Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
I suspect that the same body has already been through some jarring moments being shipped to its final destination, whether by container ship or by plane. Loading/unloading boxes, loading/unloading containers, the trip itself, the distribution network which ships the cameras to its retailer and the shipping to the customer's house, all involving UPS/Fedex wannabee monkeys. I don't know exactly the mechanism of the shake reduction, but I suspect its some kind of piezo device, which means that when its off its pretty rigid. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:04 AM, mike wilsonwrote: > I would think that Pentax DSLRs, with in-body shake reduction, are at least as > fragile as lenses. I'd certainly feel happier stowing an M or earlier lens in > my carryon than a modern body - and not just because of the value aspect. > >> On 28 March 2017 at 16:50 Gonz wrote: >> >> >> Can't you carry your lenses on board and check in the camera with no >> lenses? I would think that the lenses would be more fragile, esp >> since you can wrap the camera in clothing and put it in your suitcase? >> The lenses shouldn't be considered conventional "electronic device" >> since they have no battery even though they may have some chip or >> motors inside. >> >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: >> > >> > Since the most recent on the devices in the carry-on on certain airlines >> > from some destination, I've been thinking that a few options for flying are >> > no longer available for me. >> > As far as I understand, in addition to the laptops, DSLRs (and any other >> > cameras besides cellphones are prohibited in the carry-on as well. >> > And as we've discussed before, it would be extremely risky to place a >> > DSLR+lenses into a regular checked-in suitcase. >> > >> > Two of the banned airlines have (or rather had) a potential for me flying >> > their flights: Emirates and Turkish Airlines. >> > I've never flown Emirates due to the routing/pricing, but always wanted >> > because of their reputation. >> > Turkish Airlines, on the other hand, offers competitive pricing for flying >> > to Europe (connecting in Istambul), and since they are in the aliance with >> > United, I've used them on a couple of trips recently, both business and >> > personal. >> > >> > It is interesting that Emirates just came up with a solution that *might* >> > work: >> > (USA Today:) >> > https://goo.gl/G0HQrj >> > http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/03/23/emirates-rolls-out-laptop-handling-service-response-ban/99543956/ >> > >> > With Turkish Airlines, whose Customer Service attitude is so "laid back" >> > that it neglects "customer" and to some degree "service", - I am not sure >> > if >> > I would trust even such a solution. -- I mean I wouldn't be sure that my >> > camera bag will not walk away between the gate and the cargo. >> > >> > And then for any airline, there is airport ground operations personnel on >> > the arrival to US. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- -- Photography takes an instant out of time, altering life by holding it still. Dorothea Lange -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
For the overall number, I just realized, I was counting only the airports designated by FAA as "Commercial service - primary" ( over 10 000 passenger boardings per year). You probably included "Commercial service - nonprimary" (between 2.5K and 10K boardings per year). On one hand, I didn't find the list of the latter upon a quick look. On the other hand, I suspected that most of those are serviced by charter flights. But now, I am thinking that small airports with a single daily flight (say CRJ-100) with about half load on average (say, 25 passengers on average) would not meet the 10-K cut-off. And then some of those airports may have seasonal schedule. One example of such airports is WYS (Yellowstone Airport), served exclusivle by Delta between May and September (only 7,796 enplaments in 2015). The latest total number of commercial airports I was able to find (CY15) lists 544 airports: https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/media/cy15-commercial-service-enplanements.pdf The last one on the list, LAF, that just barely made the cut for the "commercial" (2500+ enplaments), has not had scheduled commercial flights since 2004. So, I suspect the correct number of the airports with regular scheduled commercial flight services might be somewhere between 500 and 600. Cheers, Igor PS. I am always glad to see that I am not the only one who cares for the accuracy of statements. :-) John Francis Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:38:26 -0700 wrote: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:39:21PM -0400, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I don't know how many US airports Delta and Delta Connections fly to (out of almost 400 commercial airports), but 84 is probably not all of them. I count 252 Your 400 figure is a bit low, too - my count shows 662 airports in the USA that have scheduled flights operating to/from them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
