DO NOT FLY TO HEATHROW AIRPORT IF YOU MUST USE TWO CARRY-ON BAGS, NO MATTER HOW SMALL.

HEATHROW AIRPORT POLICE WILL STOP YOU FROM BOARDING OR EVEN TRANSFERRING FROM ONE FLIGHT TO ANOTHER IF YOU HAVE TWO CARRY-ON BAGS, EVEN IF THE OTHER IS A SMALL PURSE OR SMALL BAG.

DO NOT FLY ON BRITISH AIRWAYS IF THEY CONNECT THROUGH HEATHROW.

DO NOT INCLUDE LONDON ON ANY ITINERARY TO VISIT EUROPE IF THE ONLY CONVENIENT AIRPORT IS HEATHROW -- NOT IF YOU MUST USE TWO CARRY ON BAGS.

A later edit -- this apparently applies at all UK airports not just Heathrow. It is a uniform UK restriction for all airlines and all airports. Welcome to the friendly skies in England.

There are other places to visit. Dealing with the zealous British police at Heathrow isn't worth a visit to England. Instead visit a country that actually encourages tourism by following sensible policies at their largest international airports -- and that includes every other airport in Europe (based on what European business travelers told me) and probably the world.

(I suspect that British Airways encourages this policy to cut down on carry-on bags even though they deny it. They richly deserve the loss of business, as does every hotel and tourist establishment in London, as long as Heathrow enforces this policy.)

A backpack with a camera and lens, and a briefcase with a laptop PC or even a purse will count as two carry-on bags. Any photographer or tourist travelling to more than one European country and who must take two carry-on bags has no choice but to avoid London and if necessary the United Kingdom if Heathrow is the only convenient airport. (As an advanced amateur photographer I must carry one backpack with camera bodies and lenses, and a briefcase with a laptop for the downloading of photos.)

The Heathrow police run all passengers transferring planes, as well as flights originating at Heathrow, through a single file gauntlet. Numerous Heathrow police, on both sides of the single file line, are posted for ONLY one purpose -- to stop passengers with two carry on bags, no matter how small, and pull them out of the line.

I witnessed over a dozen passengers pulled out of line in a ten minute period who had been allowed to board their first flight at another airport with two carry-on bags. None of those passengers had any reason to anticipate this problem at Heathrow since all other airports follow a two carry-on policy.

Any passenger pulled out of the line by the Heathrow police must exit by standing in the long British custom line, then wait in another line at their airline to check the second bag, and then must pass back through airport security. I went through the above unbelievable hassle and only made by flight because it was late.

I must give the British Heathrow police full credit for being more zealous and unyielding than the worst cops in any American city. The Heathrow airport police pulled old ladies with a small carry-on and a purse out of the line. I literally mean old ladies. Mayor Rizzo or Mayor Daly's police would be more reasonable by comparison.

When I flew out of Berlin on Lufthansa, and transferred to United in Frankfurt, the airport police sent me right through with two carry-on bags. In the last six months I have had two carry-on bags when flying out of numerous US airports, on both domestic and international flights, as well as the airports in Tokyo and Beijing. Other business travelers who fly around the world said that this only happens at Heathrow.

Finally it should be noted that this policy has nothing to do with stopping crime or terrorism. If that was the case it would be universally applied across Europe and the U.S. I'm no expert on terrorism but something dangerous can just as easily be carried in the largest legal carry-on as in two small carry on bags such as a backpack and a briefcase. And all carry on bags are x-rayed in any event.

Other airlines, airports and business travelers have told me that Heathrow is notorious and is probably already impacting tourism to Britain.

AVOID HEATHROW, AND THE UK IF THAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE, AS A TOURIST AND PHOTOGRAPHER.

AND AVOID LONDON HOTELS, AND TOURISM IN LONDON, IF THAT MEANS USING HEATHROW.

IT JUST ISN'T WORTH IT.

We went through Heathrow a couple of months ago and were surprised by the same situation. It's not *that* bad if you plan for it (get one larger plastic bag to put both your small carry-on and camera bag in while you're in Heathrow, for example). We ended up quickly stuffing my camera bag in my spouse's carry-on, while he wore five shirts and and two pairs of pants through security to make room for it (and put them back once we were through security).

