Carry-ons (Opinions?)

Me wrote:

> In article <I7jNb.7977$xD5.7586@newssvr22.news.> ,
> "Jim Davis Sr." <jimsr31@m> wrote:
>
>>I like the Shoe thing. We have to have our shoes inspected because some
>>nimrod had explosives in his shoes. Think of what will happen if they find
>>a guy with a stick of dynamite up his . (They already have the rubber
>>gloves)

> Actually, only shoes that have metal components are searched. I solved
> the problem by wearing sneakers onboard flights. I have never, not once,
> had my shoes inspected because they contain no metal at all and I travel
> about three times a year on average. My previous flight was about one
> month ago and my next one will be in early March with another trip
> probably later in March so I am not an infrequent flyer.

Sorry but you are wrong in some cases. I've had them insist on running
my sandals thru. Not only is there no metal but there isn't much shoe
and not much space to hide anything. FFM

Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<bu6m0h0bcl@drn.newsguy.com>...
> In article <73af7090.0401151009.1134c10b@com >, me says...

> > Not so much flames, just a comment that it is usually considered
> >"smart" not to intentionally set oneself up for failure. If you
> >can do things to avoid risks which are significant to you, it
> >is considered wise to do so. So we allow extra time to get to the
> >airport which we know can be crowded. We don't carry stuff in our
> >pockets that we know will be confiscated by the TSA. We carry
> >around extra credit cards, duplicate ID's, extra cash, all manner
> >of things to try to handle "contingencies". If someone is bothered
> >by the wait, is concerned about not having something upon arrival,
> >or needs to leave the airport as soon as practical, carrying on
> >their luggage is a wise decision. It might also be wise however
> >to only try to carry on what is permitted under the rules.
>
> Which is how I think - in terms of contingencies. Like packing what's needed for
> the next day or so in a carryon, and/or wearing on the flight what would be
> passable for one's activities the next day.

In many of my longer trips, I couldn't possibly pack enough in a carry-on
to achieve this, especially if the delay in luggage would be more than
24 hours. As it is I merely carry on the most expensive things to replace.
The worst case scenario is when I'll be changing locations each day.


> It's contingency planning which go to violating rules and imposing
> on pax which folks resent here.

Actually, if you review portions of this thread, you'll see that folks
complain that folks carry on too much, permissible or not.

"Jim Davis Sr." <jimsr31@m> wrote in message news:<v1FNb.5138$gn6.4479@newssvr24.news.prodigy.c om>...
> "XOR" <xor31@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:a893915f.0401151134.2ea5b3a2@c om...
>
> > heh, one time when I had both of my 2 70lb* bags delayed,I was rather
> > glad after the fact when they were delivered to my doorstep as I
> > realised I didn't have to carry them myself, though I felt sorry for
> > the delivery guys.
> >
> > However, I had to wait more than 24 hrs for them. I don't think I've
> > ever received my delayed luggage within 6 hrs! One time I had to wait
> > more than 48 hrs (there's only one flight 3x per week), but that was
> > just a small bag...and fortunately I'd packed the food (cheeses) into
> > the other small bag which *did* arrive with me. Most often, after an
> > evening arrival, it's been the next day, in the afternoon. For that
> > length of time, I at least want to carry with me a change of
> > undergarments and toiletries. It's happened to me enough times -
> > maybe I just have bad luck - that I prefer to be prepared.
>
> Mine really are within 6 hours or so. 80% of my flights are about
> 1.5 to 2 hours. They usually do a good turn around with my bags. The other
> 20% are international flights, but so far, my bags arrived when I did.

You're lucky. Or maybe I'm just unlucky.

My travel is the opposite though - about 80% international and 20%
domestic, and those are usually 4-8 hr trips.

"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bu9csi02aa8@drn.newsguy.com...


> As I interpret it, there's some wondering why folks even bring the max
legal,
> but I haven't seen *resentment* expressed about it. All the shoved-down
> overhead bin stuff has to do with more than the legal carryons
(cumulatively).
> There have been a couple of folks very defensive about even legal carry
ons;
> that sort of thing can lead to the impression they were reacting to
something
> real. But, for example, when I say I sometimes dress in business attire
to not
> be affected by possible baggage delivery delays, I'm not saying "hey
everyone
> gotsta do it just like me!".

If you do a google search, you'll see that when this topic is dicussed here,
there are always a few people who say, "Ban all carryon -- I don't need it
when I travel so neither does anyone else." Only a couple of months ago,
someone did a protracted series of posts on why cellphone chargers shouldn't
be carried on business trips. When I read your original posts to this
thread, I thought that's what you were saying. My apologies for misreading
you.

