety.

So... conclusions?
I think a few things will happen. First, in the US, people we need to ship using FedEx Ground. This is a little bit more expensive, but will cover most perfume or components. In the UK and certain parts of Europe, it sounds more complicated, since from what I've heard, even ground shipment won't be considered save enough for perfumes.

I think the complexities that this situation creates for commerce may be a trigger to have the inconsistencies looked into again, in the US and UK/EU. And that might bring about some other options. The up side is that there is a great opportunity for private enterprise to step up and provide a solution to this problem. So, I think there will be some months of confusion, protest, reassessment, and then (hopefully) some alternatives. Any other thoughts?

[lpp]

@DuNezDeBuzier - many thanks for your interest & help

My feeling is that most of us will accept rules provided that we are told about them, the reasons for & understand them.

I have today emailed a political party to which I have absolutely no affiliation & copied it to the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
It was a long email, with a number of links to the R.M. site, as some are not easy to discover unless the link is known!

Many small/medium genuine, tax-paying small & growing businesses will be affected by this - not just private 'chancers'.
A large turnover is needed to be a 'Contract' client.
There should already be a competitive licensed Hazmat carrier that consumers may use if R.M. can't provide the service - July will be too late for many start-ups & small businesses.
I'm just a hobbyist but would like to know why this has happened.

[david]

Why the hell can a "contract customer" send things that are considered dangerous if a regular person can't? Is he less than a terrorist than we are all taken for?
This is ridiculous.

I think the general idea is that by being a contract customer they have all your details ~ eg ID/passport details, address etc., so if you were a terrorist you would be easier to trace than some mystery man posting a parcel with a false address. I am assuming that is the reason, ......plus the fact that they can make more money.

[lpp]

& this too! -see Sections 3 & 8 'Conclusions & Recommendations', esp no. 18
http://www.publications.parliament.u...mbis/84/84.pdf

Only skimmed it, but those look relevant!

[DuNezDeBuzier]

...I wasn't even aware of any restrictions on shipping perfumes until 2-3 years ago. Back then, it was my impression that this particular regulation was toothless and bureaucratic:...

... I was reading at another site about someone who tried to return perfume to a well known, established perfume house, and the package was denied by the USPS. He was then told by this perfume house to refer to the contents as 'cosmetics', and all would be OK. So, if you have established perfume houses telling consumers to ignore the rules, what are consumers supposed to learn from that? I'd have assumed that if they've been in the business since the beginning of the previous century, then they must know what they're doing....

...First, in the US, people we need to ship using FedEx Ground. This is a little bit more expensive, but will cover most perfume or components...

Hey johnnygreen ink... you make some good points.

First and foremost, I must quibble with your comment re FedEx ground. Hopefully, you have given this thead or others a good read and have the understanding now that USPS rules have for quite some time allowed for domestic ground transpo of hazmat#3 (it must be declared as such and properly labelled, yada), and prohibits air and internationial (whether ground or air) hazmat#3 parcels. Private carriers, like FedEx have, on the other hand have always(?) provided for domestic and international air transport of hazmat#3. Point being, USPS may still be cheaper for domestic ground transport of hazmat#3 than private carriers like FedEx.

A couple other points: 1. USPS (and probably other carriers, gov't or private) put the onus on the mailer to understang USPS rules and to honestly declare what they're shipping. Sure, we could plead ignorance if we ever had to, but I would not count on that tact as getting us very far. 2. Regarding taking advice from a 3rd party - Fragrance House ^ -... if one of their reps told you to jump in a river, would you? That rep might be much more interested in commerce than compliance. Point being, you assume the risk of your actions. Sometimes it is difficult to live a life where reality burdens us with so many individual responsibilites; some we know, others we don't know about. In this case, a responsibility to be informed. I was not informed on this issue until recently and, in the past, had posted my fair share of cologne without proper declaration... so I certainly don't want to come across as all righteous and such...just sayin'.