I was guessing that the reason behind it all is that the carry-on screening stations are overburdened and undermanned, and someone decided that everyone would get through security faster if they have a fewer number of carry-ons. It's the only rational reason I can think of (and makes some small amount of sense). However, they really should warn you ahead of time, instead of when you're rushing to make a connection. Or, better yet, get enough security people and stations so they don't have to do this...

It's not the worst airport, though. I'll go through Heathrow, but never through De Gaulle. Refusing to use Heathrow because of this new policy seems overkill to me; just learn to pack light and be ready for it.

I can certainly understand being annoyed by this change in policy when it's sprung on you without warning, though (having been there).

Lisa

Yes, that is possible, if you can combine carry-on bags. There were some people who were able to do that. But if you have a backpack filled with camera gear, and a briefcase with a laptop, then that is not possible. I had to check the laptop.

Have you ever watched the guys who THROW checked luggage onto planes? That is what I presume happened to my laptop. Fortunately it was not broken -- or stolen.

My original posting was worded quite carefully. If you must use two carry-ons, then avoid Heathrow at all costs. Because you can't use two carry on bags -- not at that airport.

If you flying on to another country, there are other airlines besides British Airways, and there are other airports to connect through.

In my response, I forgot to ask, what is wrong with De Gaulle? Never flown through it, but it would be good to know why we should avoid it.

I havent traveled via Charles de Gaulle myself, but my mother has twice and they lost her luggage there twice...

As I live in Germany and therefore meet people who traveled via CdG frequently, I often hear those kinds of stories. They must be quite a messy bunch, the frenchmen

The last time I tried to fly through there, we had a 3-1/2 hour connection to make, and made it barely in time only because we could take the much shorter business-class check-in line (the economy line was waaay out the building doors). We waited well over a half hour for the bus connecting the two terminals we were transferring between, when they were supposed to be running at least every ten minutes. Then the terminal we were in (I believe it was the main international terminal) had huge, huge lines with people crowded everywhere, including being dumped by escalators at places that were already packed full (not good!), and we had to check in again, go through security, and go through customs in these enormous lines. The lines took over two hours total, all in cattle-car crowded conditions with desperate people crowded together and pushing. Different people in different places checked our passports three times, and when we asked what was going on, we were told, "This is normal" (though I didnt't believe it).

A previous time my spouse flew through there, he had a few minutes in the gate area before his flight, and decided to wander around the terminal. He went up one of the scenic glassed-in escalators to another level before realizing that it was a one-way path (it wasn't obvious), and it took him a very nervous several minutes to dash about trying a find the way back to his gate before his flight boarded. He also complained that he was on the wrong side of a barrier from his gate that they weren't allowing anyone through, despite the fact that a person could get to *both* sides of the barrier (!), and he had to circle all the way back around the terminal to get to the right side (again, worrying he would miss his boarding).

In short, the transfer times are sometimes very lengthy, nerve-wracking and unreliable, and it's easy to get yourself into trouble trying to get to your gate in a timely fashion.

(It also appears more grimy and less good condition than most other major Western & Northern European airports, or at least was the last couple of times I've flown through. I was last there about four or five years ago, and have successfully avoided it since. In case you're wondering what a *good* European airport is, Frankfurt is pretty decent.)

Lisa

Even I have to admit that Heathrow was much better than that, just so long as you have only one carry-on bag. But note that I base that on only one experience with the airport.

That seems a touch unfair considering they have nothing to do with what the airports do.

Have any of you complaining souls forgotten about terrorism? No, perhaps it doesn´t happen in Muskogee, USA but it sure as hell does in the good old UK!

Old ladies pulled out of line: right, no old lady would dream of carrying a parcel on behalf of that sweet, kind young man who helped her with her luggage; no veiled damsel would think of secreting a vial of high explosive inside herself. Come alive, folks, this is the era of heartless violence against anyone who is different, believes in a different god or simply doesn´t believe in anything much at all.

