Posted by GEOFF JONES on August 2, 2008 at 1:17 AM
I don't know if it is just me, but I am getting concerned about taking my camera gear aboard airlines as I believe they are starting to crack down on the size and weight of, say think tank international
travel case. Up to the other day I have not had a problem but boarding an international carrier I was stopped before I entered customs and asked to have my bag weighed and as we all know most of our gear with a 500 lens and cameras are going to be over weight and I had to go back to the airline desk and recieve a letter to say that I could take my gear onboard with me. This has only just started to become a problem in Australia and I am wondering if anybody else is experiencing similar problems?
Regard's Geoff Jones
Posted by Mia McPherson on August 2, 2008 at 6:57 AM
Geoff, I haven't noticed a problem as far as the weight (dimensions they are particular about) of my camera bag in the US while flying.
But on recent international trips it did become an issue. Flying to New Zealand & Australia my camera bag was weighed, it had to be under 15 pounds or I would have to pay extra for each additional pound.
I had purchased a Tamrac Cyberpac 6 for those trips, but when I loaded my gear, without the lap top it was very close to the weight allowance. The bag weigh nearly 6 pounds empty.
So that meant buying another smaller, lighter camera bag, and my second personal carry on bag was my lap top bag. I couldn't carry a purse then, but I prefer not to any way.
As oil prices go higher I think we are all going to feel the pinch while flying, the airline companies have to find ways to cut costs and each pound on board uses additional fuel.
Posted by Paul Inglis on August 2, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Hi Geoff,
Weight and dimensions are becoming a serious problem for me of late! That's partly why I switched to the Moose Peterson Bags as they weigh a lot less before you pack them. The MP-1 will fit my 600mm attached to a pro body and still be ok for certain airlines whereas my MP-3 will fit a 200-400mm or a 500mm attached to a pro body and is quite a bit smaller than the MP-1 making it fine with all airlines. Both bags will fit into the smallest overhead I've tried so far. I have a 10KG max on some air travel so a 200-400mm being just over 3KGs makes a great companion for travelling with two bodies plus a 12-24mm & a 70-200mm with some accessories!
Rather than simply raising rates as fuel prices rise, airlines are dashing around searching for ANYTHING extra to charge you for. I don't doubt that coin slot on restrooms is next. I'm willing to pay any reasonable fee for my fare, but the search for extra fee opportunities looks and smells like pure spin to me. Yeah, I'm fed up with the gamesmanship.
We've always shipped our larger burdens ahead via FedEx or UPS. I'm more inclined than ever to do that with anything the airlines want to charge extra for. If they want to play games, I'll show them games. My goal on all future flights is to pay ZERO extra over my basic airfare, no matter the extra expense to alternate shippers. If the airlines want my money so badly, they can be honest and simply raise seat fares and quit playing the games.
Okay, rant over. I don't feel any better, but I'm hoping that if enough people rebuff the extra fees, the airlines will get a small sniff of reality.
Oops... I can barely talk about it without pushing the rant button.
I always wear a coat or keep a vest folded in my camera bag. If it turns out that my scales are different than the airline's, excess pieces to bring my carryon back down to limits go into my pockets. Nothing in their rules says you can't do it, and I take pleasure in holding up their service line and using their scales while I make the adjustment.
Here's a thought to ponder:
Has anyone seen anything resembling an official certification sticker on the baggage scales used by airlines?
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 2, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I recently flew to San Jose CA and back and did not have any problems. Tripod was in check-in bags. In my carry on was: D80, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR, Nikon TC-17E, four Nikon SB flash, battery charger, LowePro Offtrail 2 belt pack--all stuffed into a small soft sided carry on bag. I've been considering buying a Pelican 1510 because they seem to be universally accepted, plus they float!