----
Protests here might be good for very little other than getting a headcount on who feels enough about the issue to go protest where it'd matter. Protesting on the Capitol's lawn regarding the unjust categorization of perfume as a flammable liquid hazmat... well, let's just say the thought of THAT strikes me a funny to be honest. Personally, I'd think if one was so inclined, perhaps his/her local congressperson would be a good place to start.

[david]

@DuNezDeBuzier - many thanks for your interest & help

My feeling is that most of us will accept rules provided that we are told about them, the reasons for & understand them.

I have today emailed a political party to which I have absolutely no affiliation & copied it to the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
It was a long email, with a number of links to the R.M. site, as some are not easy to discover unless the link is known!

Many small/medium genuine, tax-paying small & growing businesses will be affected by this - not just private 'chancers'.
A large turnover is needed to be a 'Contract' client.
There should already be a competitive licensed Hazmat carrier that consumers may use if R.M. can't provide the service - July will be too late for many start-ups & small businesses.
I'm just a hobbyist but would like to know why this has happened.

Thanks for your help with this.
If you get the chance Ipp, please could you provide us with the exact requirements for becoming a a Royal Mail contract customer. Perhaps a british basenotes member runs his/her own business and already has the structure in place to become a contract customer. Perhaps for a yearly fee he/she will allow others to send perfumes utilizing his/her contract code/ID etc. This would be a good solution and everywone would share the yearly costs for being a contract customer.

[Possum-Pie]

Our politics might be quite similar, but no matter.

Neither you, nor anyone else, knows this ^ for a fact. IATA reports that about 4 in a million flight departures result an accident. .

THe flight you are referring to is UPS flight 6. It was a fire in the cockpit that caused the flight to go down. Upon investigation, a LARGE shipment of Lithium batteries were found on the manifest in the cargo hold. The powers that be never tied them to the crash as the voice and data recorders both reported fire in the cockpit. I don't encourage the mislabeling of fragrances, but NO ONE can convince me that with tens of thousands of gallons of airline fuel, bottles of Vodka and other flammable spirits, and other flammables, that a 1ml sample vial of GIT, even if the pressure caused it to pop and spray fragrance around, would take down an airline. I believe that the powers that be over-react. Gallons of flammable liquids, crates of Lithium Batteries can be dangerous. BUT to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say NO liquid fagrances of any size is ridiculous.

[mumsy]

Thanks for your help with this.
If you get the chance Ipp, please could you provide us with the exact requirements for becoming a a Royal Mail contract customer. Perhaps a british basenotes member runs his/her own business and already has the structure in place to become a contract customer. Perhaps for a yearly fee he/she will allow others to send perfumes utilizing his/her contract code/ID etc. This would be a good solution and everywone would share the yearly costs for being a contract customer.

See my post 85. Links are there with contract details.

Have prepared a letter to the PM. Might as well write to the top bods.

Found this post office advisory group too.

[david]

See my post 85. Links are there with contract details.

Have prepared a letter to the PM. Might as well write to the top bods.

Great stuff. Thanks a lot. You and Ipp have been great !!!

[DuNezDeBuzier]

THe flight you are referring to is UPS flight 6....

...to say NO liquid fagrances of any size is ridiculous.

No, I was not referring to a specific flight.

However you could go to http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?page_id=3259 and you will see other accidents. Within one of the stories is this quote: "The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said 46 incidents of aircraft fires had been linked to cargo including lithium-ion batteries." Do you have good reasonal to doubt it? Is it some big conspiracy against the battery people?

Not sure what you're referring to, but hopefully you understand that in the US you can ship perfume with USPS, declare it, have it properly labelled, and it goes ground to only domestic locations. You just can't send it air or international through the USPS. That's all. You can always use private carriers for air domestic or air international from the US. ???

