Ship of Fools: Airline to start charging for carry-on bags

Thread: Airline to start charging for carry-on bags Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025644

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Frontier Airlines has announced that it will begin charging for carry-on bags when passengers buy their tickets at the airport, through a travel agent, or through a website other than Frontier's. They say that this is in response to loyal customers who have complained of how hard it is to find room for luggage in the overhead bins.

Well, of course it is! First the airlines discourage passengers from checking luggage by imposing a fee for that (we'll let pass for now the inconvenience of having to wait at the carousel after arriving for checked luggage to be delivered). So naturally passengers are going to want to carry their luggage onto the plane. And now they'll be charged for it!

Oh, yes, I almost forgot. Frontier is going to start charging for soft beverages too, like they do for meals that used to be provided free of charge?

It seems to me that this airline actually wants to go out of business. Why else would they impose more harassment on an already over-harassed traveling public?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

My experience with flying is that many passengers take the absolute maximum they can get away with as carry on. This means one of the large wheeled ones and another second smaller sized one (which your link indicates Frontier won't charge for), plus some other purse like thing, coat, their lunch and heaven/hell knows what else. I have boarded a plane from making connections, thus not in the middle of a line-up but at the very tail-end, and there has been no place to put my one smaller size carry on knapsack or coat. Not fair. So I think your hell call is wrongly directed. It should be directed at passengers who abuse the onboard allowance for carry on. Probably the airline is not charging enough.

I have even had a person put their larger wheeled one under the seat in front of them, taking up all of my foot room as well. On this one, I told him he can't do it, he objected, and I stood in the aisle reporting to onboard personnel that I was unable to use my seat. He was mad - whatever - so was I.

So I support the charging, but I'd go further. One small carry on allowed, no large wheeled bags. Air Canada routinely tells passengers to leave their larger wheeled ones by the boarding door and they thrown them down to be put into the baggage check. They are retrieved by the door on the way out of the plane. Perhaps a reasonable saw-off.

I believe Ryanair has been charging for carry on for a while at least on some flights.

I get the resistance to paying for all services, but this is the current way of the world it seems. But people take far too much stuff with them when travelling. Far, far too much.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

Ryanair charge for everything. I call them ThenardiAir:

"Charge 'em for the loos, extra for the booze
Two per cent for speaking to the cabin crews
Here a little slice, there a little cut
Ten per cent for flying with the window shut!"

And let's not get on to the 'charge passengers by their body weight' idea...!

[ 02. May 2013, 15:58: Message edited by: Gill H ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Does Ryanair actually charge to pee and poo?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Personally I'm surprised Ryanair doesn't charge you extra for breathing inside the cabin. Everything else is extra.

I think there is a better way around the problem, and that is to introduce strict limits on the size and weight of bags acceptable as carryons, and to allow only one per person. This is what Easyjet does and I've never had any problems finding space in the overhead lockers for my bag. Any bags over the limit have to go in the hold.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
introduce strict limits on the size and weight of bags acceptable as carryons, and to allow only one per person.

I thought that was the norm. I mostly fly BA, and it's just the one - albeit you are allowed one free checked luggage. If it's a particularly full flight, they do the thing of taking selected cabin bags in the hold.

KLM, Virgin and BMI the same, as I recall.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

"This is your captain speaking. We are approaching Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam. Those of you who actually wish to land there should approach our cabin crew. All major credit cards accepted. Thank you."

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
introduce strict limits on the size and weight of bags acceptable as carryons, and to allow only one per person.
I thought that was the norm. I mostly fly BA, and it's just the one - albeit you are allowed one free checked luggage. If it's a particularly full flight, they do the thing of taking selected cabin bags in the hold.

KLM, Virgin and BMI the same, as I recall.

Yep - I don't think any ailine in the UK is without restriction to the one carryon bag.

Some allow carryon bag + handbag, but many don't. I am flying out to Rome tomorrow and it's one bag only, handbag included.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Time to remind people of -

**this**

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

I think there is a better way around the problem, and that is to introduce strict limits on the size and weight of bags acceptable as carryons, and to allow only one per person. This is what Easyjet does and I've never had any problems finding space in the overhead lockers for my bag. Any bags over the limit have to go in the hold.

Most American airlines, in principle, already have those limits. In practice, they are usually ignored by passengers and crew alike, presumably because making a fuss over someone's oversize/overweight carry-on might delay takeoff.

