Carry-ons (Opinions?)

"XOR" wrote in message
om...

heh, one time when I had both of my 2 70lb* bags delayed,I was rather
glad after the fact when they were delivered to my doorstep as I
realised I didn't have to carry them myself, though I felt sorry for
the delivery guys.

However, I had to wait more than 24 hrs for them. I don't think I've
ever received my delayed luggage within 6 hrs! One time I had to wait
more than 48 hrs (there's only one flight 3x per week), but that was
just a small bag...and fortunately I'd packed the food (cheeses) into
the other small bag which *did* arrive with me. Most often, after an
evening arrival, it's been the next day, in the afternoon. For that
length of time, I at least want to carry with me a change of
undergarments and toiletries. It's happened to me enough times -
maybe I just have bad luck - that I prefer to be prepared.

Mine really are within 6 hours or so. 80% of my flights are about
1.5 to 2 hours. They usually do a good turn around with my bags. The other
20% are international flights, but so far, my bags arrived when I did.

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...

Oh please... the simple fact is you have the proverbial 5 pound bag and
we,
yes I say we because we all do it, try and put 10 pounds of crap in the
bag.

You're really something. I'll say it again: you haven't the slightest
idea
what I carry or why I carry it (or how much it weighs). My carryons
comply
with all airline requirements. I don't care whether they comply with your
requirements.

I don't know what you "need." I don't what to know what you "need." My
point is that if we all, yes, again we, all think about what will fit
instead of saying just take it, the point might become moot.

Last time: you haven't a clue what I need, how I pack, why I take things,
etc. All you need to know is that I don't violate airline carryon
requirements.


Bully for you... let's hope your feelings rub off on those that don't
then...

J

Jenn wrote:
sneakers would be the easiest type shoe to rig with explosives given
their large size and goofy appearance

Better watch out for terrorists with giant red clown shoes!

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Me wrote:

In article ,
"Jim Davis Sr." wrote:

I like the Shoe thing. We have to have our shoes inspected because some
nimrod had explosives in his shoes. Think of what will happen if they find
a guy with a stick of dynamite up his ass. (They already have the rubber
gloves)

Actually, only shoes that have metal components are searched. I solved
the problem by wearing sneakers onboard flights. I have never, not once,
had my shoes inspected because they contain no metal at all and I travel
about three times a year on average. My previous flight was about one
month ago and my next one will be in early March with another trip
probably later in March so I am not an infrequent flyer.

Sorry but you are wrong in some cases. I've had them insist on running
my sandals thru. Not only is there no metal but there isn't much shoe
and not much space to hide anything. FFM

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...
Me wrote:

In article ,
"Jim Davis Sr." wrote:

I like the Shoe thing. We have to have our shoes inspected because some
nimrod had explosives in his shoes. Think of what will happen if they
find
a guy with a stick of dynamite up his ass. (They already have the
rubber
gloves)

Actually, only shoes that have metal components are searched. I solved
the problem by wearing sneakers onboard flights. I have never, not once,
had my shoes inspected because they contain no metal at all and I travel
about three times a year on average. My previous flight was about one
month ago and my next one will be in early March with another trip
probably later in March so I am not an infrequent flyer.

Sorry but you are wrong in some cases. I've had them insist on running
my sandals thru. Not only is there no metal but there isn't much shoe
and not much space to hide anything. FFM

I've had them run sandal's through as well.. in addition to sneakers or
anything checkpoint friendly.

I travel about 36 times a year (average 3 trips a month, usually) and each
trip usually includes at least 2 segments in each direction (sometimes 3).
Sometimes I'll leave the secure area to smoke on a layover. With 36 trips,
even without going to smoke, that is a minimum of 72 visits through the
check point, which in reality is more because of #1) the requirement to
clear security again after US Customs (as much travel is Intl now) and #2)
Leaving the secure area for a smoke or to change terminals.

On the bright side, as much travel is Intl, at least many of the overseas
screenings are hassle free with no shoe carnival, but as I have to re-enter
the US and connect, the TSA still gets me at least once inbound.

Like others on here, I've pretty much seen it all with the shoe thing and
other things .. the good, the bad, and the ugly of the TSA.

Best,

Steve (Off to London later today)...

Carlos Rodriguez writes
Having read all the posts so far, it seems to me that there are two kinds of
pax: those that follow the known rules, and those that don't. (Those that
don't have a wide variety of excuses, none of which actually excuse them
from following the published "terms and conditions" of flying.) And never
the twain shall meet...

