# Cameras must be put in checked luggage on international flights



## ahsanford (Mar 20, 2017)

Just reading this now, but it would appear for _some_ international slights, camera gear, laptops, etc. can't be brought into an airline cabin as a carry-on any longer. Gear would have to be put into checked bags:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-electronics-idUSKBN16R2JN

https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/20/us-authorities-ban-electronics-larger-than-a-phone-from-flights-from-13-countries/

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/electronics-banned-us-bound-flights-46261625

I'm sure we'll hear about this on the news soon as this just dropped, but FYI if you are traveling.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 20, 2017)

Laptops, Cameras, what about tablets? I don't think that the rules are actually revealed yet, so we are hearing rumors and leaks. They are likely correct unless the rules change.

Apparently, checked luggage gets a very thorough x-ray, as well as dog sniffing for explosives or drugs. This may spell the end for taking laptops and DSLR's on vacation, because too many seem to disappear from checked luggage.

US airlines are not affected, and the ban is for flights to the US from specific countries. So, you can take it with you onboard when going from the US to one of those countries, but coming back it needs to be checked. The rules seem to be convoluted and unclear.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Mar 20, 2017)

Great! No way to contain a lithium ion battery fire down in the luggage compartment. Sounds like a really big safety issue to me.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 20, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Laptops, Cameras, what about tablets? I don't think that the rules are actually revealed yet, so we are hearing rumors and leaks. They are likely correct unless the rules change.
> 
> Apparently, checked luggage gets a very thorough x-ray, as well as dog sniffing for explosives or drugs. This may spell the end for taking laptops and DSLR's on vacation, because too many seem to disappear from checked luggage.
> 
> US airlines are not affected, and the ban is for flights to the US from specific countries. So, you can take it with you onboard when going from the US to one of those countries, but coming back it needs to be checked. The rules seem to be convoluted and unclear.



Yep, this looks to be part and parcel with the US travel ban -- only African / Middle Eastern originating flights seem to be under the microscope from what I've read.

Apparently, we've rolled out yet another piece of zero-notice policy has cause some confusion :. I'm hearing on TV we'll get an announcement tomorrow. Stay tuned.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 21, 2017)

It is as if they are trying to discourage tourists and business travellers.....

If I had to check my camera and laptop into the cargo hold to go visit a place, I would find somewhere else to visit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2017)

East Wind Photography said:


> Great! No way to contain a lithium ion battery fire down in the luggage compartment. Sounds like a really big safety issue to me.



That would only be an issue for _spare_ LiIon batteries. It's currently fine to have in checked luggage a device with a lithium battery installed. 

But still, I'm glad my international trips this year include only destinations in Europe.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 21, 2017)

According to BBC

The nine airlines affected are:
Royal Jordanian
Egypt Air
Turkish Airlines
Saudi Arabian Airlines
Kuwait Airways
Royal Air Maroc
Qatar Airways
Emirates
Etihad Airways

The countries:
Morocco
Turkey
Egypt
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Qatar
United Arab Emirates


The reason:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said extremists were seeking "innovative methods" to bring down jets.
Bombs could be hidden in laptops, tablets, cameras, DVD players and electronic games, it said.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 21, 2017)

Also note that this is only on direct flights from (essentially Muslim) countries to the US. It does not apply to flights from the US to those countries, nor does it apply if you have a connection somewhere else - such as Europe.

However, it does apply to cameras. I'm not sure if it applies to lenses (hope not) that have electronics inside.

Of course, the whole thing is BS. The toughest security I've ever had to go through was in Dubai and other sane countries have no such restrictions. On the positive side, some of these flights may go on sale soon... Dubai in particular is one of our favorite places to travel.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2017)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this effectively eliminates the (American) enthusiast photographer from going to visit these places now, correct?

I mean, if pros have work, they'll find a way. They'll rent gear on site or go through the trouble of checking gear in pelican cases or something. 

But a vacationer with a carry-on full of gear it hosed by this, are they not? For someone who's already booked to go, I suppose they could ship in advance (ouch), rent on site (painful) or buy some hard cases just to make the trip work (ouch). 