Re the OP, as though I need another reason to avoid flying at all costs. Feckin' 'ell.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
My experience with flying is that many passengers take the absolute maximum they can get away with as carry on.

Yes, but my point is that the airlines encourage this behavior by charging for checked luggage. That's why I'm calling them to hell. If passengers were instead encouraged to check their luggage, the problem might not be as great.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think there is a better way around the problem, and that is to introduce strict limits on the size and weight of bags acceptable as carryons, and to allow only one per person.

Yes, I agree.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Most American airlines, in principle, already have those limits. In practice, they are usually ignored by passengers and crew alike, presumably because making a fuss over someone's oversize/overweight carry-on might delay takeoff.

It's the opposite in the UK - they have little bag measuring cages and if yours doesn't measure up you are sent off to check it into the hold. No-one gets past the baggage checkers!

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

The worst offender must be Air Canada. Returning from my recent trip I saw more than one person get on the plane with:

Suitcase on wheelies
Computer has its own bag, also on wheelies, or attached somehow to the other bag on wheelies
AND a carry-on shoulder bag bigger than my one agonizingly packed 7 kg carry on.

Wodders knows what I left behind to meet the limits too. [Waterworks]

[ 02. May 2013, 18:42: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
PeteC: Wodders knows what I left behind to meet the limits too.

Is it edible (or drinkable)?

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

1 kg of tea, so drinkable if you add boiling water.

[Waterworks]

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does Ryanair actually charge to pee and poo?

They wanted to, but I think weren't allowed.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I've just encountered the penchant of most American airlines to charge for checked luggage. And, it seems from reading my tickets, to charge for the merest scrap of food on fairly lengthy flights.

I'm not pleased.

Mind you, one of Australia's 2 main airlines (Virgin) also does these things. Which is one reason for choosing Qantas on any longer flights.

I'm sure all the business day-trippers can cope with just a bit of carry-on luggage, and no-one really needs food on a flight in the SE corridor anyway. But it means it ups the cost and hassle for people doing longer trips, both in terms of flight and in terms of going somewhere for longer, like on holiday.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It sounds like a budget airline.

Budget airlines have a simple business model. Cut operating costs to a minimum and attract customers with rock bottom headline prices. Cutting costs results in them using airports with lower landing fees and other costs (even if that puts their airport for city X a very long way from X). It means that they cut the number of people on the ground; less staff at check-in (but with them working more of the day with almost perpetual queues of people checking in), discourage checked luggage reducing the need for baggage handlers (also speeding up luggage loading/unloading) etc. They also keep their flight crew to the legal minimum - and, not having to serve everyone a drink/meal helps there. Reduce aircraft turn around time; not having to load as much luggage, carts of food/drink etc helps there.

Cutting the headline charge also means that they define a whole host of things as optional extras. Different airlines adopt slightly different sets of extras. But, for short flights you don't actually need a meal/drink. Many passengers don't have a lot of luggage (eg: for business trips with just stuff for the day, or maybe one or two overnights), why should they pay extra for the unused option to check in a bag? Charges for hand luggage, or a free allowance for one small bag with charges for extra or large items, are very common.

There is choice for the consumer. You want more service? An airport closer to home/destination? Taking lots of luggage and don't want to pay extra? Then book your flight with a traditional airline and pay the extra (although, often if you add up budget airline costs for extra luggage, meals, etc then the difference won't be that big). Want to keep costs to a minimum, put up with some extra hassle and less comfort.

The budget airline model works for the airlines using it. It works, because passengers tend to be satisfied with lower levels of service if they save money. It's a bit rich to complain about a business model that is built on providing a lower level of service when they provide a lower level of service.

Posted by Catrine (# 9811) on :

Used to fly every weekend. So glad I don't now. There are of course those very stylish coats you can wear see here but you will become a little more rounded in the process...

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Boogie:

quote:
Some allow carryon bag + handbag, but many don't.

That's why my handbag is small enough to fit inside my carryon...

They did let my daughter take her cuddly toy through - after X-raying it. But she is small and cute and can get away with that sort of thing (and it would have fitted inside her carryon bag; we checked).

So American airlines have these rules but everyone ignores them? What's the point of having the rules, then?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Alan:

quote:
It's a bit rich to complain about a business model that is built on providing a lower level of service when they provide a lower level of service.

