Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape Photography Locations => Topic started by: marty m on June 09, 2007, 04:13:55 pm
-
DO NOT FLY TO HEATHROW AIRPORT IF YOU MUST USE TWO CARRY-ON BAGS, NO MATTER HOW SMALL.
HEATHROW AIRPORT POLICE WILL STOP YOU FROM BOARDING OR EVEN TRANSFERRING FROM ONE FLIGHT TO ANOTHER IF YOU HAVE TWO CARRY-ON BAGS, EVEN IF THE OTHER IS A SMALL PURSE OR SMALL BAG.
DO NOT FLY ON BRITISH AIRWAYS IF THEY CONNECT THROUGH HEATHROW.
DO NOT INCLUDE LONDON ON ANY ITINERARY TO VISIT EUROPE IF THE ONLY CONVENIENT AIRPORT IS HEATHROW -- NOT IF YOU MUST USE TWO CARRY ON BAGS.
A later edit -- this apparently applies at all UK airports not just Heathrow. It is a uniform UK restriction for all airlines and all airports. Welcome to the friendly skies in England.
There are other places to visit. Dealing with the zealous British police at Heathrow isn't worth a visit to England. Instead visit a country that actually encourages tourism by following sensible policies at their largest international airports -- and that includes every other airport in Europe (based on what European business travelers told me) and probably the world.
(I suspect that British Airways encourages this policy to cut down on carry-on bags even though they deny it. They richly deserve the loss of business, as does every hotel and tourist establishment in London, as long as Heathrow enforces this policy.)
A backpack with a camera and lens, and a briefcase with a laptop PC or even a purse will count as two carry-on bags. Any photographer or tourist travelling to more than one European country and who must take two carry-on bags has no choice but to avoid London and if necessary the United Kingdom if Heathrow is the only convenient airport. (As an advanced amateur photographer I must carry one backpack with camera bodies and lenses, and a briefcase with a laptop for the downloading of photos.)
The Heathrow police run all passengers transferring planes, as well as flights originating at Heathrow, through a single file gauntlet. Numerous Heathrow police, on both sides of the single file line, are posted for ONLY one purpose -- to stop passengers with two carry on bags, no matter how small, and pull them out of the line.
I witnessed over a dozen passengers pulled out of line in a ten minute period who had been allowed to board their first flight at another airport with two carry-on bags. None of those passengers had any reason to anticipate this problem at Heathrow since all other airports follow a two carry-on policy.
Any passenger pulled out of the line by the Heathrow police must exit by standing in the long British custom line, then wait in another line at their airline to check the second bag, and then must pass back through airport security. I went through the above unbelievable hassle and only made by flight because it was late.
I must give the British Heathrow police full credit for being more zealous and unyielding than the worst cops in any American city. The Heathrow airport police pulled old ladies with a small carry-on and a purse out of the line. I literally mean old ladies. Mayor Rizzo or Mayor Daly's police would be more reasonable by comparison.
When I flew out of Berlin on Lufthansa, and transferred to United in Frankfurt, the airport police sent me right through with two carry-on bags. In the last six months I have had two carry-on bags when flying out of numerous US airports, on both domestic and international flights, as well as the airports in Tokyo and Beijing. Other business travelers who fly around the world said that this only happens at Heathrow.
Finally it should be noted that this policy has nothing to do with stopping crime or terrorism. If that was the case it would be universally applied across Europe and the U.S. I'm no expert on terrorism but something dangerous can just as easily be carried in the largest legal carry-on as in two small carry on bags such as a backpack and a briefcase. And all carry on bags are x-rayed in any event.
Other airlines, airports and business travelers have told me that Heathrow is notorious and is probably already impacting tourism to Britain.
AVOID HEATHROW, AND THE UK IF THAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE, AS A TOURIST AND PHOTOGRAPHER.
AND AVOID LONDON HOTELS, AND TOURISM IN LONDON, IF THAT MEANS USING HEATHROW.
IT JUST ISN'T WORTH IT.
-
We went through Heathrow a couple of months ago and were surprised by the same situation. It's not *that* bad if you plan for it (get one larger plastic bag to put both your small carry-on and camera bag in while you're in Heathrow, for example). We ended up quickly stuffing my camera bag in my spouse's carry-on, while he wore five shirts and and two pairs of pants through security to make room for it (and put them back once we were through security).
I was guessing that the reason behind it all is that the carry-on screening stations are overburdened and undermanned, and someone decided that everyone would get through security faster if they have a fewer number of carry-ons. It's the only rational reason I can think of (and makes some small amount of sense). However, they really should warn you ahead of time, instead of when you're rushing to make a connection. Or, better yet, get enough security people and stations so they don't have to do this...
It's not the worst airport, though. I'll go through Heathrow, but never through De Gaulle. Refusing to use Heathrow because of this new policy seems overkill to me; just learn to pack light and be ready for it.
I can certainly understand being annoyed by this change in policy when it's sprung on you without warning, though (having been there).
Lisa
-
We ended up quickly stuffing my camera bag in my spouse's carry-on, while he wore five shirts and and two pairs of pants through security to make room for it (and put them back once we were through security).
Yes, that is possible, if you can combine carry-on bags. There were some people who were able to do that. But if you have a backpack filled with camera gear, and a briefcase with a laptop, then that is not possible. I had to check the laptop.
Have you ever watched the guys who THROW checked luggage onto planes? That is what I presume happened to my laptop. Fortunately it was not broken -- or stolen.
My original posting was worded quite carefully. If you must use two carry-ons, then avoid Heathrow at all costs. Because you can't use two carry on bags -- not at that airport.
If you flying on to another country, there are other airlines besides British Airways, and there are other airports to connect through.
-
I'll go through Heathrow, but never through De Gaulle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In my response, I forgot to ask, what is wrong with De Gaulle? Never flown through it, but it would be good to know why we should avoid it.
-
I havent traveled via Charles de Gaulle myself, but my mother has twice and they lost her luggage there twice...
As I live in Germany and therefore meet people who traveled via CdG frequently, I often hear those kinds of stories. They must be quite a messy bunch, the frenchmen
-
In my response, I forgot to ask, what is wrong with De Gaulle? Never flown through it, but it would be good to know why we should avoid it.
The last time I tried to fly through there, we had a 3-1/2 hour connection to make, and made it barely in time only because we could take the much shorter business-class check-in line (the economy line was waaay out the building doors). We waited well over a half hour for the bus connecting the two terminals we were transferring between, when they were supposed to be running at least every ten minutes. Then the terminal we were in (I believe it was the main international terminal) had huge, huge lines with people crowded everywhere, including being dumped by escalators at places that were already packed full (not good!), and we had to check in again, go through security, and go through customs in these enormous lines. The lines took over two hours total, all in cattle-car crowded conditions with desperate people crowded together and pushing. Different people in different places checked our passports three times, and when we asked what was going on, we were told, "This is normal" (though I didnt't believe it).
A previous time my spouse flew through there, he had a few minutes in the gate area before his flight, and decided to wander around the terminal. He went up one of the scenic glassed-in escalators to another level before realizing that it was a one-way path (it wasn't obvious), and it took him a very nervous several minutes to dash about trying a find the way back to his gate before his flight boarded. He also complained that he was on the wrong side of a barrier from his gate that they weren't allowing anyone through, despite the fact that a person could get to *both* sides of the barrier (!), and he had to circle all the way back around the terminal to get to the right side (again, worrying he would miss his boarding).
In short, the transfer times are sometimes very lengthy, nerve-wracking and unreliable, and it's easy to get yourself into trouble trying to get to your gate in a timely fashion.
(It also appears more grimy and less good condition than most other major Western & Northern European airports, or at least was the last couple of times I've flown through. I was last there about four or five years ago, and have successfully avoided it since. In case you're wondering what a *good* European airport is, Frankfurt is pretty decent.)
Lisa
-
The last time I tried to fly through there, we had a 3-1/2 hour connection to make, and made it barely in time only because we could take the much shorter business-class check-in line (the economy line was waaay out the building doors). We waited well over a half hour for the bus connecting the two terminals we were transferring between, when they were supposed to be running at least every ten minutes. Then the terminal we were in (I believe it was the main international terminal) had huge, huge lines with people crowded everywhere, including being dumped by escalators at places that were already packed full (not good!), and we had to check in again, go through security, and go through customs in these enormous lines. The lines took over two hours total, all in cattle-car crowded conditions with desperate people crowded together and pushing. Different people in different places checked our passports three times, and when we asked what was going on, we were told, "This is normal" (though I didnt't believe it).
A previous time my spouse flew through there, he had a few minutes in the gate area before his flight, and decided to wander around the terminal. He went up one of the scenic glassed-in escalators to another level before realizing that it was a one-way path (it wasn't obvious), and it took him a very nervous several minutes to dash about trying a find the way back to his gate before his flight boarded. He also complained that he was on the wrong side of a barrier from his gate that they weren't allowing anyone through, despite the fact that a person could get to *both* sides of the barrier (!), and he had to circle all the way back around the terminal to get to the right side (again, worrying he would miss his boarding).
In short, the transfer times are sometimes very lengthy, nerve-wracking and unreliable, and it's easy to get yourself into trouble trying to get to your gate in a timely fashion.
(It also appears more grimy and less good condition than most other major Western & Northern European airports, or at least was the last couple of times I've flown through. I was last there about four or five years ago, and have successfully avoided it since. In case you're wondering what a *good* European airport is, Frankfurt is pretty decent.)
Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Even I have to admit that Heathrow was much better than that, just so long as you have only one carry-on bag. But note that I base that on only one experience with the airport.
-
They richly deserve the loss of business, as does every hotel and tourist establishment in London
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That seems a touch unfair considering they have nothing to do with what the airports do.
-
Have any of you complaining souls forgotten about terrorism? No, perhaps it doesn´t happen in Muskogee, USA but it sure as hell does in the good old UK!
Old ladies pulled out of line: right, no old lady would dream of carrying a parcel on behalf of that sweet, kind young man who helped her with her luggage; no veiled damsel would think of secreting a vial of high explosive inside herself. Come alive, folks, this is the era of heartless violence against anyone who is different, believes in a different god or simply doesn´t believe in anything much at all.
I am only too happy to put up with security if it means I have a chance of arriving at my destination in one piece. If that means inconvenience for photographers then so be it. I have lived with X-Ray fogged film (despite claims it can´t happen) and lost professional pics, but I am around to try another day! Or to shoot at home, or to do it digitally or even to take up drawing.
Better an airport that takes the threats seriously than one which doesn´t.
Live in peace - Rob C
-
Schiphol airport in Amsterdam is pretty good. The last time I went through CDG in Paris, two years ago, it was crowded but not really a problem -- maybe I was lucky. One thing you never want to do is change money there...I don't know why it is, but British minor officialdom (customs, security) has always been among the rudest, which seems odd, since the British are usually so polite. There might be something to the proposition that the British airports just don't have the equipment -- just like the London underground doesn't get the equipment it needs. Frankfurt is good, Munich and Budapest work because they are quite small...Rome is screwed up but you expect that...Tel Aviv is cold but efficient, Cairo chaotic. I find American airports reasonably friendly and efficient compared to European airports, though they sometimes expect you to make ridiculously long walks.
I don't intend to start a political argument here, but I think one difference might be that European airports are dominated by government functionaries, who treat travelers as people to be governed and directed (and as a pain in their ass), while American airports are dominated by businesses, which have more of a tendency to treat people as customers who they'd like to return. That may be why among European airports I like Schiphol -- it's almost like a shopping center, with minimal bureaucracy.
JC
-
Have any of you complaining souls forgotten about terrorism? No, perhaps it doesn´t happen in Muskogee, USA but it sure as hell does in the good old UK!
Old ladies pulled out of line: right, no old lady would dream of carrying a parcel on behalf of that sweet, kind young man who helped her with her luggage; no veiled damsel would think of secreting a vial of high explosive inside herself. Come alive, folks, this is the era of heartless violence against anyone who is different, believes in a different god or simply doesn´t believe in anything much at all.
I am only too happy to put up with security if it means I have a chance of arriving at my destination in one piece. If that means inconvenience for photographers then so be it. I have lived with X-Ray fogged film (despite claims it can´t happen) and lost professional pics, but I am around to try another day! Or to shoot at home, or to do it digitally or even to take up drawing.
Better an airport that takes the threats seriously than one which doesn´t.
Live in peace - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I cant see how somebody carrying two bags is more dangerous than somebody carrying one bag... I would second the idea that they want to stop the people from overcrowding the head compardments of the planes - quite a danger too, but not a terroristic one
Peter
-
I am only too happy to put up with security if it means I have a chance of arriving at my destination in one piece. If that means inconvenience for photographers then so be it.
You haven't been reading the posts closely enough, Rob. We're not complaining about security per se, we're complaining about security rules that noone tells you about until they bite you, that are peculiar to one particular airport, rules that have nothing to do with increased security. The lack of advance warning, leaving one suddenly stuck with little choice except to check camera gear or a purse (if one doesn't figure out a valid way around the rules fast enough like we did), is the main offense here.
Lisa
-
You haven't been reading the posts closely enough, Rob. We're not complaining about security per se, we're complaining about security rules that noone tells you about until they bite you, that are peculiar to one particular airport, rules that have nothing to do with increased security. The lack of advance warning, leaving one suddenly stuck with little choice except to check camera gear or a purse (if one doesn't figure out a valid way around the rules fast enough like we did), is the main offense here.
Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah Lisa - like John Camp I have no wish to start or further political argument, suffice to say that the entire aircraft problem of one bag, two bags or three bags full is ALL about security. I remember very well flying in the early 50s when there was no security at all, and neither was there risk other than from metal fatigue which made some aircraft fall out of the sky.
We live in an era where political correctness plays totally into the hands of the criminal, something which in my kinder moments I feel is not what was intended; consequently, the younger group of traveller today believes two things: that he should be able to do exactly as he wishes; that all attempts to make life safer or more fair is an attack on supposed civil liberties.
The checking in times have grown longer and these would be even worse were the security people forced to examine even more hand luggage than they have to cope with already; the limited carry aboard idea is to force more stuff to be booked ´not wanted on voyage´, if I may make an arcane reference to the elegant days of the steamship. That some people want to encumber themselves with more bags than are essential (open to argument) does not mean that they should be granted that right. Do you have memories of tourist air flights, where desperate people filled the available space with even more desperate bottles and packages of duty-free goods? A manifestation of both stupidy and greed.
So, embrace the security which limits in-flight access to your toys and live to fly another day.
Rob C
-
Ah Lisa - like John Camp I have no wish to start or further political argument, suffice to say that the entire aircraft problem of one bag, two bags or three bags full is ALL about security. I remember very well flying in the early 50s when there was no security at all, and neither was there risk other than from metal fatigue which made some aircraft fall out of the sky.
We live in an era where political correctness plays totally into the hands of the criminal, something which in my kinder moments I feel is not what was intended; consequently, the younger group of traveller today believes two things: that he should be able to do exactly as he wishes; that all attempts to make life safer or more fair is an attack on supposed civil liberties.
The checking in times have grown longer and these would be even worse were the security people forced to examine even more hand luggage than they have to cope with already; the limited carry aboard idea is to force more stuff to be booked ´not wanted on voyage´, if I may make an arcane reference to the elegant days of the steamship. That some people want to encumber themselves with more bags than are essential (open to argument) does not mean that they should be granted that right. Do you have memories of tourist air flights, where desperate people filled the available space with even more desperate bottles and packages of duty-free goods? A manifestation of both stupidy and greed.
So, embrace the security which limits in-flight access to your toys and live to fly another day.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If airlines want to force passengers to check-in more luggage, they should also be willing to accept greater liablility for checked-in luggage. A limit of $1500 which excludes anything that is deemed fragile (i.e. camera gear) for checked baggage is a joke. I would have no problem buying a pelican case and checking it in - IF AND ONLY IF, the airlines accepted complete liablility of its loss or damage.
-
If airlines want to force passengers to check-in more luggage, they should also be willing to accept greater liablility for checked-in luggage. A limit of $1500 which excludes anything that is deemed fragile (i.e. camera gear) for checked baggage is a joke. I would have no problem buying a pelican case and checking it in - IF AND ONLY IF, the airlines accepted complete liablility of its loss or damage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With that sentiment I have no quarrel other than that there are no free lunches and so, like it or not, the traveller would still end up paying for the additional compensation. Let´s face it, all airlines are in a hell of an economic condition and the wonder is that they can manage their debt well enough to continue flying.
Baggage handlers are not, by job and inclination, going to be amongst the most careful people on Earth. It´s a wonder anything gets through without being stolen, smashed by accident or on purpose. Travel often enough and you will lose any expectations of reliability, speed or service. The days of flight being in any way up-market have long gone; even poor old Concorde bit the dust at the seat prices that were possible in its day; that it was an accident just waiting to happen was another aspect altogether.
In the end, it all comes down to the fact that man is a s.o.b willing and more than able to screw up the world for everyone else. That being so, we have to live with these later quirks of the human condition and get on with making the best of a shoddy deal.
Rob C
-
Ah Lisa - like John Camp I have no wish to start or further political argument, suffice to say that the entire aircraft problem of one bag, two bags or three bags full is ALL about security. I remember very well flying in the early 50s when there was no security at all, and neither was there risk other than from metal fatigue which made some aircraft fall out of the sky.