+1 to Neuro. Glad I'm not headed to any of those places this year...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> Of course, the whole thing is BS. The toughest security I've ever had to go through was in Dubai and other sane countries have no such restrictions. On the positive side, some of these flights may go on sale soon... Dubai in particular is one of our favorite places to travel.



Curious to see how the US administration sells this. As islamophobic travel policies are being shot down in court here, I'm wondering the _technical_ grounds with which the administration is justifying this. They could legitimately argue some countries lack the proper screening to find some of these items in bags, but how that list is solely those countries is beyond me.

Ugh, from CNN: "The U.S. is especially concerned about the 10 airports in question, the official said, because of screening issues and the possibility of terrorists infiltrating authorized airport personnel." 

That's a terrifying thought, of course, but a lot more is in danger than carry ons if _that_ should ever come to pass.

- A


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 21, 2017)

Pack a point & shoot camera and fly safe. Not that many affected flights currently, but the ban could spread to more flights if hard intel finds evidence of camera bombs being manufactured. Rent locally and bring home the memory card if it's important to you.


----------



## LDS (Mar 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> buy some hard cases just to make the trip work (ouch).



Depends on what the TSA thinks of your locked down hard cases, when they arrive.

If you use TSA locks, it's useless, the keys are now in the "public domain" - any thief will have a copy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> According to BBC
> 
> The nine airlines affected are:
> Royal Jordanian
> ...



It is a bull---- ban built on all the other bull---- bans, just politicized nonsense. I have personally flown 5 of the airlines and whilst I wouldn't vouch for some (Egypt Air) to include Jordan is farcical, they have the strictest boarding searches that involve multiple people I have seen short of El Al. Qatar Airways, Emirates, and Etihad Airways are all top notch airlines that put the likes of AA, Delta etc to shame.

Meanwhile you can breeze through US security with almost anything! http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851


----------



## LDS (Mar 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Ugh, from CNN: "The U.S. is especially concerned about the 10 airports in question, the official said, because of screening issues and the possibility of terrorists infiltrating authorized airport personnel."



Given they can't screen thieves or other criminals (i.e. drugs trafficking) in authorized airport personnel worldwide (and even in some flying crews), that ban should extend worldwide as well, including US airports.

When you also pay pennies to such workers, to maximize revenues, it's also difficult to get better ones.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Trump is starting a big fire with pretty much anything he touches.
> 
> It will probably get thrown out of court again.



One would think, but targeting the airport rather than the passengers gives the US administration a _little_ cover here. It implies they could play the 'we have late-breaking intel' card, there's a safety infrastructure issue at play, etc. 

Further, since people are not directly targeted here, this sort of ruling isn't going to unleash the American civil rights legal forces like the two prior attempted bans did. The various airports and airlines that frequent them have the most to lose here, and I'm going to wager they have less legal clout than the ACLUs and various rights/liberties groups out there.

I'm not down with this one bit, of course, but don't say the Borg isn't learning here. If a ban on religion won't work, band entire countries from coming here. If banning entire countries won't work, ban certain airports in those countries, etc.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this effectively eliminates the (American) enthusiast photographer from going to visit these places now, correct?



You are wrong.
It only eliminates your ability to carry on your lap top and camera. You can still buy a hard side pelican and send your equipment through regular baggage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this effectively eliminates the (American) enthusiast photographer from going to visit these places now, correct?
> 
> I mean, if pros have work, they'll find a way. They'll rent gear on site or go through the trouble of checking gear in pelican cases or something.
> 
> ...



The issue for an American tourist is when returning, not on the outbound leg. So if I _were_ planning to visit one of the restricted countries, I would go. As I've mentioned, I use rather robust hard-sided luggage for travel anyway, so I wouldn't be worried about damage during transit. Sure, theft is a possibility (the Peli luggage has built-in TSA-approved locks), but that's why the gear is insured. So, carry on the gear for the outbound leg, take your pictures, bring the memory cards on your person for the return leg where the gear has to be checked. Your photos from the trip aren't at risk, and in the unlikely event that your checked gear is stolen/damaged en route home, insurance will pay to replace it.