A point made by Hank has brought to the fore an experience which happened recently to my self and a colleague. at Oulu airport in Finland our bags were weighed and passed through no questions. On arrival in Helsinki we had to change airlines and our bags had suddenly gained 3-4 kilos. Despite our protests the check in witch imposed a charge on us both. quite clearly her scales were wrong and she would not even put the cases on another set to appease us.
What really gets my goat is they expect you to put valuable luggage in the hold but they will nether guarantee its safety or even that it will arrive at the destination. no other industry would get away with offering a product they not prepared to guarantee.
Nigel
UK.
Posted by Mia McPherson on August 2, 2008 at 3:37 PM
What bothers me with those carryon bag restrictions is that each passenger has a different weight.
I weigh about 105 pounds, so I am costing the airlines less to fly than say a man who weighs 210 pounds. So they actually use less gas to transport me than the man, but they want to charge me for being over the allowed carryon weight allowance?
Geoff, I have this problem all the time within Australia and leaving Australia, but less of a problem coming back with the same weight. It's important to wear a jacket with big pockets to put lenses in, and then carry your laptop through. If you get sent back to the gate, it helps to be traveling with someone who has already cleared their luggage weight so they can hold onto some of your stuff. It's silly how redistribution of weight can get you through, and then you just pack it all back into the case. Melbourne airport can really scrutinise hand luggage.
Lia - yep. Rather than a luggage allowance there should be a total weight allowance: passenger plus luggage. I can't see that happening though. The rules are made by large people.
There's plenty of precedent for that in the air charter industry. The plane has a weight limit, and if you exceed it you pay for a second plane. I'm big (6'4" and 220) and I like a comfortable camp, so my wife and I usually require a Dehavelin Beaver for our fly-outs (1200# capacity), while most other couples could get by just fine chartering a much cheaper ride on a Cesna 206 (750-800# capacity). We could scrimp on weight and get by with a 206, but we choose not to. It's our choice, and there's no impact on the rates paid by smaller people who would rather cut the size of their camp than pay more for the trip.
Of course, in our camp you'll be served gourmet meals with just the right wine while seated in chairs in a heated galley tent, then sleep on a comfortably padded cot in a separate lodging tent large enough to stand and walk around in when the weather is sour. The camp riding in a 206 is likely to serve meals reconstituted from freeze dry while sitting in the weather on the ground, then sleep on a thin pad on the ground in a tiny tent you can barely sit up in.
But your share of the expenses in our camp is likely to be double what it is in a small camp. The options are there when fees are based on poundage, but not when buying seat fare on a scheduled flight.
Posted by Mia McPherson on August 8, 2008 at 6:27 AM
Hank & Pete
I think what bothered me about my international flights and being concerned with my carryon bag being over the limit is the exorbitant rate I would have been charged for the overage, and that increases the further you fly in mileage. I would have been charged that fee for being less than 5 pounds over the limit.
I transferred some of that weight to my lap top bag, so essentially I ended up carrying the same weight, just in two different bags.
It isn't always convenient for me to ship my gear ahead of time, especially to another country I might be visiting.
It would be very interesting for me to see the calculations the airline industry uses to come up with the fares for commercial airlines. How can they calculate ahead of time what each passenger weighs?
Discussion
10 repliestravel case. Up to the other day I have not had a problem but boarding an international carrier I was stopped before I entered customs and asked to have my bag weighed and as we all know most of our gear with a 500 lens and cameras are going to be over weight and I had to go back to the airline desk and recieve a letter to say that I could take my gear onboard with me. This has only just started to become a problem in Australia and I am wondering if anybody else is experiencing similar problems?
Regard's Geoff Jones
But on recent international trips it did become an issue. Flying to New Zealand & Australia my camera bag was weighed, it had to be under 15 pounds or I would have to pay extra for each additional pound.
I had purchased a Tamrac Cyberpac 6 for those trips, but when I loaded my gear, without the lap top it was very close to the weight allowance. The bag weigh nearly 6 pounds empty.