We live in an era where political correctness plays totally into the hands of the criminal, something which in my kinder moments I feel is not what was intended; consequently, the younger group of traveller today believes two things: that he should be able to do exactly as he wishes; that all attempts to make life safer or more fair is an attack on supposed civil liberties.
The checking in times have grown longer and these would be even worse were the security people forced to examine even more hand luggage than they have to cope with already; the limited carry aboard idea is to force more stuff to be booked ´not wanted on voyage´, if I may make an arcane reference to the elegant days of the steamship. That some people want to encumber themselves with more bags than are essential (open to argument) does not mean that they should be granted that right. Do you have memories of tourist air flights, where desperate people filled the available space with even more desperate bottles and packages of duty-free goods? A manifestation of both stupidy and greed.
So, embrace the security which limits in-flight access to your toys and live to fly another day.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're still missing the point, Rob. Lisa spelled it out very clearly, if you would care to read her post. No one in this thread has denied the need for security. And no one has given a good reason why (1) security rules at Heathrow are out of kilter with those of other civilized airports, and (2) even if there are special security needs at Heathrow, no one has explained why the rules need to be kept secret until the passenger can't do anything about it. To my mind, the increased confusion is unlikely to increase security.
-
no one has explained why the rules need to be kept secret until the passenger can't do anything about it.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually that's not true. If you go to Heathrow Airport website, it is very easy to find the following information:
Hand baggage restrictions
Passengers are allowed to carry ONE item of hand baggage, no larger than:
*
56 centimetres tall (approximately 22 inches)
*
45 centimetres wide (approximately 17.7 inches)
*
25 centimetres deep (approximately 10 inches)
through the airport security search point. Please note, this is the maximum bag size allowed through security. Smaller bag sizes may apply depending on which airline you travel with.We therefore advise you to contact your airline.
The information is there...you just need to look for it. Maybe airlines should tell passengers about the rules...but it sure isn't the airport's responsability.
I've been in over 20 countries, many more airports, several times at Heathrow and don't find it worse than the other european airports I have been to.
-
I don't intend to start a political argument here, but I think one difference might be that European airports are dominated by government functionaries, who treat travelers as people to be governed and directed (and as a pain in their ass), while American airports are dominated by businesses, which have more of a tendency to treat people as customers who they'd like to return. That may be why among European airports I like Schiphol -- it's almost like a shopping center, with minimal bureaucracy.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122198\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's simply not true as well. You're probably speaking about American airports on a perspective of a US citizen. Well, let me tell you a little story about my last connection at an American airport.
Last January, on my way to Costa Rica, I had a connection flight in Miami. I was almost an hour on a line to be fingerprinted. Ohh...I wasn't even going to stay in the US, as I told you. My stay in Miami was like 2 hours. This was around 10 PM local, after a flight from Lisbon to Amsterdam and then from Amsterdam to Miami. By the way...Portuguese citizens don't even need a visa to get in the US...but still, even if I'm just passing by, I still need to be on a line to be fingerprinted. Are you fingerprinted at european airports? I guess not. After the fingerprint, another line (this time I didn't count the time but it wasn't much less) to check the luggage...many of it hand checked. All shoes off, all coats off and a young woman yelling "DO YOU HAVE LIGHTERS? PLEASE GIVE US YOUR LIGHTERS"...something like that.
So trust me...in my experience, there are not less friendly airports in the world than american airports...at least at this time.
Sometimes we sould not talk about something we don't have total knowledge.
-
There is a certain amount of incorrect information here. If you fly BA from an external destination, as I did from Toronto, they ask how many carry-on items you have and they ask whether you are transiting through Heathrow, and they tell you why they are asking. If you are staying in England, you are allowed to carry two items because North American rules apply. If you are transiting through a UK airport, and definitly when you leave a UK airport, then European rules apply and the one bag limit is enforced. They do tell passengers this on embarking from wherever - if they don't they are being remiss. Anyhow, it is on their website.
This carry-on rule is Europe-wide. It is not limited to BA and England. If you check the history of this new system, you will see that it was decided by the European Union in consultation with the airlines and the security people amongst all member states. Every member of the European union is expected to enforce this carry-on baggage regime. Implementation of course will vary over time and place - this is not unusual. But sooner or later all will comply, or the system will be changed.
The ostensible reason why this is happening is because for the longest time the airlines have been trying to limit carry-on baggage. It is a huge nuissance for them. With the added security arrangements as a result of the recent intelligence about planned co-ordinated terror attacks, the onus on the security people to search carry-on bags became very heavy. Those airports simply don't have either the space (because of duty free shopping which pays rent) or the people (which costs salaries) to handle this efficiently, therefore reducing the carry-on allowance was the option they selected to keep the security operations manageable and costs down. Remember also oil prices have increased alot, so the less weight they need to carry, the less they pay for fuel.
BA has also vastly reduced the checked baggage allowance,s and imposed huge penalties for exceeding the reduced new limit, hence between this new policy and the reduced carry on allowance, anyone who wants to travel outside these minimalist limits will pay through the nose. This has nothing to do with security - it is completely commercial - a fare increase through the back door to pay for rising costs. Not all airlines in Europe have done likewise for checked baggage, but they are all wathcing the BA experience with keen interest, so there could be more widespread grief to come.
What is most unsatisfactory about all this is that they have not correspondingly improved the conditions for handling checked baggage, nor changed their liability exposure, hence the customer ends-up carrying all the risk and the cost. This is a real problem all airline companies traveling through Europe need to face, otherwise people who must carry more than one bag with sensitive equipment will start avoiding Europe altogether.
Heathrow also needs to drastically improve how they enforce the policy. It is inexcusable that they allow passengers beyond the check-in counter with illegal luggage and then force them through the whole queue again. Anyone experiencing this should write a letter to the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, the Chairman of BA, and copy it to all the main newspapers in the UK and abroad. This may wake them up.
As for CDG-Paris. We were through there last November. We found it more than usual a complete administrative mess in almost every conceivable respect. We ran into a staff member of Air France incapable of using their own reservation system, their baggage handling is a total disaster (they lost our bags for two days), their electronic notification system for flight gates often leaves out your flight and gate (as happened with ours), and as usual the airport is dirty, the signage is poor, it is vastly over-crowded, some of the booths of the immigration service are dimly lit and cramped, so they can lose documents placed in front of them causing near panic (happened to us) - really a place to avoid if at all possible. To their credit, when I outlined all of this to Jean-Cyril Spinetta, the CEO of Air France (yes, you get action by starting at the top), several months later I received a letter apologizing for the inconvenience and a credit of 5000 Frequence Plus points. So at least they aren't insensititive.
These are not good times for travelling photographers with substantial gear. Something needs to be done to sensitize the European policy makers at the level of the E.U. about how all of this is not suitable and therefore not acceptable. One can make photographs in many parts of the world other than Europe, and this needs to be impressed upon them - it is a big negative for their photographic tourist industries. Maybe they care, maybe it is beneath the radar screen - we won't know until it is really put under their noses at a very high level.
-
This carry-on rule is Europe-wide. It is not limited to BA and England. If you check the history of this new system, you will see that it was decided by the European Union in consultation with the airlines and the security people amongst all member states. Every member of the European union is expected to enforce this carry-on baggage regime. Implementation of course will vary over time and place - this is not unusual. But sooner or later all will comply, or the system will be changed.
Interesting. Other European airports on the same trip (a couple of months ago) had no problem with two carry-ons (one of them a small purse); only Heathrow.
There is a certain amount of incorrect information here. If you fly BA from an external destination, as I did from Toronto, they ask how many carry-on items you have and they ask whether you are transiting through Heathrow, and they tell you why they are asking. If you are staying in England, you are allowed to carry two items because North American rules apply. If you are transiting through a UK airport, and definitly when you leave a UK airport, then European rules apply and the one bag limit is enforced. They do tell passengers this on embarking from wherever - if they don't they are being remiss. Anyhow, it is on their website.
The problem is, I wasn't flying BA. I was flying a US airline that didn't have a one-bag policy and never told me that Heathrow did. The European (non-British) airline I was connecting to in Heathrow didn't tell me either (and I *did* check their luggage policies on their web site ahead of time). There was no way for me to get the info other than to meticulously check the web site for every single airport I'm transiting through, which seems an awful lot to ask of someone. They really aren't doing a decent job of getting the word out.
Lisa
-
These are not good times for travelling photographers with substantial gear. Something needs to be done to sensitize the European policy makers at the level of the E.U. about how all of this is not suitable and therefore not acceptable. One can make photographs in many parts of the world other than Europe, and this needs to be impressed upon them - it is a big negative for their photographic tourist industries. Maybe they care, maybe it is beneath the radar screen - we won't know until it is really put under their noses at a very high level.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122309\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Mark, that is one of the best written posts that I have seen. I agree 100% with what you have written - having lived in Paris your description of CDG airport is close to my own experience.
As to US airports being any better...tight security, long immigration queues, unfriendly staff and lack of facilities. It really comes down to what you know and what is familiar to you. In Europe flying isn't much of a problem because I know the system and work around it, if I was in the US I would know that system.
As a final anecdote. Some years ago I was walking on a hill on the outskirts of Paris and came across, what I thought at the time, was an army camping expedition. It wasn't until I had walked some 100 metres further on that I realised that it was a surface to air missile battery protecting Paris from aircraft leaving CDG airport. The question is - are you prepared to accept tight airport security? If not and a terrorist is suspected on your aircraft then the airplane WILL be shot down. I suspect that this applies not only at Paris but at all major airports around the world where a perceived terrorist threat exists.
-
This carry-on rule is Europe-wide. It is not limited to BA and England. If you check the history of this new system, you will see that it was decided by the European Union in consultation with the airlines and the security people amongst all member states. Every member of the European union is expected to enforce this carry-on baggage regime. Implementation of course will vary over time and place - this is not unusual. But sooner or later all will comply, or the system will be changed.
That's a feature of the British mentality. We routinely enforce (and obey) rules prescribed by the EU which are equally routinely left unenforced by other countries in the group. We seem to take a perverse delight in giving authoritarian powers to small-minded men who (apparently) hate the travelling public and delight in making their lives difficult. It's part of our English charm. Last time I flew to London (internal flight from Manchester), with only hand baggage, my shaving foam was confiscated: no apology, no explanation, just taken and dumped in a bin. Apparently it's a terrorist tool (at least, it has been since last year: it was perfectly safe before then).
The ostensible reason why this is happening is because for the longest time the airlines have been trying to limit carry-on baggage. It is a huge nuissance for them.
That really isn't true. Before the huge scare last summer (I think it was last summer), the no-frills airlines, such as Ryanair, had been desperately trying to discourage checked baggage and encourage hand baggage instead. They had introduced a charge, in addition to the ticket price, for each item of checked baggage: FlyBe, who bought all of BA's non-London European routes earlier this year, still do that (EUR6 in advance, EUR11 at the airport). The reason? Checked baggage needs baggage handlers, ground agents and so on, and slows down aircraft turnround on the ground.
Since then, they may have changed their collective minds, although I think not. The other advantage to the airline in confining passengers to carry-on luggage is that they can fill their holds with cargo, generating more revenue.
Still, if we want dirt-cheap flights, we're going to have to compromise somewhere, and dirt-cheap flights are very much around, at least in Europe. I've just booked three one-way tickets from Limoges to Manchester (a 2-hour flight) for EUR31 each: with taxes and other charges, EUR60 each. I'm not expecting a pleasant journey!
Jeremy
-
You're still missing the point, Rob. Lisa spelled it out very clearly, if you would care to read her post. No one in this thread has denied the need for security. And no one has given a good reason why (1) security rules at Heathrow are out of kilter with those of other civilized airports, and (2) even if there are special security needs at Heathrow, no one has explained why the rules need to be kept secret until the passenger can't do anything about it. To my mind, the increased confusion is unlikely to increase security.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
having just flown out and back to heathrow with ba i must admit to having no problems at all, as we took the trouble to find out what we could and could not do with ba and the airport, via their web sites, my advice, check first, plan ahead, and there should be no further problem, and hey, yes, its a wicked world out there, so better to be safe than sorry.
-
Interesting. Other European airports on the same trip (a couple of months ago) had no problem with two carry-ons (one of them a small purse); only Heathrow.
The problem is, I wasn't flying BA. I was flying a US airline that didn't have a one-bag policy and never told me that Heathrow did. The European (non-British) airline I was connecting to in Heathrow didn't tell me either (and I *did* check their luggage policies on their web site ahead of time). There was no way for me to get the info other than to meticulously check the web site for every single airport I'm transiting through, which seems an awful lot to ask of someone. They really aren't doing a decent job of getting the word out.
Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lisa, what you are reporting is unfortunately normal over a transitional period. They don't get the message out well enough and enforcement is uneven. That will most likely change for the worse - i.e. they will get the message out and enforcement will be really tight!
-
That really isn't true. Before the huge scare last summer (I think it was last summer), the no-frills airlines, such as Ryanair, had been desperately trying to discourage checked baggage and encourage hand baggage instead.
Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122339\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is true - I'm not talking about exceptional airlines, but the general tendancy amongst the predominant carriers - they are in a constant struggle with passesngers having excessive caryy-on baggage and for the longest time they have been trying to contain it because it complicates take-off arrangements and creates a lot of trouble for cabin staff.
-
As a final anecdote. Some years ago I was walking on a hill on the outskirts of Paris and came across, what I thought at the time, was an army camping expedition. It wasn't until I had walked some 100 metres further on that I realised that it was a surface to air missile battery protecting Paris from aircraft leaving CDG airport. The question is - are you prepared to accept tight airport security? If not and a terrorist is suspected on your aircraft then the airplane WILL be shot down. I suspect that this applies not only at Paris but at all major airports around the world where a perceived terrorist threat exists.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's better to know the battery belonged to the authorities rather than to terrorists with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers - as have been apprehended in Africa. Yes, it is a dangerous world out there, but I'm more fearful of being injured on highway 401 in Toronto than I am of being brought down in an aircraft! The incidence of unchecked insanity is much greater on our highways than it is in the air.
-
It is true - I'm not talking about exceptional airlines, but the general tendancy amongst the predominant carriers - they are in a constant struggle with passesngers having excessive caryy-on baggage and for the longest time they have been trying to contain it because it complicates take-off arrangements and creates a lot of trouble for cabin staff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely, Mark, there are way more things to worry about today than ever before; we just have to live with it until Armageddon, after which it will be back to the hippie period... for real.
Ciao - Rob C
-
It is true - I'm not talking about exceptional airlines, but the general tendancy amongst the predominant carriers - they are in a constant struggle with passesngers having excessive caryy-on baggage and for the longest time they have been trying to contain it because it complicates take-off arrangements and creates a lot of trouble for cabin staff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ryanair is an exceptional airline only in its success (it either is or will become this year the largest passenger airline in the world), its obvious disdain for its passengers (see pronouncements by its MD on every conceivable occasion) and its prescience. All the budget airlines (in the UK, anyway) are following exactly the same rules. Get the passengers to avoid checked baggage and make them pay through the nose, in comparison to the ticket price, if they don't.
Even BA had started a vaguely similar idea, when it reduced the weight limit on checked items but removed it completely for hand baggage; it used to be 7kg, but now the only stipulation as to weight is that you have to be able to lift it into the overhead locker yourself.
There are obviously conflicts pulling them in different directions, but the trend away from hold baggage has been quite marked.
Jeremy
-
I have been avoiding British Airways and Qantus for years. They both have a very restricted carry-on policy. I have also avoided London airports for the reasons already mentioned.
I would not avoid a visit to London however, maybe fly to Amsterdam and take a train?
-
I have been avoiding British Airways and Qantus for years. They both have a very restricted carry-on policy. I have also avoided London airports for the reasons already mentioned.
I would not avoid a visit to London however, maybe fly to Amsterdam and take a train?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Better fly to Brussels, take the train to Gare du Midi and take the Eurostar to Waterloo Station London. The train can be a bit pricy unless you book in advance in economy, restricted changes, but it's super fast and convenient.
-
Ryanair is an exceptional airline only in its success (it either is or will become this year the largest passenger airline in the world), its obvious disdain for its passengers (see pronouncements by its MD on every conceivable occasion) and its prescience. All the budget airlines (in the UK, anyway) are following exactly the same rules. Get the passengers to avoid checked baggage and make them pay through the nose, in comparison to the ticket price, if they don't.
Even BA had started a vaguely similar idea, when it reduced the weight limit on checked items but removed it completely for hand baggage; it used to be 7kg, but now the only stipulation as to weight is that you have to be able to lift it into the overhead locker yourself.
There are obviously conflicts pulling them in different directions, but the trend away from hold baggage has been quite marked.
Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ryanair's sales are about twelve percent of British Airways. It has 86 aircraft compared with British Airways 293. Has a bit to go before it outsizes the biggies I'm afraid.
Ryanair's carry-on baggage limit is 10 kg. Barely my camera gear minus the tripod. Their checked baggae limit is 15 kg. Excess baggage ranges between 5.50 and 8 E per kg.
Just adds to my point that these airlines in general are not encouraging people to travel with baggage and that is bad news for serious photography.
-
i am planning to fly to London in around Christmas. this is good to know. is there any other airport that you would recommend?
by the way, speaking of traveling, how do you declare your equipments? (both with the home and destination countries) It will be frustrating if you come back after a trip and are asked to pay duties on equipments you've owned for years won't it?