>
> Cheers,
> Banty
>

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenetm> wrote in message news:<bu48u0$dhmps$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:bu3tr10dqu@drn.newsguy.com...
> > In article <qzcNb.32478$G04.6749087@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net >, Evelyn C.
> Leeper
> > says...
> > >
> > >Mark Hewitt wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Icono Clast" <IClast@JPS.Net> wrote in message
> > >> news:3a26924c.0401140231.5f80efc5@c om...
> > >>
> > >>>"Jim Davis Sr." <jimsr31@m> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>I don't understand why people burden themselves on the long walks to
> > >>>and from the gangways and then trouble their fellow passengers by
> > >>>blocking an aisle. I just don't get it. When they're a bit early have
> > >>>have to go to the toilet, they ask strangers to "watch my bag" not
> > >>>knowing whether that stranger is going to disappear with it. I just
> > >>>don't get it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Because quite often I've had to wait in excess of 40 minutes after the
> plane
> > >> has landed, before my bag actually shows up. If I could get away with
> just
> > >> hang baggage when I go on a flight. I would do that!
> >
> > If you're on a business trip and the time is critical - then pack lighter.
> Wear
> > clothing passable for your business in case there is a problem. If you're
> > moving or have acquired some largish items, ship stuff. If you're
> travelling on
> > pleasure, the first step to pleasure would be to learn how to relax and
> stop
> > counting minutes at the baggage carousel.
> >
> > >
> > >Or because twice the airlines have failed to send my luggage on the same
> > >flight as me.
> >
> > Twice out of how many flights? And did they or did they not get the bags
> to you
> > within a day?
> >
> > I mean, good grief. These complaints are just control-phreaky "I demand a
> > glitch-free life and I wanna be first" stuff. The large number of
> > self-appointed carry-on exceptions (and the resultant scrable for
> overhead,
> > underfoot, and garment bag space) *is* impacting other pax. PDA's,
> music
> > players, and cameras fit in largish purses and soft briefcases (for the
> latter,
> > with laptop). Medicine and magazines too. One more of carry-on size
> handles a
> > weekend's worth of stuff (say - how 'bout packing one of those such that
> you're
> > covered for a baggage-loading disaster and checking the rest!).
>
> Spoken like a true non-business traveler. Why in the world should anyone
> risk their enterprise and forgo their _legal_ carryon because you don't
> approve?
>
> I have to wear suits for my business and, no, I won't spend hours in plane
> wearing one because you don't like carryons. I, personally, have had my
> bags delayed -- 4+ days in each case -- twice out of the four times I
> checked bags on a business trip. I also carry a laptop (with associated
> electronics), PDA, cellphone and charger, plus critical documents that I
> need when I get there.
>
> It absolutely amazes me that you would be criticize someone who falls within
> the _airline_determined_ requirement for carryon, which inconveniences no
> one except, perhaps, your personal sense of aesthetics.

It is not the person within the guidelines of a 21 inch rollaboard (51
inch total dimension) and a SINGLE personal item (briefcase, purse, OR
- not and - SMALL backpack).

The 24 inch rollaboard plus the computer case, plus the small duffle
plus the purse is NOT within the guidelines. A rollaboard plus a
computer plus a purse is not. A rollaboard plus a garment bag plus a
briefcase is NOT. A rollaboard plus a purse plus a Macy's shopping
bag plus a computer bag is NOT.

These observations were made last Friday on a Continental flight in
first class.

Added to that - there was little evidence of the one above, one below
etiquette.

js

In article <jenn-1CAB8F.16573115012004@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
Jenn <jenn@hmplc.com> wrote:
>
> you are apparently oblivious to the fact that the infamous bomb shoes
> were sneakers
>
> sneakers would be the easiest type shoe to rig with explosives given
> their large size and goofy appearance

Don't tell me, tell the TSA authorities. You may have a good point
there, but be that as it may; they still do not search shoes that
lack any metal components such as sneakers.

In article <udKNb.60943$WS1.46180@fe1.texas.>,
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfmatthews@houston.> wrote:

> Me wrote:
>
> > In article <I7jNb.7977$xD5.7586@newssvr22.news.> ,
> > "Jim Davis Sr." <jimsr31@m> wrote:
> >
> >>I like the Shoe thing. We have to have our shoes inspected because some
> >>nimrod had explosives in his shoes. Think of what will happen if they find
> >>a guy with a stick of dynamite up his . (They already have the rubber
> >>gloves)
>
> > Actually, only shoes that have metal components are searched. I solved
> > the problem by wearing sneakers onboard flights. I have never, not once,
> > had my shoes inspected because they contain no metal at all and I travel
> > about three times a year on average. My previous flight was about one
> > month ago and my next one will be in early March with another trip
> > probably later in March so I am not an infrequent flyer.
>
> Sorry but you are wrong in some cases. I've had them insist on running
> my sandals thru. Not only is there no metal but there isn't much shoe
> and not much space to hide anything. FFM

Some sandals do have metal components.

In article <srhi-C3D32B.12501818012004@comcast.ash.giganews.com>,
Me <srhi@> wrote:

> In article <jenn-1CAB8F.16573115012004@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
> Jenn <jenn@hmplc.com> wrote:
> >
> > you are apparently oblivious to the fact that the infamous bomb shoes
> > were sneakers
> >
> > sneakers would be the easiest type shoe to rig with explosives given
> > their large size and goofy appearance
>
> Don't tell me, tell the TSA authorities. You may have a good point
> there, but be that as it may; they still do not search shoes that
> lack any metal components such as sneakers.