I am only too happy to put up with security if it means I have a chance of arriving at my destination in one piece. If that means inconvenience for photographers then so be it. I have lived with X-Ray fogged film (despite claims it can´t happen) and lost professional pics, but I am around to try another day! Or to shoot at home, or to do it digitally or even to take up drawing.

Better an airport that takes the threats seriously than one which doesn´t.

Live in peace - Rob C

Schiphol airport in Amsterdam is pretty good. The last time I went through CDG in Paris, two years ago, it was crowded but not really a problem -- maybe I was lucky. One thing you never want to do is change money there...I don't know why it is, but British minor officialdom (customs, security) has always been among the rudest, which seems odd, since the British are usually so polite. There might be something to the proposition that the British airports just don't have the equipment -- just like the London underground doesn't get the equipment it needs. Frankfurt is good, Munich and Budapest work because they are quite small...Rome is screwed up but you expect that...Tel Aviv is cold but efficient, Cairo chaotic. I find American airports reasonably friendly and efficient compared to European airports, though they sometimes expect you to make ridiculously long walks.

I don't intend to start a political argument here, but I think one difference might be that European airports are dominated by government functionaries, who treat travelers as people to be governed and directed (and as a pain in their ass), while American airports are dominated by businesses, which have more of a tendency to treat people as customers who they'd like to return. That may be why among European airports I like Schiphol -- it's almost like a shopping center, with minimal bureaucracy.

JC

I cant see how somebody carrying two bags is more dangerous than somebody carrying one bag... I would second the idea that they want to stop the people from overcrowding the head compardments of the planes - quite a danger too, but not a terroristic one

Peter

You haven't been reading the posts closely enough, Rob. We're not complaining about security per se, we're complaining about security rules that noone tells you about until they bite you, that are peculiar to one particular airport, rules that have nothing to do with increased security. The lack of advance warning, leaving one suddenly stuck with little choice except to check camera gear or a purse (if one doesn't figure out a valid way around the rules fast enough like we did), is the main offense here.

Lisa

Ah Lisa - like John Camp I have no wish to start or further political argument, suffice to say that the entire aircraft problem of one bag, two bags or three bags full is ALL about security. I remember very well flying in the early 50s when there was no security at all, and neither was there risk other than from metal fatigue which made some aircraft fall out of the sky.

We live in an era where political correctness plays totally into the hands of the criminal, something which in my kinder moments I feel is not what was intended; consequently, the younger group of traveller today believes two things: that he should be able to do exactly as he wishes; that all attempts to make life safer or more fair is an attack on supposed civil liberties.

The checking in times have grown longer and these would be even worse were the security people forced to examine even more hand luggage than they have to cope with already; the limited carry aboard idea is to force more stuff to be booked ´not wanted on voyage´, if I may make an arcane reference to the elegant days of the steamship. That some people want to encumber themselves with more bags than are essential (open to argument) does not mean that they should be granted that right. Do you have memories of tourist air flights, where desperate people filled the available space with even more desperate bottles and packages of duty-free goods? A manifestation of both stupidy and greed.

So, embrace the security which limits in-flight access to your toys and live to fly another day.

Rob C

If airlines want to force passengers to check-in more luggage, they should also be willing to accept greater liablility for checked-in luggage. A limit of $1500 which excludes anything that is deemed fragile (i.e. camera gear) for checked baggage is a joke. I would have no problem buying a pelican case and checking it in - IF AND ONLY IF, the airlines accepted complete liablility of its loss or damage.

With that sentiment I have no quarrel other than that there are no free lunches and so, like it or not, the traveller would still end up paying for the additional compensation. Let´s face it, all airlines are in a hell of an economic condition and the wonder is that they can manage their debt well enough to continue flying.

Baggage handlers are not, by job and inclination, going to be amongst the most careful people on Earth. It´s a wonder anything gets through without being stolen, smashed by accident or on purpose. Travel often enough and you will lose any expectations of reliability, speed or service. The days of flight being in any way up-market have long gone; even poor old Concorde bit the dust at the seat prices that were possible in its day; that it was an accident just waiting to happen was another aspect altogether.