-
i am planning to fly to London in around Christmas. this is good to know. is there any other airport that you would recommend?
by the way, speaking of traveling, how do you declare your equipments? (both with the home and destination countries) It will be frustrating if you come back after a trip and are asked to pay duties on equipments you've owned for years won't it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Heathrow and Gatwick are the only London area airports I've used. But the security regulations are the same for all of them. The allowed carry-on baggage wieghts and sizes do vary between airlines. Best to check their websites. As for customs, I've never been questioned about equipment coming back to Canada. In the old days with invoices we could get declaration cards with equipment listed before traveling and that protected us from issues on the way back in. Not sure whether this is still needed or how it works nowadays - so many people are traveling with laptops, ipods and cameras it just isn't practical for them to focus on that stuff, but maybe useful to call Customs and ask - or check their website.
-
Regarding the original post, I don't know what all the fuss is about. The information about new cabin baggage regulations for flights going through the UK has been available for almost one year now.
It has been available in BAA website, and BA website, for all to read. I understand it is not convenient, but it is really no big deal, if you prepare for it beforehand.
No need to make half-assed comments about avoiding the UK, and UK airports and hotels, just because you did not made the effort of informing yourself before the trip. Since the summer of 2006, these regulations have been in place, first in the UK, then in the European Community.
In this day and age, there is no excuse for not being informed.
-
Just to add my experience, I transited LA on my way from Heathrow to Fiji in 2005 - Never again, we could not tranfer baggage, but had to collect it, pass through customs, immigration, security etc, and ended up on the sidewalk (where the taxi's are) before reentering the terminal by another door, passing through security again - shoes off etc. and checking in for the onward flight.
By the way, I was going onward to New Zealand and on that trip was allowed 2 bags, each up to 32Kg.
I am going back to NZ again later this year - this time via Singapore, but am only allowed 1 bag to 20Kg. It seems flights via the US get more baggage allowance than anywhere else.
Keith
-
Just to add my experience, I transited LA on my way from Heathrow to Fiji in 2005 - Never again, we could not tranfer baggage, but had to collect it, pass through customs, immigration, security etc, and ended up on the sidewalk (where the taxi's are) before reentering the terminal by another door, passing through security again - shoes off etc. and checking in for the onward flight.
By the way, I was going onward to New Zealand and on that trip was allowed 2 bags, each up to 32Kg.
I am going back to NZ again later this year - this time via Singapore, but am only allowed 1 bag to 20Kg. It seems flights via the US get more baggage allowance than anywhere else.
Keith
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You'll have a much happier experience flying through Singapore than L.A. The former is well-organized/user-friendly and the latter exactly the kind of total mess you describe. Been through both. If you must fly to the Far East via the US West Coast S.F. is much better than L.A.
-
Regarding the original post, I don't know what all the fuss is about. The information about new cabin baggage regulations for flights going through the UK has been available for almost one year now.
It has been available in BAA website, and BA website, for all to read. I understand it is not convenient, but it is really no big deal, if you prepare for it beforehand.
No need to make half-assed comments about avoiding the UK, and UK airports and hotels, just because you did not made the effort of informing yourself before the trip. Since the summer of 2006, these regulations have been in place, first in the UK, then in the European Community.
In this day and age, there is no excuse for not being informed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with your comment that the information has been available for quite some time now.
I do not agree with you that it is "no big deal". If your photographic equipment consists of a point-and-shoot you're right. But if you are carrying around a DSLR, a few lenses, a spare body, a flash, a laptop, a back-up drive, charging cords and other accessories, and a tripod in your suitcase you will quickly find that the size and weight restrictions for both cabin baggage and checked baggage are a non-starter. I'm more or less coming to the unfortunate conclusion that for serious photography where I want this equipment, it will be best to avoid European countries covered in this policy altogether and focus my travel photography on countries and airlines that are more photography-friendly. The World is a big place with lots of options.
-
BA has also vastly reduced the checked baggage allowance,s and imposed huge penalties for exceeding the reduced new limit, hence between this new policy and the reduced carry on allowance,
In fact BA's carry-on allowanced is 23kg - as long as it is in one bag.
-
I agree with your comment that the information has been available for quite some time now.
I do not agree with you that it is "no big deal". If your photographic equipment consists of a point-and-shoot you're right. But if you are carrying around a DSLR, a few lenses, a spare body, a flash, a laptop, a back-up drive, charging cords and other accessories, and a tripod in your suitcase you will quickly find that the size and weight restrictions for both cabin baggage and checked baggage are a non-starter. I'm more or less coming to the unfortunate conclusion that for serious photography where I want this equipment, it will be best to avoid European countries covered in this policy altogether and focus my travel photography on countries and airlines that are more photography-friendly. The World is a big place with lots of options.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not so. You can carry 23kg as hand luggage on a BA flight. That's quite a bit of equipment!
-
Not so. You can carry 23kg as hand luggage on a BA flight. That's quite a bit of equipment!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Curiously, BA does not specify a cabin baggage weight limit on their hand baggage information web page. They do say we need to be able to lift it to the bin unaided. BUT, the 22x18x10 inch size limit is the killer. I could not cram my gear and a laptop into that size, so it remains an issue - at least for me, and I suspect many others too. Interesting, if you look at that same information page you will see that their partner airlines have ridiculously low weight limits for cabin baggage. I think there's no denying, give or take a detail or two, the overall situation there is quite an awkward mess for many traveling photographers.
-
I'm leaving once again in a few days and I'm taking with me 2 DSLR, 5 lenses (altough they are primes and small), flash, laptop, external HD for backup, GPS, chargers, filters, tripod and a bunch of other stuff. As long as you pack accordingly, there's no problem whatsoever. Of course that if you want to take all your house with you, that will be a problem. People who travel with photo equipment need to adapt to the reality. Those "What worked, what didn't" articles by Michael are pretty good when it comes to explain that you don't need to have everything you own on each trip.
The way I pack things these days is quite similar to what Michael does. All the essencial stuff goes into a rolling case. That will take my camera bodies, lenses, flash, filters, batteries, laptop. The case is well inside the maximum size for carry on bags.
Then I pack all the things I can live without (stuff that I would miss but that wouldn't stop me shooting) on a shoulder bag that I then check in together with my clothes and everything else.
Once at final destination, everything I will use on a daily basis go to the shoulder bag and everything else stays in the rolling case, whether is in the hotel, in the car or whatever.
-
I'm leaving once again in a few days and I'm taking with me 2 DSLR, 5 lenses (altough they are primes and small), flash, laptop, external HD for backup, GPS, chargers, filters, tripod and a bunch of other stuff. As long as you pack accordingly, there's no problem whatsoever. Of course that if you want to take all your house with you, that will be a problem. People who travel with photo equipment need to adapt to the reality. Those "What worked, what didn't" articles by Michael are pretty good when it comes to explain that you don't need to have everything you own on each trip.
The way I pack things these days is quite similar to what Michael does. All the essencial stuff goes into a rolling case. That will take my camera bodies, lenses, flash, filters, batteries, laptop. The case is well inside the maximum size for carry on bags.
Then I pack all the things I can live without (stuff that I would miss but that wouldn't stop me shooting) on a shoulder bag that I then check in together with my clothes and everything else.
Once at final destination, everything I will use on a daily basis go to the shoulder bag and everything else stays in the rolling case, whether is in the hotel, in the car or whatever.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, all that can be well and good as long as the airline you use has a high enough weight limit on that rolling bag (not all do), and as long as your shoulder bag turns up at your destination. If it doesn't and it has your chargers, spare batteries, etc. in it you're *s.o.l* if your first round of energy runs out before the bag reaches you. While total loss of baggage is a low-probability event, the probability of delayed baggage is not insignificant.
-
That's true Mark
But then again, if you think like that you may not leave home with your equipment...because s*it may happen anywhere you go, not only if you take a flight. Someone may steal your stuff from your car or even from you.
What I can tell you is that from my experience with 21 countries and more airports and airlines than that, I never lost a piece of equipment until now. May it happen? Of course it can...but I have to live with that possibility.
Regarding the weight limit, I can't remember a single time that I got my carry on checked for weight. Usually they take a look at it and never ask to weigh it.
Honestly I'm all with these new rules. Did you ever get in a flight where people take so much crap with them that when you reach your seat (after waiting I don't know for how long so that people can shove everything above their heads) you find out that there's no room for your stuff anywhere? To me is not just a security issue...it's also less time you spend at security checks, less trouble once inside the aircraft and so on.
-
That's true Mark
But then again, if you think like that you may not leave home with your equipment...because s*it may happen anywhere you go, not only if you take a flight. Someone may steal your stuff from your car or even from you.
What I can tell you is that from my experience with 21 countries and more airports and airlines than that, I never lost a piece of equipment until now. May it happen? Of course it can...but I have to live with that possibility.
Regarding the weight limit, I can't remember a single time that I got my carry on checked for weight. Usually they take a look at it and never ask to weigh it.
Honestly I'm all with these new rules. Did you ever get in a flight where people take so much crap with them that when you reach your seat (after waiting I don't know for how long so that people can shove everything above their heads) you find out that there's no room for your stuff anywhere? To me is not just a security issue...it's also less time you spend at security checks, less trouble once inside the aircraft and so on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven't lost anything either, but I have had bags delayed several days. Fortunately the latest incident was on returning home. Had it been the other way "my goose would have been cooked".
If you enjoy the new limitations, that's fine. Many others, me included, don't enjoy them and would prefer to think there are probably more intelligent/imaginative ways of avoiding the inconveniences and excesses you correctly identify without being as heavy-handed as they have become. Much of this is driven by cost-cutting and revenue enhancement considerations.
-
For those who don't know - beware the size of hand baggage. I have had a number of cases where I have taken an internal flight and found that the hand baggage size is smaller than for international flights.
This is due to the smaller aircraft having smaller overhead lockers. I have had to check a case that I had taken as hand baggage - which meant removing valuables into a smaller bag at the last moment.
Keith
-
Curiously, BA does not specify a cabin baggage weight limit on their hand baggage information web page. They do say we need to be able to lift it to the bin unaided. BUT, the 22x18x10 inch size limit is the killer. I could not cram my gear and a laptop into that size, so it remains an issue - at least for me, and I suspect many others too. Interesting, if you look at that same information page you will see that their partner airlines have ridiculously low weight limits for cabin baggage. I think there's no denying, give or take a detail or two, the overall situation there is quite an awkward mess for many traveling photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's true, but BA is better than most, I think. It took me quite a lot of effort to get them to confirm to me in writing what their limits are, but 23kg in a Think Tank Airport International represents quite a lot of gear :-)
-
Went through Gatwick recently, and yes, they are very strict about the baggage rules, including the size. I had a carry on that got into the UK with no problems. On my way back, I was stopped no less than 4 times, and repeatedly made to show that I could stuff the bag into the proper size bin. This was before the security check point. After everyone squeezed through this bottleneck, they could care less what you had, and people had all kinds of bags again from duty free shopping...myself included.
-
Went through Gatwick recently, and yes, they are very strict about the baggage rules, including the size. I had a carry on that got into the UK with no problems. On my way back, I was stopped no less than 4 times, and repeatedly made to show that I could stuff the bag into the proper size bin. This was before the security check point. After everyone squeezed through this bottleneck, they could care less what you had, and people had all kinds of bags again from duty free shopping...myself included.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Isn't that interesting? Proves what I'm saying - it's all driven by commercial interests. Those rental incomes from the duty free shops are important to BAA's commercial viability so they look the other way. Exercizing common sense and flexibility on carry-on's going through security means more agents, more scanner space and more table space, so more costs and less revenue (they'd cut into shopping space), therefore that gets restricted.
Don't get me wrong - security is a very serious concern - indeed probably much more serious than either they talk about or we would prefer to think about - but this stuff really IS NOT about security. BAA and the airlines are using security as a convenient smokescreen to achieve commercial objectives. If you think that's cynical it is - on their part - not on the part of those who see through it. Well, BAA can carry on with their congested mess at Gatwick Airport - I'ld use it only on a "no-options" basis at the best of times.
-
This thread started just before I was about to book a flight to Stockholm from the UK. Now the last couple of flights there have been with Ryan Air, but they have sneaked more extra prices in to the flight charge - paying for any bag checked in!! So I thought sod them and looked elsewhere. Especially as I now have to travel to London anyway to get to Stanstead to use RA. Before I could fly from much closer to home up North, but RA dropped that very handy flight.
I think RA's owner really hates his customers, he's such a pratt, I resented using his planes anyway.
So ironically given this thread, I ended up booking a flight with BA from Heathrow. Worked out much easier than Ryan Air as my bike goes free [£31 with RA], 8kg extra checked weight [23kg =£108 with RA] and effectively unlimited carry on weight. Which as my camera bag with just the esentials weighs approx 15KG that's very useful. I used to have to pile all my heavy stuff from suitcase into my bike bag to get under the pathetic limits, then retransfer the other end. Very tedious.
-
Isn't that interesting? Proves what I'm saying - it's all driven by commercial interests. Those rental incomes from the duty free shops are important to BAA's commercial viability so they look the other way. Exercizing common sense and flexibility on carry-on's going through security means more agents, more scanner space and more table space, so more costs and less revenue (they'd cut into shopping space), therefore that gets restricted.
Don't get me wrong - security is a very serious concern - indeed probably much more serious than either they talk about or we would prefer to think about - but this stuff really IS NOT about security. BAA and the airlines are using security as a convenient smokescreen to achieve commercial objectives. If you think that's cynical it is - on their part - not on the part of those who see through it. Well, BAA can carry on with their congested mess at Gatwick Airport - I'ld use it only on a "no-options" basis at the best of times.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No - the duty free stuff has already been security screened and doesn't cause any additional load on the security check procedures.
-
No - the duty free stuff has already been security screened and doesn't cause any additional load on the security check procedures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That exactly reinforces the point I was making. They'll allow what adds to revenue without adding to cost and discourage what subtracts from revenue and adds to cost. The need for the security is a given.
-
How could you control duty free stuff? Another security check at the aircraft's door?
-
How could you control duty free stuff? Another security check at the aircraft's door?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The ticket check before boarding can control luggage allowance
-
(will also post in forum on shooting gear, since this covers both camera backpacks and what is allowed, as well as problems at a specific location)
[
(I suspect that British Airways encourages this policy to cut down on carry-on bags even though they deny it. They richly deserve the loss of business, as does every hotel and tourist establishment in London, as long as Heathrow enforces this policy.)
British Airways is as unhappy at this policy as most travelers, if not more so.
After the 8/8 incident last year, BAA (British Airports Authority) who run Heathrow and most other British airports told the government that they could not cope with the enhanced screening process (Liquids out, laptops out, shoes off) unless the numbers of bags was reduced and it was their lobbying that caused this moronic rule to be brought in.
There are mutterings that it may change in the future, but for the time being it is a major impediment for traveling through UK airports.
-
The ticket check before boarding can control luggage allowance
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123293\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Good Lord help us all. Can you imagine what an added nightmare that would be? Think of the operational implications. How much extra time would it take to board an aircraft of 450 passengers? What happens when someone trundles on with too much stuff? How does it get safely packed, labeled and put in the hold while the plane is expected to depart on schedule? NO WAY.
-
That exactly reinforces the point I was making. They'll allow what adds to revenue without adding to cost and discourage what subtracts from revenue and adds to cost. The need for the security is a given.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, OK - but that's sort of obvious, isn't it? :-)
-
Well, OK - but that's sort of obvious, isn't it? :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123319\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed; less obvious is how and when passengers' needs and preferences will be accommodated safely in more sensible ways than BAA and other authorities have displayed heretofore. Photographers and others who need to travel with substantial amounts of sensitive equipment are particularly vulnerable to clotted and insensitive rules and procedures.
-
The Good Lord help us all. Can you imagine what an added nightmare that would be? Think of the operational implications. How much extra time would it take to board an aircraft of 450 passengers? What happens when someone trundles on with too much stuff? How does it get safely packed, labeled and put in the hold while the plane is expected to depart on schedule? NO WAY.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It already happens on domestic flights here. You pass through security but before you leave the terminal to board you give in your ticket and they can check your carry on size. If it doesn't conform they send it back through to be checked. They also take some larger carry on items and stow them somewhere just before you board.
-
Since I was the original poster, I'd like to respond to some of my critics:
(1) One referred to these comments as "half-assed" and said that there is no excuse for not being informed about Heathrow. In my case I was scheduled to fly to Frankfurt, originating on United out of Dulles. The lines were so long that business class travelers who arrived a full two hours early missed flights. United then changed my flight to go through Heathrow. United clearly saw that I had two carry-ons and didn't warn me. Unfortunately, because I am "half-assed," I didn't think about using my lap top while at the ticket counter, and connect to the internet to check Heathrow's policies, and not depart the United check-in counter until I knew for certain that two carry-ons were OK. (Because it was at that point that I needed to check my laptop and briefcase to avoid the hassle in Heathrow of having to check my second carry-on.)
But I am half-assed and gullible, so I assumed that Heathrow was no different from any other major airport. Silly me.
Ironically, now that I have checked the United web site, it does have a warning about Heathrow and London, but I was not warned by United, and had no way to check it -- not when I was suddenly changed to that flight and told I had 25 minutes to get to the boarding gate.
I don't know if all airlines now include a warning about Heathrow or not. United does. But it is just plain silly to suggest that travelers should be checking the web sites for both airlines AND airports. No one does that, nor should they be expected to do so.
Even if all airlines now post the info on Heathrow, it is clear that the news is not being clearly conveyed, judging by the results I saw as noted in #2 below.
