Air Travel

Question:

>The problem with FedEx is that if you ship ahead of your arrival, who will pay >the duties for the importantion of the goods ? If you carry the projector with >you, when you clear customs, you don’t have to pay since this is considered >business material for your presentation. But if shipped separately, someone >will have to pay the customs.

Not in the UK. If you declare that the items will remain in the UK for less than 90 days you can get a customs waiver. The shipping company can help to arrange this. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

>It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been >removed from the bags.  At the same time though, she should never have been >flying with those as checked bags, they should have been in a flight case >and sent FedEx with the proper insurance.

The other option is to purchase a few extra seats and have the kit stowed in the extra seats. I’ve only done this on flights to places like Lagos. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

>> both a search of every checked bag AND allow pax to lock said bags > after the search. >uhhh, no.  allowing the pax to lock the bag after the search >negates the search.  once it’s searched, the pax should never >touch the bag.  you obviously know nothing about security.

You wouldn’t want the passenger to touch the bag after it had been opened and searched. But opening the bag _in the presence_ of the passenger allows you to detain and interview the passenger if it turns out that there’s an unwanted item in the bag. It also deters the less suicidally inclined passenger from adding some anti-handling to that unwanted item. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

> And you shouldn’t have to lock your car or watch your kids, but you do, it’s > a fact of life.  Luggage theft happens, and in this case, the person is out > $8,000 because they didn’t insure it.  Plain and simple, they took a > business risk and they lost.

It isn’t a question of insurance. It is a question of reliability. If you are going to make a presentation in front of 300 delegates in a convention, and your projector is stolen, you’re in trouble. If you ship it FedEx and it is misdelivered, you’re in trouble. If you show up at airport with your own luggage, and hand it to the check-in agent, the expectation SHOULD be that the luggage will maek it to your plane without anyone stealing from it. The expectation is that you will be able to board the aircraft and deplane at your destination wthou crashing, and without some police grabbing you and forcing you to board a plane to some 3rd country where you are improsones without a trial etc. The problem with FedEx is that if you ship ahead of your arrival, who will pay the duties for the importantion of the goods ? If you carry the projector with you, when you clear customs, you don’t have to pay since this is considered business material for your presentation. But if shipped separately, someone will have to pay the customs. And if you ship UPS, it gets worse because the destination address (hotel etc) will get a nice bill from some highway robbery customs borkerage first a few weeks after the package was received. Avoid UPS at all costs for intl shipping.

Response:

> both a search of every checked bag AND allow pax to lock said bags > after the search.

uhhh, no.  allowing the pax to lock the bag after the search negates the search.  once it’s searched, the pax should never touch the bag.  you obviously know nothing about security.

Response:

> What’s the difference between a bag carrying your clothes > for the next 3 days or a locked case containing $8k worth > of equipment?  You’re putting someone on a plane going to > visit a client or make a presentation.  The person, their > clothes, and the equipment all have to get there, probably > THAT MORNING.  

lack of failure to plan on your part does not constitute a failure on the part of the airlines. i have shipped a lot of stuff by freight to arrive on or before my arrival, and it has arrived on or before me all but once out of several hundred times, waiting at the air freight "will call" dock.

Response:

> uhhh, no.  allowing the pax to lock the bag after the search > negates the search.  once it’s searched, the pax should never > touch the bag.  you obviously know nothing about security.

If the TSA employee closes the luggage, then I think it would be reasonable to allow the pax to lock it UNDER SUPERVISION. In the end, perhaps a truly radical change would be needed. Get rid of check luggage facilities. Get all PAX to go trhough security with both hand and checked luggage (with any hand inspections done there) and then you "check" your luggage at the gate. This would be a MAJOR philosophical and architectural change to airports.

Response:

> uhhh, no.  allowing the pax to lock the bag after the search > negates the search.  once it’s searched, the pax should never > touch the bag.  you obviously know nothing about security.

If, as is done elsewhere, suspect luggage is brought to the gate of the flight and passenger paged there, then at the time of hand inspection, the passenger would be considered sterile and you could allow him to handle his luggage. The problem is when you check luggage landside, the passenger is not yet sterile and thus he could still ijcet the nuclear bomb or rubber chicken into his checked luggage.

Response:

> You have a habit of summarilly dismissing complaints. > If you don’t already work for TSA then you would be a good candidate.