In the end, it all comes down to the fact that man is a s.o.b willing and more than able to screw up the world for everyone else. That being so, we have to live with these later quirks of the human condition and get on with making the best of a shoddy deal.

Rob C

You're still missing the point, Rob. Lisa spelled it out very clearly, if you would care to read her post. No one in this thread has denied the need for security. And no one has given a good reason why (1) security rules at Heathrow are out of kilter with those of other civilized airports, and (2) even if there are special security needs at Heathrow, no one has explained why the rules need to be kept secret until the passenger can't do anything about it. To my mind, the increased confusion is unlikely to increase security.

Actually that's not true. If you go to Heathrow Airport website, it is very easy to find the following information:

Hand baggage restrictions
Passengers are allowed to carry ONE item of hand baggage, no larger than:

*
56 centimetres tall (approximately 22 inches)
*
45 centimetres wide (approximately 17.7 inches)
*
25 centimetres deep (approximately 10 inches)

through the airport security search point. Please note, this is the maximum bag size allowed through security. Smaller bag sizes may apply depending on which airline you travel with.We therefore advise you to contact your airline.

The information is there...you just need to look for it. Maybe airlines should tell passengers about the rules...but it sure isn't the airport's responsability.

I've been in over 20 countries, many more airports, several times at Heathrow and don't find it worse than the other european airports I have been to.

That's simply not true as well. You're probably speaking about American airports on a perspective of a US citizen. Well, let me tell you a little story about my last connection at an American airport.

Last January, on my way to Costa Rica, I had a connection flight in Miami. I was almost an hour on a line to be fingerprinted. Ohh...I wasn't even going to stay in the US, as I told you. My stay in Miami was like 2 hours. This was around 10 PM local, after a flight from Lisbon to Amsterdam and then from Amsterdam to Miami. By the way...Portuguese citizens don't even need a visa to get in the US...but still, even if I'm just passing by, I still need to be on a line to be fingerprinted. Are you fingerprinted at european airports? I guess not. After the fingerprint, another line (this time I didn't count the time but it wasn't much less) to check the luggage...many of it hand checked. All shoes off, all coats off and a young woman yelling "DO YOU HAVE LIGHTERS? PLEASE GIVE US YOUR LIGHTERS"...something like that.

So trust me...in my experience, there are not less friendly airports in the world than american airports...at least at this time.

Sometimes we sould not talk about something we don't have total knowledge.

There is a certain amount of incorrect information here. If you fly BA from an external destination, as I did from Toronto, they ask how many carry-on items you have and they ask whether you are transiting through Heathrow, and they tell you why they are asking. If you are staying in England, you are allowed to carry two items because North American rules apply. If you are transiting through a UK airport, and definitly when you leave a UK airport, then European rules apply and the one bag limit is enforced. They do tell passengers this on embarking from wherever - if they don't they are being remiss. Anyhow, it is on their website.

This carry-on rule is Europe-wide. It is not limited to BA and England. If you check the history of this new system, you will see that it was decided by the European Union in consultation with the airlines and the security people amongst all member states. Every member of the European union is expected to enforce this carry-on baggage regime. Implementation of course will vary over time and place - this is not unusual. But sooner or later all will comply, or the system will be changed.

The ostensible reason why this is happening is because for the longest time the airlines have been trying to limit carry-on baggage. It is a huge nuissance for them. With the added security arrangements as a result of the recent intelligence about planned co-ordinated terror attacks, the onus on the security people to search carry-on bags became very heavy. Those airports simply don't have either the space (because of duty free shopping which pays rent) or the people (which costs salaries) to handle this efficiently, therefore reducing the carry-on allowance was the option they selected to keep the security operations manageable and costs down. Remember also oil prices have increased alot, so the less weight they need to carry, the less they pay for fuel.

BA has also vastly reduced the checked baggage allowance,s and imposed huge penalties for exceeding the reduced new limit, hence between this new policy and the reduced carry on allowance, anyone who wants to travel outside these minimalist limits will pay through the nose. This has nothing to do with security - it is completely commercial - a fare increase through the back door to pay for rising costs. Not all airlines in Europe have done likewise for checked baggage, but they are all wathcing the BA experience with keen interest, so there could be more widespread grief to come.