Since Heathrow is so different from every other airport, the airlines also have a proactive obligation to warn passengers when booking flights. It wouldn't be that tough for United to include a "flag" in their reservation system for all agents to be told to warn passengers who are flying through Heathrow about this policy. That is clearly not happening.
Finally, since Heathrow is the single airport that is doing this, as noted in #7 and #8 below, it is still entirely valid to argue that if you must use two carry-ons, you must avoid Heathrow at all costs. And it is equally valid to argue that there are other airports, and other countries to visit, than Heathrow and the UK.
(2) The poster who described the small-minded British bureaucrats got it exactly right. I witnessed this policy applied against 15 or 20 people in less than ten minutes. And that is repeated dozens of times each hour, hour after hour, at Heathrow. The Heathrow fascist cops applied that policy to 80 year old women. I watched them do it. They even took away a cane from one old lady in front of me, and did not offer to get her a wheel chair, until the passengers surrounding her loudly complained in her behalf.
None of these passengers had any reason to be prepared for this, since they were ALLOWED to have two carry-ons on their ORIGINATING flights at other major airports on giant airlines. Regardless of what is or is not on the web sites of those airlines, they are allowing passengers to board flights that connect through Heathrow, and watch them walk on with two carry-ons. The passengers have no idea what is waiting for them in Heathrow with the zealous cops in that airport.
(3) As for liability, I believe that almost all airlines specifically waive ALL liability for photographic equipment. So we are expected to check camera equipment with no protection at all. Here is what is on the United web site:
"United is not liable for damage to fragile items, spoilage of perishables, loss/damage/delay of money, jewelry, cameras, electronic/video/photographic equipment, computer equipment. . . ."
So even if United is nice enough to warn us about Heathrow, they are turning around and telling us that if we check anything as a result of the Heathrow policy, we assume 100% of the risk. It would be more accurate for them to post a policy that says this:
WARNING!!! ONLY ONE CARRY-ONE ALLOWED AT HEATHROW. UNITED ASSUMES ABSOLUTELY NO LIABILITY FOR ANY CAMERA, PHOTOGRAPHIC OR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT THAT IS CHECKED AS A RESULT OF THIS HALF-ASSED POLICY AT HEATHROW.
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist the proper use of "half-assed" where it really belongs, and it is not on us.)
(4) Have you ever watched through the window, as the baggage handlers THROW suitcases onto the planes? Have you ever read the complaints, covered in major newspapers, of the increasing scale of thefts from checked luggage by TSA inspectors? Pro photographers who are concerned about theft and damage carry on camera gear, such as single camera bodies that can easily be worth $4,000 to $8,000. Only a fool would check a laptop that is vital for such photography and can easily be broken or stolen as checked luggage.
(5) One poster has frequently invoked the threat of terrorism, but he did not state that he is employed with any agency related to national security. He has as much claim to expertise on terrorism as any of us. And it defies all logic that it is more dangerous to have two smaller carry-ons, such as a small photo backpack and a briefcase, as one huge carry-on of maximum size. Any threat can be as easily carried in one huge think tank backpack as in two smaller carry-ons. So stop waving the the flag and wrapping yourself in patriotism and terrorism, unless you have clear expertise to tell all of us why common sense should not prevail.
(6) Finally, the tourist industry in Britain, fortunately, recognizes that is damaging the flow of tourists to the UK. An executive for one of Britain's top hotel chains sent me an email, and said that "as someone who flies out from the UK very regularly, I can only say I completely agree the policy is inconvenient, unnecessary and out of line with most other countries. We are told it is to allow thorough checks of hand baggage without introducing delays. But I can't say I find Heathrow any more thorough or more quick as a result. Furthermore, I agree that the rule becomes completely ridiculous when it comes to people changing flights in the UK and having to to put their second piece of carry-on luggage in the hold when they change planes. I know our trade association has been lobbying on this issue and I will check if there is any more we can do."
When it really impacts their bottom line, then they will scream even louder, and that is probably the only thing that will cause the petty bureaucrats in Britain to change the policy. I work in govt relations, and can testify that if you want to change a policy, you need to hit the incomes of those who have real clout -- you need them to complain and force a change in policy.
(7) The fact of the matter is that this is only happening at Heathrow. It is apparently a policy applied by the British govt for all UK airports, but the others have the common sense to ignore it. Again, according to the same hotel exec, as well as postings on other sites.
(8) Ditto with other EU airports. This may be a EU policy, but based on the postings on this site, and reports from other business travelers, all other EU airports ignore the policy. Only the cops at Heathrow are enforcing this.
-
(7) The fact of the matter is that this is only happening at Heathrow. It is apparently a policy applied by the British govt for all UK airports, but the others have the common sense to ignore it. Again, according to the same hotel exec, as well as postings on other sites.
(8) Ditto with other EU airports. This may be a EU policy, but based on the postings on this site, and reports from other business travelers, all other EU airports ignore the policy. Only the cops at Heathrow are enforcing this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To some extent I sympathise with your other points - your airline shold have alerted you to the UK carry-on regulations.
But here you are dead wrong - these regulations are enforced at all UK airports.
For what it's worth, I avoid Heathrow like the plague, but that's nothing to do with carry-on restrictions :-)
-
marty m
You are quite correct in your evaluation of the UK. And that is from a UK citizen.
I have flown from London Gatwick, London Stanstead in the past year. I have also flown from London Heathrow previously.
My wife who holds a foreign passport and has the necessary visas and documentation to enter the UK, always had a bad time with the rude immigration officials at Heathrow – who are a national disgrace – if I visited another country and I was treated like that, I would not choose to return – we did get a “lip service” apology from a supervisor, when I complained.
Also it’s a horrid place! So now we always use LGW for the long-haul flights between our respective countries.
Anyway,
You must have seen the bins/receptacles to place your cabin baggage into for the limitations. I saw one man stopped from leaving (LGW) as his bag was oversize – so would not fit in. His protests that he had brought the bag INTO the country but couldn’t take it out fell on deaf ears - this is ALL conducted by BAA inspectors – those people are disgraceful too, not the police – though some of those are as well.
I had one holdall with 3 bags in it! –it weighed way over the 7kg limit! – Not taking chances - I had friends waiting by, that could take some things away, if need be.
Another stupid carry on policy is liquids.
You are not allowed over 100ml of liquid – in case you make a bomb! But not all terrorists work alone! – do the mathematics!
Anyhow, I was stopped from progressing as I had a “toiletries bag”. So I had to return to the entrance to get a plastic bag to put the offending items in, for them to be inspected – but they were just x-rayed and that was it.
I kept the shaving foam though - kikashi
A bottle of soft drink is .75p outside the airport – inside its 1.35p. Before someone counters with this is due to rents, etc. – The cost of magazines and papers is the cover price as well it seems is everything else.
There are “departure taxes” - £44 for economy class and £80 for business class passengers and even more for 1st class I expect – which goes to the government – which helps pays for the added police/security.
I have no wish to start a political argument either, and apologise to those I offend – but this is FACT.
Both Heathrow (Southall) and Gatwick (Crawley) have large Asian communities – this is because the local Authorities there, had to house refugees when they landed in the 70s. (The same way as Dover has east Europeans now)
It would be very easy for ANY sympathetic ground staff working there, or for those that work in the allied trades to assist in terrorism – are they so vigorously inspected?
This should not be read as a racist slur either, IT IS FACT.
It will not be long before a national newspaper reporter, gains access unchallenged
If you transfer flights in Dubai things can be worse – long waits in disorderly queues, then shoes, jackets and belts off with numerous trips through a scanner. Laptops booted to bios screen.
On entering the UAE, you have to have an eye scan, to check (collect) your ID on a database.
MarkDS, summed things up remarkably well in his Jun 11 2007, 10:28 PM. post
– Hidden charges.
My last flights have been;
Ryanair
July 06 – LST (London) to RDZ (Rodez France) / 15kg + 10kg Excess charge GBP5.50kilo
(It took me over 1hr to get through the departure hall! So it was no surprise that some baggage was off loaded for late passengers – with no refund of their flight cost).
Easyjet
July 06 – CDG3(Paris) to LTN (London) / – 20KG and no limitation on cabin luggage (within reason)
Emirates
Aug 06– LGW to BKK via DBX / Emirates – 30k and 12kg (I had silver award card then. - the scare, which has made things worse was a few days later)
Bangkok airlines
June 07 –THS to BKK / Bangkok airlines – 20kg + 7kg + onboard meal
Emirates
June 07 – BKK to LGW via DBX / Emirates – 20kg + 7kg
July 07 - LGW to BKK via DBX / Emirates – 20kg + 7kg
Ryanair used to weigh hand luggage too (do they still?), No other airline I have been on, does that.
At the same time they surcharge for anything and everything to make up for low-cost ticketing.
When in the UK I went to the Emirates airline office in London – as I wanted to exceed my allocated allowance on the return trip. I didn’t want to pay an extortionate rate at the airport, either.
I am glad I did as the charge was £35 a kilo! My return ticket was only £550 with a 20kg allowance – so work that out.
BUT - I can take a set of golf clubs with a pair of golf shoes.
Also 10kgs of scuba diving equipment may be carried free.
Emirates lost my luggage – (as the flight was re-numbered), when it did arrive - 3
NOTICE OF BAGGAGE LIABILITY LIMITATIONS
For most international travel (including domestic portions of international journeys) liability for loss, delay, or damage to baggage is limited by the Warsaw Convention or the Montreal Convention. Where the Warsaw Convention applies, liability is limited to approximately US$9.07 per pound (US$20.00 per kilo) for checked baggage and US$400.00 per passenger for unchecked baggage unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid.Where the Montreal Convention applies, such liability is limited to a maximum of approximately US$1,375 per passenger for checked and unchecked baggage unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid. For travel wholly between U.S. points, Federal rules require any limit on an airline's baggage liability to be at least US$2,500 per passenger where the Warsaw Convention is not applicable. Excess valuation may not be declared on certain types of valuable articles. Carriers assume no liability for fragile, valuable or perishable articles. Further information may be obtained from the carrier.
They gave me US$50 for 3 days in Bangkok – for clothes and sundries (luckily I live there).
I am now having to deal with them for the broken case.
A very unexpectedly informative travel site is the Samsonite travel page. http://samsonite.com/content/en/travelcent...Z142JUNB5H04WHI (http://samsonite.com/content/en/travelcenter/travelcenter.jsp;jsessionid=2PIVKSJRZ142JUNB5H04WHI)
Flying will always be a necessary evil.
I see the day where it will all be checked luggage, where sniffer dogs and machines will check for explosives and drugs. Gamma ray, back scanning technology will document and retain images of the contents of every case and bag.
As a “free” UK citizen, I expect I was under “observation” from the moment the vehicle I travelled to the airport in, passed the first CCTV camera, till I boarded the plane.
-
marty m
You are quite correct in your evaluation of the UK. And that is from a UK citizen.
I have flown from London Gatwick, London Stanstead in the past year. I have also flown from London Heathrow previously.
My wife who holds a foreign passport and has the necessary visas and documentation to enter the UK, always had a bad time with the rude immigration officials at Heathrow – who are a national disgrace – if I visited another country and I was treated like that, I would not choose to return – we did get a “lip service” apology from a supervisor, when I complained.
Also it’s a horrid place! So now we always use LGW for the long-haul flights between our respective countries.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree that LHR is awful - I think it is the worst airport I have used - and that includes Mumbai :-)
But the worst immigration officials are without a doubt the ones in the US. They are the rudest, most unhelpful peoplpe on the planet. I have never entered the US without one of them being insulting in some way.
By the way - recently I flew from Providenciales, Turks and Caicos, and they were even X-raying peoples' flip-flops!!
-
But the worst immigration officials are without a doubt the ones in the US. They are the rudest, most unhelpful peoplpe on the planet. I have never entered the US without one of them being insulting in some way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd go for the British. And it is nothing new. The British "petty official" / "Little Hitler" is part of the culture. Always has been. The US are a close second, but at least they've got some justification for being arrogant pricks.
-
It's a shame that you forgot to comment about the pain in the ass that going through an american airport is for any person other than americans and canadians. I can assure you that it's a lot worse than for you to go through an UK airport or any other airport for that matter.
And honestly, all your message goes against what you said on your first one. You keep saying that your airline didn't let you know (and that's not Heathrow fault's for sure) and that you didn't check previously on United site. You also say that nobody checks. Well, I do.
Again...you may feel that the rule is stupid and it's your right. But you can't say that it's a secret rule as you say on your first post.
Since I was the original poster, I'd like to respond to some of my critics:
(1) One referred to these comments as "half-assed" and said that there is no excuse for not being informed about Heathrow. In my case I was scheduled to fly to Frankfurt, originating on United out of Dulles. The lines were so long that business class travelers who arrived a full two hours early missed flights. United then changed my flight to go through Heathrow. United clearly saw that I had two carry-ons and didn't warn me. Unfortunately, because I am "half-assed," I didn't think about using my lap top while at the ticket counter, and connect to the internet to check Heathrow's policies, and not depart the United check-in counter until I knew for certain that two carry-ons were OK. (Because it was at that point that I needed to check my laptop and briefcase to avoid the hassle in Heathrow of having to check my second carry-on.)
But I am half-assed and gullible, so I assumed that Heathrow was no different from any other major airport. Silly me.
Ironically, now that I have checked the United web site, it does have a warning about Heathrow and London, but I was not warned by United, and had no way to check it -- not when I was suddenly changed to that flight and told I had 25 minutes to get to the boarding gate.
I don't know if all airlines now include a warning about Heathrow or not. United does. But it is just plain silly to suggest that travelers should be checking the web sites for both airlines AND airports. No one does that, nor should they be expected to do so.
Even if all airlines now post the info on Heathrow, it is clear that the news is not being clearly conveyed, judging by the results I saw as noted in #2 below.
Since Heathrow is so different from every other airport, the airlines also have a proactive obligation to warn passengers when booking flights. It wouldn't be that tough for United to include a "flag" in their reservation system for all agents to be told to warn passengers who are flying through Heathrow about this policy. That is clearly not happening.
Finally, since Heathrow is the single airport that is doing this, as noted in #7 and #8 below, it is still entirely valid to argue that if you must use two carry-ons, you must avoid Heathrow at all costs. And it is equally valid to argue that there are other airports, and other countries to visit, than Heathrow and the UK.
(2) The poster who described the small-minded British bureaucrats got it exactly right. I witnessed this policy applied against 15 or 20 people in less than ten minutes. And that is repeated dozens of times each hour, hour after hour, at Heathrow. The Heathrow fascist cops applied that policy to 80 year old women. I watched them do it. They even took away a cane from one old lady in front of me, and did not offer to get her a wheel chair, until the passengers surrounding her loudly complained in her behalf.
None of these passengers had any reason to be prepared for this, since they were ALLOWED to have two carry-ons on their ORIGINATING flights at other major airports on giant airlines. Regardless of what is or is not on the web sites of those airlines, they are allowing passengers to board flights that connect through Heathrow, and watch them walk on with two carry-ons. The passengers have no idea what is waiting for them in Heathrow with the zealous cops in that airport.
(3) As for liability, I believe that almost all airlines specifically waive ALL liability for photographic equipment. So we are expected to check camera equipment with no protection at all. Here is what is on the United web site:
"United is not liable for damage to fragile items, spoilage of perishables, loss/damage/delay of money, jewelry, cameras, electronic/video/photographic equipment, computer equipment. . . ."
So even if United is nice enough to warn us about Heathrow, they are turning around and telling us that if we check anything as a result of the Heathrow policy, we assume 100% of the risk. It would be more accurate for them to post a policy that says this:
WARNING!!! ONLY ONE CARRY-ONE ALLOWED AT HEATHROW. UNITED ASSUMES ABSOLUTELY NO LIABILITY FOR ANY CAMERA, PHOTOGRAPHIC OR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT THAT IS CHECKED AS A RESULT OF THIS HALF-ASSED POLICY AT HEATHROW.
(Sorry, I just couldn't resist the proper use of "half-assed" where it really belongs, and it is not on us.)
(4) Have you ever watched through the window, as the baggage handlers THROW suitcases onto the planes? Have you ever read the complaints, covered in major newspapers, of the increasing scale of thefts from checked luggage by TSA inspectors? Pro photographers who are concerned about theft and damage carry on camera gear, such as single camera bodies that can easily be worth $4,000 to $8,000. Only a fool would check a laptop that is vital for such photography and can easily be broken or stolen as checked luggage.
(5) One poster has frequently invoked the threat of terrorism, but he did not state that he is employed with any agency related to national security. He has as much claim to expertise on terrorism as any of us. And it defies all logic that it is more dangerous to have two smaller carry-ons, such as a small photo backpack and a briefcase, as one huge carry-on of maximum size. Any threat can be as easily carried in one huge think tank backpack as in two smaller carry-ons. So stop waving the the flag and wrapping yourself in patriotism and terrorism, unless you have clear expertise to tell all of us why common sense should not prevail.
(6) Finally, the tourist industry in Britain, fortunately, recognizes that is damaging the flow of tourists to the UK. An executive for one of Britain's top hotel chains sent me an email, and said that "as someone who flies out from the UK very regularly, I can only say I completely agree the policy is inconvenient, unnecessary and out of line with most other countries. We are told it is to allow thorough checks of hand baggage without introducing delays. But I can't say I find Heathrow any more thorough or more quick as a result. Furthermore, I agree that the rule becomes completely ridiculous when it comes to people changing flights in the UK and having to to put their second piece of carry-on luggage in the hold when they change planes. I know our trade association has been lobbying on this issue and I will check if there is any more we can do."