There's low, and there's below sea level. Ryanair is the Dead Sea of budget airlines.

I have not even mentioned the hypocrisy of offering low fares and then adding on so many 'extras' that the eventual cost of the flight ends up being about the same as you'd pay for a BA ticket. If you're going to pay that much anyway, better go with an airline where the pilot is more likely to be awake (budget airlines tend to exploit their staff, too).

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does Ryanair actually charge to pee and poo?
They wanted to, but I think weren't allowed.

It could be problematic, if you also want to charge people by their body weight. Would that be body weight before, or body weight after ...?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Adeodatus:

quote:
It could be problematic, if you also want to charge people by their body weight. Would that be body weight before, or body weight after ...?

Whichever is heaviest, of course! You obviously haven't got the hang of this...

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

It could lead to scenes like the supermarket checkout where someone hasn't got enough cash and has to leave something.

"mop to check-in desk seven please!"

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Catrine:
There are of course those very stylish coats you can wear see here but you will become a little more rounded in the process...

Oh my Lord. Should I start a separate hell thread on the utterly stupid ways people change their behaviour to 'save money' or should I just plough right on here?

Yes, I really want to take up space in my wardrobe with a garment specifically designed for wearing on planes...

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Meh. For the route I most frequently fly it usually works out cheaper to just get on Air France instead of looking for budget and then adding the luggage and the credit card charge (how the heck else you supposed to pay?) and bla bla bla...

It's more comfortable and the service is better as well (except for when they're on strike, which is a whole other hell thread).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
It's a bit rich to complain about a business model that is built on providing a lower level of service when they provide a lower level of service.

I don't see the richness. When that's the only business model you can choose from for domestic flights, you really don't have much choice.

The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of flying Americans, at least, for too long have been using ONLY price as the criteria for choosing a flight, creating a race to the bottom. Meaning that if someone really wants an airline that provides a higher level of service, they're screwed. In which case there's nothing ironic about their complaining about it.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
charge people by their body weight

That's already happened.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I understand that Hawaiian Airlines does things somewhat better.

I also understand that Hawaiian consistently wins higher marks for customer satisfaction than most other US domestic carriers, as well as scoring well on things like timeliness.

Of course, this is only useful on select routes...

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does Ryanair actually charge to pee and poo?
They wanted to, but I think weren't allowed.

Yes I think they couldn't get away with their pound-a-pee plans. Thank the Lord. I once had an unhappy time scrabbling in the debris towards the end of a long-haul, looking for my fellow-passenger's glasses which had fallen off while she was sleeping. If tight-arsed travellers had been relieving themselves on the floor... [Eek!]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It sounds like a budget airline.

Budget airlines have a simple business model.
[snip]

There is choice for the consumer. You want more service? An airport closer to home/destination? Taking lots of luggage and don't want to pay extra? Then book your flight with a traditional airline and pay the extra (although, often if you add up budget airline costs for extra luggage, meals, etc then the difference won't be that big). Want to keep costs to a minimum, put up with some extra hassle and less comfort.

The budget airline model works for the airlines using it. It works, because passengers tend to be satisfied with lower levels of service if they save money. It's a bit rich to complain about a business model that is built on providing a lower level of service when they provide a lower level of service.

Nice thought Alan...too bad it doesn't work in some parts of the world. The local "traditional" carrier, and the only "non-budget" Canadian carrier to fly to most international destinations, is deeply involved in all the things you ascribe to budget carriers. And its ticket prices are still higher than theirs.

John

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

It's just typical, wearisome marketing. HEY CHECK OUT OUR GREAT OFFER!!! Except... (small print small print small print, read out at great speed sotto voce if it's a radio ad). As always, no free lunch. We all know that, yes?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
It's just typical, wearisome marketing. HEY CHECK OUT OUR GREAT OFFER!!! Except... (small print small print small print, read out at great speed sotto voce if it's a radio ad). As always, no free lunch. We all know that, yes?

Quite right. Every retail establishment online or high street that has ever put the word SALE on its front door hedges with conditions. How often does "50% off" apply to every item in the store, in all circumstances? It may for example require that you buy using the store's 'discount card' which you have to pay for (yes GoCamping, I'm talking about you!).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does Ryanair actually charge to pee and poo?
They wanted to, but I think weren't allowed.

Citation needed.

