tripod on SWA airlines?
Tom Nakashima
a tripod (bogen 3001)?
The tripod measures 21" collapsed, so I can fit it in a carry-on bag with
the SWA guidelines of 10"x16"x24", just that I would hate to have it
confiscated at the gate. If, not I will mail it. Need to know before Oct.
7th.
-tom
Dave Spencer
Denver, Dallas and St Louis with no problems a couple of weeks ago. Never
got a second look. Carried it separately from my carryon bag, BTW.
"Tom Nakashima" <t...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:cja1cb$f7o$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
Scott in Florida
Why don't you call them and ask?
Scott in Florida
Special Ed
Ability to get it through security may vary by airport-- but go here for the
official TSA list.
http://www.tsa.dot.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_and_Prohibited_Items.pdf
Edw.
Jer
I have to ask what's the point of taking a tripod as carry-on?
Sometimes, airlines require things to be checked baggage because they
don't want the risk of flying objects in the passenger cabin, and the
TSA is only interested in things that can be used as weapons. I take
mine along in a padded case as checked baggage on many occasions, and
there's never been a problem. It's a freaking Bogen for crying out
loud! If there's no need for it between curbs, check it or ship it.
You do have travel insurance, no?
--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
"If one dives and returns to the surface inarticulate with amazement and
with a deep realisation of the marvel of what he has seen and where he
has been, then he deserves to go again and again. If he is unmoved or
dissappointed, then there remains for him on earth only a longer or
shorter period of waiting for death." --William Beebe, "Half Mile Down"
Bill Hilton
>I'll be flying on Southwest Airlines, anyone know if it's ok to take aboard
>a tripod (bogen 3001)?
We've carried larger tripods (Gitzo 1325 and 1348) on several airlines without
a hitch (Alaska, Am West, Continental).
I asked the TSA if tripods were legal carry-ons and they said a) they are not
on the official list of banned items (available at their website) and b) it
would be OK if there are no sharp edges and it fits the carrier's carry-on
rules.
We usually put the tripods in a Bogen-type bag and count them as the smaller
hand-carry item and have yet to experience problems, but it might be a good
idea to contact SWA ahead of time just in case their policy is different than
the carriers we use.
Bill
ka...@sonic.net
>Tom Nakashima wrote:
>> I'll be flying on Southwest Airlines, anyone know if it's ok to take aboard
>> a tripod (bogen 3001)?
>> The tripod measures 21" collapsed, so I can fit it in a carry-on bag with
>> the SWA guidelines of 10"x16"x24", just that I would hate to have it
>> confiscated at the gate. If, not I will mail it. Need to know before Oct.
>> 7th.
>> -tom
>
>
>I have to ask what's the point of taking a tripod as carry-on?
Excellent point for openers.
>Sometimes, airlines require things to be checked baggage because they
>don't want the risk of flying objects in the passenger cabin, and the
>TSA is only interested in things that can be used as weapons.
The last time I looked, the airport's list included golf
clubs, bats and pool cues, collapsible or not. By that reasoning, a
tripod, when extended, looks pretty much like one of the above. If
subtly modified, it could serve as such.
Jer
I'll say it again... the TSA is ONLY interested in items that can be
used as weapons - whether carry-on or checked.
The airline is obligated to follow the TSA's lead on the above, AND free
to institute their own restrictions predicated on passenger cabin safety.
Most of the stuff on the TSA "no" list is a no-brainer, but looking at
their "hard core" no list may prove helpful.
Calling the airline or looking at their website may also prove helpful,
but under no circumstances should such information be considered
complete and binding. The airlines are constantly reviewing their
safety policies and things literally change from one day to the next.
IOW, don't waste the pixels printing the website list so you can present
it for some sort of nebulous defence strategy - it won't work, nor
should it.
The bottom line is if it's questionable from the passenger's
perspective, it'll damn sure be questionable from the airline's
perspective. The very question itself from the OP implies the item
should be checked or shipped overnight. Don't presume you have some
half-assed story that'll convince some airline screener with some
compelling reason that you should be excepted from a standing policy.
Never happen. Considering the nature of the issue, no airline screener
is going to risk his/her job by even discussing their current policy,
let alone authorizing any exceptions at the gate.
Some may not be aware of this, but early in it's infancy, the TSA
actually considered banning all carry-on items, except for medications
and a sack lunch. Naturally, the airlines squealed like pigs under a
gate, so thankfully, that draconian measure never saw the light of day.
But this may offer some insight to how serious the policy makers are
in their efforts to deal with shoestrings.
Marvin Margoshes
It isn't up to the airline. Federal employees do the checking. I sometimes
carry a monopod in my carryon bag, and have had no problem so far.
Jer
> It isn't up to the airline.
'skooze me? It's ALWAYS up to the airline.
Federal employees do the checking.
Yes, they do. They enforce the TSA regulations AND airline policy.
I sometimes
> carry a monopod in my carryon bag, and have had no problem so far.
>
...so far.
ZONED!
>Marvin Margoshes wrote:
>
>> It isn't up to the airline.
>
>'skooze me? It's ALWAYS up to the airline.
>
>Federal employees do the checking.
>
>Yes, they do. They enforce the TSA regulations AND airline policy.
There must be standards, otherwise we would be directed through
checkpoints according to different airlines, no?
Jer
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:28:16 -0500, Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>Yes, they do. They enforce the TSA regulations AND airline policy.
>
>
> There must be standards, otherwise we would be directed through
> checkpoints according to different airlines, no?
>
Actually no, the TSA mandate doesn't include being fair and balanced
about their responsibilities let alone any airline standard. They lump
everybody together by boiling everybody down to the lowest common
denominator, unless you fork over enough money to purchase a bypass card
- in which case you can practically do whatever you want, including
carry-on a tripod. Most card carriers are also in first class, so
profiling is a bit one-sided - it's only used if they *don't* like how
you look. If I was a terrorist, an Armani busines suit would be the
first thing I'd buy, then a bypass card for my... 'tripod'.
Ron Hunter
You neglect to mention that the card is NOT BOUGHT, but a charge is made
to do the necessary background checks AHEAD of time. To provide the
card, and the readers at the security stations. Otherwise, YOU would
have to pay more taxes so that those 'elitist' passengers who pay full
fare so you can fly cheap don't have to wait in the line.
And they are STILL not exempt from random checks at the gates.
Jer
You sound like a fee-bee, which means this thread is drifting way OT.
Game over.
Jer
> Jer wrote:
>
Having brunch with a pal this morning, I remembered this post
(especially the last line) and asked a few questions. Interestingly, I
was referred to the following from...
<< Fast checks of regular fliers extended >>
Posted 9/30/2004 10:27 PM Updated 10/1/2004 8:05 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-09-30-tsa_x.htm
=============
"The program, lauded by airlines as a way of reducing airport hassles
for their best customers, allows frequent fliers to use special
checkpoint lines at participating airports. The lines not only are
shorter, but they also spare registered travelers from random secondary
screening.
To be eligible for the special treatment, about 10,000 travelers who
were invited by the airlines have submitted to background checks,
fingerprinting and iris scans. They still must pass through metal
detectors, and their carry-on bags are put through X-ray machines.
They save time because they don't have to submit to a second search by a
screener with an electronic wand or have their shoes inspected."
=============
Curiously, I called American Airlines Customer Service and inquired
about the validity of the the quoted information above - which was
confirmed. I also found it interesting that they even get to keep their
shoes on, which makes this situation even worse than I imagined.
=============
United's Jeff Green says the airline supports "anything that is going to
make it easier for our passengers while preserving security."
=============
...and nothing could be further from the truth.