I have seen them search sneakers and in fact have seen them carefully
examine rubber flip flops

"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99m> wrote in message
news:fbcaefd.0401180757.363f6309@co m...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenetm> wrote in message
news:<bu48u0$dhmps$1@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> > news:bu3tr10dqu@drn.newsguy.com...
> > > In article <qzcNb.32478$G04.6749087@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net >, Evelyn
C.
> > Leeper
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > >Mark Hewitt wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "Icono Clast" <IClast@JPS.Net> wrote in message
> > > >> news:3a26924c.0401140231.5f80efc5@c om...
> > > >>
> > > >>>"Jim Davis Sr." <jimsr31@m> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I don't understand why people burden themselves on the long walks
to
> > > >>>and from the gangways and then trouble their fellow passengers by
> > > >>>blocking an aisle. I just don't get it. When they're a bit early
have
> > > >>>have to go to the toilet, they ask strangers to "watch my bag" not
> > > >>>knowing whether that stranger is going to disappear with it. I just
> > > >>>don't get it.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Because quite often I've had to wait in excess of 40 minutes after
the
> > plane
> > > >> has landed, before my bag actually shows up. If I could get away
with
> > just
> > > >> hang baggage when I go on a flight. I would do that!
> > >
> > > If you're on a business trip and the time is critical - then pack
lighter.
> > Wear
> > > clothing passable for your business in case there is a problem. If
you're
> > > moving or have acquired some largish items, ship stuff. If you're
> > travelling on
> > > pleasure, the first step to pleasure would be to learn how to relax
and
> > stop
> > > counting minutes at the baggage carousel.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Or because twice the airlines have failed to send my luggage on the
same
> > > >flight as me.
> > >
> > > Twice out of how many flights? And did they or did they not get the
bags
> > to you
> > > within a day?
> > >
> > > I mean, good grief. These complaints are just control-phreaky "I
demand a
> > > glitch-free life and I wanna be first" stuff. The large number of
> > > self-appointed carry-on exceptions (and the resultant scrable for
> > overhead,
> > > underfoot, and garment bag space) *is* impacting other pax. PDA's,
> > music
> > > players, and cameras fit in largish purses and soft briefcases (for
the
> > latter,
> > > with laptop). Medicine and magazines too. One more of carry-on size
> > handles a
> > > weekend's worth of stuff (say - how 'bout packing one of those such
that
> > you're
> > > covered for a baggage-loading disaster and checking the rest!).
> >
> > Spoken like a true non-business traveler. Why in the world should
anyone
> > risk their enterprise and forgo their _legal_ carryon because you don't
> > approve?
> >
> > I have to wear suits for my business and, no, I won't spend hours in
plane
> > wearing one because you don't like carryons. I, personally, have had my
> > bags delayed -- 4+ days in each case -- twice out of the four times I
> > checked bags on a business trip. I also carry a laptop (with associated
> > electronics), PDA, cellphone and charger, plus critical documents that I
> > need when I get there.
> >
> > It absolutely amazes me that you would be criticize someone who falls
within
> > the _airline_determined_ requirement for carryon, which inconveniences
no
> > one except, perhaps, your personal sense of aesthetics.
>
> It is not the person within the guidelines of a 21 inch rollaboard (51
> inch total dimension)

On some airlines -- different airlines have different restrictions.

> and a SINGLE personal item (briefcase, purse, OR
> - not and - SMALL backpack).
>
> The 24 inch rollaboard plus the computer case, plus the small duffle
> plus the purse is NOT within the guidelines.

I have a 24" Tumi suitcase. There is no way that this could remotely be
considered a carry-on. Standard rollaboards are 21" or 22".

>A rollaboard plus a
> computer plus a purse is not. A rollaboard plus a garment bag plus a
> briefcase is NOT. A rollaboard plus a purse plus a Macy's shopping
> bag plus a computer bag is NOT.

Obviously. When did I imply otherwise?

>
> These observations were made last Friday on a Continental flight in
> first class.

I rarely, if ever, see business people abuse the carryone restrictions. It
is almost always the casual flyer who either doesn't know, or doesn't care
about, the restrictions on carryon.

>
> Added to that - there was little evidence of the one above, one below
> etiquette.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, but since you're respond to my post,
I _never_ violate carryon rules. As I've indicated, in my experience,
casual flyers and, notably, families with young children, are the most
egregious violators.

>
> js

And once again, they may well search shoes without metal components. My
sandals are constantly being searched. FFM

Me wrote:
> In article <jenn-1CAB8F.16573115012004@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
> Jenn <jenn@hmplc.com> wrote:
>
>>you are apparently oblivious to the fact that the infamous bomb shoes
>>were sneakers
>>
>>sneakers would be the easiest type shoe to rig with explosives given
>>their large size and goofy appearance

> Don't tell me, tell the TSA authorities. You may have a good point
> there, but be that as it may; they still do not search shoes that
> lack any metal components such as sneakers.