Dealing with tiny carry-on

The recent downsizing of carry-on is something that could well affect all countries and all airlines. It is time we acted.

The political knee-jerk response was to ban carry-on. Well, the business community weren't going to have that and nobody would ever have flown 1st class again as there'd have been no point.

As a sop to the business community they allowed a laptop bag, completely ignoring the needs of specialist travellers. I wonder whether a doctor travelling with a human organ in a cold box that was bigger than the carry-on allowance would be forced to check his baggage? I doubt it so exceptions do exist and where exceptions exist it's possible to lever those exceptions to be available for more.

If en masse people refused to fly until the baggage allowance was restored then it would have an economic impact that would have the airlines pressing the politicians to change the rules. Politicians bow only to big business. We don;t really need a Prime Minister or a President - countries are not run by government. Government is a puppet of big business. We need big business to see things our way.

A good start would be to write to the airlines pointing out the folly of the baggage allowance and how it's making it impossible for you to fly. If enough do that then business will press government to make a change. Another tack would be to write to your public representatives to point out how the low carry-on policy is stopping you from flying. We should all do this.

I know I for one will be using transatlantic ferries as an alternative to flying because I don't feel that my expensive laptop and camera gear is safe with airline baggage handlers. I have seen too much rough handling in my time and too many things going missing. With the ban on locks, it now is a goldmine for baggage thieves. We must get the carry-on allowance restored for high-value and delicate items.

Nice rant.

It's inaccurate, but it's a nice rant.

I flew last week, from San Diego to Montreal, and no problem, whatsoever, carrying on a small Canon camera bag and my laptop bag. My "high value" and "delicate" items were in the bin above my seat the whole time.

Things are, I'm sure, different in the UK, where carry-ons were, I believe, not allowed at all.

I would rather you (and I) be inconvenienced if the alternative; say, what was being planned in Britain, were to take place. It was not a "political knee-jerk reaction". It was a countermeasure to a very real threat.

Sorry if you feel inconvenienced. Deal with it...

It's not a rant. What happens under the name of "counter terrorism" generally gets going in all countries. Look at unauthorised phone-tapping - it was just for quick access to terrorists. Now that is getting more widespread. In Britain ID cards have been touted as a way of combatting terrorist (it didn't help in Madrid, where they do have ID cards). Thus, Britain's getting ID cards in a few years. Whatever goes under counter-terrorism spreads and the volume of situations it covers expands exponentially.

Getting back on topic, if a checked bag containing an expensive lens is roughly handled and the lens is broken by impact or G-force then your insurance won't cover it and the airlines won't either. The fact is that high value and delicate items do need to be carried as carry-on. It's the only way to ensure its safety.

Regarding the smaller allowance helping security. It's complete nonsense. All bags - whether they go into the hold or as carry on have to be checked. The big time-waster for hold luggage is opening everything that contains metal, dense material or electrical items (a perfect description of camera gear and laptops). Smaller carry-on allowances are not a solution to terrorism. Heck, a determined terrorist could carry explosives in a body cavity. How's that going to be detected? Not even the body scans can see more than 1/8th inch below human skin.

We need to work to reclaim the carry-on allowance instead of bickering amongst ourselves.

Just as an aside, kidneys for transplant are packed in ice and a styrofoam cooler and sent via commercial overnight deliveries, while more crucial organs like hearts and livers are hand carried by the transplant team on a private plane, so this isn't affecting the transplant surgeons.

One group that has been affected and is making noise is professional musicians. Just imagine being told you had to put a Stradivarius in the hold; even if insured to the hilt many musical instruments are truly irreplaceable.

Flying is becoming ever more expensive and burdensome; at the same time the largest US carriers are in various proximity to bankruptcy; does anyone else see the connection?

Oh puhleese. To try to put your camera gear in the same context as a human organ being delivered for transplant is well, plain silly.