It also seems that there's no one model of business travel. Different
business travellers evidently have very different requirements.

An extreme example of this: in a previous life I used to work for an oil
exploration company. An oil exploration crew may employ several hundred
people and will require lots of expensive capital equipment. If the crew
is out of action for any reason, the company haemorrhages cash like
there's no tomorrow. If it's your job to get the crew up and running
again, you hand carry everything you need to do the job. Even if you
have to purchase extra seats in order to do this. To turn up in Lagos or
Sanaa or Oman and find that your bags have gone missing, or even are a
few hours late, would be something of a career limiting move!

Although there isn't the same cash imperative, leisure travel isn't all
cut from the same cloth either.

For example, on a week long holiday in Gozo, Air Malta left our bags at
LGW. We got the bags a day later. No big deal. We bought some beach
stuff, which Air Malta paid for, and got on with our holiday.

On the other hand, at the beginning of a month long trip round Chile
and Argentina, someone at LGW stole a waterproof coat from my wife's
backpack. We discovered this at Santiago, and it was no big deal to buy
a replacement. But we had put together quite a finely crafted itinerary.
It's a long trek from the UK to Chile, and quite expensive, and we
wanted to see as much as we could. We'd booked quite a bit of internal
air travel. It occurred to us that if we'd lost a lot of stuff, we might
not have time to replace the essentials without rescheduling, with all
the wasted time, problems and loss that entails.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , me says...
[snip]
Not so much flames, just a comment that it is usually considered
"smart" not to intentionally set oneself up for failure. If you
can do things to avoid risks which are significant to you, it
is considered wise to do so. So we allow extra time to get to the
airport which we know can be crowded. We don't carry stuff in our
pockets that we know will be confiscated by the TSA. We carry
around extra credit cards, duplicate ID's, extra cash, all manner
of things to try to handle "contingencies". If someone is bothered
by the wait, is concerned about not having something upon arrival,
or needs to leave the airport as soon as practical, carrying on
their luggage is a wise decision. It might also be wise however
to only try to carry on what is permitted under the rules.

Which is how I think - in terms of contingencies. Like packing what's needed for
the next day or so in a carryon, and/or wearing on the flight what would be
passable for one's activities the next day.

In many of my longer trips, I couldn't possibly pack enough in a carry-on
to achieve this, especially if the delay in luggage would be more than
24 hours. As it is I merely carry on the most expensive things to replace.
The worst case scenario is when I'll be changing locations each day.


It's contingency planning which go to violating rules and imposing
on pax which folks resent here.


Actually, if you review portions of this thread, you'll see that folks
complain that folks carry on too much, permissible or not.

"Jim Davis Sr." wrote in message om...
"XOR" wrote in message
om...

heh, one time when I had both of my 2 70lb* bags delayed,I was rather
glad after the fact when they were delivered to my doorstep as I
realised I didn't have to carry them myself, though I felt sorry for
the delivery guys.

However, I had to wait more than 24 hrs for them. I don't think I've
ever received my delayed luggage within 6 hrs! One time I had to wait
more than 48 hrs (there's only one flight 3x per week), but that was
just a small bag...and fortunately I'd packed the food (cheeses) into
the other small bag which *did* arrive with me. Most often, after an
evening arrival, it's been the next day, in the afternoon. For that
length of time, I at least want to carry with me a change of
undergarments and toiletries. It's happened to me enough times -
maybe I just have bad luck - that I prefer to be prepared.

Mine really are within 6 hours or so. 80% of my flights are about
1.5 to 2 hours. They usually do a good turn around with my bags. The other
20% are international flights, but so far, my bags arrived when I did.

You're lucky. Or maybe I'm just unlucky.

My travel is the opposite though - about 80% international and 20%
domestic, and those are usually 4-8 hr trips.

This is mind-boggling!

A single, exclusive thread -- a continuing specific topic -- for
something like 57 hours!

Not only that, but many posts were (mostly) polite, and some even
offered constructive advice.

One or two even showed some humour.

And the word "Hitler" disn't appear even once!

Hey Santa, why can't Christmas last all year?

(Oops! better check my plonk! settings in case they became flabby over
the holidays like the rest of us.)

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:30:24 GMT, "David Gee"
wrote:

This is mind-boggling!

A single, exclusive thread -- a continuing specific topic -- for
something like 57 hours!

Not only that, but many posts were (mostly) polite, and some even
offered constructive advice.

One or two even showed some humour.

And the word "Hitler" disn't appear even once!

It has now.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *