If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Film Cameras in Checked Luggage
Frank Slootweg wrote:
James Robinson wrote: Frank Slootweg wrote: James Robinson wrote: Frank Slootweg wrote: James Robinson wrote: You can still carry cameras aboard on flights originating in the USA. The only place in the world that restricts you are flights originating in the UK. I think you are mistaken. Our (August 12) newspaper had a picture of (*TSA*) guards at Denver airport disallowing a bottle of babyfood in passenger's carryon luggage. Last time I checked, Denver was not in the UK (Well, at least the UK one doesn't have TSA staff.). Baby food is not a camera, which was the subject at hand. I realize(d) that. My point is that it was at least implied that only flight originating in the UK had/have restrictions. That's clearly not the case. Also I don't see why a camera would be treated differently than the other electronic items which *were/are* banned. So I think it's safe to assume that, at least for some time, cameras were banned also on flights which did not originate in the UK. Electronic items were not banned in carry-on bags in the US, nor are they now banned. The only restrictions were on liquids/gels/pastes. You could carry your cell phone, laptop, PDA, camera, etc. aboard in your carry-on bags. I was not talking about "in the US". I was and am objecting to your "The only place in the world that restricts you are flights originating in the UK.". That was just plain wrong, both for baby food and cameras. Example of the latter: Passenger had to check in camera on flight from Perth, Australia, via Singapore, to London. Yes the *onward* flight was from London (to Amsterdam), i.e. "originating in the UK", but with a *different* airline and the camera had already to be checked in in Perth. You have a strange way of pointing that out. The original poster said that you couldn't carry cameras on board, implying that it applied everywhere in the world. I pointed out that the only place that restricted the carriage of cameras in carry-on bags was the UK. You then brought up baby food in Denver, (assuming that the baby hadn't brought it up first) which was clearly a non-sequitor. You then mention that electronic equipment was banned, implying that such equipment was banned everywhere. I then pointed out that the ban only applied to flights originating in the UK, and used the US as an example, which has no general ban on electronic equipment. (Many people at the time this was posted thought they couldn't carry laptops aboard, even in the US.) Now you are saying that the ban applied to people who would be connecting in the UK, which had nothing to do with baby food in Denver, and certainly wasn't a general ban. It involved a route that would have the passenger connecting in the UK, which does have the ban. So what this all boils down to, is that at the time of the original posting, cameras couldn't be carried aboard flights originating in the UK. By extension, that included flights in other countries where the passenger would be connecting to a flight originating in the UK. Cameras were not a problem on other flights outside of the UK. All of this is now moot, in that the UK permits a small carry-on tote bag, and as long as your camera will fit in the bag, you can carry it aboard. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Film Cameras in Checked Luggage
Yes, battery powered wrist watches make them electrical as defined by other
posters, so they would be prohibited as well. Even if you take the battery out of the watch, it probably has a capacitor in it with a charge capable of detonating a nuclear bomb. Don't fret, on those long international runs, the flight attendants will be selling duty free mechanical watches. Now, I wonder about those hearing aids? Who said the airlines were going to go broke over this paranoia? This is getting better than Girls Gone Wild! rg P.S. Like shampoo, why do you need a watch on the flight? The only thing that matters is that you get there. wrote in message ups.com... Are wrist watches prohibited? Or would mechanical watches be allowed, but electronic watches forbidden? Are all writing implements with fliud ink forbidden? Would it be sufficient to emty the ink from a fountain pen? How would you remove the ink from a ball point pen, a roller ball pen, or a felt tip marker? None of these are explicitly listed on the lists of permitted or prohibited itmes. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Film Cameras in Checked Luggage
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message ... nicandal wrote: wrote: Be suspicious of any Islamic types ordering alcoholic drinks on a flight. Their religion forbids drinking, and alcohol can prove quite flammable. But will the airlines stop serving it? Cori Heh heh. Cori, what would you like the airlines to do - really, practically do - with this piece of "knowledge"? Islam does not require its followers to carry an ID card, no more than do all those who say they are Muslims shun all alcohol, no more can an airline reasonably discriminate between who is allowed alcohol and who is not on any kind of religious grounds for that would be them imposing their interpretation of a religion upon their passengers. Would you like them to stop serving pork to "Jewish types" too? If you find this ridiculous then you don't understand. I suspect the airlines don't serve alcohol in any quantity such that it is particularly hazardous already. I doubt anyone gets the bottle left with them. Well, even the individual serving size bottles of booze they DO leave with the passengers could probably start a respectable fire if someone had a mind to, but it seems highly unlikely anyone would use such a roundabout method! But this a is *exactly* the kind of thing that a good espionage operative should be looking to use. Though I will accecpt that he recent crop of espionage operatives don't appear to have reached the competence level of good . tim |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Film Cameras in Checked Luggage