When it really impacts their bottom line, then they will scream even louder, and that is probably the only thing that will cause the petty bureaucrats in Britain to change the policy. I work in govt relations, and can testify that if you want to change a policy, you need to hit the incomes of those who have real clout -- you need them to complain and force a change in policy.
(7) The fact of the matter is that this is only happening at Heathrow. It is apparently a policy applied by the British govt for all UK airports, but the others have the common sense to ignore it. Again, according to the same hotel exec, as well as postings on other sites.
(8) Ditto with other EU airports. This may be a EU policy, but based on the postings on this site, and reports from other business travelers, all other EU airports ignore the policy. Only the cops at Heathrow are enforcing this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
And honestly, all your message goes against what you said on your first one. You keep saying that your airline didn't let you know (and that's not Heathrow fault's for sure) and that you didn't check previously on United site. You also say that nobody checks. Well, I do.
Again...you may feel that the rule is stupid and it's your right. But you can't say that it's a secret rule as you say on your first post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mauricio, Marty got caught-up in a situation he described very clearly which I think would have foxed any one. Recall, he wasn't even flying to Britain - he was going to Frankfurt and got switched at the last minute. You don;t expect someone who thinks they are going to Frankfurt to be all boned-up on the rules at Heathrow. Let's get reasonable here.
Reverting to the primary function of this website - photography - the up-shot of this whole discussion is that situation under the control of BAA is unacceptable to a whole class of travelers moving around with sensitive equipment and other needs that can't be accommodated safely within the existing rules. This group is going to have to lodge a lot of loud noise with BAA, the UK travel industry and relevant Government departments to get this turned around, to the extent of allowing more flexible arrangements targeted at these reasonable needs. This group of people is a niche market whose absence from the skies over Britain frankly will not likely shake either BAA, BA or the British economy. Put otherwise, I don't think this niche has enough economic clout relative to the huge numbers of ordinary travelers who want or need to go to the UK and can accommodate to the policy, inane as it may be to many of us.
Posting material of this kind on the web is one useful form of pressure for advancing the interests of the photographer community, but other more direct approaches to the concerned authorities will be needed to turn this around - if it can be - the pressures of commerce and security are powerful indeed.
-
Flying out of the UK has become a lot more tiresome. I'm already bracing myself to go on vacation to the USA with wife and three kids in August - we'll have the pleasure of all the rigmarole leaving the Uk then the joys of standing in line at US immigration.
Last time I went through JFK I had a 1 hour 15 minute shuffle in line to get through immigration. As the grumpy officer gave me back my passport he said: "spend some money while you're here."
-
I regularly travel with a Lowepro Minitrekker, where I carry my EOS 1V, 24-70L, and 70-200 f/4L zooms, plus flash and filters. Never had a problem. Perhaps using film is not that bad?
Anyway, if your backpack is overweight, just carry the camera over your shoulder. A photo vest is also handy, since if you carry the stuff in you, they can not do anything.
-
I am a Brit and I flew out of Gatwick to Corsica a few weeks back. Took my lowepro min-tekker without issue. But as said many times in this thread - the one carry on rule still applies (inluding at Corsica coming back). This IS a Europe wide rule and more airports are taking it on (not that I agree with it though!!)
Also Spain is likely to become even more of a headache as they now want personal details sent through of each passenger on the aircraft before they will let them through (including other EU nations) as from next month.
As for the US....
The biggest problem is without a doubt imigration - you are treated like criminals - talked down to by quite rude unhelpful staff and it takes a proposterous time to get through.
To be honest I think its all gone a bit mad the World over. Some addtional measure were necessary after 9/11 but some of the ones that are now in place serve no purpose other than to cuase maximum dissruption to the passenger.
Unfortunaley I don't see things getting better.....
-
Oh dear, its all getting a bit out of hand!
Let's see, ...I will start with my own experiences. Ridiculously stressful check-in in LHR last November flying to China. Virgin wanted to charge me £37.00/KG for being overweight on hold luggage which would have worked out at about £350.00. After a lot of hard negotiating, we got this down to £79.00. Then there were two (yes two) lines of security staff to get through. The first line let me through after I told them that I was a professional photographer and I needed to carry two bags, but the second lot just would not let me through with two bags. In the end, with pockets bulging and one bag bursting apart at the seams we got through to the scanners where we waited and waited and waited in line (the scanner at the head of our queue had broken). After the shoe removal farce, we made the flight with just twenty minutes to spare.
OK, now the sense of proportion.....modern travel is generally a PITA. On the plus side, flights are cheap and we are all travelling far more than before. Even if the internet had existed thirty years ago, I doubt that there would have been enough people to contribute to this discussion. Also, I am concerned at all the nationalistic and even slightly racist comments that seem to be creeping in here. Paris CDG is poorly organised, Havana Cuba makes you wait in lines for ages for immigration, Orlando Florida feels like a mad merry go-round and some department of agriculture insists on scanning your hold baggage again (why???). In LA, some official deprived me of the little spanner for my Gitzo tripod (a friend and I had a good laugh trying to figure out how we could have used it to dismantle the plane). Delhi India is like a huge cattle market where the baggage handlers go on strike and if you fly Indian airways you better make sure you check-in at least four hours before, because they will bump you. Anyway, get the picture?
So, practical solutions:
1/ Carry on only one bag to the stated dimensions. Generally, you will get away with the weight, but it may be worth getting the policy of the airline before you begin.
2/ If your equipment will not fit in the one bag and you do not want to check it, put it inside your clothing, i.e. wear cargo pants and on your top half wear clothing with lots of large pockets. I did try a jacket from Domke, but it was hideous and in the end I opted for the much cheaper option of a jacket from an ordinary clothes shop with lots of pockets in it.
3/ Try to stay calm and relaxed. I am one of those fools who never worried about film and x-rays and I often check my laptop (always my tripod) into the hold. So far so good, but as somebody has said, 'sh1t happens'.
-
3/ Try to stay calm and relaxed. I am one of those fools who never worried about film and x-rays and I often check my laptop (always my tripod) into the hold. So far so good, but as somebody has said, 'sh1t happens'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Calm and and relaxed - that is good advice - but as you say "shit happen" - after several times checking a laptop successfully, the last time I ever did that when I took it out of the suitacase and opened it up the screen was cracked in a nice spider-web pattern. So much for that laptop. Fortunately it was on the trip home.
Many airports in this world are dreadful, and more so than some of the ones that have been highlighted in this discussion. That doesn't make the latter any less obnoxious than they are, nor does it excuse the situation in countries with the resources and knowledge to get it right.
It is fine to be complacent about the workability of the current European rules - sure, there are always more and more cumbersome workarounds to more and more ridiculous regulations, and if we simply resign ourselves to be manipulated by these bureaucrats we will be manipulated - more and more. When something is foolish and inconvenient, unless people stand-up and say so, no effort will be devoted to achieving the same objectives in a more intelligent and sensitive manner.
-
Lots of interesting stuff.
At LHR the folks at the xray machines do a good job, but its the 17year olds in New Hi Vis jackets, screaming their heads off about "liquids" as if they are in a market place that is just poor. I feel like a poor sheep being herded through.
The problem with security is that the security people we meet ARE NOT ALLOWED any discretion, and because everything needs to be kept very simple the rules are therefore very broad, and not flexible.
It is amazing that a musician can carry their instrument with them, but I cannot carry too much camera gear!
Most security staff are pleasant and reasonable, the states can be a bit tiresome!
Oh well, through LHR Term 3 tomorrow with my bulging Tamrac Wheelie flight bag!!! Wish me luck as I make my way home to Nova Scotia!
-
Mark,
Why would anybody 'enjoy these limitations'? Where have I encouraged complacency? Why would I be happy with being ruled by petty bureaucrats?
Until the rules get changed (and I do not think long-winded replies on this forum are going to fix things overnight) I suggest (that is all) practical solutions. Perhaps you have John Rambo up your sleeve?
-
It is amazing that a musician can carry their instrument with them, but I cannot carry too much camera gear!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Modify a hard guitar case to hold you equipment and tell them that yes, it is your instrument which can create harmonious images and visual symphonies.
-
Mark,
Why would anybody 'enjoy these limitations'? Where have I encouraged complacency? Why would I be happy with being ruled by petty bureaucrats?
Until the rules get changed (and I do not think long-winded replies on this forum are going to fix things overnight) I suggest (that is all) practical solutions. Perhaps you have John Rambo up your sleeve?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your post read as if we should make-do with workarounds. Yes, we need to do that for the time being, but we should also be pro-active in trying to get a lousy situation improved. And you're right - long-winded essays in this forum won't BY THEMSELVES achieve anything; however things change as a result of ideas being generated, and voices being heard in the right places. No Rambos - I just think traveling photographers need to make their needs and interests known in places where we may be heard, so hashing out the issues and ideas in a forum like this is a good place to start.
-
Since I was the original poster, I'd like to respond to some of my critics:
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I travel due to my job. And every time I do I check the airport and airline regulations. I don't like to be surprised. European carriers are particularly picky about luggage restrictions. Some let you carry as much weight as you want, while others enforce its weight to the gram.
I had passed 3 times through UK airports since the 1 bag regulations took place.
It is really your responsibility to know and follow the rules, not the airlines, nor the airports. Many people travel with huge bags. I saw several being taken out of the line and force to check them. I don't sympathize with them. One woman was hysterical (and amusing) because she was worried she might lose her flight because she had to check in her bag.
And it is also your choice not to fly through UK airports, but sometimes that is not easy.
dmg
-
I travel due to my job. And every time I do I check the airport and airline regulations. I don't like to be surprised. European carriers are particularly picky about luggage restrictions. Some let you carry as much weight as you want, while others enforce its weight to the gram.
I had passed 3 times through UK airports since the 1 bag regulations took place.
It is really your responsibility to know and follow the rules, not the airlines, nor the airports. Many people travel with huge bags. I saw several being taken out of the line and force to check them. I don't sympathize with them. One woman was hysterical (and amusing) because she was worried she might lose her flight because she had to check in her bag.
And it is also your choice not to fly through UK airports, but sometimes that is not easy.
dmg
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
dmg, did you read the initial conditions and situation Marty described? If you did, and you understood what he told us, I don't think you would be lecturing him about reading rules, and telling him about choices he didn't have at the time the incident happened. He was going to Frankfurt and got diverted to London when he reached the ticket counter to check-in.
Beyond his individual situation, there is a big general problem about rules that are (A) of questionable value except to the commercial interests of the people who motivated them and ( inconsistently specified and applied across the continent. It is making traveling, especially for people with gear, a living night-mare, and the ultimate solution is not to just sit back like a bunch of sheep reading all the fine print before we go to the airport - though until the traveling public exercises enough pressure on British and EU politicians to get it changed, fore-warned is fore-armed - that much I'll concede.
-
For those of you who claim to have read the OP's messages as well as MarkDS's comments, and who still say "you should read the rules before you travel", I have one question:
Do you all read and seriously consider all of the details in all of the shrinkwrap EULAs on all of the software you buy?
In the case of the OP's situation, the only way he could have been covered by the "you should read the rules before you travel" notion is to have read the rules for every airline and airport in the world before buying a ticket. After all, you never know how you might get rerouted.
-
My complaint about Heathrow was that this was the first time I'd ever run into baggage policies set by the airport, not the airlines. I had studiously researched the rules for each airline I was flying, but was unaware that airports could set their own additional rules too, and my airlines didn't tell me about it. I've travelled plenty, and this is the first time I've seen airports with their own policies, beyond those of the airlines. That's why I was unpleasantly surprised.
I'm not entirely blaming Heathrow. More blame goes to the airlines flying through there that don't inform their passengers about Heathrow policies.
Lisa
-
If you get a carnet, you can take two carry-on. Just present the carnet to security and they'll allow you to go through with your carry-on. Me and 2 assistants took 7 cases on the plane just one week ago.
-
If you get a carnet, you can take two carry-on. Just present the carnet to security and they'll allow you to go through with your carry-on. Me and 2 assistants took 7 cases on the plane just one week ago.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What is a "carnet" and who issues it?
-
What is a "carnet" and who issues it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125305\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can get it through the customs office at most airports. It's supposed to be used so that you don't have to pay any duties on your own equipment that you bring in and out of each country. You list all your gear and their serial numbers on it. When you leave the US, customs stamps it, signs it, etc. Each time you go in and out of a country they stamp it, etc.
But it seems to be the magic wand at just about every airport. Just as anyone is about to give you any trouble with anything, you tell them you are a traveling photographer with sensitive equipment, say the word "carnet" and whip out your official US customs document. Most counter people and just about all the security and customs officers in every country know what it is. They usually open it, glance at it really quick and let you go on your merry way. In Heathrow, they even escorted us to the front of the security check line so we wouldn't have to stand around with all our cases.
They take some to get and we usually use a customs broker to get ours a week or two before we need it--so don't just show up before your flight and ask for a carnet. They last a year and then have to be returned.
-
This is good to know about. I'll have to check whether Canada Customs issues them as well.
-
I got curious, because I had never heard of a "carnet"; so I googled "carnet" and came up with a website (Corporation for International Business (http://www.atacarnet.com)) that has lots of information about carnets and how to get them and use them. It seems to cost about $200 (U.S.) for a carnet covering less than $10,000 of equipment which you are certain to take out of any country you enter within a year.
I couldn't find anything on this website about using more than one carry-on, however.
-
This is good to know about. I'll have to check whether Canada Customs issues them as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canda customs has a green card which is pretty much the same thing. You need to take your equipment to the customs canada office at any airport, they record the serial number of each item and wil stamp the card.
Note that before my last trip to the USA, the customs guy (who looked like an over-zelous) summer student, wanted to see receipts that proved i bought my gear in canada before he issued the card.
-
Just back in Canada from a trip Toronto to Denver and back. I only fly with carry-on (two bags) and on each of the four inspections, one or more different items were questioned and looked at and only one questionable item was looked at twice.
Lines were long and slow. People were polite.
But do they really know what they are looking for?
In Canada I use the train whenever possible or drive.
Dave S
-
I got curious, because I had never heard of a "carnet"; so I googled "carnet" and came up with a website (Corporation for International Business (http://www.atacarnet.com)) that has lots of information about carnets and how to get them and use them. It seems to cost about $200 (U.S.) for a carnet covering less than $10,000 of equipment which you are certain to take out of any country you enter within a year.
I couldn't find anything on this website about using more than one carry-on, however.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, it has nothing to do with carry-on allowances. My point was that with a carnet they let you do just about anything you want from the ticket counter to the jetway.
-
As an almost daily traveller my observations of airports worldwide, but particularly those in the UK, is that they're overwhelmed due to their insistance on being more motivated to be shopping malls than efficient transit locations.
As mentioned previously, the BAA in the UK and TSA in the US introduced the liquids rules and small clear bags as a scheme to make screening practical due to the very poor infrastructure and staffing. It's got very little to do with the terror threat itself. Ditto with the single bag rule, over zealously implemented through Heathrow.
The single bag/weight rules are inconsistent. I've never had a problem with United carrying a heavy photo roll-on in/out the UK although with Lufthansa I've been forced to weigh a bag and had to remove and hand carry body/lens for the case to get from the check-in. The joke is of course that even after telling the staff that you're just going to put it all back on the other side of security they still insist on the charade.
The other farce is leaving the UK with 2 small bags where they'll allow you to combine them in a large carry-on plastic sack, barely holdable, yet they'll watch you ditch the bag once through the x-ray. I understand the psychology of appearing to be consistent for everyone (single 'bag') but it really is dumb and could be handled better.
Heck, if the BAA were to give over some of their precious retail space for more screening area and staff, I'd be prepared to pay extra for a premium bag check line where I could carry through a laptop bag and camera bag with extended security checking and a dedicated slower line. I'd willingly accept a longer wait if necessary. However, since security isn't their real goal, just a non-revenue necessity, this isn't likely to happen soon.
I read with interest the posts about rudeness of immigration staff around the world, particularly the US. I find this strange and not my experience at all; I'm a Brit based in the US so I get to stand in the same long 'foreigner' lines as everyone else plus get the photo/fingerprint treatment in/out of the US everytime too. If you're professional, courteous and respectful you'll be treated likewise. Make sure you're docs are complete before you reach the counter and the immigration folks will be just as keen to get you through as quickly as possible with minimal hassle as you will be. If you're the 100th person who hasn't filled out the forms properly that day then don't be surprised if they'll seem abrupt with you.
-
if we simply resign ourselves to be manipulated by these bureaucrats we will be manipulated - more and more. When something is foolish and inconvenient, unless people stand-up and say so, no effort will be devoted to achieving the same objectives in a more intelligent and sensitive manner.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I completely agree with Mark. When this thread started, I sent the address for this thread to various tourism bureaus in the UK as well as Heathrow Airport. (Heathrow could, of course, care less. If less people fly through their airport it just makes their job easier.)
If, only if, tourism to the UK is impacted, even slightly, will enough pressure be brought to bear by the British tourism industry to changes these rules.
As I previously posted, an executive for a very expensive UK hotel chain already sent me an email where he completely agreed with the points I was making, and said that their trade association opposed these rules and would continue to lobby against them.
The fact of the matter is that the one carry-on rule is only being enforced in the UK and specifically and most zealously at Heathrow.