Incidentally, on a trip to China several years ago, I did just that – carried on my gear for the outbound trip, took the memory cards home in my carry on but checked the gear in a hard-sided case (in that case, a loaded Flipside 400 AW packed inside a Storm im2500) for the trip home. No security restrictions back then, but I wanted to reduce the amount of hand luggage we had to juggle since we had one daughter on the outbound leg and two daughters on the return trip.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but this effectively eliminates the (American) enthusiast photographer from going to visit these places now, correct?
> ...



Exactly my point. Between the risk of theft (i.e. a Pelican case screams something of value is inside) and the cost/inconvenience of going this route (might need to buy the case, extra cost of checking another bag, etc.) would probably deter many vacationers from ever going there in the first place. They'd just go to another destination that _does_ allow cameras in carry-ons, right?

I defer to the big gear folks, sports folks, birders, safari vets, etc. that are accustomed to checking gear. It may be no big deal at all, but as a guy who can get all his gear into a carry-on, _I carry it on 100% of the time_. 

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > According to BBC
> ...



My take is that it is directed more at location, not at the particular airlines or airports themselves. Decide for yourself if that is political.

I wish your second comment _"you can breeze through US security with almost anything!"_ was true. 
Sadly the TSA has a high turn over rate and sometimes competence is lacking. No doubt they will protect us from old ladies in wheel chairs and old men with replacement hips. Other than that they are an embarrassment to the US.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 21, 2017)

Yes, this will turn out to be a major PITA for some people. But I have several times looked at the security measures around laptops (you have to turn them on to prove they work etc) and thought it is not beyond the wit of the simplest of bomb makers to convert a large device like the ones mentioned so they appear to work and the rest of the innards are packed with unsavoury goods. Heck, I would be amazed if drug smugglers have not been doing this for years. 
Then again, a bit of plastic explosive the size (and appearance) of a credit card is probably enough to depressurise an aircraft. 

All a bit depressing, but few Americans (and a dwindling number of British) have no idea of what it was like in Britain during the occasional IRA bombing campaigns and still life went on.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Other than that they are an embarrassment to the US.



I think that is a bit unfair (I am British and am not a member of any form of security/police service). There is only so much you can do and the rest is for show. 
Until the twin towers went down, the British had a very pragmatic view on security by keeping the population on side because they are your best security service - at the time of Charles and Diana's wedding one officer was asked why security was so low key - his response was that the population gave him 50 million people who would help them prevent any trouble. When 9/11 happened the wave of paranoia and confusion, along with GWBush grandstanding resulted in a load of increasingly restrictive practices that I believe ended up being counterproductive by alienating too many people.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



If you are flying from the US to one of these countries on vacation, spent over $1k for each of your family members tickets an extra $100 for an extra bag is not going to be a deal breaker for most.

I think there are other more important reasons to be taken in to account when deciding to go somewhere else, specifically the families safety if you are flying to an area that has this kind of requirement. My camera gear rode in a container ship, airplane and a truck all the way from Japan to get to where I live. I am sure it could survive another trip, if not insurance will replace it with the newest model.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile you can breeze through US security with almost anything! http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851
> ...



It is true, just look at the link. TSA failed 95% of field tests where other agents tried to get fake guns and bombs past the TSA, meanwhile you can't take a nail file on board...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I think that is a bit unfair (I am British and am not a member of any form of security/police service). There is only so much you can do and the rest is for show.
> Until the twin towers went down, the British had a very pragmatic view on security by keeping the population on side because they are your best security service - at the time of Charles and Diana's wedding one officer was asked why security was so low key - his response was that the population gave him 50 million people who would help them prevent any trouble. When 9/11 happened the wave of paranoia and confusion, along with GWBush grandstanding resulted in a load of increasingly restrictive practices that I believe ended up being counterproductive by alienating too many people.



Precisely why you don't alienate 1.6 billion people with policies like this. :-[

Forgive me, this thread was a gear FYI to travelers. Sorry to go OT.