[lpp]

@ david
http://www.royalmail.com/packet-despatch-low
- may not be correct! (It's an R.M. website, should come with a health warning imo)
- u can 'phone 4 a quote, but.....
& Still no go for flammables overseas
http://www.royalmail.com/business/he...-overseas-mail
http://www.royalmail.com/packet-desp...50179-19350174

Any B/N member have one of these a/c's?

& thx, would like some answers myself

[Paul P]

Is it even posible that a separate section could be created in the cargo hold of planes, specifically for these flammable items, enclosed in some sort of fireproof material ?

It seems to me that fragrances are an easy target, so no thought goes in to meaningful solutions that benefit all parties. They just take the soft option and say "ban it", because anything else actually requires effort.

For those of us outside the US and Europe, the situation is far worse. In Australia, the market is small, and many non mainstream fragrances are simply not available. So we have no option but to look abroad. I can't possiblly see any private customer like me paying $150 to ship a $50 bottle of juice.

There are many things about this situation that are contradictory and illogical.

[lpp]

Maybe the economics of freight wouldn't be helped by the space needed for 'quarantining' goods - sounds good to me, but there's bound to be a reason we don't know why they don't!
At least we can go to mainland Europe easily, unlike you.

[Paul P]

Maybe the economics of freight wouldn't be helped by the space needed for 'quarantining' goods - sounds good to me, but there's bound to be a reason we don't know why they don't!
At least we can go to mainland Europe easily, unlike you.

Thanks Lyn - there's lots of things to like about living in Australia, but there are some drawbacks as well.....

PS : does any one know if the French service "La Poste Colissimo" is affected by all this recent hoo ha ? I note that James Heeley Parfums ships worldwide via this method, and I don't want to spend $200 buying from them, if some postal person is going to confiscate / steal my juice.

[DuNezDeBuzier]

...I can't possiblly see any private customer like me paying $150 to ship a $50 bottle of juice.

There are many things about this situation that are contradictory and illogical.

I'm curious from a critical reasoning perspective what things you find contradictory and illogical. We very well may agree to disagree but that $150 to ship a $50 bottle of juice accurately reflects the fair market cost of providing the service of transport of hazmat#3 goods over there. Unless I misunderstand AusPost restrictions/prohibitions, they don't care to provide that service air or ground. I'm not aware how AusPost is organized, but USPS is actually an agency of the Executive branch of our federal gov't. As I see it, those that would have this issue more to their liking are advocating either our gov't changing its stance on what is considered hazmat#3 and/or simply have its postal services arm (USPS) change its stance on whether to provide those (air) transport services for hazmat#3. Either way, what makes anyone think that the pricing of such service would not be more reflective along the line of the $150/$50 bottle you mention? Why would joe blow taxpayer want to subsidize your or my use of the gov't mails to transport our perfume at below what the fair market would suggest? I don't thing they would or should.

-----
As ridiculous as it may seem, actually traveling via commercial jet to a perfume laden metropolis for a shopping spree and packing them away in check-in baggage for the return trip home may just be the only way for some of us to successful transport desired quantity in an legal and economically agreeable manner.

[david]

I'm curious from a critical reasoning perspective what things you find contradictory and illogical. We very well may agree to disagree but that $150 to ship a $50 bottle of juice accurately reflects the fair market cost of providing the service of transport of hazmat#3 goods over there. Unless I misunderstand AusPost restrictions/prohibitions, they don't care to provide that service air or ground. I'm not aware how AusPost is organized, but USPS is actually an agency of the Executive branch of our federal gov't. As I see it, those that would have this issue more to their liking are advocating either our gov't changing its stance on what is considered hazmat#3 and/or simply have its postal services arm (USPS) change its stance on whether to provide those (air) transport services for hazmat#3. Either way, what makes anyone think that the pricing of such service would not be more reflective along the line of the $150/$50 bottle you mention? Why would joe blow taxpayer want to subsidize your or my use of the gov't mails to transport our perfume at below what the fair market would suggest? I don't thing they would or should.