I would think that Pentax DSLRs, with in-body shake reduction, are at least as fragile as lenses. I'd certainly feel happier stowing an M or earlier lens in my carryon than a modern body - and not just because of the value aspect. > On 28 March 2017 at 16:50 Gonzwrote: > > > Can't you carry your lenses on board and check in the camera with no > lenses? I would think that the lenses would be more fragile, esp > since you can wrap the camera in clothing and put it in your suitcase? > The lenses shouldn't be considered conventional "electronic device" > since they have no battery even though they may have some chip or > motors inside. > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: > > > > Since the most recent on the devices in the carry-on on certain airlines > > from some destination, I've been thinking that a few options for flying are > > no longer available for me. > > As far as I understand, in addition to the laptops, DSLRs (and any other > > cameras besides cellphones are prohibited in the carry-on as well. > > And as we've discussed before, it would be extremely risky to place a > > DSLR+lenses into a regular checked-in suitcase. > > > > Two of the banned airlines have (or rather had) a potential for me flying > > their flights: Emirates and Turkish Airlines. > > I've never flown Emirates due to the routing/pricing, but always wanted > > because of their reputation. > > Turkish Airlines, on the other hand, offers competitive pricing for flying > > to Europe (connecting in Istambul), and since they are in the aliance with > > United, I've used them on a couple of trips recently, both business and > > personal. > > > > It is interesting that Emirates just came up with a solution that *might* > > work: > > (USA Today:) > > https://goo.gl/G0HQrj > > http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/03/23/emirates-rolls-out-laptop-handling-service-response-ban/99543956/ > > > > With Turkish Airlines, whose Customer Service attitude is so "laid back" > > that it neglects "customer" and to some degree "service", - I am not sure if > > I would trust even such a solution. -- I mean I wouldn't be sure that my > > camera bag will not walk away between the gate and the cargo. > > > > And then for any airline, there is airport ground operations personnel on > > the arrival to US. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:39:21PM -0400, Igor PDML-StR wrote: > > I don't know how many US airports Delta and Delta Connections fly to > (out of almost 400 commercial airports), but 84 is probably not all of them. I count 252 Your 400 figure is a bit low, too - my count shows 662 airports in the USA that have scheduled flights operating to/from them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
Stan, I don't know about Delta, I haven't flown on Delta for ages. That's why I didn't write "all" airlines. My most recent personal experience was with Turkish Airlines and Czech Airlines last summer (on international flights), and with Frontier (domestic) last month. All of them claimed they do not do real time tracking (if any tracking at all). While discussing the situation with the first two, I've read confirmation that [at least some] other major airlines do not track packages in real time (if at all). As for Delta and its app, - I actually wonder what is done "under the hood". Do they actually *track* your luggage (i.e. do they show you the actual scan place and time?) or they just follow your itinerary, making an *ASSUMPTION* that the luggage follows alone? Well, I see the answers to my questions here: http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/26/13415458/delta-bag-tracking-app It's a very recent feature, just a few months old. I don't know how many US airports Delta and Delta Connections fly to (out of almost 400 commercial airports), but 84 is probably not all of them. But I am glad to see that a major carrier started such an effort. Hopefully, the others will follow suit. Thanks for alerting me about its existence. Igor Stanley Halpin Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:29:04 -0700 wrote: On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Igor PDML-StRwrote: ... In today's electronic world, when you can see (close to) real-time tracking of FedEx and UPS packages, - you'd be surprised that the airlines (at least many of them) do not track the movement of luggage in real time. I.e. they cannot see where the last scan was. My understanding is that the only reason for the bar codes on the luggage tags today is just for sorting. (Or, maybe they have some capability to research those scans offline.) It looks like, unlike Fedex and UPS, they have no financial incentives to introduce tracking. (Cf. USPS has finally implemented real-time tracking of packages to compete with Fedex and UPS, despite being reluctant if not defiant for many-many years.) Igor On Delta, you can track your luggage on your iPhone if you have their app installed. Pretty much real time. Nice to see: “your bag is now being delivered on Carousel 2”… So yes, the technology definitely does support this feature. But then technology supports allowing passengers to go online and reserve specific seats, and [rant] yet some airlines don’t seem to be able to implement that feature. (Which is why I refuse to fly Southwest. [/rant])] stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