What is most unsatisfactory about all this is that they have not correspondingly improved the conditions for handling checked baggage, nor changed their liability exposure, hence the customer ends-up carrying all the risk and the cost. This is a real problem all airline companies traveling through Europe need to face, otherwise people who must carry more than one bag with sensitive equipment will start avoiding Europe altogether.

Heathrow also needs to drastically improve how they enforce the policy. It is inexcusable that they allow passengers beyond the check-in counter with illegal luggage and then force them through the whole queue again. Anyone experiencing this should write a letter to the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, the Chairman of BA, and copy it to all the main newspapers in the UK and abroad. This may wake them up.

As for CDG-Paris. We were through there last November. We found it more than usual a complete administrative mess in almost every conceivable respect. We ran into a staff member of Air France incapable of using their own reservation system, their baggage handling is a total disaster (they lost our bags for two days), their electronic notification system for flight gates often leaves out your flight and gate (as happened with ours), and as usual the airport is dirty, the signage is poor, it is vastly over-crowded, some of the booths of the immigration service are dimly lit and cramped, so they can lose documents placed in front of them causing near panic (happened to us) - really a place to avoid if at all possible. To their credit, when I outlined all of this to Jean-Cyril Spinetta, the CEO of Air France (yes, you get action by starting at the top), several months later I received a letter apologizing for the inconvenience and a credit of 5000 Frequence Plus points. So at least they aren't insensititive.

These are not good times for travelling photographers with substantial gear. Something needs to be done to sensitize the European policy makers at the level of the E.U. about how all of this is not suitable and therefore not acceptable. One can make photographs in many parts of the world other than Europe, and this needs to be impressed upon them - it is a big negative for their photographic tourist industries. Maybe they care, maybe it is beneath the radar screen - we won't know until it is really put under their noses at a very high level.

Interesting. Other European airports on the same trip (a couple of months ago) had no problem with two carry-ons (one of them a small purse); only Heathrow.



The problem is, I wasn't flying BA. I was flying a US airline that didn't have a one-bag policy and never told me that Heathrow did. The European (non-British) airline I was connecting to in Heathrow didn't tell me either (and I *did* check their luggage policies on their web site ahead of time). There was no way for me to get the info other than to meticulously check the web site for every single airport I'm transiting through, which seems an awful lot to ask of someone. They really aren't doing a decent job of getting the word out.

Lisa

Thank you Mark, that is one of the best written posts that I have seen. I agree 100% with what you have written - having lived in Paris your description of CDG airport is close to my own experience.

As to US airports being any better...tight security, long immigration queues, unfriendly staff and lack of facilities. It really comes down to what you know and what is familiar to you. In Europe flying isn't much of a problem because I know the system and work around it, if I was in the US I would know that system.

As a final anecdote. Some years ago I was walking on a hill on the outskirts of Paris and came across, what I thought at the time, was an army camping expedition. It wasn't until I had walked some 100 metres further on that I realised that it was a surface to air missile battery protecting Paris from aircraft leaving CDG airport. The question is - are you prepared to accept tight airport security? If not and a terrorist is suspected on your aircraft then the airplane WILL be shot down. I suspect that this applies not only at Paris but at all major airports around the world where a perceived terrorist threat exists.

That's a feature of the British mentality. We routinely enforce (and obey) rules prescribed by the EU which are equally routinely left unenforced by other countries in the group. We seem to take a perverse delight in giving authoritarian powers to small-minded men who (apparently) hate the travelling public and delight in making their lives difficult. It's part of our English charm. Last time I flew to London (internal flight from Manchester), with only hand baggage, my shaving foam was confiscated: no apology, no explanation, just taken and dumped in a bin. Apparently it's a terrorist tool (at least, it has been since last year: it was perfectly safe before then).



