If they make us put electronics in luggage (Page 3): What about an electronic tracker. If my camera has to go into baggage, I would try this on an older model first. I'm not sure how...

Coolcameragirl Loc: Bradenton, FL

What about an electronic tracker. If my camera has to go into baggage, I would try this on an older model first. I'm not sure how far they can be tracked, but maybe just seeing them would deter theft? https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00KPIOR2Y/ezvid02-20

therwol Loc: USA

cthahn wrote:

Quit crying ahead of time. You don't have to take all that equipment if you are not a professional photographer on a job. Four lenses? What happened to the one lens for everything? If you do not like their rules, don't fly. Everyone is making up a variety of stories just for something to say.

Let's see, 6 week vacation in a scenic location (Northern England and Scotland), and a good chance to evaluate the lenses I had acquired over the previous year for my D810, also only a year old at the time. Who should care if I chose to take it all on a plane? The point was that IF these rules are put into effect, I would have a lot to lose by making the same decision again if it were all stolen. The next time I go back in September, I may not even take the D810. That's up in the air. If I do take the camera, I'll just take a 24-120 f/4.

The real point of the post was that if this rule goes into effect, it may hurt the airlines and businesses.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

sb wrote:

I agree this is a huge issue. The airlines claim limited liability for any checked baggage stolen or damaged - but they have always said that we should carry any valuable items with us in the cabin. I would consider checking my gear IF the airlines would take responsibility for it AND if they let me lock my case with a "real" lock, not the cheesy little TSA locks.

AMEN!

crphoto8 Loc: Anaheim, California

I've traveled several times over the last 2 - 3 years, always personal and with my camera gear in a backpack stored in the overhead bin. The gear - Canon 5D Mk3, 3 L lenses, flash, GPS module, battery grip, memory cards (both CF and SD), additional stuff as needed. Well, I'll never consider checking in this multi-k gear, it's always with me in the cabin. So, I'll stop flying if I can't be sure my equipment is safe with me, it's that simple!

therwol Loc: USA

Coolcameragirl wrote:

What about an electronic tracker. If my camera has to go into baggage, I would try this on an older model first. I'm not sure how far they can be tracked, but maybe just seeing them would deter theft? https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00KPIOR2Y/ezvid02-20

I'm going to read the details on this, but it seems to me that if you're attaching something like this to the outside of something, it can be removed.

tallshooter

New Business, "Electronic and Camera Rental" stationed in the Baggage Claim area. Come and Get It!!

whitewolfowner

bull drink water wrote:

the airlines are using security to rip us off and lord it over us. one sales clerk attacked a customer because she refused to let them put her $20,000.00 violin in baggage. security and staff have used safety as a excuse to become heavy handed.

You are exactly right. And the only way to et change is to boycott the airlines, since the only thing they care about is the bottom line, so attacking their pocket book will force this abuse to stop. Otherwise, just keep going along and let them keep abusing you more and more. But understand it will not stop until the public forces it.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

therwol wrote:

I realize this is still up in the air. I believe that such a policy will hurt business travel and businesses in general, and it has nothing to do with cameras. Business travelers carry company owned laptops that may have sensitive information on them, and there may be software on them that allows users to connect to their work in order to be productive while traveling. My company tell us to maintain control of their assets at all times. If businesses don't allow their assets to travel in luggage, they may also realize that travel isn't really necessary at all. The work that their employees may do overseas can often be done from home through the internet through an encrypted connection, up to and including video conferencing. So when they take their employees off of the planes, it will hurt airline business and the economies of countries where they send them to spend money on things like food and entertainment, car rentals, hotels etc.

As for me personally, I throw my cameras into the equation. The last time I went to Europe last year, I traveled with a Nikon D810 and 4 lenses, a Canon Superzoom compact for backup, a dedicated camcorder, a laptop, a tablet and a GPS device, all in the same bag I carried on the plane, an investment of thousands of dollars that I can't afford to lose. Would the airline replace these devices if stolen by baggage handlers?

And then there is the issue of the lithium batteries in most of these devices. Airline pilots have said they are opposed to having large numbers of lithium batteries in the cargo hold. A Jet Blue plane recently had a lithium battery fire in the cabin, and they were able to put it out. They would not have been able to put out the same fire in the cargo hold. There was a case of an exploding headset that made the news a few months ago. It happened in the cabin of the plane, and they were able to put the fire out. I've seen luggage literally thrown out of planes onto the ground, and I wonder if the shock of that might cause damage to equipment and their batteries resulting in a fire later.

