I am both saddened and relieved. Relieved that this didn't happen in the US and that the rest of the world is, in fact, as ridiculous as we are about this shit.

Mental note: bring a glass bottle with 99ML of gasoline in it, some rags soaked in kerosene and a lighter as a carry on instead of a bottle of wine.

"I offered to open it there and then and let everyone have some, but they said 'No sir, you can't do that here'."

Damn.

Well, um, I can sympathize with his frustration and think it's ridiculous that they didn't try harder to help him out and let him check it, but really... at this point who DOESN'T know about those (stupid) rules?

He's a stupid ass. It's his mistake.

For wine worth that much, why not package and mail the wine to his home, then catch the next flight?

"I'm sorry sir, I don't know who this Da Vinci guy was but you look like a terrorist, so I'm going to have to confiscate these elaborate sketchbooks and destroy them immediately. It's policy."

I guess that conference was more important than the $3000 dollar bottles of wine he was going to share there. I hope his sacrifice was worthwhile.

@pureobscure: From what the story says it seems like they wouldn't let him do anything other than lose it.

What Buran said, it seems like the baggage folk were absolutely willing to help him but the lady wouldn't let them.

Im actually flabbergasted that someone would even waste $3000 on wine. I like wine as much as the next person but I can see how that wine could be any better than a $45 bottle of wine

Too bad he probably had only 10 minutes left to catch the flight. He could have gone out and put the wine in a locker for when he returned. Shows you really should be early for your flight.

Still, he sounds like an ass who got his just deserts:

I was worried that they'd just go downstairs and someone would open the bin and there's two bottles of Grange, so I smashed them.

"I thought if I'm not going to be able to drink them, nobody is.

However 'stupid' this fellow was in thinking he could just waltz on with a couple of bottles of wine, I feel much safer now that that wine has been destroyed. Now I wonder if those fine Melbourne security folks checked any of the cargo the plane was carrying.

Why couldn't they allow him to contact a currier service? Most, if not all airports deal with or have their own currier service, they should have offered him the option of paying to have the two wine bottles shipped home. Instead they tell him they have to 'confiscate it', as in 'destroy it'? It's an irreplaceable possession, yet they would not offer him any alternatives, that disturbs me and makes me question their real motives.

@iamme99: The airport where I live removed all the lockers. Just like they built a new parking garage close to the terminal and then roped off half of it to make it unusable. Just like how they put in mailboxes and then welded the drop slots shut so that you can't use them anymore.

And people wonder why our airport has such a crappy reputation? They put in services people might want to actually use and then shut them down!

So their idea of making people happy again is, wait for it ... A CELL PHONE LOT.

Yeah. If it has something to do with cell phones, that'll work!

... not. The airport still gets as many complaints as ever. The decaying 70s-era terminals probably have a lot to do with that.

@shades_of_blue: How about an Ives service, too? Honestly, wine isn't an irreplaceable possession. The guy forgot about the rule, or thought he'd be exempt. He can just buy some wine when he gets to his destination. I'd rather not carry large glass bottles of liquid in my suitcase anyway.

He screwed up. Too bad for him.

@Buran: Which airport is this?

@Buran: To me it's an irreplaceable item because once that particular time period is consumed there are no more replacements. And even if there is a replacement of that particular vintage in existence the price steadily increases as it drifts into obscurity. It's certainly not as irreplaceable as a 200+ year old bottle, but it's still a time piece so it should follow the same guide lines. Anyway, it's more of an interpretation.

Yes, the guy forgot about the rule. Just like some people occasionally forget about other undesirables, such as packing a nail clipper in your suit case. Sure, it was a stupid mistake and there's no doubting that, but there was no need to 'destroy it' when there are alternative options. Options he clearly was not offered.

@theblackdog: Sounds like New Orleans.

I'm just relieved that this is not my father in law. He would do this.