Stan: Yep, the contradiction with the safety intents and regulations is evident. I don't know how they are going to resolve that. Because the ion-batteries in the checked-in luggage is also a regulation... In the end, it might mean that if you flew, say on Turkish Airlines to Europe (or even Turkey) with your laptop or tablet (and you know how many laptops and tablet you can see on todays flight, especially the one across the pond?) and you are flying back, you might become a hostage of your own laptop when trying to board: You cannot check it in due to the battery, and you cannot take it in the carry-on. It's interesting that Bloomberg.com thinks that the "laptop ban" might not be about security, but about protectionism. Whether that's correct or not, - I don't know, but it sounds consistent. Look at the references at the bottom of that article, - they mark the "money trail". https://goo.gl/5TMloE https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-21/the-laptop-ban-and-what-it-means-for-air-travel-quicktake-q-a Igor Stanley Halpin Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:15:05 -0700 wrote: When I first read about the ban it gave me pause as well. Not least as it makes no sense in that it directly contradicts safety warnings about LiON batteries in checked bags. But then I read a second time. It applies not to specific airlines, but rather to any flights by any airline that originate in one of x bad-guy countries and fly directly to the U.S. or U.K. It happens that no U.S. airlines have such routes, some U.K. airlines do. For the bad guys, this means that they will have to take connecting flights rather than direct flights if they want to cause trouble, and that extra hassle presumably will deter them. For the rest of us, so far the ban is irrelevant. However, if/when it becomes more general, my plan is to keep my lenses and all batteries in my carry-on camera pack. I will carefully pack two camera bodies, one each in two different suitcases. Then check to verify insurance coverage, cross my fingers, and go. stan On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, Igor PDML-StR wrote: Since the most recent on the devices in the carry-on on certain airlines from some destination, I've been thinking that a few options for flying are no longer available for me. As far as I understand, in addition to the laptops, DSLRs (and any other cameras besides cellphones are prohibited in the carry-on as well. And as we've discussed before, it would be extremely risky to place a DSLR+lenses into a regular checked-in suitcase. Two of the banned airlines have (or rather had) a potential for me flying their flights: Emirates and Turkish Airlines. I've never flown Emirates due to the routing/pricing, but always wanted because of their reputation. Turkish Airlines, on the other hand, offers competitive pricing for flying to Europe (connecting in Istambul), and since they are in the aliance with United, I've used them on a couple of trips recently, both business and personal. It is interesting that Emirates just came up with a solution that *might* work: (USA Today:) https://goo.gl/G0HQrj http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/03/23/emirates-rolls-out-laptop-handling-service-response-ban/99543956/ With Turkish Airlines, whose Customer Service attitude is so "laid back" that it neglects "customer" and to some degree "service", - I am not sure if I would trust even such a solution. -- I mean I wouldn't be sure that my camera bag will not walk away between the gate and the cargo. And then for any airline, there is airport ground operations personnel on the arrival to US. Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Igor PDML-StRwrote: > > > > ... > > In today's electronic world, when you can see (close to) real-time tracking > of FedEx and UPS packages, - you'd be surprised that the airlines (at least > many of them) do not track the movement of luggage in real time. > I.e. they cannot see where the last scan was. > My understanding is that the only reason for the bar codes on the luggage > tags today is just for sorting. (Or, maybe they have some capability to > research those scans offline.) It looks like, unlike Fedex and UPS, they have > no financial incentives to introduce tracking. > (Cf. USPS has finally implemented real-time tracking of packages to compete > with Fedex and UPS, despite being reluctant if not defiant for many-many > years.) > > Igor > On Delta, you can track your luggage on your iPhone if you have their app installed. Pretty much real time. Nice to see: “your bag is now being delivered on Carousel 2”… So yes, the technology definitely does support this feature. But then technology supports allowing passengers to go online and reserve specific seats, and [rant] yet some airlines don’t seem to be able to implement that feature. (Which is why I refuse to fly Southwest. [/rant])] stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