We don't know what will happen with the proposal to ban electronics from the cabin, but if they go ahead with it, I won't feel as safe on a plane because of the battery issue, and I definitely won't take so much equipment with me the next time I travel overseas.

I realize this is still up in the air. I believe ... (show quote)

Paranoia persists to invade this site. Much to do about nothing.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

Eventually we'll all be forced to fly naked without any luggage for security sake. The terrorists have won.

delkeener Loc: SW Rhode Island, USA

Wondering about the cost of adding commercial theft insurance to my travel plans.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

we live in a fast paced society but when it comes to flying we've slowed to a crawl. one more for the terrorist. when they come up with exploding underwear , strip searches will really slow things down. if we want 100% safety then we had better invent a super scanner fast.

whitewolfowner

bull drink water wrote:

we live in a fast paced society but when it comes to flying we've slowed to a crawl. one more for the terrorist. when they come up with exploding underwear , strip searches will really slow things down. if we want 100% safety then we had better invent a super scanner fast.

More effective would be controlling who is allowed inside our borders like the rest of the world does and removing the threats our government has already allowed in. Won't help on flights over to Europe but the way they are going, who in their right mind would want to go anywhere's near there anyways.

therwol Loc: USA

billnikon wrote:

Paranoia persists to invade this site. Much to do about nothing.

This was a month ago. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-ban-idUSKBN1862QS

No paranoia. I'm going to the UK in September for another long vacation. I don't want to get stuck over there with a lot of electronics having, to choose between checking or and shipping it. I'm keeping a close eye on this.

But my personal concerns were really a footnote to a post in which I pointed out how such a ban might affect business. Even in my situation, I'll be connected to my work while on vacation for a period of time every day or face a huge backlog when I get home.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

therwol wrote:

I realize this is still up in the air. I believe that such a policy will hurt business travel and businesses in general, and it has nothing to do with cameras. Business travelers carry company owned laptops that may have sensitive information on them, and there may be software on them that allows users to connect to their work in order to be productive while traveling. My company tell us to maintain control of their assets at all times. If businesses don't allow their assets to travel in luggage, they may also realize that travel isn't really necessary at all. The work that their employees may do overseas can often be done from home through the internet through an encrypted connection, up to and including video conferencing. So when they take their employees off of the planes, it will hurt airline business and the economies of countries where they send them to spend money on things like food and entertainment, car rentals, hotels etc.

As for me personally, I throw my cameras into the equation. The last time I went to Europe last year, I traveled with a Nikon D810 and 4 lenses, a Canon Superzoom compact for backup, a dedicated camcorder, a laptop, a tablet and a GPS device, all in the same bag I carried on the plane, an investment of thousands of dollars that I can't afford to lose. Would the airline replace these devices if stolen by baggage handlers?

And then there is the issue of the lithium batteries in most of these devices. Airline pilots have said they are opposed to having large numbers of lithium batteries in the cargo hold. A Jet Blue plane recently had a lithium battery fire in the cabin, and they were able to put it out. They would not have been able to put out the same fire in the cargo hold. There was a case of an exploding headset that made the news a few months ago. It happened in the cabin of the plane, and they were able to put the fire out. I've seen luggage literally thrown out of planes onto the ground, and I wonder if the shock of that might cause damage to equipment and their batteries resulting in a fire later.

We don't know what will happen with the proposal to ban electronics from the cabin, but if they go ahead with it, I won't feel as safe on a plane because of the battery issue, and I definitely won't take so much equipment with me the next time I travel overseas.

I realize this is still up in the air. I believe ... (show quote)

It will not hurt business at all in any way. When there is a limited time to get somewhere flying is the only way to get there. Nope there will be absolutely no change in flying numbers at all. In fact they will continue to rise.

therwol Loc: USA

Architect1776 wrote:

It will not hurt business at all in any way. When there is a limited time to get somewhere flying is the only way to get there. Nope there will be absolutely no change in flying numbers at all. In fact they will continue to rise.

I think it will depend on the business or businesses. The businesses that send people all over the world in some work capacity are already realizing that the same work can be done without travel. Have you seen the Microsoft Cloud commercials? This is a trend, not a prediction or fantasy. If they have to start putting sensitive company assets in luggage, you can see where that will go. It generally isn't necessary to travel for what many people do. The businesses that will suffer are those who benefit from travel. Just my opinion. I don't want to say I'm an expert or get into any arguments about it. I'm just thinking as I type. It's a "conversation" and I'm open to the views of others.