Au contraire. I don,t dismiss the complaint. I am merely stating that comemrcial aviation MUST be able to transport your checked luggage safely and once shouldn’t have to give up on airlines handling checked luggage safely and pay the extra (and extra hassles) of dealing with a courrier company. The solution i have suggested is that any manual inspection of luggage be done with the passenger present. That is how it is done elsewhere in te world and there is really no reason why the USA couldn’t inspire itself from more experienced airport security in europe and asia. Then again, the current thinking in the USA is that nobody in the world has the experience to deal with something that the USA has just discovered: terrorism. Had the USA swallowed its pride and consulted with various intl airport and governments, they would have benifited from decades of real airport security experience which could have intelligently been implemented in the USA. But NIH is very strong in the USA, unfortunatly.

Response:

>They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an >$8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference.

Your >luggage should make it through intact. Your right, it should, tell the people that have more than 20 seconds of contact with your bag then. (airlines, baggage handlers)

Response:

> It’s not clear if the item in question is a full-fledged projector > (containing it’s own light source) or an LCD screen meant to be placed > on top of a conventional overhead projector.

either way, it should have been carry-on luggage.

Response:

> That is also insane.  You’re asking such travellers to find the PDQ > frieght office of their carrier, fill out shipping forms, and then > check in their regular checked bags?  

you’ve obviously new flown with a TV production crew… > And by the way, the airlines will ABSOLUTELY not garantee that the item will > arrive on your flight on the other end.  With fewer planes flying closer to > capacity, the odds of your freight being on the same plane is worse now than > a few years ago.

actually, the odds are often better, when the only plane going there that time of day is the one you’re on. in addition, checked baggage is only insured up to a very low value.  expensive equipment is usually shipped freight so that it can be insured.  i’ve travelled with a wide variety of electronics and tools, from sound systems to video production systems, and always shipped them air freight.  it *does* require taking the time to do it right, but it’s not that unusual.

Response:

I also have a habit of not checking $8,000 worth of electronics and wondering what I’m going to do when they go missing when I need them for a meeting the next day.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And you shouldn’t have to lock your car or watch your kids, but you do, it’s >a fact of life.  Luggage theft happens, and in this case, the person is out >$8,000 because they didn’t insure it.  Plain and simple, they took a >business risk and they lost. >Luggage doesn’t make it through intact, everybody, except you two brain >childs seems to realize that. Theft from luggage, locked or not, has been >around for decades.  Ship $8,000 of electronics in your checked bags, it’s >gonna disappear. >Every sane person knows that. >> They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an >> $8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference. Your >> luggage should make it through intact. > You have a habit of summarilly dismissing complaints. > If you don’t already work for TSA then you would be a good candidate.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And you shouldn’t have to lock your car or watch your kids, but you do, it’s >a fact of life.  Luggage theft happens, and in this case, the person is out >$8,000 because they didn’t insure it.  Plain and simple, they took a >business risk and they lost. >Luggage doesn’t make it through intact, everybody, except you two brain >childs seems to realize that. Theft from luggage, locked or not, has been >around for decades.  Ship $8,000 of electronics in your checked bags, it’s >gonna disappear. >Every sane person knows that. > They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an > $8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference. Your > luggage should make it through intact.

You have a habit of summarilly dismissing complaints. If you don’t already work for TSA then you would be a good candidate.

Response:

> I’m saying flying with over $8,000 worth of electronics in your > checked bags is insane, as this person clearly found out. > would never have let our people do it, as it wouldn’t have been > covered for it’s loss or damage.  Use all the four letter words

What’s the difference between a bag carrying your clothes for the next 3 days or a locked case containing $8k worth of equipment?  You’re putting someone on a plane going to visit a client or make a presentation.  The person, their clothes, and the equipment all have to get there, probably THAT MORNING.   Most compaines have an insurance floater for stuff that goes missing or dammages on trips, conventions, etc.  It’s actually hard to remove something like that from typical insurance packages. > Ship it as freight or FedEx and insure it and this would > not be an issue at all, it would either have gotten there > or it would have been covered by insurance.