Ryanair are brilliant at getting themselves in the news on the basis that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and I think this was just a clever - and free - publicity stunt by O'Leary.

I have flown Ryanair at least once a year on average for some 15 years and have had a major delay only once or twice. I have found it cheaper to fly four adults to the UK and back for a weekend and hire a car than simply to put the same four adults in a car on a ferry, without considering the extra time and mileage involved.

Having to click through everything they try to get you to add on is annoying, and there are semi-hidden charges, but in my experience Flybe are much worse offenders in this respect. The difference between the shout-out fare and the final total can be practically double, and Flybe's fares aren't Ryanair cheap to start with.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

The last time my husband and I flew Ryanair, we had foolishly thought we could aggregate our baggage allowance, and had one suitcase between us, which was over the allowance for a single person, but well below our joint allowance.

Alas! we were told our suitcase had to be below the single allowance, but the sympathetic Ryanair person pointed out we could wear an extra layer, stuff our jacket pockets with stuff etc and get the weight down. So we stood next to the Ryanair check-in, both put on a couple of jumpers under our coats, etc, waddled onto the flight like Michelin men, then stripped off the layers when we got on.

I failed to see how that could possibly make more sense than letting us have a single suitcase between us.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I failed to see how that could possibly make more sense than letting us have a single suitcase between us.

Someone has to lift each suitcase. If you'd packed it in 2 smaller ones, the back of a Ryanair employee would have an easier time of it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
It's a bit rich to complain about a business model that is built on providing a lower level of service when they provide a lower level of service.
I don't see the richness. When that's the only business model you can choose from for domestic flights, you really don't have much choice.

The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of flying Americans, at least, for too long have been using ONLY price as the criteria for choosing a flight, creating a race to the bottom. Meaning that if someone really wants an airline that provides a higher level of service, they're screwed. In which case there's nothing ironic about their complaining about it.

In that vein, a few years ago a major domestic airline (I forget which) made a big show of removing a few rows of seats so the rest of the rows could have more leg room.

Were Americans willing to pay slightly more for a more comfortable ride? NOPE! So they quietly crammed the rows right back in so that people could pay less for less again.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I failed to see how that could possibly make more sense than letting us have a single suitcase between us.
Someone has to lift each suitcase. If you'd packed it in 2 smaller ones, the back of a Ryanair employee would have an easier time of it.

The size wasn't apparently the issue; Ryanair offered to sell us a similarly-sized suitcase so that we could divide our stuff between them, but the cost of the second suitcase was prohibitive. Although our one suitcase was over the single limit, it still wasn't particularly heavy - we were able to get it down to the correct weight by wearing an extra couple of jumpers each and stuffing our coat pockets. Then, when we got onto the aeroplane, we took off the extra jumpers and put them in the overhead lockers.

We bought a second case while we were away (much cheaper than the one Ryanair offered to sell us!) and so travelled back with twice the hold luggage, volume wise.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
So I think your hell call is wrongly directed. It should be directed at passengers who abuse the onboard allowance for carry on. Probably the airline is not charging enough.

No, your redirection is misplaced. The root of the problem is that the carry-on allowance (one standard small wheeled bag, plus one small item under the seat) exceeds the capacity of the aircraft. No aeroplane has enough space for one standard wheeled bag per passenger.

Add to that the fact that charging for checked luggage pushes everyone in the direction of only taking carry-ons, and the fact that these days pretty much every flight flies full, and the results are obvious.

quote:

But people take far too much stuff with them when travelling. Far, far too much.

On my most recent flight, I was right at the limit of the permitted allowance, in terms of number of pieces (although the children's bags are small.) This is because I was traveling with Mrs. Cniht and the Cnihtlets, and I'm sure you'd rather that they were entertained, fed and quiet on the plane than the alternative. And yes, of course we brought lunch, because in case you hadn't noticed, domestic airlines have long since stopped serving food. So rather than paying $10 for a box-full of salty snacks that nobody will eat, we bring our own. I'd far rather eat a meal before the flight, but airline schedules are rarely so convenient.

Oh, and we went away for a little more than a week, did laundry in the middle, and still came home without a single clean item. That's not "carrying too much stuff".

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

[Strict, small limits on carryon sizes].
This is what Easyjet does and I've never had any problems finding space in the overhead lockers for my bag. Any bags over the limit have to go in the hold.

