Sending luggage (with photo gear) ahead by FedEx cross-border
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Ocean County, New Jersey Attorney Charles Novins Fights Reputation Thieves
Next: MORE CAGED ANIMALS: Photo of The First Day of the year
From: Mark Sieving on 1 Jan 2010 20:11 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:18:21 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <gjssj5taeofk9t6n6oglhf93v4euo3nar5(a)4ax.com>, Wally ><Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote: > >> So how are residents of Canada and elsewhere going to get our bulky >> teles and multiple camera bodies down to the States when carry-on bags >> are not allowed? > >vote with your wallet. cancel the trip until they stop treating you and >everyone else like a criminal. be sure to explain to the airline and >the cities you were planning on visiting where you were going to spend >money why you will be going someplace *else*. Why punish the destinations in the US for what Canada is doing? The airline and the cities in the US have no control over what Canada's transportation security agency requires. Seems to me the complaints should be dericted to CATSA and whatever part of the Canadian government is responsible for this decision.
From: Mort on 1 Jan 2010 20:22 Pete D wrote: > > "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message > news:010120101618217635%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... >> In article <gjssj5taeofk9t6n6oglhf93v4euo3nar5(a)4ax.com>, Wally >> <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote: >> >>> So how are residents of Canada and elsewhere going to get our bulky >>> teles and multiple camera bodies down to the States when carry-on bags >>> are not allowed? >> >> vote with your wallet. cancel the trip until they stop treating you and >> everyone else like a criminal. be sure to explain to the airline and >> the cities you were planning on visiting where you were going to spend >> money why you will be going someplace *else*. > > Why would any business in the US care if Canucks came or not? Canadians, by and large, are very friendly people, and I have had nothing but pleasant experiences in Canada, even in P.Q. with my very limited French. Please do not knock an entire nation because of over-reaction by a few government officials. That is not fair. Mort USA
From: nospam on 2 Jan 2010 01:09 In article <e17tj597lj26r47kfhcf9darhtgcdgnr1r(a)4ax.com>, Mark Sieving <Mark.Sieving(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why punish the destinations in the US for what Canada is doing? do you have a better way to end this nonsense? they can always drive, and even take a domestic flight within the usa which is not restricted, yet. > The airline and the cities in the US have no control over what Canada's > transportation security agency requires. Seems to me the complaints > should be dericted to CATSA and whatever part of the Canadian > government is responsible for this decision. yes they do, and it's not just canada. <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/74041-homeland-securit y-dept-to-launch-international-airport-security-campaign> �As part of the ongoing review to determine exactly what went wrong leading up to Friday�s attempted terrorist attack, we are looking not only at our own processes, but also beyond our borders to ensure effective aviation security measures are in place for U.S-bound flights that originate at international airports,� Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement Thursday.
From: Wally on 2 Jan 2010 12:59 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:09:59 -0800, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <e17tj597lj26r47kfhcf9darhtgcdgnr1r(a)4ax.com>, Mark Sieving ><Mark.Sieving(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why punish the destinations in the US for what Canada is doing? > >do you have a better way to end this nonsense? they can always drive, >and even take a domestic flight within the usa which is not restricted, >yet. > >> The airline and the cities in the US have no control over what Canada's >> transportation security agency requires. Seems to me the complaints >> should be dericted to CATSA and whatever part of the Canadian >> government is responsible for this decision. > >yes they do, and it's not just canada. > ><http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/74041-homeland-securit >y-dept-to-launch-international-airport-security-campaign> > >�As part of the ongoing review to determine exactly what went wrong >leading up to Friday�s attempted terrorist attack, we are looking not >only at our own processes, but also beyond our borders to ensure >effective aviation security measures are in place for U.S-bound flights >that originate at international airports,� Homeland Security Secretary >Janet Napolitano said in a statement Thursday. Yes, but to pull the discussion back to topic, what's the best way for photographer travellers to deal with this, when taking along expensive and bulky cameras/lenses? Wally
From: J�rgen Exner on 2 Jan 2010 13:14
Wally <Wally(a)luxx.com> wrote: >Yes, but to pull the discussion back to topic, what's the best way for >photographer travellers to deal with this, when taking along expensive >and bulky cameras/lenses? Travel by train. No luggage limits, no weight limits, no obnoxious body searches, not squeezed into a sardine can with no leg room, ... And it's faster than flying for distances up to 1000km or more, too, because there's no need for neither commuting too and from the airport far outside the city nor for "be there hours before departure". jue |