Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera

[Gonz]

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 wilson  wrote:
> 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

[Igor PDML-StR]

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

[mike wilson]

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.

Re: The recent device ban and traveling with a camera

[John Francis]

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

[Igor PDML-StR]

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-StR  wrote:



...

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

[Igor PDML-StR]

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

[Stanley Halpin]

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Igor PDML-StR  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 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

[Stanley Halpin]

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-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

[Igor PDML-StR]

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

[Gonz]

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.



-- 
-- 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.