When I first read about the ban it gave me pause as well. Not least as it makes no sense in that it directly contradicts safety warnings about LiON batteries in checked bags. But then I read a second time. It applies not to specific airlines, but rather to any flights by any airline that originate in one of x bad-guy countries and fly directly to the U.S. or U.K. It happens that no U.S. airlines have such routes, some U.K. airlines do. For the bad guys, this means that they will have to take connecting flights rather than direct flights if they want to cause trouble, and that extra hassle presumably will deter them. For the rest of us, so far the ban is irrelevant. However, if/when it becomes more general, my plan is to keep my lenses and all batteries in my carry-on camera pack. I will carefully pack two camera bodies, one each in two different suitcases. Then check to verify insurance coverage, cross my fingers, and go. stan > On Mar 28, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Igor PDML-StRwrote: > > > Since the most recent on the devices in the carry-on on certain airlines from > some destination, I've been thinking that a few options for flying are no > longer available for me. > As far as I understand, in addition to the laptops, DSLRs (and any other > cameras besides cellphones are prohibited in the carry-on as well. > And as we've discussed before, it would be extremely risky to place a > DSLR+lenses into a regular checked-in suitcase. > > Two of the banned airlines have (or rather had) a potential for me flying > their flights: Emirates and Turkish Airlines. > I've never flown Emirates due to the routing/pricing, but always wanted > because of their reputation. > Turkish Airlines, on the other hand, offers competitive pricing for flying to > Europe (connecting in Istambul), and since they are in the aliance with > United, I've used them on a couple of trips recently, both business and > personal. > > It is interesting that Emirates just came up with a solution that *might* > work: > (USA Today:) > https://goo.gl/G0HQrj > http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/03/23/emirates-rolls-out-laptop-handling-service-response-ban/99543956/ > > With Turkish Airlines, whose Customer Service attitude is so "laid back" that > it neglects "customer" and to some degree "service", - I am not sure if I > would trust even such a solution. -- I mean I wouldn't be sure that my camera > bag will not walk away between the gate and the cargo. > > And then for any airline, there is airport ground operations personnel on the > arrival to US. > > > Igor > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
That's a good thought regarding the lenses. It might be worth checking in a while how the foreign counterparts of TSA are reading the ban. (It's often hard to argue with those.) As for the camera, the primary concern is not about damage but about theft. A valuable item in the suitcase has a high potential of being removed from there. Worse than that, there is yet another factor. With connections, the likelyhood of a suitcase being lost is far from zero. When you have a valuable item in it, and you are flying from/to/through countries with low salaries and/or high level of corruption, the chances of the suitcase being lost become very significant. So, even if your camera is insured, you are increasing chances for the headache related to the rest of your belongings. With the disproportionally low financial responsibilities that airlines carry for each lost suitcase, the airlines have rather low incentives to guard the luggage, or to track it properly. In today's electronic world, when you can see (close to) real-time tracking of FedEx and UPS packages, - you'd be surprised that the airlines (at least many of them) do not track the movement of luggage in real time. I.e. they cannot see where the last scan was. My understanding is that the only reason for the bar codes on the luggage tags today is just for sorting. (Or, maybe they have some capability to research those scans offline.) It looks like, unlike Fedex and UPS, they have no financial incentives to introduce tracking. (Cf. USPS has finally implemented real-time tracking of packages to compete with Fedex and UPS, despite being reluctant if not defiant for many-many years.) Igor Gonz Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:51:32 -0700 wrote: Can't you carry your lenses on board and check in the camera with no lenses? I would think that the lenses would be more fragile, esp since you can wrap the camera in clothing and put it in your suitcase? The lenses shouldn't be considered conventional "electronic device" since they have no battery even though they may have some chip or motors inside. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: Since the most recent on the devices in the carry-on on certain airlines from some destination, I've been thinking that a few options for flying are no longer available for me. As far as I understand, in addition to the laptops, DSLRs (and any other cameras besides cellphones are prohibited in the carry-on as well. And as we've discussed before, it would be extremely risky to place a DSLR+lenses into a regular checked-in suitcase. Two of the banned airlines have (or rather had) a potential for me flying their flights: Emirates and Turkish Airlines. I've never flown Emirates due to the routing/pricing, but always wanted because of their reputation. Turkish Airlines, on the other hand, offers competitive pricing for flying to Europe (connecting in Istambul), and since they are in the aliance with United, I've used them on a couple of trips recently, both business and personal. It is interesting that Emirates just came up with a solution that *might* work: (USA Today:) https://goo.gl/G0HQrj http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/03/23/emirates-rolls-out-laptop-handling-service-response-ban/99543956/ With Turkish Airlines, whose Customer Service attitude is so "laid back" that it neglects "customer" and to some degree "service", - I am not sure if I would trust even such a solution. -- I mean I wouldn't be sure that my camera bag will not walk away between the gate and the cargo. And then for any airline, there is airport ground operations personnel on the arrival to US. Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
Can't you carry your lenses on board and check in the camera with no lenses? I would think that the lenses would be more fragile, esp since you can wrap the camera in clothing and put it in your suitcase? The lenses shouldn't be considered conventional "electronic device" since they have no battery even though they may have some chip or motors inside. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Igor PDML-StRwrote: > > Since the most recent on the devices in the carry-on on certain airlines > from some destination, I've been thinking that a few options for flying are > no longer available for me. > As far as I understand, in addition to the laptops, DSLRs (and any other > cameras besides cellphones are prohibited in the carry-on as well. > And as we've discussed before, it would be extremely risky to place a > DSLR+lenses into a regular checked-in suitcase. > > Two of the banned airlines have (or rather had) a potential for me flying > their flights: Emirates and Turkish Airlines. > I've never flown Emirates due to the routing/pricing, but always wanted > because of their reputation. > Turkish Airlines, on the other hand, offers competitive pricing for flying > to Europe (connecting in Istambul), and since they are in the aliance with > United, I've used them on a couple of trips recently, both business and > personal. > > It is interesting that Emirates just came up with a solution that *might* > work: > (USA Today:) > https://goo.gl/G0HQrj > http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/03/23/emirates-rolls-out-laptop-handling-service-response-ban/99543956/ > > With Turkish Airlines, whose Customer Service attitude is so "laid back" > that it neglects "customer" and to some degree "service", - I am not sure if > I would trust even such a solution. -- I mean I wouldn't be sure that my > camera bag will not walk away between the gate and the cargo. > > And then for any airline, there is airport ground operations personnel on > the arrival to US. > > > Igor > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- -- Photography takes an instant out of time, altering life by holding it still. Dorothea Lange -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
The recent device ban and traveling with a camera
Since the most recent on the devices in the carry-on on certain airlines from some destination, I've been thinking that a few options for flying are no longer available for me. As far as I understand, in addition to the laptops, DSLRs (and any other cameras besides cellphones are prohibited in the carry-on as well. And as we've discussed before, it would be extremely risky to place a DSLR+lenses into a regular checked-in suitcase. Two of the banned airlines have (or rather had) a potential for me flying their flights: Emirates and Turkish Airlines. I've never flown Emirates due to the routing/pricing, but always wanted because of their reputation. Turkish Airlines, on the other hand, offers competitive pricing for flying to Europe (connecting in Istambul), and since they are in the aliance with United, I've used them on a couple of trips recently, both business and personal. It is interesting that Emirates just came up with a solution that *might* work: (USA Today:) https://goo.gl/G0HQrj http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/03/23/emirates-rolls-out-laptop-handling-service-response-ban/99543956/ With Turkish Airlines, whose Customer Service attitude is so "laid back" that it neglects "customer" and to some degree "service", - I am not sure if I would trust even such a solution. -- I mean I wouldn't be sure that my camera bag will not walk away between the gate and the cargo. And then for any airline, there is airport ground operations personnel on the arrival to US. Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.