Frank Slootweg wrote:
James Robinson wrote: "Larry in Berkeley" wrote: If you are travelling by air with a film camera, don't forget that now all airlines require cameras to be in checked luggage, not carried on board. You can still carry cameras aboard on flights originating in the USA. The only place in the world that restricts you are flights originating in the UK. I think you are mistaken. Our (August 12) newspaper had a picture of (*TSA*) guards at Denver airport disallowing a bottle of babyfood in passenger's carryon luggage. Last time I checked, Denver was not in the UK (Well, at least the UK one doesn't have TSA staff.). [deleted] Baby food is liquid. Liquids are banned in the US. They won't need bombs, the babies will be going off like land mines. Take earplugs! -- ant |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Film Cameras in Checked Luggage
tim wrote: "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message ... nicandal wrote: wrote: Be suspicious of any Islamic types ordering alcoholic drinks on a flight. Their religion forbids drinking, and alcohol can prove quite flammable. But will the airlines stop serving it? Cori Heh heh. Cori, what would you like the airlines to do - really, practically do - with this piece of "knowledge"? Islam does not require its followers to carry an ID card, no more than do all those who say they are Muslims shun all alcohol, no more can an airline reasonably discriminate between who is allowed alcohol and who is not on any kind of religious grounds for that would be them imposing their interpretation of a religion upon their passengers. Would you like them to stop serving pork to "Jewish types" too? If you find this ridiculous then you don't understand. I suspect the airlines don't serve alcohol in any quantity such that it is particularly hazardous already. I doubt anyone gets the bottle left with them. Well, even the individual serving size bottles of booze they DO leave with the passengers could probably start a respectable fire if someone had a mind to, but it seems highly unlikely anyone would use such a roundabout method! But this a is *exactly* the kind of thing that a good espionage operative should be looking to use. Though I will accecpt that he recent crop of espionage operatives don't appear to have reached the competence level of good . Well, what would you expect of spies whose intention is to immolate themselves along with their prey? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Film Cameras in Checked Luggage
Larry in Berkeley wrote: If you are travelling by air with a film camera, don't forget that now all airlines require cameras to be in checked luggage, not carried on board. It is absolutely essential to have the film (and the camera containing film) in a lead pouch. Otherwise, many strong x-rays used for checked luggage will fry all your film. Camera stores have or can get the lead pouches. On my last trip, I had some instant coffee in a plastic container with a small silver-plated spoon. One of the x-ray machines was so strong that it melted and solidified all the coffee! Not exactly film safe! Larry in Berkeley, California The thieves in baggage handling (or TSA) will have a bounty picking cameras off checked bags. I had my digital camera stolen two years ago in checked luggage. I'll check it with the TSA and get a receipt if they insist on putting it in checked bags. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Film Cameras in Checked Luggage
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Film Cameras in Checked Luggage
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:42:22 +0100, "tim"
wrote: "James Robinson" wrote in message ... "Larry in Berkeley" wrote: If you are travelling by air with a film camera, don't forget that now all airlines require cameras to be in checked luggage, not carried on board. You can still carry cameras aboard on flights originating in the USA. The only place in the world that restricts you are flights originating in the UK. As of today this restriction has been removed. There will apparently be a few days whilst the airports discourage it, but HMG have officially now allowed them again. tim Have you ever noticed that increased restricitions take effect instantly but when they are relaxed it "takes a few days for them to filter into the system and for people to be trained." Odd is it not? And in fact, sometimes it takes years and even when shown their own web pages or memos, they refuse to believe something is permitted onboard. JIm P. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Idiocy of Federal Airport Security | ### Tired Of Spam ### | Air travel | 5 | August 17th, 2005 02:00 PM |
Longshoremen Put in Cuffs! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 28 | June 25th, 2005 02:44 AM |
Update on stolen digital camera in checked luggage | yaofeng | Air travel | 10 | June 23rd, 2005 06:55 AM |
flying, film and X-rays | Lisa Horton | Air travel | 3 | February 16th, 2004 08:20 PM |
Encounters with the TSA | Lansbury | Air travel | 297 | November 13th, 2003 01:20 PM |