- A


----------



## LDS (Mar 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Exactly my point. Between the risk of theft (i.e. a Pelican case screams something of value is inside) and the cost/inconvenience of going this route (might need to buy the case, extra cost of checking another bag, etc.) would probably deter many vacationers from ever going there in the first place. They'd just go to another destination that _does_ allow cameras in carry-ons, right?



Also, remember this is not limited to cameras - it encompasses laptop, tablets, I guess external disks as well, and many other devices.

A lot of things to protect and to insure (and that adds to the cost of the travel too), and the bigger risk to lose valuable data, while forbidding to work while flying - there are also business travelers, not only photographers 

While most users of this forum will be able to plan and take care of this, many other travelers may not have the same knowledge, and will have issues.


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 21, 2017)

LDS said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > buy some hard cases just to make the trip work (ouch).
> ...


Its even worse. TSA cut open my TSA lock...  When I complained they sent a standard reply saying "sorry - but next time use a TSA lock". :'(

That's when I gave up.


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> According to BBC
> 
> The nine airlines affected are:
> Royal Jordanian
> ...



Hmmm. My most used airlines and hubs... Actually quite difficult to avoid Istanbul and UAE when you do a lot of intercontinental traveling Asia/Europe/US.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I think they probably do better than 95%, if not fake news maybe over inflated numbers.
But even if it is true and they are letting 95% through this part of your comment _you can breeze through_ just isn't correct in my experience. 

It is more stagnant than breeze.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Pack a point & shoot camera and fly safe. Not that many affected flights currently, but the ban could spread to more flights if hard intel finds evidence of camera bombs being manufactured.



Isn't that why we have the rule? Plans for such devices were captured on a recent raid? If their are plans, its likely that some have been made, but not certain.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 21, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Isn't that why we have the rule? Plans for such devices were captured on a recent raid? If their are plans, its likely that some have been made, but not certain.



Commonsense says I agree and this is probably a flag saying 'we know what you are up to'
But (without wanting to get into politics) Trump's pronouncements since last year makes me cynical.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Other than that they are an embarrassment to the US.
> ...



I've been thru Heathrow in the 1990's where guards and even private security agents were carrying machine guns. I worked for a major company, and had a younger friend who was grabbed by the guards, pinned to a wall with machine guns pointed, and was almost hauled away when he was finally able to show them his company and personal ID. His crime was flying first class wearing blue jeans (Our company bought Business Class tickets, but BA always gave upgrades to First Class if space was available). On one trip, a person who was obviously some sort of middle eastern person of importance dressed in turban and bright robes was flanked on four sides by machine gun toting plain clothes guards (who looked ready to shoot) paraded thru the passenger waiting room. We had to snake thru long lines and pass thru security twice to get into the passenger waiting area, and yet they were still paranoid. Its a annoyance to have to check large electronics on a return flight to the US, but that's all.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Pack a point & shoot camera and fly safe. Not that many affected flights currently, but the ban could spread to more flights if hard intel finds evidence of camera bombs being manufactured.
> ...



CNN -- certainly no fans of DT -- broke the news last night that it was AQAP-intel related.

In writing here:

_"Another U.S. official says the ban on some electronics is believed to be related to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or AQAP. The intelligence community has been tracking this threat for some time, but the official said that some information from a recent U.S. Special Forces raid in Yemen contributed to the ongoing concern."
_
Presumably -- yes -- _that_ raid in Yemen, which in and of itself would be enormous news in the US.

Until it's announced, it's all speculation and word of anonymous administration sources.

- A


----------



## JPAZ (Mar 21, 2017)

Re: TSA - recently I traveled with a tripod and ballhead in my carry on without issue an I am not complaining. But, in the line a few people ahead of me, they confiscated a (about) 14 inch souvenir baseball bat from spring training from a kid, saying it was a potential weapon. I am happy about the tripod but this obviously makes no sense.

Re: New restrictions - So I cannot carry on a tablet or laptop on a non-stop flight from Jordan but I can from Ethiopia? This makes absolutely no sense either. But, if I take a flight from one of the restricted airports and change planes (not flying directly to US) it is OK? This also makes no sense. 