So, if you must travel with two carry-ons (photo equipment in one a laptop in a second) you should consider not flying to the UK; or through Heathrow; or through British Airways if it can be avoided.
And as I previously posted, airlines waive ALL liability for photo equipment that is checked. So what United is telling you, as I posted above, is that you can only take one carry-on through Heathrow, and you must check the rest of your equipment, we assume ZERO liability for.
-
Marty - yes, but I think I wouldn't give up entirely on pressuring BAA-Heathrow admin. These airports are being run as commercial enterprises and they want volume and growth of volume. The more people who pass through, the more the shopping, eating and drinking and the higher the concession and landing fees they can charge. I think they would be very sensitive to a drop in passenger volume. But there is no motivation for this concern unless they see an imminent likelihood of it happening.
-
I went through this nonsense on a trip this past Thanksgiving, we flew in from JFK on American and on the return trip we were hit with this at the AA checkin counter. Fortunately we were able to consolidate my wife's purse into her one allowed carryon, and all went smoothly after that. But wait..there's more as the saying goes, check this link for the UK's next "brainstorm"
http://crankyflier.com/page/2/ (http://crankyflier.com/page/2/)
-
Thanks to Kevin Gallagher for bringing this report from The Cranky Flier to our attention. No bags allowed! But it took quite a bit of searching through the blog to find it, so I have pasted the text below.
Bottom line -- the UK government sucks. They must be determined to completely wipe out tourism to their country. How else can these type of moronic plans be explained? The British govt is setting new standards for empty-headed thinking just based on the fact that they are giving the this plan serious consideration. I've seen lots of absurd and ridiculous actions by petty minded and dumb bureaucrats in the U.S., but this sets a new standard for mind-numbing stupidity.
From the Cranky Flier, with a link to a British press report:
***********************
No Bags Allowed
Ah, the UK. A great place to visit but a nightmare for airlines. The government just can’t keep its hands off the industry. In the last year, we’ve seen an expensive new green tax, a strict one-bag carry on limit, and now the possibility of no checked bags at all.
What?
Yep, I saw this article talking about the UK’s latest scheme to eliminate luggage from airports entirely, and sadly I was hardly surprised.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=461395&in_page_id=1770)
The plan would involve requiring people to ship their luggage before they travel. This would create a utopian airport with no checked bags and tons of happy people.
Yeah, right.
Where to start . . . how about the cost to the customer? There are some people that already offer this service. Luggage Express, for example, is planning to offer their “cost effective” solution. That’ll run you $70 per bag with a minimum of $85 per pickup. (Um, shouldn’t it just be $140 minimum, then?) The original article mentions First Luggage in the UK with rates starting at GBP49 (yes, that’s just about US$100). With economies of scale achieved from requiring everyone to ship their bags, they say it can be reduced to GBP20 (double that to make it US$40).
Now I’m sure there’s a market for $40 (at best) per bag service, but I’m not it. And I imagine there are a ton of others who aren’t either. So if you make me ship my bag ahead, I’m not going to be happy.
Then there are the logistics to this thing. Save the environment? Not with a huge fleet of delivery trucks clogging up the roads. And how early will they need to pick your bag up in order to have it at your destination? You may not be able to rely on last minute packing anymore.
Supporters say that airplanes not having to take on luggage would reduce the weight of the plane and therefore reduce the cost to fly for you. That could, according to the article, reduce the ticket price by GBP30 (US$60). I think we all know that’s not going to happen. Those savings won’t be passed on to consumers, so it’s not worth crossing your fingers.
Ultimately, the airlines need to decide how baggage should be handled, not the government. Many airlines have started to charge for baggage, and that’s fine with me. For a nominal $5 or $10 fee, I don’t mind. But if you’re going to require that I spend $40 just to bring a bag, it will be one more thing to push me away from flying, especially on a shorter flight where driving or taking a train is an option.
-
The salient point here is that you're linking to an article in the Daily Mail. Their usual front page relates the shocking story of black lesbian welfare recipients stealing our babies. In other words, this particular "news paper" is a comic. If you can find the same information on a more reliable source then you should give it credence. Otherwise, it is strictly bottom-wiping material.
c
Thanks to Kevin Gallagher for bringing this report from The Cranky Flier to our attention. No bags allowed! But it took quite a bit of searching through the blog to find it, so I have pasted the text below.
Bottom line -- the UK government sucks. They must be determined to completely wipe out tourism to their country. How else can these type of moronic plans be explained? The British govt is setting new standards for empty-headed thinking just based on the fact that they are giving the this plan serious consideration. I've seen lots of absurd and ridiculous actions by petty minded and dumb bureaucrats in the U.S., but this sets a new standard for mind-numbing stupidity.
From the Cranky Flier, with a link to a British press report:
***********************
No Bags Allowed
Ah, the UK. A great place to visit but a nightmare for airlines. The government just can’t keep its hands off the industry. In the last year, we’ve seen an expensive new green tax, a strict one-bag carry on limit, and now the possibility of no checked bags at all.
What?
Yep, I saw this article talking about the UK’s latest scheme to eliminate luggage from airports entirely, and sadly I was hardly surprised.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=461395&in_page_id=1770)
The plan would involve requiring people to ship their luggage before they travel. This would create a utopian airport with no checked bags and tons of happy people.
Yeah, right.
Where to start . . . how about the cost to the customer? There are some people that already offer this service. Luggage Express, for example, is planning to offer their “cost effective” solution. That’ll run you $70 per bag with a minimum of $85 per pickup. (Um, shouldn’t it just be $140 minimum, then?) The original article mentions First Luggage in the UK with rates starting at GBP49 (yes, that’s just about US$100). With economies of scale achieved from requiring everyone to ship their bags, they say it can be reduced to GBP20 (double that to make it US$40).
Now I’m sure there’s a market for $40 (at best) per bag service, but I’m not it. And I imagine there are a ton of others who aren’t either. So if you make me ship my bag ahead, I’m not going to be happy.
Then there are the logistics to this thing. Save the environment? Not with a huge fleet of delivery trucks clogging up the roads. And how early will they need to pick your bag up in order to have it at your destination? You may not be able to rely on last minute packing anymore.
Supporters say that airplanes not having to take on luggage would reduce the weight of the plane and therefore reduce the cost to fly for you. That could, according to the article, reduce the ticket price by GBP30 (US$60). I think we all know that’s not going to happen. Those savings won’t be passed on to consumers, so it’s not worth crossing your fingers.
Ultimately, the airlines need to decide how baggage should be handled, not the government. Many airlines have started to charge for baggage, and that’s fine with me. For a nominal $5 or $10 fee, I don’t mind. But if you’re going to require that I spend $40 just to bring a bag, it will be one more thing to push me away from flying, especially on a shorter flight where driving or taking a train is an option.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142557\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
A couple of months ago I sent a very stiff statement of this whole situation to Willie Walsh, the CEO of British Airways, through the BA Executive Club (their frequent flier program). After considerable insistance on getting an answer, I received an important answer from BA Customer Relations replying on his behalf; it clarifies that we ARE allowed TWO pieces of hand-baggage, one of which is a laptop computer or a brief-case plus a regulation size carry-on. They also told me they have no control over the airport operator BAA, which decides on the allocation of space for duty-free shoping versus security staffing. (I argued that if there were less space for shopping and more for additional security agents, the queues would be much shorter and processing faster.) However, they expressed optimism that in Terminal 5 things will be better. That remains to be seen, of course. BAA makes money from renting shopping space and incurs costs for security, so the incentives are all there to screw the passengers at check-in. Anyhow, the clarity I obtained on the cabin baggage allowance is a definite improvement over "one piece only".
-
Either Mr Walsh was blowing smoke up your fundament, or he was misinformed, or the situation has changed. The airport operator, BAA, say "one piece of hand baggage" and they're the ones who get to decide, more's the pity.
Check out http://www.baa.co.uk/ (http://www.baa.co.uk/) and follow the link to Heathrow Airport and then "Prepare for checkin". Apparently you're allowed bring to pieces of cabin baggage so long as one of them, "a handbag" may be carried inside the other.
I'm sure flying was more elegant when Cary Grant did it on Shorts flying boats. Then again, he did it in black and white so perhaps its a toss-up.
c
A couple of months ago I sent a very stiff statement of this whole situation to Willie Walsh, the CEO of British Airways, through the BA Executive Club (their frequent flier program). After considerable insistance on getting an answer, I received an important answer from BA Customer Relations replying on his behalf; it clarifies that we ARE allowed TWO pieces of hand-baggage, one of which is a laptop computer or a brief-case plus a regulation size carry-on. They also told me they have no control over the airport operator BAA, which decides on the allocation of space for duty-free shoping versus security staffing. (I argued that if there were less space for shopping and more for additional security agents, the queues would be much shorter and processing faster.) However, they expressed optimism that in Terminal 5 things will be better. That remains to be seen, of course. BAA makes money from renting shopping space and incurs costs for security, so the incentives are all there to screw the passengers at check-in. Anyhow, the clarity I obtained on the cabin baggage allowance is a definite improvement over "one piece only".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Well, remains to be seen. If I ever need to fly through there again, I'll carry my letter from BA with me, and if they give me trouble I'll drag it out, then we'll see what happens next. The administration of that airport is so incompetent that many of their own staff probably don't know the rules.
-
Well, remains to be seen. If I ever need to fly through there again, I'll carry my letter from BA with me, and if they give me trouble I'll drag it out, then we'll see what happens next. The administration of that airport is so incompetent that many of their own staff probably don't know the rules.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=142738\")
As to the last sentence, you may well be right, although I've always suspected that the security staff just enjoy making life difficult and unpleasant for people who might be about to go somewhere nice that they themselves can't get to.
However, BA's current policy is pretty clear. From [a href=\"http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bagcabin/public/en_gb]their site[/url]:
Passengers departing from or transferring through the UK may only take ONE piece of Hand Baggage
Due to airport security restrictions currently in place in the UK, only ONE piece of Hand Baggage will be permitted when departing from or transferring through the UK.
We will continue to keep you informed of any changes to the security restrictions.
These allowances apply for all passengers entering the UK only:
one standard-sized bag - maximum size of the bag, 56x45x25cm (22x18x10in)
plus one laptop or briefcase
Personally, I think it's all a plot to bankrupt the British luggage manufacturing industry. You'll note that while you can bring two pieces into the country, you can only take one of them out again! Those left behind, of course, are auctioned off.
Jeremy
-
As to the last sentence, you may well be right, although I've always suspected that the security staff just enjoy making life difficult and unpleasant for people who might be about to go somewhere nice that they themselves can't get to.
However, BA's current policy is pretty clear. From their site (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bagcabin/public/en_gb):
Personally, I think it's all a plot to bankrupt the British luggage manufacturing industry. You'll note that while you can bring two pieces into the country, you can only take one of them out again! Those left behind, of course, are auctioned off.
Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142772\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I've now noticed that. They lied to me by telling only half the truth. I've sent them a stiff return message.
-
The salient point here is that you're linking to an article in the Daily Mail. Their usual front page relates the shocking story of black lesbian welfare recipients stealing our babies. In other words, this particular "news paper" is a comic. If you can find the same information on a more reliable source then you should give it credence. Otherwise, it is strictly bottom-wiping material.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not even very good for that!
And it is also your choice not to fly through UK airports, but sometimes that is not easy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=125105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not a choice those of us based in the UK have!
I was reading this thread just before I was due to fly abroad this June from heathrow and I decided to make life easier for myself and to accomodate my ever increasing kit by getting Think Tank Airport Addicted. I bought it on morning of flight and then spent some time working out which of the 80 odd dividers to use to best suit my needs. I was very impressed with my purchase as it seem perfect for my needs and fitted everything in and with space to spare.
One problem, it doesn't fit in the luggage size check racks. Not by much, the straps and handles stop it fitting in. After sweet talking one security guard who insisted on checking size after I had just finished repacking after X-rays and a hand search. I then had someone else come up and querry my bag, who then got the his boss to come and talk to me. But thankfully, I somehow I managed to convince them to let me through.
I emailed Think Tank about this somewhat disastrous flaw in their marketing and selling of the bag. And heard absolutely nothing back.
Coming back from Sweden 5 weeks later, my bag was no issue at all, even after security searched my bag [I had left a pair of pliers in by accident. Pliers were allowed and the very heavy bag handed back to me no questions asked about weight or size.
On arrival at Heathrow, the baggage reclain area was simply chock full of unclaimed bags, just lying around the place and they even managed to damage my bike in a way that suggested very serious impact of some kind. Still waiting for insurance on that. BA actually took their phones off the hook I discovered, so you couldn't call regarding your claim, because they had so many. Pathetic. They still keep sending me lots of communications regarding flying with them again. Marketing needs to explain to other departments that treating your customers like crap is not the best business practice
-
A couple of months ago I sent a very stiff statement of this whole situation to Willie Walsh, the CEO of British Airways, through the BA Executive Club (their frequent flier program). After considerable insistance on getting an answer, I received an important answer from BA Customer Relations replying on his behalf; it clarifies that we ARE allowed TWO pieces of hand-baggage, one of which is a laptop computer or a brief-case plus a regulation size carry-on. They also told me they have no control over the airport operator BAA, which decides on the allocation of space for duty-free shoping versus security staffing. (I argued that if there were less space for shopping and more for additional security agents, the queues would be much shorter and processing faster.) However, they expressed optimism that in Terminal 5 things will be better. That remains to be seen, of course. BAA makes money from renting shopping space and incurs costs for security, so the incentives are all there to screw the passengers at check-in. Anyhow, the clarity I obtained on the cabin baggage allowance is a definite improvement over "one piece only".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
YOU WERE LIED TO. IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE. THE AIRPORT COPS AT HEATHROW WILL PULL ANYONE OUT OF LINE, WHEN TRANSFERRING FROM PLANE TO PLANE, WHO HAS MORE THAN ONE CARRY-ON, NO MATTER HOW SMALL.
I personally had that experience. If you were told the bogus load of bull you quote several months ago, well that was the same time I encountered this. As I originally reported, when I started this thread, other European businessmen in line with me said that this is the standard practice at Heathrow. I SAW THE FASCIST BAGGAGE POLICE AT HEATHROW DO THIS TO THE ELDERLY WHO WERE 75 TO 80 YEARS OLD, AND JUST BECAUSE OLD LADIES HAD A PURSE AND A *VERY* SMALL CARRY-ON. OLD LADIES NO LESS.
It is simply appalling that the CEO of British Airways would deliberately tell you such a blatant lie.
THE CEO OF BA KNOWS FULL WELL THAT BA AT HEATHROW HAS SET UP ENTIRE COUNTERS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH CUSTOMERS PULLED OUT LINE WHO MUST CHECK ONE OF THEIR TWO CARRY-ONS. THESE COUNTERS ARE EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED TO THEIR CUSTOMERS WHO ARE *CHANGING* PLANES. You must first go through British passport control, as if you exiting the airport (kiss you connecting flight goodbye). Then stand in the absurd line at lousy British Airways to check one of your two carry-ons, and then go through security again to get to your connecting flight.
Anyone who flies on an airline with a CEO who lies to his own customers is a fool. This sets a new low for bad customer relations.
I'll say it again. DO NOT FLY ON BRITISH AIRWAYS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. WHEN THEY LOSE BUSINESS THEY WILL BEGIN TO PRESSURE THE BRITISH GOVT TO CHANGE THIS ABSURD POLICY.
DO NOT FLY THROUGH HEATHROW IF YOU MUST TAKE TWO CARRY-ONS
-
I by getting Think Tank Airport Addicted. One problem, it doesn't fit in the luggage size check racks. Not by much, the straps and handles stop it fitting in. After sweet talking one security guard who insisted on checking size after I had just finished repacking after X-rays and a hand search. I then had someone else come up and querry my bag, who then got the his boss to come and talk to me. But thankfully, I somehow I managed to convince them to let me through.
I emailed Think Tank about this somewhat disastrous flaw in their marketing and selling of the bag. And heard absolutely nothing back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thinkless Thankless Tank engages in false advertising. When I first got the bag I measured it. I don't recall which dimension was off, but one of the dimensions did not match the standard carry-on for domestic flights. I also sent an email to Thinkless Tank. They responded with photos showing the bag fitting in the chrome luggage racks. It must have been empty because you sure can't do that if the bag is full -- as you experienced.
I used that huge bag a few times, and both times had spare time between flights. I found a remote counter where no one was around, and used one of the chrome containers that are used to check the size of carry-ons. What I discovered is that the The Thinkless Tank Addicted will NOT fit in those containers if full. The problem is the depth. Thinkless Tank says that you can put a 100-400 or 70-200 vertically. False. In order to jam it in to the chrome containers, I had to remove the filter and cap from those lenese to get just enough clearance. It was that tight. Whether that kind of pressure on the end of the lenses damages them is a good question, because you're still jamming the bag in with the filters and caps removed I had already removed the insert in side of the cover to put stuff, as that would add to the depth. Finally, don't stuff the straps inside the bag, leave them loose, or it will never fit in one of those chrome bins. I also think that I had to remove my laptop to get it to fit in the chrome bin, but don't recall for sure whether that was the case.
Thinkless Tank has some slightly smaller bags for air travel, but they suffer from other really dumb design flaws. I would like a bag that is smaller, but I can then pack their smaller side attachments in my suitcase, and lash them to horizontal webbing on the sides when I get to my location. Just like any Tamrac or Lowepro. Thinkless Thankless Tank doesn't include such a common sense feature on most of their bags, or didn't when I last checked six months ago. They finally added that on their most recent bag, the one with the sliding device in the bottom half.