-----
As ridiculous as it may seem, actually traveling via commercial jet to a perfume laden metropolis for a shopping spree and packing them away in check-in baggage for the return trip home may just be the only way for some of us to successful transport desired quantity in an legal and economically agreeable manner.

UNTIL THEY BAN US FROM CHECKING IN FRAGRANCE ON ALL FLIGHTS WORLDWIDE.
.....I am sure that will be the next step.

[Paul P]

I'm curious from a critical reasoning perspective what things you find contradictory and illogical. We very well may agree to disagree but that $150 to ship a $50 bottle of juice accurately reflects the fair market cost of providing the service of transport of hazmat#3 goods over there. Unless I misunderstand AusPost restrictions/prohibitions, they don't care to provide that service air or ground. I'm not aware how AusPost is organized, but USPS is actually an agency of the Executive branch of our federal gov't. As I see it, those that would have this issue more to their liking are advocating either our gov't changing its stance on what is considered hazmat#3 and/or simply have its postal services arm (USPS) change its stance on whether to provide those (air) transport services for hazmat#3. Either way, what makes anyone think that the pricing of such service would not be more reflective along the line of the $150/$50 bottle you mention? Why would joe blow taxpayer want to subsidize your or my use of the gov't mails to transport our perfume at below what the fair market would suggest? I don't thing they would or should.

-----
As ridiculous as it may seem, actually traveling via commercial jet to a perfume laden metropolis for a shopping spree and packing them away in check-in baggage for the return trip home may just be the only way for some of us to successful transport desired quantity in an legal and economically agreeable manner.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but I don't get your post at all. I have for the past year or more, purchased dozens and dozens of fragrances from US sellers. I have purchased from private sellers and registered business sellers. All packages have been shipped by USPS, either First Class Mail International, or Priority Mail. I never lost one package, and they all arrived intact and in the time specified (give or take). I never paid more than $40 shipping for any of these packages, and a lot of them I paid less than $20 shipping. I have been very happy with this arrangement, and I'm sure that most other people outside the US would also be happy with this. Nobody died in me pursuing this hobby, nobody got injured, no animals were harmed. I was only ever a buyer, so whatever markings, warnings, labels etc. were placed on the box was up to the seller. There has never been any instruction by me to lie or falsely declare the contents of these boxes.

If i understand the current changes correctly, I am now going to receive essentially the same service, but pay close to $150 for each package. If you can make a connection between your previous post and this current post, then please do, because I sure as hell can't.

[DuNezDeBuzier]

UNTIL THEY BAN US FROM CHECKING IN FRAGRANCE ON ALL FLIGHTS WORLDWIDE.
.....I am sure that will be the next step.

What logical reason leads you to believe that is going to happen? Keep in mind... NO PRIVATE CARRIER OR ANY GOV'T OWNED CARRIER HAS BEEN PROHIBITED FROM TRANSPORTING HAZMAT#3... they either choose to or not to offer the service. If they choose to offer the service they must spend resources training staff, etc. Damn. Why do you continue to make this issue out to be more complicated than it actually is? Do you have some kind of axe to grind against authority? Are you a grand consipiracy theorist? The mis-information you've thrown down on these threads is mind-bogglin'.

----
Look. I've got a regulatory background and I really hate to see confusion abound because people do not familiarize themselves with the regs or an entity's policies & procedures guidelines. Those we don't like enough, we should work within the system to fix them, if we can. If we can't, its called a revolution. Are we really prepared to revolt over perfume? lol

- - - Updated - - -

^ Paul P
I suggest you read or re-read some the thread and/or other threads if you don't understand. The point is that your successful past of receiving perfume from the US was made possible at such a price due to the untruthful declaration, or lack thereof, of perfume/hazmat#3. If the US mailer would have truthfully declared 'perfume' upon visiting the USPS, according to the rules of the USPS, they would have and should have been told that the USPS does not ship hazmat#3 internationally. This has always(?) been the case and has not recently changed. The US sellers would then have had to go to a private carrier such as UPS, FedEx, etc., to get the perfume to you... at UPS, FedEx, etc., prices. These prices may indeed have been more in line with your $150/$50 bottle reference. I'd be happy to try a different explanation...

