Meeting place in Luton Airport

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:16:56 +0100, Tim Ward <tim@brettward.co.uk> wrote:

> "Duncan Wood" <bodgedntp@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...
>>
>> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail
>> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.
>
> Yes, I had thought of the "buy a new set of luggage each flight" approach
> but frankly it's too much hassle.
>

Take the luggage & just buy toothpaste in small tubes.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:18:12 +0100, Neil Williams
<wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:49:47 +0100, "tim....."
> <tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But try getting deodorant spray in the required size (roll-on is
>> possible).
>
> Roll-on is what I usually do. Does the job, and is vastly less
> inconvenient than the time taken to check in a bag. I don't normally
> use shampoo on a short trip, soap does the job, and in any case it's
> free in a lot of hotels if the trip happens to involve staying in one.
>
> (Actually, given the cost of checking in a bag on many airlines, it
> would actually be cheaper to buy and chuck if you couldn't be bothered
> with that)
>
> Neil
>


That's one of those things that I always consider, fail to do before I get
there & then check in after they've pointed out that I owe them a fortune
charge me nothing for. I'm still trying to get my head round it.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:49:47 +0100, "tim....."
<tims_new_home@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Neil Williams" <wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:487667e6.52212271@news.***************...
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:50:31 +0100, "Duncan Wood"
>> <bodgedntp@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Take the luggage & just buy toothpaste in small tubes.
>>
>> A UK standard tube of toothpaste is well under 100ml. 70, I think.
>
>The toothpaste is the easy part. And shampoo can be re-bottled
>
>But try getting deodorant spray in the required size (roll-on is possible).

Last time I flew for a weekend break, I took a deodorant that had its
size listed only in floz... it got through, even though technically (I
found out later) it shouldn't have!

In message <ndvd74holu36arqadf5ovrus4ahrci9nuq@********>, at 07:30:14 on
Fri, 11 Jul 2008, James Farrar <james.s.farrar@**********> remarked:
>Last time I flew for a weekend break, I took a deodorant that had its
>size listed only in floz... it got through, even though technically (I
>found out later) it shouldn't have!

The restrictions were originally expressed (by the USA authorities) as 3
fl-oz. The Europeans then translated that into Millilitres (and rounded
it up a bit from 88). The plastic bag they go in started off life as a
US Quart - it's a standard item sold as a freezer bag.
--
Roland Perry

"Al Grant" <algrant@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:c675b715-1af3-487c-a925-8e8839f755d7@a1g2000hsb.************.com...
> On 10 Jul, 20:49, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> wrote:
>> You can take toothpaste on a plane, though it has to be in a silly
>> plastic bag.
>
> I've wondered what the rules are on the "resealable
> plastic bag". Can you take a supermarket grapes bag
> or does it have to be of an approved design?
>
> Also I was looking for a source of small squeezy bottles
> for a few days' supply of e.g. shaving gel or toothpaste.
> The squeezy bottles sold in travel shops are too large
> (50-100ml, I'm looking for more like 10ml), and hotel
> shampoo miniatures are rarely squeezy enough.

I may be wrong (for that read "I'm probably wrong"), but I think the Body
Shop sell all manner of bottles. Maybe there's something squeezy enough
there?

Anthony

"Duncan Wood" <bodgedntp@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:op.ud28exx5pmo3dt@lucy...

> Generally I can survive away from home for more than 24hrs without nail
> scissors & toothpaste is available in most of the world nowadays.

Indeed. Buy solid deodorant, tooth powder and solid shaving soap. I have
never
used one of the silly pastic liquid bags. If I really need to cut my nails
abroad,
nail clippers cost less than a pound most places...

Chris

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:01:45 +0100, HE Elsom wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:53:49 +0100, magwitch <a@c.d> wrote:
>
>> Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better
>> than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?
>
> I have no money, the flight was free and it was important for me to see
> someone there. I hope that meets your moral standards.

No.

Now go and eat a bucket of organic free-range wholewheat tofu as penance.

--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

HE Elsom wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:53:49 +0100, magwitch <a@c.d> wrote:
>
>> Using an aeroplane to get to Newquay and back makes you little better
>> than one in my eyes. What about taking a train?
>
> I have no money, the flight was free and it was important for me to see
> someone there. I hope that meets your moral standards.
>
> Regards,
>
> Helen
>
>
Nothing to do with morality... what's this free airline called then?

I know RyanAir were doing flights to Italy for £4 last summer, but
your's sounds a better deal.

PS. I've experienced having no money as well, we used to hitch.

In message <1216042724.16791.0@proxy02.news.clara.net>, at 14:38:45 on
Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>No I was starting from 20 miles north of Winchester at the time about
>150 miles further west and another 70 miles south from Chelmsford. I
>said it used to take 4 for Devon and 6 hours for Cornwall from there
>and was accurate.

But hardly on topic for a Cambridge/London audience (see NGs posted to).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <1216042724.16791.0@proxy02.news.clara.net>, at 14:38:45 on
> Mon, 14 Jul 2008, magwitch <a@c.d> remarked:
>> No I was starting from 20 miles north of Winchester at the time about
>> 150 miles further west and another 70 miles south from Chelmsford. I
>> said it used to take 4 for Devon and 6 hours for Cornwall from there
>> and was accurate.
>
> But hardly on topic for a Cambridge/London audience (see NGs posted to).


Yes it is. We'll be living under a short-haul holding stack and
flightpath in the near future. And Londoners will be enjoying their
third Heathrow runway. Very ON topic actually.