That really isn't true. Before the huge scare last summer (I think it was last summer), the no-frills airlines, such as Ryanair, had been desperately trying to discourage checked baggage and encourage hand baggage instead. They had introduced a charge, in addition to the ticket price, for each item of checked baggage: FlyBe, who bought all of BA's non-London European routes earlier this year, still do that (EUR6 in advance, EUR11 at the airport). The reason? Checked baggage needs baggage handlers, ground agents and so on, and slows down aircraft turnround on the ground.

Since then, they may have changed their collective minds, although I think not. The other advantage to the airline in confining passengers to carry-on luggage is that they can fill their holds with cargo, generating more revenue.

Still, if we want dirt-cheap flights, we're going to have to compromise somewhere, and dirt-cheap flights are very much around, at least in Europe. I've just booked three one-way tickets from Limoges to Manchester (a 2-hour flight) for EUR31 each: with taxes and other charges, EUR60 each. I'm not expecting a pleasant journey!

Jeremy

having just flown out and back to heathrow with ba i must admit to having no problems at all, as we took the trouble to find out what we could and could not do with ba and the airport, via their web sites, my advice, check first, plan ahead, and there should be no further problem, and hey, yes, its a wicked world out there, so better to be safe than sorry.

Lisa, what you are reporting is unfortunately normal over a transitional period. They don't get the message out well enough and enforcement is uneven. That will most likely change for the worse - i.e. they will get the message out and enforcement will be really tight!

It is true - I'm not talking about exceptional airlines, but the general tendancy amongst the predominant carriers - they are in a constant struggle with passesngers having excessive caryy-on baggage and for the longest time they have been trying to contain it because it complicates take-off arrangements and creates a lot of trouble for cabin staff.

It's better to know the battery belonged to the authorities rather than to terrorists with shoulder-mounted rocket launchers - as have been apprehended in Africa. Yes, it is a dangerous world out there, but I'm more fearful of being injured on highway 401 in Toronto than I am of being brought down in an aircraft! The incidence of unchecked insanity is much greater on our highways than it is in the air.

Absolutely, Mark, there are way more things to worry about today than ever before; we just have to live with it until Armageddon, after which it will be back to the hippie period... for real.

Ciao - Rob C

Ryanair is an exceptional airline only in its success (it either is or will become this year the largest passenger airline in the world), its obvious disdain for its passengers (see pronouncements by its MD on every conceivable occasion) and its prescience. All the budget airlines (in the UK, anyway) are following exactly the same rules. Get the passengers to avoid checked baggage and make them pay through the nose, in comparison to the ticket price, if they don't.

Even BA had started a vaguely similar idea, when it reduced the weight limit on checked items but removed it completely for hand baggage; it used to be 7kg, but now the only stipulation as to weight is that you have to be able to lift it into the overhead locker yourself.

There are obviously conflicts pulling them in different directions, but the trend away from hold baggage has been quite marked.

Jeremy

I have been avoiding British Airways and Qantus for years. They both have a very restricted carry-on policy. I have also avoided London airports for the reasons already mentioned.
I would not avoid a visit to London however, maybe fly to Amsterdam and take a train?

Better fly to Brussels, take the train to Gare du Midi and take the Eurostar to Waterloo Station London. The train can be a bit pricy unless you book in advance in economy, restricted changes, but it's super fast and convenient.

Ryanair's sales are about twelve percent of British Airways. It has 86 aircraft compared with British Airways 293. Has a bit to go before it outsizes the biggies I'm afraid.

Ryanair's carry-on baggage limit is 10 kg. Barely my camera gear minus the tripod. Their checked baggae limit is 15 kg. Excess baggage ranges between 5.50 and 8 E per kg.

Just adds to my point that these airlines in general are not encouraging people to travel with baggage and that is bad news for serious photography.

i am planning to fly to London in around Christmas. this is good to know. is there any other airport that you would recommend?

by the way, speaking of traveling, how do you declare your equipments? (both with the home and destination countries) It will be frustrating if you come back after a trip and are asked to pay duties on equipments you've owned for years won't it?