[johngreenink]

Hey johnnygreen ink... you make some good points.

First and foremost, I must quibble with your comment re FedEx ground. Hopefully, you have given this thead or others a good read and have the understanding now that USPS rules have for quite some time allowed for domestic ground transpo of hazmat#3 (it must be declared as such and properly labelled, yada), and prohibits air and internationial (whether ground or air) hazmat#3 parcels. Private carriers, like FedEx have, on the other hand have always(?) provided for domestic and international air transport of hazmat#3. Point being, USPS may still be cheaper for domestic ground transport of hazmat#3 than private carriers like FedEx.

Yeah, that's my bad on the USPS/FedEx mentioning; USPS ground shipment would allow for perfume delivery as per the USPS website. I've seen mention in a few places (a la google searches) that small amounts of perfumes sent as samples by air are allowed, and that it's defined in 'Appendix A' of USPS code, but I've looked through so far and can't find mention of this, or what is considered a 'small amount'. I'll see if I can get an answer to that.

As to your comments about protests, agreed. First, protests rarely do much in the US; secondly, I don't think anyone would be protesting the fact that perfume is or isn't a hazmat, I think it might be more along the lines of 'we, the people, pay for the post office, so can't we find a way to ship these things safely'. Of course, knowing how poorly funded the USPS is, and how services are going to be reduced in August, this will achieve nothing!

One thing I have learned (that I never thought about before) was that of course, in a commercial flight, your cargo hold is pressurized whereas before I didn't really know either way if it was or not. Now the idea of an unpressurized cargo hold is downright ridiculous (imagine all the destroyed goods in everyones' bags after that transatlantic 7.5 hours?) I had this idea in my mind 'well how come we can carry perfumes in our luggage?!!?' but wisely did my homework on that one :-)

The more I think about this issue, the more I think that perfumers are going to need to become more creative in the way that they create samples of their work in order to ship them. I met a woman at the Elements Showcase in New York in January who has created all natural perfumes that she carries in a non-alcoholic gel which would fit air freight requirements. The perfumes themselves, well that's still up for grabs. But necessity is still the mother of invention.

[Paul P]

What logical reason leads you to believe that is going to happen? Keep in mind... NO PRIVATE CARRIER OR ANY GOV'T OWNED CARRIER HAS BEEN PROHIBITED FROM TRANSPORTING HAZMAT#3... they either choose to or not to offer the service. If they choose to offer the service they must spend resources training staff, etc. Damn. Why do you continue to make this issue out to be more complicated than it actually is? Do you have some kind of axe to grind against authority? Are you a grand consipiracy theorist? The mis-information you've thrown down on these threads is mind-bogglin'.

----
Look. I've got a regulatory background and I really hate to see confusion abound because people do not familiarize themselves with the regs or an entity's policies & procedures guidelines. Those we don't like enough, we should work within the system to fix them, if we can. If we can't, its called a revolution. Are we really prepared to revolt over perfume? lol

- - - Updated - - -

^ Paul P
I suggest you read or re-read some the thread and/or other threads if you don't understand. The point is that your successful past of receiving perfume from the US was made possible at such a price due to the untruthful declaration, or lack thereof, of perfume/hazmat#3. If the US mailer would have truthfully declared 'perfume' upon visiting the USPS, according to the rules of the USPS, they would have and should have been told that the USPS does not ship hazmat#3 internationally. This has always(?) been the case and has not recently changed. The US sellers would then have had to go to a private carrier such as UPS, FedEx, etc., to get the perfume to you... at UPS, FedEx, etc., prices. These prices may indeed have been more in line with your $150/$50 bottle reference. I'd be happy to try a different explanation...

If it has been a rule for a while, then it is a ridiculous rule and needs to change. You do realise that we spray these "hazmat" juices on our bodies ? You do realise that these "hazmat" juices are usually manufactured in Europe, and they don't just magically appear in the US or elsewhere ? Somewhere, at some point, they need to be transported, by air, land or whatever ? You do realise that USPS and Royal Mail stand to lose revenue because of this , possible resulting in job losses ? You do realise that many online sellers wil probably go out of business because people like me won't pay overs for shipping ?

Maybe one reason this issue has not arisen before is that all Postal Services realise it is ridiculous, and are only making it an issue now because they are forced to ?

I refuse to believe that in 2013, agencies like USPS and Royal Mail, with all their experience and resources, cannot think of a way of transporting these things safely. The issue here is not one of know-how, it is one of lazy attitude by the UPU, and forced slavish adherence to this by the UPU signatories.

[DuNezDeBuzier]

@johnny...
perhaps that is why houses like lutens use the wax sample thing and some arabian oil houses use napkinette wipe type samples?

@Paul...
You're ranting. You've got to slow it down and understand that carriers CAN transport perfume/hazmat#3 if they choose to and if they meet the requirements of international regulations regarding the safe and secure air transport of perfume/hazmat#3/dangerous goods and the requirements of national regulations regarding the safe and secure transport of perfume/hazmat#3/dangerous goods. It's allowed and available by those who follow the law and those that wish to provide the service. There are at least two reasons why the USPS and other nation's post services will continue to be under pressure to ensure that hazmat#3 does not enter the mail-stream through their locations in an unathorized and unlabelled manner: 1. workers in the handling process demand (and deserve) a safe, secure work environment and to get paid comensurate with risks in that work environment; and 2. terrorist activities utilizing the mail-stream require all points of the mail-stream to tighten up their controls... usually requiring involvement at the national level, cooperation with other agencies like Customs, etc.

[Paul P]

Are you able to state exactly, in point form, what it is that UPS and FedEx do differently to USPS or Royal Mail, that enable them to ship cologne in accordance with the regulations, and are you also able to state why USPS can't do these things as well ?

[DuNezDeBuzier]

Sure.

UPS, FedEx, and other private carriers choose to offer the service.

USPS prohibits the domestic air transport and international transport of perfume/ hazmat#3. It simply chooses* not to offer that service. They do offer domestic ground transport of perfume/hazmat#3 provided it is accurately declared and properly labelled.


It is my understanding that AusPost chooses not to offer any transport service of perfume/hazmat#3.

It is my understanding the RM, still prohibits international transport of perfume... but it is woefully confused itself as to whether it is offering domestic ground to either individuals or businesses OR at least I should say that is how the discordance is reflected on its website as of late. As you witness from the earlier posts on this thread, there are quite of few concerned UK BNrs that are working with RM officials to get it sorted out asap. We'll have to see how that develops.


*To be honest, I do not know why this is so... it's possible there is some legislation in the Hazardous Materials Act or similar that prevents any gov't postal function to offer air transport of perfume/hazmat#3 of which I'm unaware. So, the USPS either has the authority to make this call itself, or it is legislated upon it. Why they'd be legislated against air transport but be left to their own to decide upon ground transport services would not makes sense to me.

[Paul P]

Sure.

UPS, FedEx, and other private carriers choose to offer the service.

USPS prohibits the domestic air transport and international transport of perfume/ hazmat#3. It simply chooses not to offer that service. They do offer domestic ground transport of perfume/hazmat#3 provided it is accurately declared and properly labelled.


It is my understanding that AusPost chooses not to offer any transport service of perfume/hazmat#3.