First and foremost, the recent regulation changes were as a result of the rules being amended by government agencies and not the airlines. The airlines can take those rules and make them more restrictive but not less restrictive. You will find that most airlines will abide by the rules set forth by the government agencies. It is true that in the last year or so I have seen the airlines start to better enforce their rules that were already in place with respect to carry-on. It was long overdue.

So who wins in a mass boycott of traveling by air. The terrorists, that's who. Even if they didn't complete their so called mission they accomplished in disrupting the system, which they have long contended serves their purpose as well.

I worked in the airline industry for more than 30 years and saw my fair share of these types of threats. When it comes down to it, everyone still travels. It is the quickest way between two points. Certainly the business community isn't going to stop.

I view your post as an over reaction to a temporary situation. As Steve noted, certain carry on items are now being allowed again. There are restrictions that we didn't use to have, ie. certain liquids but that is to be expected out of a situation like we just had.

I'm not going say that all pieces of baggage are handled with the utmost care and attention. Over 99% of all baggage reaches its destination on time and without damage. On a flight that is being operated with a 250 seat aircraft you will have approximately 400 pieces of luggage (this varies by destination). The aircraft is not available for loading until 20-30 minutes prior to departure at best. There just isn't the manpower for the airlines to treat each piece like you would handle your own. Been there, done that. Don't suggest that they put more staff on as that just adds to the costs and airlines are struggling as it is and those same people that demand their bags be given tlc will also be the first ones to complain on price increases which this would ultimately result in. The airlines are in bad financial shape as it is and cost cutting has resulted in either less staff doing the same jobs or contracting out to third party handling companies. Either way the airline is still responsible for what it accepts from its customers.

I travel with way more gear than could ever conceivably be carried on board. I have no problem checking my equipment as I know that it is packed to withstand even irresponsible handling. The customer has to accept some responsibility ensuring that their gear is packed to take this into account, particularly these days when you just never know when the government is going to raise the security alert level and we face this all over again.

Life is full of choices. Some may elect to not travel at all. Some will choose other modes of transportation happily, others not so happy. I do know one thing, when you are traveling by ship from Europe to North America you won't find many high paid business people dining with you. Their time is just valuable for that. If you do choose to go by sea, enjoy your trip.

I for one, will be back in the air as soon as possible carrying what gear I am allowed to with the rest being checked as baggage. I refuse to let them win.

I see a connection. I saw many bankruptcies after 911 and airlines were only recently heading into profit. I will agree that flying is becoming more expensive and burdensome. And the worst thing of all is that none of these alleged security measures add security for the airliners or the passangers. They're just a political exercise of papering over the cracks.

As I've said, unless we can get these silly carry-on size restrictions changed then most of us that need to carry expensive and delicate gear will be travelling by other methods. For example, many pros now drive instead of using air transport because prior to the events of 2 weeks ago, air travel security was taking too much time and causing too much hassle.

My relatives in the UK have stated their desire to see me travel by ship instead of plane on the basis that security is so poor and because hassle is so high. I am not prepared to let baggage handlers toss my cameras and laptop gaily around as though it was small peanuts. If I arrive somewhere that I'm supposed to be doing travel photography and my camera kit is damaged it might not be possible to get replacements and that would destroy the assignment and cost a lot of money into the bargain.

We do need urgently for all photographers to write to all the airlines concerned, to BAA and to the UK government to dissuade them from carrying on this policy and to persuade them to employ more baggage checkers to examine baggage more thoroughly.

Zzz get a grip.

If you're worried about your equipment get it insured. Personally I don't give diddly squat about mine if it means I can fly safer. These restrictions had to be put in place. God forbid if anything had happened we would be blaming them for not being tight enough with security. For your information, police are currently searching the woods below my house (yes I live in High Wycombe) for explosives and they have found some. This is a very real threat, not some political tool. So stop being so selfish as to think that your electronics are what's important here. Lets face it, it's yours and our foreign policy that's put us in this position.