Heathrow and Gatwick are the only London area airports I've used. But the security regulations are the same for all of them. The allowed carry-on baggage wieghts and sizes do vary between airlines. Best to check their websites. As for customs, I've never been questioned about equipment coming back to Canada. In the old days with invoices we could get declaration cards with equipment listed before traveling and that protected us from issues on the way back in. Not sure whether this is still needed or how it works nowadays - so many people are traveling with laptops, ipods and cameras it just isn't practical for them to focus on that stuff, but maybe useful to call Customs and ask - or check their website.

Regarding the original post, I don't know what all the fuss is about. The information about new cabin baggage regulations for flights going through the UK has been available for almost one year now.

It has been available in BAA website, and BA website, for all to read. I understand it is not convenient, but it is really no big deal, if you prepare for it beforehand.

No need to make half-assed comments about avoiding the UK, and UK airports and hotels, just because you did not made the effort of informing yourself before the trip. Since the summer of 2006, these regulations have been in place, first in the UK, then in the European Community.

In this day and age, there is no excuse for not being informed.

Just to add my experience, I transited LA on my way from Heathrow to Fiji in 2005 - Never again, we could not tranfer baggage, but had to collect it, pass through customs, immigration, security etc, and ended up on the sidewalk (where the taxi's are) before reentering the terminal by another door, passing through security again - shoes off etc. and checking in for the onward flight.

By the way, I was going onward to New Zealand and on that trip was allowed 2 bags, each up to 32Kg.

I am going back to NZ again later this year - this time via Singapore, but am only allowed 1 bag to 20Kg. It seems flights via the US get more baggage allowance than anywhere else.

Keith

You'll have a much happier experience flying through Singapore than L.A. The former is well-organized/user-friendly and the latter exactly the kind of total mess you describe. Been through both. If you must fly to the Far East via the US West Coast S.F. is much better than L.A.

I agree with your comment that the information has been available for quite some time now.

I do not agree with you that it is "no big deal". If your photographic equipment consists of a point-and-shoot you're right. But if you are carrying around a DSLR, a few lenses, a spare body, a flash, a laptop, a back-up drive, charging cords and other accessories, and a tripod in your suitcase you will quickly find that the size and weight restrictions for both cabin baggage and checked baggage are a non-starter. I'm more or less coming to the unfortunate conclusion that for serious photography where I want this equipment, it will be best to avoid European countries covered in this policy altogether and focus my travel photography on countries and airlines that are more photography-friendly. The World is a big place with lots of options.

In fact BA's carry-on allowanced is 23kg - as long as it is in one bag.

Not so. You can carry 23kg as hand luggage on a BA flight. That's quite a bit of equipment!

Curiously, BA does not specify a cabin baggage weight limit on their hand baggage information web page. They do say we need to be able to lift it to the bin unaided. BUT, the 22x18x10 inch size limit is the killer. I could not cram my gear and a laptop into that size, so it remains an issue - at least for me, and I suspect many others too. Interesting, if you look at that same information page you will see that their partner airlines have ridiculously low weight limits for cabin baggage. I think there's no denying, give or take a detail or two, the overall situation there is quite an awkward mess for many traveling photographers.

I'm leaving once again in a few days and I'm taking with me 2 DSLR, 5 lenses (altough they are primes and small), flash, laptop, external HD for backup, GPS, chargers, filters, tripod and a bunch of other stuff. As long as you pack accordingly, there's no problem whatsoever. Of course that if you want to take all your house with you, that will be a problem. People who travel with photo equipment need to adapt to the reality. Those "What worked, what didn't" articles by Michael are pretty good when it comes to explain that you don't need to have everything you own on each trip.

The way I pack things these days is quite similar to what Michael does. All the essencial stuff goes into a rolling case. That will take my camera bodies, lenses, flash, filters, batteries, laptop. The case is well inside the maximum size for carry on bags.

Then I pack all the things I can live without (stuff that I would miss but that wouldn't stop me shooting) on a shoulder bag that I then check in together with my clothes and everything else.

Once at final destination, everything I will use on a daily basis go to the shoulder bag and everything else stays in the rolling case, whether is in the hotel, in the car or whatever.