So that meant buying another smaller, lighter camera bag, and my second personal carry on bag was my lap top bag. I couldn't carry a purse then, but I prefer not to any way.
As oil prices go higher I think we are all going to feel the pinch while flying, the airline companies have to find ways to cut costs and each pound on board uses additional fuel.
Weight and dimensions are becoming a serious problem for me of late! That's partly why I switched to the Moose Peterson Bags as they weigh a lot less before you pack them. The MP-1 will fit my 600mm attached to a pro body and still be ok for certain airlines whereas my MP-3 will fit a 200-400mm or a 500mm attached to a pro body and is quite a bit smaller than the MP-1 making it fine with all airlines. Both bags will fit into the smallest overhead I've tried so far. I have a 10KG max on some air travel so a 200-400mm being just over 3KGs makes a great companion for travelling with two bodies plus a 12-24mm & a 70-200mm with some accessories!
We've always shipped our larger burdens ahead via FedEx or UPS. I'm more inclined than ever to do that with anything the airlines want to charge extra for. If they want to play games, I'll show them games. My goal on all future flights is to pay ZERO extra over my basic airfare, no matter the extra expense to alternate shippers. If the airlines want my money so badly, they can be honest and simply raise seat fares and quit playing the games.
Okay, rant over. I don't feel any better, but I'm hoping that if enough people rebuff the extra fees, the airlines will get a small sniff of reality.
Oops... I can barely talk about it without pushing the rant button.
I always wear a coat or keep a vest folded in my camera bag. If it turns out that my scales are different than the airline's, excess pieces to bring my carryon back down to limits go into my pockets. Nothing in their rules says you can't do it, and I take pleasure in holding up their service line and using their scales while I make the adjustment.
Here's a thought to ponder:
Has anyone seen anything resembling an official certification sticker on the baggage scales used by airlines?
Kent in SD
What really gets my goat is they expect you to put valuable luggage in the hold but they will nether guarantee its safety or even that it will arrive at the destination. no other industry would get away with offering a product they not prepared to guarantee.
Nigel
UK.
I weigh about 105 pounds, so I am costing the airlines less to fly than say a man who weighs 210 pounds. So they actually use less gas to transport me than the man, but they want to charge me for being over the allowed carryon weight allowance?
That does not seem "fare" (pun intended).
Pete D.
There's plenty of precedent for that in the air charter industry. The plane has a weight limit, and if you exceed it you pay for a second plane. I'm big (6'4" and 220) and I like a comfortable camp, so my wife and I usually require a Dehavelin Beaver for our fly-outs (1200# capacity), while most other couples could get by just fine chartering a much cheaper ride on a Cesna 206 (750-800# capacity). We could scrimp on weight and get by with a 206, but we choose not to. It's our choice, and there's no impact on the rates paid by smaller people who would rather cut the size of their camp than pay more for the trip.
Of course, in our camp you'll be served gourmet meals with just the right wine while seated in chairs in a heated galley tent, then sleep on a comfortably padded cot in a separate lodging tent large enough to stand and walk around in when the weather is sour. The camp riding in a 206 is likely to serve meals reconstituted from freeze dry while sitting in the weather on the ground, then sleep on a thin pad on the ground in a tiny tent you can barely sit up in.
But your share of the expenses in our camp is likely to be double what it is in a small camp. The options are there when fees are based on poundage, but not when buying seat fare on a scheduled flight.
I think what bothered me about my international flights and being concerned with my carryon bag being over the limit is the exorbitant rate I would have been charged for the overage, and that increases the further you fly in mileage. I would have been charged that fee for being less than 5 pounds over the limit.
I transferred some of that weight to my lap top bag, so essentially I ended up carrying the same weight, just in two different bags.
It isn't always convenient for me to ship my gear ahead of time, especially to another country I might be visiting.
It would be very interesting for me to see the calculations the airline industry uses to come up with the fares for commercial airlines. How can they calculate ahead of time what each passenger weighs?