Anyway thats my rant over... I know it shouldn't even be discussed on a photography forum but... whoops... *click*

Hang on? I am British. Have you seen the disclaimer on the airline sites in the US that divorces them from liability for damage to hold baggage? As far as I know, hold baggage is not insurable by US insurers.

Insurance is not going to do anybody any good if you're off on an assignment to shoot a unique event in a distant country where you cannot easily obtain replacement gear and your gear is wrecked by baggage handlers, is stolen or mislaid by the airlines. That would be a loss of a unique opportunity, your gear and the assigment. It would also cost you the transport expenses and you wouldn't get paid because you couldn't fulfill your contract. That's the kind of thing that could well destroy somebody's career.

The eclectronics as you say are very important. Without them the trip is pointless for many professionals. Look at musicians - a stradivarius or a top-of-the-line set of bagpipes just will not survive even mildly rough handling nor the changes in pressure and temperature. Even well packed stuff is subject to G-forces if they're dropped. Haven't you heard of the guy that drop-tested a camera bag with a camera inside. The bag was undamaged but the camera was destroyed by the G-forces. The shutter and mirror assemblies were damaged beyond economical repair.

If a stradivarious were to be destroyed it would not just be tragic for the musician but for the whole world as there is a finite number of them and Gustav Stradivarius only made his best between 1698 and 1720. Since he's dead there's no chance of getting a replacement. Each Stradivarius is unique with its own unique sound and characteristics.

By all means support security but temper caution with your support. Until carry-on is brought back to its original size, I cannot possibly afford the risk of flying with my gear in the hold. It is essential to my business.

Maybe you should be protesting to the insurance companies about better coverage rather then questioning the airlines actions?

I noticed in a similar thread someone mentioned getting gear couried over as an option - or you could always hire gear at your destination - as a pro this would make know difference - its not like you'd be paying for it.

Arn't these restrictions temporary anyway? I'd be worried that the security isn't tight enough after seeing the recent article about the boy getting through to a plane undetected.....

I actually have less of a problem than some do with putting my gear in the hold if packed properly, but long before 2001 airline service had gotten so poor that I could drive 8 hours or spend 3 hours on planes and another 5 or 6 hours driving to the airport and waiting around in airports-and cover the same distance. I could go on about the state of air service in the US, but since this is a photography forum, as pointed out above, I will be quiet now.

My reading of the situation is that baggage theft/damage is so rife that insurance companies as an act of self-preservation won't cover it.

Couriering is a novel idea. I don't carry enough to make it worthwhile and carry too much to use the carry-on allowance.

As far as I know, the restrictions are permanant.

The dimensions they have suggested for hand luggage are equivalent to a backpack. It seems a standard size to me

Taken from http://www.heathrow-airport-guide.co.uk/security.h​tml

Now you're just making stuff up.

When I flew with my small Canon bag (with just a body and a lens), I saw more than one person with photo backpacks and rolling backpacks. I could've travelled with my rolling backpack had I made that decision, and I would not have had a problem. This, by the way, was within the last week...

[QUOTE]For example, many pros now drive instead of using air transport because prior to the events of 2 weeks ago, air travel security was taking too much time and causing too much hassle.

Hey... Got an idea for you: Don't fly.

But, please, don't go off on some psuedo-political rant to get everyone else to go along with you. My personal experiences and, evidently, the experiences of many others, are different than yours. I've no inclination to stop flying because you tell me I should...

What's the "BAA", and what good would it do for Americans, who aren't travelling to the UK, to write to that government? What do you want us to do? Lie?

They're half the size that they were before. This is the problem. I don't know any professional that can put a realistic camera kit and a laptop into a case that small without going for ultra-small laptops (with non-standard drives) and small dSLRs like the Olympus system. It's no longer possible for many professionals to carry all the gear they need. The old size was served perfectly by the AirportAddicted bag.

Gotta' be honest, man, I've never seen those words strung together in a sentence like that...

What is it you want changed??

I can travel tomorrow with the same size carry on bag I travelled with a year ago. Your point is, well... pretty pointless...