It is my understanding the RM, still prohibits international transport of perfume... but it is woefully confused itself as to whether it is offering domestic ground to either individuals or businesses OR at least I should say that is how the discordance is reflected on its website as of late. As you witness from the earlier posts on this thread, there are quite of few concerned UK BNrs that are working with RM officials to get it sorted out asap. We'll have to see how that develops.

So it's as simple as that is it ? They just "choose" to offer the service ? No regulations to comply with, nada. With your regulatory background, I would have thought you'd be able to offer some insight into what USP /FedEx do to comply with the regulations, that USPS won't do.

[DuNezDeBuzier]

Carriers that provide transport of perfume/hazmat#3/dangerous goods must comply with all the relevant national and international rules and regs relating to the transport of perfume/hazmat#3/dangerous goods. Perhaps following those rules and regs cost resources that some carriers are unwilling to spend. Conceptually, this makes perfect sense to me.

If you are sincerely interested and wish to understand a bit more about what these international rules and regs are AND how they are likely the reason behind the recent reminder campaigns at local USPS offices... pls go to the thread I started in the general 'Fragrance Industry' forum under the same name 'Shipping Perfume'. It's a long read, but sometimes and with some issues, lazy brevity might add to the confusion rather than providing useful guidance. I ask you and anyone else that sees any outright errors in my postings on this subject matter to call me on them and provide accurate cites supporting your position. I'm not interested in ideological sparring. The BN community will be better off for it. And I know I'm far from perfect.

http://www.basenotes.net/threads/325...ipping-Perfume

[Paul P]

I can assure you, I am interested in this issue, if for no other reason than it affects me personally. I seriously doubt I would find the answers I am seeking in those links. I am more likely to find hundreds of pages of abstract definitions and bureaucratic clap trap.

As I see it, UPS and FedEX can't magically make cologne non flammable - they comply with the regulations for international shipping either by waiving their rights to complain / sue when they sign their government contract, or they have, systems / technologies / methodologies in place that allow them to comply with the controls. And I want to know what those are. Is it as simple as having fireproof containers in part of their cargo hold ? Do they have special bags / boxes they they use for packaging when they know it is a cologne ? Do their planes use some kind of magic fuel that is non flammable ? Do they have super powered sprinklers in their cargo holds that go off at the first sign of smoke ? Do they have someone travelling in the cargo hold, armed with fire blankets and extinguishers ?

That's what i want to know.

And I can assure you, many of the packages I have received are marked perfume - the various postal agencies know the risk of shipping cologne via air is extremely low, which is why they have treated this legislation with the contempt it deserves for such a long time.

The law exists as words, and then it exits separately in application. I can't tell you the number of times I have received a determination from the local council for a set of plans - the determination contains up to 100 conditions of consent. Some of these conditions seem so ridiculous - when I call the council to ask what they mean, invariably I get, "oh don't worry about that - it's just a standard clause we have to put it in - it doesn't mean anything."

[DuNezDeBuzier]

Ignorance is bliss. You're likely to get out of it only if you're willing to put some effort into a little self-education, no?

The IATA regulates the international air transport of dangerous goods. You can EITHER go inform yourself regarding its regulations (acknowledged by our USDept of Transportation and mentioned expressly in AusPost's policy & procedures), inclusive of the IACO directives on the international air transport of dangerous goods OR NOT. Private carriers that offer international air transport services for perfume/hazmat#3/dangerous goods most certainly do follow these regulations or they are subject to penalties as are laid out therein, no doubt.

[Paul P]

Ignorance is bliss. You're likely to get out of it only if you're willing to put some effort into a little self-education, no?

The IATA regulates the international air transport of dangerous goods. You can EITHER go inform yourself regarding its regulations (acknowledged by our USDept of Transportation and mentioned expressly in AusPost's policy & procedures), inclusive of the IACO directives on the international air transport of dangerous goods OR NOT. Private carriers that offer international air transport services for perfume/hazmat#3/dangerous goods most certainly do follow these regulations or they are subject to penalties as are laid out therein, no doubt.

