Cameras and planes

Following the foiled terror attacks on planes between Britain and the US, no
hand luggage at all can be taken onto any flights. How are photographers
going to deal with this? For me, there is absolutely no way I would pack my
gear (worth about £5,000) in with my luggage. If I was making a journey
tomorrow, I would have to either go camera-less (so not much point in going
at all) or cancel.

Link to the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780815.stm

I was thinking the same. Same with laptops, etc. If you had to put your
camera bag in the hold, would it be covered for damage by the Airlines
insurance and is it likely to be damaged?

Don't get me wrong, possessions are replaceable, human safety isn't, so I am
all for what the officials are doing. However, I am unsure about travelling
with decent camera equipment.


"Mike" wrote in message
...
Following the foiled terror attacks on planes between Britain and the US,
no hand luggage at all can be taken onto any flights. How are
photographers going to deal with this? For me, there is absolutely no way
I would pack my gear (worth about £5,000) in with my luggage. If I was
making a journey tomorrow, I would have to either go camera-less (so not
much point in going at all) or cancel.

Link to the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780815.stm

Mike wrote:
Following the foiled terror attacks on planes between Britain and the US, no
hand luggage at all can be taken onto any flights. How are photographers
going to deal with this? For me, there is absolutely no way I would pack my
gear (worth about £5,000) in with my luggage.

So DRIVE if it's a domestic trip. Domestic air travel is a
*convenience* industry - predicated on travelers actually getting there
faster than if they'd driven! Britain is a small nation - and air
travel for the foreseeable future sounds like it will take far longer
(when all ground time, including checkin and security as well as drive
to/from airports is considered) than if you just drove.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Following the foiled terror attacks on planes between Britain and the US,
no hand luggage at all can be taken onto any flights. How are
photographers going to deal with this? For me, there is absolutely no way
I would pack my gear (worth about £5,000) in with my luggage. If I was
making a journey tomorrow, I would have to either go camera-less (so not
much point in going at all) or cancel.


How do you expect them to deal with it? It strikes me that they have very
few options, one is cancel the trip, the other is put the gear in the hold.
I cancelled a proposed job in Norway next week just an hour and a half ago.

H (in England)

Mike wrote:

Following the foiled terror attacks on planes between Britain and the US, no
hand luggage at all can be taken onto any flights. How are photographers
going to deal with this? For me, there is absolutely no way I would pack my
gear (worth about £5,000) in with my luggage. If I was making a journey
tomorrow, I would have to either go camera-less (so not much point in going
at all) or cancel.

Link to the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780815.stm

It seems that small electronic devices, ie ipods etc may be part of
the plot, aswell as liquids. I would assume digital cameras would be
classed as risky too.

--
Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

He lives in the UK, not USA. The '£' sign should have been a clue.

In addition to this, UK is not a 'small nation', Canada is 'small' in
comparison.

FYI, the question was not about the time taking to get through airport
security. So, how about you actually read the post?


wrote in message
ups.com...

So DRIVE if it's a domestic trip. Domestic air travel is a
*convenience* industry - predicated on travelers actually getting there
faster than if they'd driven! Britain is a small nation - and air
travel for the foreseeable future sounds like it will take far longer
(when all ground time, including checkin and security as well as drive
to/from airports is considered) than if you just drove.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

(Joe) wrote in :

In addition to this, UK is not a 'small nation', Canada is 'small' in
comparison.

By what measure?

According to the CIA "World Fact Book", the UK occupies 241,590 sq km,
and is "slightly smaller than Oregon", while Canada occupies 9,093,507
sq km and is "somewhat larger than the US."

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Population.


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Joe) wrote in :

In addition to this, UK is not a 'small nation', Canada is 'small' in
comparison.

By what measure?

According to the CIA "World Fact Book", the UK occupies 241,590 sq km,
and is "slightly smaller than Oregon", while Canada occupies 9,093,507
sq km and is "somewhat larger than the US."

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

(Joe) wrote in
:

Population.

Since the original comment was offered in the context of driving time
vs. flying, I can't imagine why you'd offer that.

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(Joe) wrote in
:

In addition to this, UK is not a 'small nation', Canada is
'small' in comparison.

By what measure?

According to the CIA "World Fact Book", the UK occupies 241,590 sq
km, and is "slightly smaller than Oregon", while Canada occupies
9,093,507 sq km and is "somewhat larger than the US."

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Are you crazy or just stupid?

How about you also learn to read posts.


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...

Since the original comment was offered in the context of driving time
vs. flying, I can't imagine why you'd offer that.