HA!  You think that filing an insurance claim is "no issue at all"?  You try it for $8k worth of stuff, and see how much grief you go through to get satisfaction.  And then have a look at your next insurance premium. Fedex charges 50 cents per $100 claimed.  That’s $40 for our hypothetical $8k asset.  Then factor in about $25 for over-night delivery (garanteed before 8 or 9 am) to the destination (convention center?  Hotel?  Acme?) and then fart around for a couple of hours figuring out who signed for it and what loading doc or mail room it got delivered to. > Nobody in their right mind can defend shipping that > value of merchandise, when it’s necessary to do the > job at the other end, as checked bags without any > additional insurance.

I’ve travelled several HUNDRED times over the past 5 to 10 years with a piece of equipment that has a retail value of $15k.  It’s always travelled with me as a piece of checked baggage.  Worst that’s ever happened is that it’s missed my flight but arrived on the next one.   If it’s small enough to take on as carry-on, and it can be turned on and functional enough to show the dunder heads pax screeners that it’s not a bomb, then sure, take it as carry on.  Otherwise putting in a case specifically designed for it and locking it is (was) no problem as far checked bags go. There is a whole industry that deals with travel canisters and cases for equipment and air travel.

Response:

And you shouldn’t have to lock your car or watch your kids, but you do, it’s a fact of life.  Luggage theft happens, and in this case, the person is out $8,000 because they didn’t insure it.  Plain and simple, they took a business risk and they lost. Luggage doesn’t make it through intact, everybody, except you two brain childs seems to realize that. Theft from luggage, locked or not, has been around for decades.  Ship $8,000 of electronics in your checked bags, it’s gonna disappear. Every sane person knows that.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an > $8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference. Your > luggage should make it through intact.

Response:

> It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been > removed from the bags.

Yes, I agree with that.  Prior to 1/1/03, this would not have been an issue as the pax would have been able to lock said bag. > At the same time though, she should never have been > flying with those as checked bags,

The way checked bags are handled now, yes, she should have put the items in a carry-on. > they should have been in a flight case > and sent FedEx with the proper insurance.

I disagree with that. I have had to travel extensively with the equivalent of a desk- top computer in a checked equipment case.  It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to send such an item to my destination and have it’s arrival coincide with my arrival. The very people that the air carriers would want to travel more- business, tech service people, sales, etc, have an inordinate interest in bag handling because those people are most likely to have to travel with unusual and expensive items.  Heck, I don’t know if it’s as prevalent as a few years ago, but I remember a lot of truck drivers that were making 1-way trips were flying, and their checked bags included tool boxes. The airlines should be more vocal and advocate for more secure handling of checked bags on behalf of their rapidly disappearing business-class demographic.

Response:

Ok, then if it wasn’t going Fedex it should have gone as freight on the same plane she was flying on.  We use to do that all the time, the equipment was in a flight case as freight, insured, and always arrived with the traveler (sometimes even before they did). Sending $8,000 worth of electronics through your checked luggage has never been a good idea, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the TSA or terrorists.  It was a bad idea on September 10th of 1991, and it’s a bad idea now. Locking the bag isn’t the issue at all, many people had things removed from locked bags in the past. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been > removed from the bags. > Yes, I agree with that.  Prior to 1/1/03, this would not have been an > issue as the pax would have been able to lock said bag. > At the same time though, she should never have been > flying with those as checked bags, > The way checked bags are handled now, yes, she should > have put the items in a carry-on. > they should have been in a flight case > and sent FedEx with the proper insurance. > I disagree with that. > I have had to travel extensively with the equivalent of a desk- > top computer in a checked equipment case.  It would have been > extremely difficult, if not impossible, to send such an item > to my destination and have it’s arrival coincide with my arrival. > The very people that the air carriers would want to travel more- > business, tech service people, sales, etc, have an inordinate > interest in bag handling because those people are most likely > to have to travel with unusual and expensive items.  Heck, > I don’t know if it’s as prevalent as a few years ago, but > I remember a lot of truck drivers that were making 1-way > trips were flying, and their checked bags included tool boxes. > The airlines should be more vocal and advocate for more > secure handling of checked bags on behalf of their rapidly > disappearing business-class demographic.

Response:

> Ok, then if it wasn’t going Fedex it should have gone as freight on the same > plane she was flying on.  We use to do that all the time, the equipment was > in a flight case as freight, insured, and always arrived with the traveler > (sometimes even before they did).