I used to fly Easyjet regularly - it's surprising how much you can squeeze into one 6 kilo carry-on, plus a laptop bag (which they don't, or didn't, weigh, so gets all the heavy paper) plus a coat with large pockets. [Big Grin]

A checked bag was free, so the point of going carry-on only was to avoid the hour-long wait for the baggage handlers at Gatwick to take my bag on a guided tour of the airport.

The move in the US to automated checkin at kiosks means that the first time a human being sees you and your carry-on bags is at the gate, when you stand up to board the plane. Making everyone fit their bag into a bag checker at that point will slow down boarding, which is a problem.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh how I love automated check in. The one person in attendance almost always has to talk to me anyway because I can't get their fucking luggage stickers right. And then one time, when I finally thought I knew how to do it, the machine chose that moment to run out of stickers.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I still think you guys are whining. Many of you live in places where you actually don't have to sit on a plane very long, and don't make nearly the number of connections we have to. I hate all of you, who (1) have a choice of airlines (2) complain about getting charged for packing too much (3) duration of your total flight time is less than 15 hours, not including airport time. Flaming farts aimed at you all.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I promise you no prophet, I shall think of you not a whit while I spend 18-19 hours of my life getting to Los Angeles, a city I actually have no desire to get to but which is only 2-3 hours drive away from the friends I want to see. A drive they will have to do in each direction to pick me up and take me back to their place.

Don't try to outwhine me on air travel just at the moment, sonny.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

noprophet:

quote:
Many of you live in places where you actually don't have to sit on a plane very long, and don't make nearly the number of connections we have to.

That's true; the longest journey I've done by air was to the US (about 9 hours IIRC). Usually it's 1-3 hours. However, Other Half does a lot of air travel for work and he has probably racked up a fair number of long-distance flights with complicated connections. If he's only going for a couple of days he crams everything he needs into his carryon bag, although nobody's lost his luggage - yet.

So we'll whinge if we want to. Here is a musical interlude to demonstrate that some Canadians whinge about airlines too (NB starts playing immediately, so probably not worksafe).

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I promise you no prophet, I shall think of you not a whit while I spend 18-19 hours of my life getting to Los Angeles, a city I actually have no desire to get to but which is only 2-3 hours drive away from the friends I want to see. A drive they will have to do in each direction to pick me up and take me back to their place.

Don't try to outwhine me on air travel just at the moment, sonny.

Okay, go for it. Your current travel is excessive. Our record is 26 hours to get to Portugal. We nearly died. I hope you have a nice flight!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

One can nearly die in one's own street. Doing it on the way to Portugal doesn't make it any more impressive.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I still think you guys are whining. Many of you live in places where you actually don't have to sit on a plane very long,

Surely this is also a function of where you're going? [Big Grin]

Having said that, to my mind the real killer is multiple changes. One single long flight - even the one Orfeo is about to take - is much easier to my mind than the same flight broken up into three segments, with the consequent stress and chance for the airline to screw things up in the middle. If I'm traveling by myself, it's not too bad, but with the Cnihtlets I'll do almost anything to avoid having to change planes.

Leo, who is fortunate to live close to a major hub airport.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I hate air travel! Especially Ryanair.

I do feel sorry for Americans and others who have no practical alternative for covering long distances, but here in Europe we have TRAINS!

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Time to remind people of -

**this**

This is the one I always think of.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Our record is 26 hours to get to Portugal. We nearly died.

OTOH Portugal is really worth it. That restaurant in the Campo Grande. The Convento de Christo in Tomar. The port tasting in Pinhao.

I do remember a trip from Edinburgh to Sante Fe which was 24hrs+

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I do feel sorry for Americans and others who have no practical alternative for covering long distances, but here in Europe we have TRAINS!

Some of us in the US are lucky enough to have the the Megabus.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
One single long flight - even the one Orfeo is about to take

It's 2 flights, plus the multi-hour car trip.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
One single long flight - even the one Orfeo is about to take
It's 2 flights, plus the multi-hour car trip.

That's what happens when your local 'International' airport doesn't have international flights.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
One single long flight - even the one Orfeo is about to take
It's 2 flights, plus the multi-hour car trip.

That's starting to sound pretty Hellish.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'm just damn grateful I've managed to engineer things so that I only have to arrive into LAX, not have a flight that departs from it. With arrival, once you've completed your tasks you can just get the hell out of there.