Yes, all that can be well and good as long as the airline you use has a high enough weight limit on that rolling bag (not all do), and as long as your shoulder bag turns up at your destination. If it doesn't and it has your chargers, spare batteries, etc. in it you're *s.o.l* if your first round of energy runs out before the bag reaches you. While total loss of baggage is a low-probability event, the probability of delayed baggage is not insignificant.

That's true Mark

But then again, if you think like that you may not leave home with your equipment...because s*it may happen anywhere you go, not only if you take a flight. Someone may steal your stuff from your car or even from you.

What I can tell you is that from my experience with 21 countries and more airports and airlines than that, I never lost a piece of equipment until now. May it happen? Of course it can...but I have to live with that possibility.

Regarding the weight limit, I can't remember a single time that I got my carry on checked for weight. Usually they take a look at it and never ask to weigh it.

Honestly I'm all with these new rules. Did you ever get in a flight where people take so much crap with them that when you reach your seat (after waiting I don't know for how long so that people can shove everything above their heads) you find out that there's no room for your stuff anywhere? To me is not just a security issue...it's also less time you spend at security checks, less trouble once inside the aircraft and so on.

I haven't lost anything either, but I have had bags delayed several days. Fortunately the latest incident was on returning home. Had it been the other way "my goose would have been cooked".

If you enjoy the new limitations, that's fine. Many others, me included, don't enjoy them and would prefer to think there are probably more intelligent/imaginative ways of avoiding the inconveniences and excesses you correctly identify without being as heavy-handed as they have become. Much of this is driven by cost-cutting and revenue enhancement considerations.

For those who don't know - beware the size of hand baggage. I have had a number of cases where I have taken an internal flight and found that the hand baggage size is smaller than for international flights.

This is due to the smaller aircraft having smaller overhead lockers. I have had to check a case that I had taken as hand baggage - which meant removing valuables into a smaller bag at the last moment.

Keith

That's true, but BA is better than most, I think. It took me quite a lot of effort to get them to confirm to me in writing what their limits are, but 23kg in a Think Tank Airport International represents quite a lot of gear :-)

Went through Gatwick recently, and yes, they are very strict about the baggage rules, including the size. I had a carry on that got into the UK with no problems. On my way back, I was stopped no less than 4 times, and repeatedly made to show that I could stuff the bag into the proper size bin. This was before the security check point. After everyone squeezed through this bottleneck, they could care less what you had, and people had all kinds of bags again from duty free shopping...myself included.

Isn't that interesting? Proves what I'm saying - it's all driven by commercial interests. Those rental incomes from the duty free shops are important to BAA's commercial viability so they look the other way. Exercizing common sense and flexibility on carry-on's going through security means more agents, more scanner space and more table space, so more costs and less revenue (they'd cut into shopping space), therefore that gets restricted.

Don't get me wrong - security is a very serious concern - indeed probably much more serious than either they talk about or we would prefer to think about - but this stuff really IS NOT about security. BAA and the airlines are using security as a convenient smokescreen to achieve commercial objectives. If you think that's cynical it is - on their part - not on the part of those who see through it. Well, BAA can carry on with their congested mess at Gatwick Airport - I'ld use it only on a "no-options" basis at the best of times.

This thread started just before I was about to book a flight to Stockholm from the UK. Now the last couple of flights there have been with Ryan Air, but they have sneaked more extra prices in to the flight charge - paying for any bag checked in!! So I thought sod them and looked elsewhere. Especially as I now have to travel to London anyway to get to Stanstead to use RA. Before I could fly from much closer to home up North, but RA dropped that very handy flight.
I think RA's owner really hates his customers, he's such a pratt, I resented using his planes anyway.

So ironically given this thread, I ended up booking a flight with BA from Heathrow. Worked out much easier than Ryan Air as my bike goes free [£31 with RA], 8kg extra checked weight [23kg =£108 with RA] and effectively unlimited carry on weight. Which as my camera bag with just the esentials weighs approx 15KG that's very useful. I used to have to pile all my heavy stuff from suitcase into my bike bag to get under the pathetic limits, then retransfer the other end. Very tedious.

No - the duty free stuff has already been security screened and doesn't cause any additional load on the security check procedures.