That is also insane.  You’re asking such travellers to find the PDQ frieght office of their carrier, fill out shipping forms, and then check in their regular checked bags?   And by the way, the airlines will ABSOLUTELY not garantee that the item will arrive on your flight on the other end.  With fewer planes flying closer to capacity, the odds of your freight being on the same plane is worse now than a few years ago. > Sending $8,000 worth of electronics through your checked luggage has never > been a good idea

Bull shit.  I’m not talking about stuff packed in cardboard boxes or in zippered bags.  Locked, hardshell cases are immune to casual theft – unless someone steals the whole case (which can happen with same likely- hood as PDQ frieght). > and that has absolutely nothing to do with the TSA or > terrorists.  It was a bad idea on September 10th of 1991, and it’s a bad > idea now.

Pu-lease stop advocating for the TSA.  They could have implimented a search-in-pax-view at all airports if they wanted.  It probably would have cost more, but it is the only logical way to accomplish both a search of every checked bag AND allow pax to lock said bags after the search. The larger issue is whether this screening is even needed.  I continue to believe the "medicine" is worse than the disease – given the complete absense of any attempt to put a bomb in a checked bag on a flight to, within, or from the US.  Even during the extreme vulnerability period from 09/11/01 to 01/01/03, there were no such attempts, even with the well publicized deadline of bag screening of 01/01/03. > Locking the bag isn’t the issue at all, many people had things removed from > locked bags in the past.

There was never a systematic opening of bags like is now occuring. Where items fall out or get shuffled into someone else’s bag, and where bags are not completely closed. This level of "man-handling" so many bags (upwards of 1/3 of all bags) has simply never happened before.  Again, stop defending TSA’s policies and proceedures.  They are wrong and un-necessary and cause more people more grief and there is no demonstrable benefit.

Response:

I’m not advocating for the TSA. Indeed, this has nothing at all to do with the TSA.   I’m saying flying with over $8,000 worth of electronics in your checked bags is insane, as this person clearly found out.  We would never have let our people do it, as it wouldn’t have been covered for it’s loss or damage.  Use all the four letter words you want, it’s stupid to put that much stuff as luggage without claiming and insuring for it. Ship it as freight or FedEx and insure it and this would not be an issue at all, it would either have gotten there or it would have been covered by insurance. Nobody in their right mind can defend shipping that value of merchandise, when it’s necessary to do the job at the other end, as checked bags without any additional insurance. And by the way, locked hardshell cases are not immune to casual theft, the locks and latches can easily be popped and the contents removed. What part of insure it is giving you difficulty? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ok, then if it wasn’t going Fedex it should have gone as freight on the same > plane she was flying on.  We use to do that all the time, the equipment was > in a flight case as freight, insured, and always arrived with the traveler > (sometimes even before they did). > That is also insane.  You’re asking such travellers to find the PDQ > frieght office of their carrier, fill out shipping forms, and then > check in their regular checked bags? > And by the way, the airlines will ABSOLUTELY not garantee that the item will > arrive on your flight on the other end.  With fewer planes flying closer to > capacity, the odds of your freight being on the same plane is worse now than > a few years ago. > Sending $8,000 worth of electronics through your checked luggage has never > been a good idea > Bull shit.  I’m not talking about stuff packed in cardboard boxes or in > zippered bags.  Locked, hardshell cases are immune to casual theft – > unless someone steals the whole case (which can happen with same likely- > hood as PDQ frieght). > and that has absolutely nothing to do with the TSA or > terrorists.  It was a bad idea on September 10th of 1991, and it’s a bad > idea now. > Pu-lease stop advocating for the TSA.  They could have implimented > a search-in-pax-view at all airports if they wanted.  It probably > would have cost more, but it is the only logical way to accomplish > both a search of every checked bag AND allow pax to lock said bags > after the search. > The larger issue is whether this screening is even needed.  I continue > to believe the "medicine" is worse than the disease – given the complete > absense of any attempt to put a bomb in a checked bag on a flight to, > within, or from the US.  Even during the extreme vulnerability period > from 09/11/01 to 01/01/03, there were no such attempts, even with > the well publicized deadline of bag screening of 01/01/03. > Locking the bag isn’t the issue at all, many people had things removed from > locked bags in the past. > There was never a systematic opening of bags like is now occuring. > Where items fall out or get shuffled into someone else’s bag, and > where bags are not completely closed. > This level of "man-handling" so many bags (upwards of 1/3 of all > bags) has simply never happened before.  Again, stop defending > TSA’s policies and proceedures.  They are wrong and un-necessary > and cause more people more grief and there is no demonstrable > benefit.