The limbo that is waiting for departure isn't the most exciting thing in a decent airport, but LAX is not, in my experience, anything resembling a decent airport.

[ 09. May 2013, 01:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

If anyone wants to discuss the comparative merits of international airports, regional airports, inner-city airports, town airports, heliports or those strips on beaches that get used for inter-island flights in the Western Isles of Scotland (when the tide's out), don't do it here.

It could however be a half-decent Heaven thread, though some of the comments wouldn't be heavenly.

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

Samoan Airlines factor a passenger's weight into the price of a ticket. Imagine the check in; "Just hop on the scales please sir." Yikes! If I ever plan a bit of island hopping in Samoa I think I'll go on a diet first.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Anyone ever travel with a small/medium size CPAP machine? I'm heading to Seattle on Delta in a few weeks and it will be my first flight ever! Yikes! I plan on bringing a medium size duffel bag (not wheeled) on with me+ the aforementioned CPAP to shove under my seat. I was also going to check one suitcase. I'm to be in Seattle for ten days. The duffel bag is for my vast amounts of medicines/asthma inhalers/diabetic testing supplies/cell phone and to have a bag for carrying around in Seattle.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
Anyone ever travel with a small/medium size CPAP machine?

No, but I did travel with a CRAP machine when I took a Dell laptop with me on an interstate trip once [Biased]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
Anyone ever travel with a small/medium size CPAP machine? I'm heading to Seattle on Delta in a few weeks and it will be my first flight ever! Yikes! I plan on bringing a medium size duffel bag (not wheeled) on with me+ the aforementioned CPAP to shove under my seat. I was also going to check one suitcase. I'm to be in Seattle for ten days. The duffel bag is for my vast amounts of medicines/asthma inhalers/diabetic testing supplies/cell phone and to have a bag for carrying around in Seattle.

I have done both in and out of Seattle. It helps to have gotten letters of medical necessity for both the meds, meters and the cpap in case the airlines get sticky about the need to keep them on the plane.

Security in every airport I've been in knows all about CPAP machines. They do pull it out and do a bizarre test where they put a strip of something next to the air filter on the machine but there's not problem with the machine. It helps to put meds and needles in clear Ziploc bags since you'll probably have to unpack and show them.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Security in every airport I've been in knows all about CPAP machines. They do pull it out and do a bizarre test where they put a strip of something next to the air filter on the machine but there's not problem with the machine.

Standard explosives test.

It's also a good indication of how much of the current "security" routine in UK/US airports is just theatre - if you're carrying one of those you'll almost certainly never be subjected to the normal routine explosives test on your regular luggage, the one thing the security services hate more than terrorists is the possibility of being accused of any -ism under the sun.

If they were serious about security instead of just showing off that something/anything is being done, they would follow the Israeli approach of profiling, profiling and more profiling. It works.

Posted by Beardybard (# 17737) on :

If you sense this being bad, give a known Irish airline, the Ryannair a go - only 20lbs carry-on allowed, and you are charged for anything extra.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I have long had a league table of hatred when it comes to airlines. I generally do best with Southwest, but I tend to avoid using them if I am flying from somewhere on the east coast to somewhere else on the east coast as that is the 'ragged end of their route map.' Delta is to be avoided when changing at ATL into a local flight. They are ALWAYS late. As a result, when I need to fly to Charleston, SC I will do US Air via Charlotte, NC, rather than chance sitting in ATL for an unspecified amount of time.

My annual trip to Ellen Vannin is courtesy of "Steam Pirate" because Flybe and the other low cost airlines are a pain in the ass, though in cost terms it is probably a wash. However, IOMSPCo does not have a thousand stupid rules about baggage and will sell you a basic hot meal cooked on the ship and a beer for roughly a tenner.

At the moment I do not have any US airline that I absolutely hate, I just have a habit of avoiding certain carriers on certain routes. I guess you get that way when travel is a neccessary and unavoidable part of one's work. I am glad my diocese is small enough that I can get around by shuttles, Amtrak, and cunning plans if I have to. However, being the denomination's Presiding Bishop does mean that I have to drag around the country to some degree. Usually Mrs PD is an absolute angel and drives me on condition I do the dog wrangling and make the hotel arrangements.

PD

[ 16. July 2013, 05:13: Message edited by: PD ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0