The other problem with the Addicted is that it is so d*** big. What do you do with it when you get to your location? It is just too big, bulky and heavy to use as backpack.
What we all need is a smaller backpack to carry the most expensive bodies and lenses AND carry a laptop. And do it ALL in ONE bag to get past the fascist baggage police.
That requires a UMPC -- a very small laptop -- that can be carried in a backpack like a lens. I have tried both the Sony and the new Samsung. The new Samsung is very slow, but the screen is just large enough to use it as a laptop for the purpose of downloading and quickly evaluating photos. It is very slow though. But it works. And will fit in a backpack.
-
On arrival at Heathrow, the baggage reclain area was simply chock full of unclaimed bags, just lying around the place and they even managed to damage my bike in a way that suggested very serious impact of some kind.
That is one of the reasons I never will book a connecting flight via LHR ever again. Going to Sri Lanka last year, they damaged my tripod. Coming back from Sri Lanka, several of my souvenirs were broken. Also, going to Sri Lanka, I missed my connecting flight in Dubai because the take-off in LHR was delayed by three hours: there were suspected terrorists on my flight and Queen Lizzy's Nazi Brigade had to remove their bags from the cargo room - this after they already delayed the flight because of so-called passport issues with (other or the same) terrorists. Even if I don't take these perhaps unlucky occassions into account, LHR airport feels and sounds like a hopeless anachronism. Arriving at LHR for me is not just arriving in a different country, but also a different era. Compare LHR with airports such as in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Dubai or even Istanbul.
Sorry for the rant, mentioning LHR always does this for me
-
Back in the days of film cameras, LHR was the *only* airport I went through (and I've been through many) that completely refused to hand-check ISO 800 film and insisted that it be sent through the X-ray machine. Always.
Their attitude is nothing new.
Lisa
-
Back in the days of film cameras, LHR was the *only* airport I went through (and I've been through many) that completely refused to hand-check ISO 800 film and insisted that it be sent through the X-ray machine. Always.
Their attitude is nothing new.
Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not so - they did the same thing in Zurich. There was no discussion period. Either the film went through the machine or the owner didn't get through to the gate. It wasn't even open for discussion. Other than that it is a quite civilized and orderly operation compared with LHR.
-
I emailed Think Tank about this somewhat disastrous flaw in their marketing and selling of the bag. And heard absolutely nothing back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well a little update for folks - I have heard something back [original mail not received] and would like to say I couldn't be more pleased with the no BS response and the website will be ammended to reflect difficulties of international travel. I only had problems flying from Heathrow, not to Heathrow from Sweden.
I rate Think Tank extremely highly after this.
The other problem with the Addicted is that it is so d*** big. What do you do with it when you get to your location? It is just too big, bulky and heavy to use as backpack.
That's exactly how I used it for a month, cycling back and fore from shooting location to where I resided. I then used a much smaller shoulder bag when wandering around. I did wonder about taking one of my other smaller backpacks in main luggage, but decided not to and it worked fine for me. Every job is different though...and I had somewhere safe to leave my bulky kit.
Walking across London, with it jam packed is another matter. So heavy! But that's not exactly the bag's fault, I just carry too many heavy things and it was so much more comfortable on my hips than my Lowepro AW Stealth backpack. And much easier than wrestling with two bags. I do have a trolley thing I can put it on for next time I do decide to walk a long way with it. But I think carrying a bag with over a third of one's body weight is always going to be tiring, so my suggestion is reusable helium balloons! Anyone?
What we all need is a smaller backpack to carry the most expensive bodies and lenses AND carry a laptop. And do it ALL in ONE bag to get past the fascist baggage police.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Think Tank do make two other sizes that are smaller than the Addicted that will do that. The Addicted is simply the biggest size that can go on board, that is when security aren't being so anal. I still love the bag, way better than LowePro for carrying lots of kit when flying. Though nothing can beat the AW Stealth for light weight, albeit at the expense of not having any bulky/heavy protection for one's kit - I added foam from hard drive packaging!
I was talking to someone only last week and he commented that the metal cages, in UK airports vary in size and sometimes his bag [not sure what bag] fits and sometimes it doesn't. So the 'standards' can vary, which isn't exactly helpful.
-
Hi
I haven't read all the posts, but Just before these security rules were enforced many airlines, including BA, were actually increasing carry on luggage allowances on many flights. The reason is simple, most folks prefer to have their bags with them, less costs to the airline in managing suitcases, more space in the hold for freight.
That did not mean that there was always enough room in the cabin for wheelie bags, and I have seen many arguments when poeple transfere onto smaller aeroplanes for connecting flights and there just isn't any on board baggage storage beyond under the seat in front or tiny overhead bins designed for coats, handbags etc.
These rules are often Government Department of transport requirements, not airlines or airport security staff just being a pain. You have to understand though that the rules for the front line staff have to be black and white, which is why trying to explain that your $20000k equipment just has to stay with you seems to get a "tough luck" responce.
Unfortunately for photograpers the rule does mean it is a pain in certain countries transprting equipment with you. There are some alternatives, I've heard that some folk use careful packing and airfreight / UPS, DHL etc, the equipment to there destination. You could also contemplate hiring certain bits!
Regards
Steven
-
Hi
I haven't read all the posts, ......................
These rules are often Government Department of transport requirements, not airlines or airport security staff just being a pain. ..........................There are some alternatives, I've heard that some folk use careful packing and airfreight / UPS, DHL etc, the equipment to there destination. You could also contemplate hiring certain bits!
Regards
Steven
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You should read the whole story before making excuses for the silliness going-on in the UK. Whoever made these rules, for photographers with any quantity of expensive gear which exceeds their ridiculous limits, the UK is to be avoided, because the alternatives you mention are by-and-large non-starters. Any administration with an ounce of intelligence could craft rules for the safe carry-on of sensitive equipment. There's no sensible excuse for the present situation.
-
I agree the whole system is a mess in the UK. I work within the airline industry and just going to work is an unbelivable hassel. Some of the things that I have seen / experienced just drives me absolutly mad, and IMHO it will just get worse in the future.
The problem is that the Department of Transport (part of the HM government) set the rules and they can shut down or close down anyone who does not comply. The content of these rules is certainly highly discussed by my colleages, and I'm not allowed to publish my thoughts about many of them.... These rules are implemented by airlines , airport operators and security companies, generally in such a way as to remove any discression by the front line staff - if there was ever any room for discression anyway.
They are a massive pain - I find it very insulting to be screamed at by youngsters, No Liquids, No Gels..... but certainly the airline I work for has its hands tied on many of the issues - even those which seem completely mad for crew!!
There is also some confusion, as certain airports allow one bag, plus a lap top holder. Some don't. You can go and buy tons of items in the airport shops anyway once past security which just rubs salt in.
I did place all the items from a small second bag into the Very Big pockets of a jacket I was wearing once!!!!!! Only one bag!
I agree UPSing or hiring stuff is probably way over budget for most folks just travelling on hoilday, just passing on a solution from another forum.
-
Steven,
I'm very sorry to hear from an industry insider a view that it will just get worse in the future.
I intervened at the level of Willie Walsh (as you undoubtedly know) CEO of BA about this mess, because a company like BA would have more clout than an unknown Canadian raising issues with HM Government in London England. I got bounced back to Customer Relations and they told me half-truths (to be polite about them) concerning the existing policy. I was incited to do this after I saw Willie Walsh interviewed on CNN telling the whole world that he puts the convenience and comfort of his passengers at the top of his priorities. So much for the eye-wash from Willie Walsh. They can be disreputable at the very top as well as at the very bottom or anywhere in-between so why should I be surprised.
I firmly believe that increased security requirements can be handled with increased space and increased staff. However, that is what BA, BAA and the UK authorities don't want, because it costs money and someone (eventually passengers) will have to pay. With oil prices increasing like topsy and oil consumption being an increasing function of payload, it pays the airline to restrict passenger baggage and make more weight available for paying freight or reduced payload. It's also good for BAA because they wouldn't need to sacrifice square footage of high-value commercial rental income to the authorities for more hand-baggage screeners. That is what this whole mess is all about. the system is rigged to suit BA, BAA and the UK Government, the passenges be damned. At the bottom of every such problem, usually what you find is that where they stand is where they sit and where they sit causes them to do what they wish to do for maximizing income and minimizing expenses.
Fortunately, most other countries in the world are not being quite as bloody-minded about it, so for whoever has options, avoiding the UK is still the only fall-back we passengers have when our concerns get met with indifference and deception.
-
LHR is a dogs breakfast, period.
It's not fair, however to blame any one particular airline. Based on my own experience (Traveling through LHR on an almost weekly basis, LH and SH) passengers of ALL airlines at LHR are subject to the same rules and conditions laid down by the operator BAA.
A recent example. Last week while queuing for a business class flight to Zurich the lady in-front of me ended up in an argument over her violin. She claimed it was worth about GBP 100K, but the airline (Swiss) insisted that she would have to check either it or her handbag irrespective of insurance, value or fragility.
Most airports operate a similar level of passenger and baggage security. It's actually my experience that Frankfurt is a good example of an even tougher regime.
The issue at LHR is not the airlines or the DOT/Government regulations it's the operator BAA.
In response to enhanced security guidelines most airports recruited and or trained more security personnel. Some redesigned passenger workflow's and others put in more or better infrastructure to handle longer and more detailed baggage checks.
BAA's approach was to follow the guidelines without increasing costs. It reduced the number of hand luggage items because that way it could manage queues better without increasing personnel. A blunt and largely ineffective instrument and certainly less effective than the measures taken by many other airports.
As far as I'm aware both the airlines and government in the UK are pressuring BAA to change the way it operates in this respect.
The irony (In the context of this thread) is that for BA travelers things will get better. T5 has been designed to handle modern passenger volume and security requirements. Those traveling with other airlines will still have to put up with the squalor of the old terminal buildings like T3 and T2.
Mark instead of contacting the head of BA you should really contact the head of BAA's owners (http://www.ferrovial.es) Rafael Del Pino y Calvo Sotelo in Madrid.
-
Greg,
Interesting. I haven't been through Frankfurt for several years now, but I can believe it.
I know BAA is a good part of the problem. But I have no clout to deal with them. As a BA Exec Club member I was hoping to work through BA to use their leverage over BAA. But BA doesn't care to budge, because these procedures and rules are actually in their interest - unless people stop flying with them or through LHR. So regardless of where the core of the problem resides they are in bed with eachother, if I may put it that way. But you idea of complaining to the senior management of BAA is a good one nonetheless. I may well try it and see what kind of soppy answer - if any - I get back.
-
I intervened at the level of Willie Walsh (as you undoubtedly know) CEO of BA about this mess, because a company like BA would have more clout than an unknown Canadian raising issues with HM Government in London England. I got bounced back to Customer Relations and they told me half-truths (to be polite about them) concerning the existing policy. I was incited to do this after I saw Willie Walsh interviewed on CNN telling the whole world that he puts the convenience and comfort of his passengers at the top of his priorities. So much for the eye-wash from Willie Walsh. They can be disreputable at the very top as well as at the very bottom or anywhere in-between so why should I be surprised.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
BA took all the phones off the hook on the insurance side in August as they were so inundated with complaints. A good solution eh! They still keep sending me promotional email crap though. I discovered this from a very helpful person in another area of BA who used to work in the insurance department.
-
What insurance issue were there so many complaints about? Lost baggage?
-
What insurance issue were there so many complaints about? Lost baggage?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well considering when I collected my luggage, the floor was barely visible for unclaimed bags lying around, very probably.
-
When traveling to Europe or the Middle East from Minneapolis, I have a choice of going through London or through Amsterdam, using the same airline (Northwest) for either flight, with similar flight times. I go through Amsterdam simply because Schipol is clean, well-lit, organized and I have never been hassled there. Two years ago, returning from the Middle East, I had to stop in Germany and London on the way back. Went through Frankfurt on the way to Hamburg, and had no issues at all. Went on to London and then back to Minneapolis, with no real problems, but the surliness of the London employes and the dilpidation of the UK airports makes it a not-particularly-pleasant experience. I have had worse experiences in US airports in the last few years -- at Miami, in particular -- but London doesn't make it easy. This is, in fact, one place where leadership does make a huge difference: just a few pieces of paper -- written rules changes -- would make everything so much easier. The passengers would no longer argue and fight with the security people, which would make the security people happier and improve morale, it would limit confusion, etc.
Perhaps airlines should consider a "premium" ticket in both coach and business/first class, which would allow for more weight to be carried on board. It pisses me off when I see some guy who has somehow talked his way on with two huge bags (a "briefcase" that looks like an overnight bag, and an overnight bag) and then takes about three passengers' spaces in the overhead bins. But there are obviously people who need to carry small valuable items (like violins and photo gear) who need that extra space. Either that, or there should be a "secure luggage" hold in which you could check your valuable luggage for a fee, and the airline will then indemnify for any losses (including business losses) that occur as a result of baggage loss. The post office does this, FedEx and UPS do it, there's no reason the airlines couldn't do it, and even charge an insurance fee to do it.
JC
-
Perhaps airlines should consider a "premium" ticket in both coach and business/first class, which would allow for more weight to be carried on board. It pisses me off when I see some guy who has somehow talked his way on with two huge bags (a "briefcase" that looks like an overnight bag, and an overnight bag) and then takes about three passengers' spaces in the overhead bins. But there are obviously people who need to carry small valuable items (like violins and photo gear) who need that extra space. Either that, or there should be a "secure luggage" hold in which you could check your valuable luggage for a fee, and the airline will then indemnify for any losses (including business losses) that occur as a result of baggage loss. The post office does this, FedEx and UPS do it, there's no reason the airlines couldn't do it, and even charge an insurance fee to do it.
JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John,
None of this is practical. The first suggestion means weighing every one's carry-ons. They only do that now if they suspect a bag is heavy, or on a spot check basis. Heavens' forbid it were to become ubiquitous. The second suggestion would attract heavy insurance premiums and admin costs which will be passed on to consumers; there will be losses because baggage handling of any kind has become chaotic. In these circumstances insurance refunds who-knows-when later with deductibles and all the other trimmings are of no immediate use.
The only practical solution is a rule which allows passengers two pieces with "X" weight and "Y" dimensions containing sensitive equipment to be carried on-board. Full stop. Very simple for everyone concerned. Any airline/airport that doesn't allow this should be boycotted. If huge numbers of people start communicating this message to the appropriate authorities wherever it is a problem, the situation may eventually penetrate their thick skulls and create some progress.
-
Any airline/airport that doesn't allow this should be boycotted. If huge numbers of people start communicating this message to the appropriate authorities wherever it is a problem, the situation may eventually penetrate their thick skulls and create some progress.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark is absolutely right. Those who make excuses for BA or for the airport operators in the UK are naive or worse.
If business drops for BA and for tourism in the UK, the govt will be forced to take notice.
I will never fly through the UK again as long as these policies exist. Whether that is for two months, two years or twenty years.
There are plenty of other nations to visit. And lots of other airlines than British Airways.
As I said when I started this thread, European travelers have said that this is only happening in the UK and specifically is worse at Heathrow
-
Personally I doubt security is the main reason, sadly the level off "real" security at most UK airports is pretty grim.
A recent documentary showed many of the staff sleeping on duty, reading papers instead of watching scanners etc etc.
The level of training also varies, many haven't a clue what they are looking for.
I once watched a security guard using a bomb sniffer on bags, when he got to my bag he just ran it around the bag. I suggested he squeeze the bag to expel the air for the detector to test, he asked why, then explained he didn't know what it did or how it worked.
They had just given it to him and told him to call someone if it bleeped.
UPDATE BAA has just set out new smaller limits for baggage, don't have the details yet. Wayne
-
Personally I doubt security is the main reason, sadly the level off "real" security at most UK airports is pretty grim.
A recent documentary showed many of the staff sleeping on duty, reading papers instead of watching scanners etc etc.
The level of training also varies, many haven't a clue what they are looking for.
I once watched a security guard using a bomb sniffer on bags, when he got to my bag he just ran it around the bag. I suggested he squeeze the bag to expel the air for the detector to test, he asked why, then explained he didn't know what it did or how it worked.
They had just given it to him and told him to call someone if it bleeped.
UPDATE BAA has just set out new smaller limits for baggage, don't have the details yet. Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
None of this is surprising. Survey after survey of airport security indicates unacceptably high rates of failure to detect suspicious materials while passengers are being subjected to all manner of inconvenience. It looks lose-lose for both security and passengers - and this is not only Heathrow, it is North American too. Companies and authorities are of course trying to do this on the cheap, which means blanket controls, no flexibility, poor training and low wages. No wonder it's a mess. As for BAA's new restrictions - please let us know what they are when you learn of them. The tighter they make them the less the incentive to use airlines flying into the UK and until the airlines themselves call a halt to this nonsense the only real option the passengers have is to keep out of England unless they really need to go there, or fly to Paris or Bruxelles and take the Eurostar into London. More expensive - but call it insurance for our equipment.
-
I recently ( August) flew into Heathrow and used a Think Tank Airport Acceleration with their low divider set. I was able to carry two Canon 1D's, a few lenses and my laptop with no problem. I didn't let on that the bag was very heavy and was not stopped coming in to Heathrow or going out back to the US. The bag also fit within BAA's dimensions for carry on.