Ignorance is not bliss - ignorance is frustration. If I believed that trawling through hundreds of pages of documents would give me the answers I seek, then I would do it. Such an exercise should not even be required. This should all be quite open and transparent.

It is clear that even you don't know these answers - your bureaucratic background is quite obvious, since most of what you write is "please refer to 300 pages of subsection 4, subcluase 3.33 blah blah blah". Pointless buck passing and deflecting, because you have no answers.

- - - Updated - - -

Thankfully i trusted my instincts - the answers that i seek are nowhere available for free - you need to pay several hundred dollars to the IATA to purchase one of their numerous DGR kits - the ICAO is the umbrella UN organisation that reviews aviation guidelines on a yearly basis, then passes on these recommendations to the IATA (kind of a subcommittee, and trade organisation), who then implements these changes into the DGR regulations, which change year to year - so it's not a one off purchase - you need to spend several hundred dollars every year. Chump change for UPS and FedEx, but ridiculous for individuals.

Ridiculous over regulation for some cologne.

Anyway, some links for those so interested.


http://www.basenotes.net/threads/316672-Flashpoint-of-fragrance-oil-and-mailing

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en-AU&q=cache:TtlK7Mjnq30J:http://www.ehow.com/info_8522658_customs-perfume-mail.html%2BIATA+perfume+fragrance+cologne&gbv=2&g s_l=heirloom-hp.12...1666.9209.0.10703.31.29.0.2.2.0.202.3916.1 0j17j2.29.0...0.0...1c.1.9G7tbvbb1tg&ct=clnk

http://www.ehow.com/about_5117436_iatas-dangerous-goods-regulations.html

http://www.iata.org/publications/dgr/Pages/index.aspx

[david]

What logical reason leads you to believe that is going to happen? Keep in mind... NO PRIVATE CARRIER OR ANY GOV'T OWNED CARRIER HAS BEEN PROHIBITED FROM TRANSPORTING HAZMAT#3... they either choose to or not to offer the service. If they choose to offer the service they must spend resources training staff, etc. Damn. Why do you continue to make this issue out to be more complicated than it actually is? Do you have some kind of axe to grind against authority? Are you a grand consipiracy theorist? The mis-information you've thrown down on these threads is mind-boglin

----
Look. I've got a regulatory background and I really hate to see confusion abound because people do not familiarize themselves with the regs or an entity's policies & procedures guidelines. Those we don't like enough, we should work within the system to fix them, if we can. If we can't, its called a revolution. Are we really prepared to revolt over perfume? lol

- - - Updated - - -

^ Paul P
I suggest you read or re-read some the thread and/or other threads if you don't understand. The point is that your successful past of receiving perfume from the US was made possible at such a price due to the untruthful declaration, or lack thereof, of perfume/hazmat#3. If the US mailer would have truthfully declared 'perfume' upon visiting the USPS, according to the rules of the USPS, they would have and should have been told that the USPS does not ship hazmat#3 internationally. This has always(?) been the case and has not recently changed. The US sellers would then have had to go to a private carrier such as UPS, FedEx, etc., to get the perfume to you... at UPS, FedEx, etc., prices. These prices may indeed have been more in line with your $150/$50 bottle reference. I'd be happy to try a different explanation...

Remember please, I started this thread to help and bring together members concerning these massive issues which affect us all.
To say that I have misled poeple by giving mis~information is grossly unfair and deeply offensive.
I certainly don't try to make the issue more complicated than it already is. It IS a very complex issue.

The fact that the next step will be to ban checking in perfumes on airlines is, I would have thought blindingly obvious......
perfumes are now catogorised as hazardous material. You cannot check in calor gas cartridges for the very same reason. I would have thought it is very obvious that at some stage items with high alcohol content will follow suit.