Response:

> Ok, then if it wasn’t going Fedex it should have gone as freight on the same > plane she was flying on.

Have you checked the costs of shipping air freight on the same flighst as you ? Now, if airlines gave some sort of heavy discount of the air cargo rates for passengers (and FF points while you’re at it) perhaps it would make sense. But when you consider the hassles of air cargo (different building, often inaccessible from the airport complex normal roadways), the fact that after you arrive, you must find the air cargo building of the destination airport and go claim your cargo, and in the case of international travel, you must either arrange for customs broker or broker the customs yourself (go to cargo buildin to get some paper, then go to customs building to clear cyustoms and get another piece of paper, then go back to cargo building to claim your cargo. Sorry, but from a convenience point of view, current air cargo infrastructure is really incompatible with passenger air trafel infrastructure. They really must fix the problem of theft of luggage. Whether you have an $8000 projector or a $5 rubber chicken should not make a difference. Your luggage should make it through intact.

Response:

> It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been > removed from the bags.  At the same time though, she should never have been > flying with those as checked bags, they should have been in a flight case > and sent FedEx with the proper insurance.

What’s the point of building aircraft with a cargo belly if you can’t trust airlines to carry cargo safely ? If the luggage arrived to destination "TSA Sealed" and then there were missing items once the luggage was unsealed, then the responsability clearly falls on the TSA since the tampering would have occured prior to luggage being sealed. What’s the point of using airlines if, upon arrival, you muct queue up to an official "witness" booth where you will show your unopened luggage to an official who will witness whethger it is TSA sealed or not, and the proceed to unseal it to find out what the TSA has stolen from your luggage ? If you have not official witness and notice the loss of equipment/items from you luggage much later, then the TSA willa rgue that you could just be faking it to get some money out of them. In the end, the TSA will have to structure itself such that ANY luggage being opened must be opened in the presence of the passenger. There really is no other way around it.

Response:

> When Diane Dinkmeyer, a regional sales manager for a cosmetics company, flew > from Seattle to Spokane on United Airlines on March 12, she left her four > suitcases for curbside check-in at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. > Inside her bags were a video projector, cosmetics and expensive items she uses > in her presentations to customers.

Items like stand-alone LCD screens and LCD over-head projectors are not commonly seen in checked luggage.  My own experience is that items like that, when scanned at pax screening stations, attract more attention from the x-ray operators.  I can imagine they will also attract more attention from the baggage scanning people. It’s not clear if the item in question is a full-fledged projector (containing it’s own light source) or an LCD screen meant to be placed on top of a conventional overhead projector.

Response:

It shouldn’t matter one way or the other what it was, it shouldn’t have been removed from the bags.  At the same time though, she should never have been flying with those as checked bags, they should have been in a flight case and sent FedEx with the proper insurance. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> When Diane Dinkmeyer, a regional sales manager for a cosmetics company, flew > from Seattle to Spokane on United Airlines on March 12, she left her four > suitcases for curbside check-in at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. > Inside her bags were a video projector, cosmetics and expensive items she uses > in her presentations to customers. > Items like stand-alone LCD screens and LCD over-head projectors are > not commonly seen in checked luggage.  My own experience is that > items like that, when scanned at pax screening stations, attract > more attention from the x-ray operators.  I can imagine they will > also attract more attention from the baggage scanning people. > It’s not clear if the item in question is a full-fledged projector > (containing it’s own light source) or an LCD screen meant to be placed > on top of a conventional overhead projector.

Response:

And they wonder why people aren’t flying! This from the Seattle Times: Who pays now when bags rifled at airport? By Susan Gilmore Seattle Times staff reporter When Diane Dinkmeyer, a regional sales manager for a cosmetics company, flew from Seattle to Spokane on United Airlines on March 12, she left her four suitcases for curbside check-in at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Inside her bags were a video projector, cosmetics and expensive items she uses in her presentations to customers. But when she got to Spokane, three of her four suitcases