I am choosing to assume that there is a rational basis for these new restrictions (only to keep me sane) and it not just another political ploy, but ya gotta wonder. I do not mean to hijack this thread or contribute to the direction it will soon go, but I guess I just did.....................

: :


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 21, 2017)

The only plausible "it's not a petty backhand to punish countries we couldn't altogether ban people from" theories I can offer:

1) They have intel of a not a bomb but weapons stored inside of electronics. A bomb in the hold is still a bomb on the plane that could be triggered through other means, but a weapon could lead to a hijack situation and commandeering of a cockpit.

2) They have hard intel of an imminent move at certain airports. But why they wouldn't cease all air traffic from those airports until that is resolved implies they think they know the means of harm, and it's apparently in consumer electronics.

Totally guessing here. We'll hear more, I'm sure: as stomach-curdling as the religious bans have been, it's still red meat for his base and he loves to announce these things with some gusto. And if this is truly tied to the Yemen raid, he will have a _field day_ with the press about that fact.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> If you are flying from the US to one of these countries on vacation, spent over $1k for each of your family members tickets an extra $100 for an extra bag is not going to be a deal breaker for most.
> 
> I think there are other more important reasons to be taken in to account when deciding to go somewhere else, specifically the families safety if you are flying to an area that has this kind of requirement. My camera gear rode in a container ship, airplane and a truck all the way from Japan to get to where I live. I am sure it could survive another trip, if not insurance will replace it with the newest model.



Exactly. It's not just the cost of the case, but also if you're planning a vacation to countries that are often on US State Dept warnings/advisories, you should know what you're getting into in the larger sense of things...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Its even worse. TSA cut open my TSA lock...



Not that I'm excusing TSA's actions, but I trust you're aware that not every memory card out there with a SanDisk logo on it is actually made by SanDisk, to SanDisk's QC standards.

I have no doubt that there are many 'TSA-accepted' locks sold in various places around the world that are not, in fact, TSA-accepted. If the lock says TSA002 on it, and the #2 key doesn't open it, they're going to cut it off.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 21, 2017)

The U.K. Has joined the conspiracy limiting some electronic devices in carry on luggage from some airports.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 21, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> The U.K. Has joined the conspiracy limiting some electronic devices in carry on luggage from some airports.



The UK actions sound much more like a reaction to a specific intelligence threat and are very different from the US actions. 

The UK are banning large electronics from carry on on all flights, including BA and Easyjet, from six countries including Saudi Arabia.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you are flying from the US to one of these countries on vacation, spent over $1k for each of your family members tickets an extra $100 for an extra bag is not going to be a deal breaker for most.
> ...



But a number of these countries are typically not on state dept warnings/advisories. For example. Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Morocco are on the US list but not on the UK list. In fact, of the countries mentioned in the ban, none are considered unsafe places to go. The ones who do have advisories (Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, etc) do not have direct flights to the US.

What I'm wondering is, given that most US terrorists are home grown, what's preventing them from doing this against a domestic flight?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 21, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



'Not considered unsafe' by whom? You? 

[quote author=US State Department]
We issue a Travel Warning when we want you to consider very carefully whether you should go to a country at all. Examples of reasons for issuing a Travel Warning might include unstable government, civil war, ongoing intense crime or violence, or frequent terrorist attacks.
[/quote]

Sounds a bit unsafe, to me. Countries on the current electronics restriction list for which Travel Warnings have been issued include Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. I suggest you check your facts before posting.


----------



## meywd (Mar 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > According to BBC
> ...



Exactly, here in Jordan you get your carry on checked as well as your checked in bags, even if I don't take my camera, what about the laptop?


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Mar 21, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> Dubai in particular is one of our favorite places to travel.



The fascination with tourism to this destination never fails to amaze me. Dubai was a base of operations from which I worked in the Gulf for about 5 years. I'm glad to have experienced it, but would not spend a penny of my own money to visit it. I had a hard time looking past the modern day slavery that built the city and now does all its dirty work. Just google how many migrant workers died building Dubai, there will be no end to the results.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sounds a bit unsafe, to me. Countries on the current electronics restriction list for which Travel Warnings have been issued include Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. I suggest you check your facts before posting.
[/quote]

Neuroanatomist, I respect your knowledge about cameras, but when it comes to international travel I suggest you get out a bit. I've been to many of these countries and have never had a single issue. In fact, Jordan and the UAE are probably the safest places I've ever been.