Jed
-
I recently ( August) flew into Heathrow and used a Think Tank Airport Acceleration with their low divider set. I was able to carry two Canon 1D's, a few lenses and my laptop with no problem. I didn't let on that the bag was very heavy and was not stopped coming in to Heathrow or going out back to the US. The bag also fit within BAA's dimensions for carry on.
Jed
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks much for that reference. I just spent a fair bit of time on their website. The product looks excellent, though for a price. Are you happy with it?
-
I have several of their bags and all are excellent.
Jed
-
Thanks Jed
-
I've got one of their small bags to hold a Leica system, and it's great.
But IMHO there's a conceptual problem with their large airport backpacks. They need to take at least one of them -- like the Airport International -- and reduce the camera carrying space and add a separate segregated compartment for personal travel gear -- tickets, glasses, cell phones, iPod, car keys, batteries, medicine, notebook, pens or pencils, earphones. Their current larger designs simply let you cram in more camera gear, which is fine, some people need that. But more people, I think, would like to carry one bag on-board that would have space for a modest system (say, two pro bodies and four lenses, a charger), a laptop with a charger (almost a necessity now) and then that personal space. Their International has the space for that, but not the configuration to carry the personal stuff. That needs to be in a separate zippered compartment. It would also be nice if the pack had some external quick release straps that could be used to strap on a jacket. This is one-bag thing necessary because more and more places allow you only one bag, sometimes on an at-the-gate basis -- security lets you through, but then you get to the gate, and the steward tells you that the bins are filling up and that you'll have to gate-check something. That has happened several times on my last few trips.
Something else that would be really cool would be a sophisticated charger that could charge everything. Or a camera battery that could be trickle-charged with a USB line, like an iPod.
JC
-
John,
Yes the one charger for everything - heaven on earth. Not there yet!
To me their "Airport Accelerator" model looks configurable along the lines you suggest.
Mark
-
I'm having a serious look at their Airport Antidote. The one factor I'm mindful of is total weight, I've had my carry on weighed several times by Air Canada. Some of the "larger" carry on's can weigh as much as 10 lbs empty - that's almost 50% of total allowable weight just in the empty bag.
-
Here are some photos of how I set up the airport acceleration for London. I hope this is of help.
Jed
[attachment=3712:attachment][attachment=3713:attachment][attachment=3714:attachm
ent][attachment=3715:attachment]
-
I'm having a serious look at their Airport Antidote. The one factor I'm mindful of is total weight, I've had my carry on weighed several times by Air Canada. Some of the "larger" carry on's can weigh as much as 10 lbs empty - that's almost 50% of total allowable weight just in the empty bag.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would take the anoraks in Air Canada to do that kind of stuff. Not surprised. A little trick Michael once mentioned to me is to where a photog vest when traveling by air. Then if the jerks start leaning on you about bag weight, put the camera body in one pocket, the heaviest lens in another pocket, re-weigh the bag, walk through and repack it all beyond security.
-
Here are some photos of how I set up the airport acceleration for London. I hope this is of help.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very helpful Jed; also their website shows a number of interesting configurations. Its 280 bucks, but it looks as if they have thought it all through very thoroughly. I did notice the bag weighs 8 lbs., which is a bit of a drawback given the limitations on a number of carriers. Means the photog jacket may need to come into play.
-
Very helpful Jed; also their website shows a number of interesting configurations. Its 280 bucks, but it looks as if they have thought it all through very thoroughly. I did notice the bag weighs 8 lbs., which is a bit of a drawback given the limitations on a number of carriers. Means the photog jacket may need to come into play.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd honestly never thought about a photography vest before, but will remember it when travelling overseas next time. Fortunately here in Australia we're not hit with overly harsh restrictions like that.
-
UK rules to be relaxed:
BBC - News Item (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7093795.stm)
-
Yes I saw that - they're finally figuring out that it's costing them money and making them look like fools. Good. Let it continue to do so. Notice it only takes effect January 8th and airports need to ask permission to relax the restrictions. Then we need to observe the style of implementation. Do you trust them to get it right after all this? It ain't over yet.
-
Thank God I´m an infrequent flyer: security, in my consideration, is paramount. How sad that somebody might be inconvenienced a wee bit! Some of you people really do need some exposure to a sharp end, any sharp end.
Rob C
-
Thank God I´m an infrequent flyer: security, in my consideration, is paramount. How sad that somebody might be inconvenienced a wee bit! Some of you people really do need some exposure to a sharp end, any sharp end.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob, I'm NOT an infrequentr flyer, I've been through more airports and traveling situations around the world than I care to think of, and I have the same concerns about security that every one else has. The point here is that there are different ways of going about it and some are more intelligent and customer-friendly than others, yet just as effective. When people with vested interests that have nothing to do with security or incompetent ideas about what's needed for security do things which create non-trivial and totally unnecessary consequences to passengers on a massive scale, this is a problem which deserves to be highlighted and dealt with. If you are an infrequent flyer be thankful that you are saved the hassles and don't dump on the victims - because what's being discussed here is well above and beyond "a wee bit" of inconvenience.
-
Rob_C, I don't understand what is all this argument you go on making about security.
The point here is: you can't board two hand-held bags, BUT you can board the very same TWO hand-held bags if you put them inside a bigger transparent plastic bag. Or: you can't with the to hand-held, but you can if you put the content of your bags in your jacket (and nothing beats my jackets in number of pockets, they would get half an hour in inspecting it, that is something I can advice).
This has nothing to do with security, I would call this just sheer studipidy. I would get your point if there was any reason why the same two bags can be less dangerous, or can be inspected faster, when they happen to be inside a plastic bag.
Even if it was a security problem, there is nothing on earth you can do - about security just like about any other thing in life - with your brain turned off, which is exactly what Heathrow (or Zurich) customs or security officers seems to do.
I suppose this is the same kind of people who just drives over people who is crossing outside of the pedestrian walk, or the same people who gets rolled over while crossing the street over the pedestrian walk because they expect the car to immediately stop so that they can pass, you know, that's in the rules, they must stop!
Everything in file has to be made cum grano salis regardless of whether you are dealing with terrorists or with preparing food for your pet. Brainless rule-followers can only make damages, also to security.
If I were in London and unemployed, I would buy 100 plastic bags and sell them at a high margin (let's say 5 pounds each) at the security queue... and I am sure people would pay the 5 pounds with joy and add gratitude.
Cheers
Fabrizio
PS And just because I like Latin I would add another bit of past wisdom: Summum ius, summa iniuria, which means that applying rules litterally and without any consideration for circumstances makes just things worse (Absolute law enforcing equals absolute injustice).
-
Mark
I don´t see myself as dumping on anybody. What I see myself as doing is asking all of you folks to accept that security is whatever it takes to keep you alive.
I am NOW an infrequent flyer; in my working days I was not an infrequent flyer. I understand only too well the hassle of flying out with 60 cassettes of Kodachrome 64 Pro in a bag and asking for a hand-search in the UK, this backed up with a similar request letter from the consulate of the country I happened to be going to work in, in the wan hope that security would comply in their country on the flight home. I, too, all that time ago, had to open up three packs of film and let them see each cassette OUT of its little yellow box in sweet old Heathrow, so I´m accustomed to search.
On another flight to shoot stock I took my wife and two kids along for the ride - we were going to Spain. My daughter, who was about twelve at the time, was pulled out of line and taken into a room and searched. We never knew why or for what.
On a trip to Singapore as part of a world-wide shoot for a Tennents Lager Centenary calendar (´84) I had another, greater problem. The model they chose was an unknown entity to me and my fear was that, on getting to Singapore, she might be carrying some sort of drug. They don´t eff about with drug dealers there. Explain that to somebody... As I´ve recounted here before, in Kenya my luggage was weighed along with the gorilla-in-uniform´s foot on the scale and I had to pay excess baggage - would you argue?
Another client of mine had to make frequent visits on behalf of his company to an African state; his experience was that you do not take along your Rolex, because the uniforms like such baubles and you never get to take them back with you. Recently, Glasgow Airport was the focus of an Islamic attack. I can remember flying out of there and noticing that in the lounges there are set-aside areas for devotional purposes! The sight of a several swarthy middle-easter gents going up and down on their knees just prior to boarding a flight with you does damn little to steady your nerves. Any security measure that might exist is more than welcome!
The end point here, Mark, is that both you and I are still alive to moan about it. Long may that continue for both of us.
Rob C
-
Yes I saw that - they're finally figuring out that it's costing them money and making them look like fools. Good. Let it continue to do so. Notice it only takes effect January 8th and airports need to ask permission to relax the restrictions. Then we need to observe the style of implementation. Do you trust them to get it right after all this? It ain't over yet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you really want to be cynical about all of this you could argue that they are relaxing the rules just before the opening of Terminal 5 at Heathrow so that the government can claim how much better and smoother things run in the new building.
-
Mark
What I see myself as doing is asking all of you folks to accept that security is whatever it takes to keep you alive.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK Rob, I hear you. But that statement "whatever it takes" is exactly where the problem resides. Did you read Michael's review of the 1Ds MkIII published yesterday? Did you see that tidbit about the multi-purpose tool inadvertently lost in his hand luggage and how many security screeners it got through? Does it not make nonsense of this whole charade passengers are being put through? Because it is a charade. It's feel-good stuff, not real security. Real security starts WAY up-stream of the airport check-in counter. Our intelligence services are getting much better at it year after year as the data accumulates and they can better trace networks of trouble-makers, their modus-operandi etc., etc. There has been report after report about the actual ineffectiveness of much of what transpires in our airports and it is costing the public big-time. I'm all for staying alive like the next person, but it needs to be done intelligently and the problem right now is that it isn't. Whether your handbag is a little this big or a little that big, or whether you have one or two of them will not affect security one iota provided the checking is structured efficiently. What we're dealing with is a deadly combination of anoraks in government bureaucracies and vested commercial interests - not security.
-
Recently, Glasgow Airport was the focus of an Islamic attack. I can remember flying out of there and noticing that in the lounges there are set-aside areas for devotional purposes! The sight of a several swarthy middle-easter gents going up and down on their knees just prior to boarding a flight with you does damn little to steady your nerves. Any security measure that might exist is more than welcome!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I find this this mention about the "middle-easter gents going up and down on their knees" is given in an unnecessary satiric and offensive tone. It is this sort of retort that about different religious and cultural habits that many times leads the way to ignorance and empty-minded attacks.
I have been working in the Arab Gulf States for 5 years now, I have nothing but praise for the common middle-easter gent, they all want peace. It is the politicians that are to blame for playing games and insisting in reducing comments like yours.
-
I find this this mention about the "middle-easter gents going up and down on their knees" is given in an unnecessary satiric and offensive tone. It is this sort of retort that about different religious and cultural habits that many times leads the way to ignorance and empty-minded attacks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Was also a bit taken back by that statement. Extremists, not the average muslim or christian or anything who pose the risk. Stereotyping and generalising is never a good thing.
As for the terrorist attacks in the states, they succeeded. They have taken away your liberty as you're now so worried about security that you are restricting yourselves.
-
I find this this mention about the "middle-easter gents going up and down on their knees" is given in an unnecessary satiric and offensive tone. It is this sort of retort that about different religious and cultural habits that many times leads the way to ignorance and empty-minded attacks.
I have been working in the Arab Gulf States for 5 years now, I have nothing but praise for the common middle-easter gent, they all want peace. It is the politicians that are to blame for playing games and insisting in reducing comments like yours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So tell me, pbizarro, you wouldn´t feel any question mark rising up in your soul as you watched these guys cleaning their minds prior to boarding with you? If you can honestly claim that, then you shouldn´t be in photography because you have no sense of wonder or imagination whatsoever.
As for getting your knickers in a twist about bringing this into print, it is EXACTLY that sort of wooly thinking that allows the bad guys to flourish: whatever they do it is not politically correctly to question? Great. London is plagued with black on black crime with kids getting shot or knifed every day. Black kids get stopped and questioned but the police get cursed for stopping black kids; Asian people get stopped and questioned because of the current terrorist problems and then complain that more Asians are stopped than Europeans - would the police, then, be doing a better job by stopping more blue-eyed blondes?
I´m sorry, my man, but comes a time when your own survival depends on seeing the obvious.
Rob C
-
Great. London is plagued with black on black crime with kids getting shot or knifed every day. Black kids get stopped and questioned but the police get cursed for stopping black kids; Asian people get stopped and questioned because of the current terrorist problems and then complain that more Asians are stopped than Europeans - would the police, then, be doing a better job by stopping more blue-eyed blondes?
I´m sorry, my man, but comes a time when your own survival depends on seeing the obvious.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You have to ask yourself if you would feel the same if your race/religion/whatever was suddenly being targetted by excessive security. Would you accept it and say it was for the best, or would you argue that just because a minority is causing trouble you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush?
-
You have to ask yourself if you would feel the same if your race/religion/whatever was suddenly being targetted by excessive security. Would you accept it and say it was for the best, or would you argue that just because a minority is causing trouble you shouldn't tar everyone with the same brush?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153530\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the question is pointless: if it were my race/group that was carrying out religious terrorism then I would be far from surprised to find myself subject to closer scrutiny than I might like. The answer is for those ethnic/religious groupings to clean up their own acts, something which would earn them both the respect and gratitude which I think they both would like.
Pretending that such groups are not visibly obvious is to fly in the face of reality: would you suggest the security forces look the other way, turn blind eyes or simply hope the problem goes away?
Of course not all are guilty of either terrorism or violence; that was never suggested or implied. But you do have to look for trouble where you will find the ones causing it.
Rob C
-
I think the question is pointless: if it were my race/group that was carrying out religious terrorism then I would be far from surprised to find myself subject to closer scrutiny than I might like. The answer is for those ethnic/religious groupings to clean up their own acts, something which would earn them both the respect and gratitude which I think they both would like.
Pretending that such groups are not visibly obvious is to fly in the face of reality: would you suggest the security forces look the other way, turn blind eyes or simply hope the problem goes away?
Of course not all are guilty of either terrorism or violence; that was never suggested or implied. But you do have to look for trouble where you will find the ones causing it.
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The current crackdown on security was the result of actions by less than a 100 people, out of an entire ethnic group that seems like a very poor sample. Suggesting that ethnicities or religious groups should clean up suggests that they are cohesive movements but as you know this is not the case. How can an average muslim in britain have any effect on what muslims are doing elseware in the world? Why should he have to? Most liberal countries claim equality before the law as a fundamental right, how can it then be permissable to target people because they look 'middle-eastern'?
-
Provided there is a rationale, a statistic rationale, "targeting" and "screening" is good.
If let's say drug is more often entering a country "A" from planes or ships coming from let's say countries B and C, then it is obvious that planes and ships coming from countries B and C are screened with an added attention. So it is rationale that the police have their nice dogs sniffing at all bags and at your person when you come from said countries. I wouldn't mind because I see a reason in this.
Lack of reasons puts me off. The fact that the 80 years old lady is deprived of the cane so that it is also politically correct to deprived a 20 years old hooligan of the cane, that is not rational. Police have to be effective, not politically correct.
If a minority is "targeted" because it is statistically more prone to certain form of crimes, it is rational to "screen" that minority with an added degree of attention. Provided things are done with the brain turned on.
I am afraid that the British way of doing things is that they want to be *perfectly* safe and they also want to be *politically correct*. That does not work. Actually I think the world would be a better place if we all tried to be politically uncorrect when it is needed.
I have felt and feel part of a targeted minority in at least three occasions:
During the Moro affair, for those who know, I was a child, on a trip from my house on the countryside to Rome, my car with caravan added was stopped some four or five times by the "casual" checks of the police: any time with their machine gun straight on your front. That means a stop every 20 or 30 kilometers. The policement were quite nervous while they were opening the caravan door. Had they been the same policemen of London underground, we would have been killed many times. Nonetheless, it made a lot of sense, in that circumstance, to check every caravan and nobody complained in my family that we were stopped so many times (and shown the inside of the firing mouth).
I take pictures of architectural elements in Rome: monuments and buildings of various interest. Invariably I am questioned and often prevented from taking pictures by policemen when I take pictures with a tripod. In the meanwhile 20 tourists pass along and take snapshots. That makes no sense: if I want to take a picture for whatever devious purpose, I can take it with my portable phone. But some guys in uniform deem necessary to prevent people with tripods to take pictures. That is a kind of absurd behaviour which is not condoned by any kind of danger, because it is irrational, and it would remain irrational even if a terrorist threw an atomic bomb at Fontana di Trevi.
I can live with being stopped and pointed a machine gun over when I go round with a caravan and a prominent political figure has been kidnapped and there is intelligence he is moved somewhere, but I cannot stand to be prevented from taking pictures with a tripod "for security reason" when every 5 minutes 100 "possible criminals" are taking the same picture without any problem.
The third case is that I am constantly stopped by police at night when I come back home: youngish thank goodness, old car, bearded, waxed raincoat, I must look "alternative" to the average Carabiniere: they stop me and very kindly ask for my documents: in doing so, I can perfectly see their nose "sniffing" inside the car, in search of marijuana!
I know they would stop me. I have learned to make diversions because I also know where they place themselves.
It's a slowly progressing world
Cheers
Fabrizio
-
I guess living in South Africa has overly sensitised me to the dangers of treating different people differently based on their looks.
-
Since this conversation has now diverged sufficiently from matters related to photography I have decided to close the thread.
Michael