A more neutral sources is the Global Peace Index, given that State Department warnings are more often political.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
Jordan - 96
Kuwait - 51
Morocco - 91
Qatar - 34
Saudi Arabia - 129
Turkey - 145
UAE - 61
United States - 103

All except for Turkey and Saudi Arabia are ranked less dangerous than the US. In the case of Saudi Arabia, most of us are unlikely to obtain a visa anyway. For Turkey, there has been some instability there recently, but millions of tourists still go there. The odds of something happening are still very low. You're more likely to die from a traffic accident in India than have anything go wrong in Turkey.

Take a look at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/statistics/deaths.html
In the last 3 years, the US lost 14 citizens in Turkey and 20 in Switzerland. Two deaths in Turkey were due to terrorists. In the same period, the US lost 9 citizens in Saudi Arabia - all but 1 of them due to vehicle accidents.

I suggest you stick to camera discussions.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 21, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> A more neutral sources is the Global Peace Index, given that State Department warnings are more often political.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
> Jordan - 96
> Kuwait - 51
> ...



If you really want to do something dangerous, drive to the airport and back.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 22, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> Neuroanatomist, I respect your knowledge about cameras, but when it comes to international travel I suggest you get out a bit. I've been to many of these countries and have never had a single issue. In fact, Jordan and the UAE are probably the safest places I've ever been.



Well, that's nice that you've had no incidents in those countries. But as I hope you understand, your personal experience is worthless as a metric for anyone other than yourself. I've walked through East Harlem after midnight, and had no issues. I'm sure there are a few people with a different experience. As for 'getting out a bit', I've had my minivan taxi in Nicaragua commandeered by a platoon of machine gun-toting soldiers, been on a volcano in Rwanda when park guards were shooting at gorilla poachers, and been evacuated from the train station at Charles de Gaulle just before security forces detonated a device left on the platform (fortunately I understand French sufficiently well to have understood the guards shouting 'cover your ears'). So please, be careful what you assume about others. 

I take it you'd prefer not to address your assertion that countries with Travel Warnings don't have direct flights to the US? That's not surprising, I know most people have real difficulty admitting when they're wrong. 




kirispupis said:


> I suggest you stick to camera discussions.



I suggest you stick that suggestion somewhere in the vicinity of your ass-umptions.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > Neuroanatomist, I respect your knowledge about cameras, but when it comes to international travel I suggest you get out a bit. I've been to many of these countries and have never had a single issue. In fact, Jordan and the UAE are probably the safest places I've ever been.
> ...



Neuroanatomist - I must admit that I had a great deal of respect for you, but it has vanished. Seriously, "ass-umptions"? I point out facts and you resort to name calling. 

In terms of my statement, learn to read. I said the countries with electronics bans are"typically" not on state advisories. Currently Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey have travel warnings due to the war in Yemen for Saudi Arabia, and due to the Syria crisis for Jordan and Turkey. Egypt has a warning for the Sinai Peninsula. Morocco, the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait have no warnings. Of the countries with warnings, only Saudi Arabia has been on there for some time due to terrorist incidents that have occurred there. Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt are only recent entries due to the spillover from the Arab Spring.

So, my statement was correct. 

What also is correct is the fact that these are still very safe places (see data in my previous post). As I'm sure you know, since you've been around, problem areas are localized. For example Mexico has a travel warning, but yet millions of Americans have no issues there because they don't go to the areas with issues.


----------



## retroreflection (Mar 22, 2017)

This did not originate with Trump. How do I know? It is the opposite of yoooog.

This is not evidence of Islamophobia. Petty inconvenience is not the primary weapon of hatred.

If you were flying from one of these places, checking your precious wouldn't kill you. I am no big fan of the TSA, but they (or the Dubainetic equivalent) don't steal everything.

Is it annoying that a few Saudis with box cutters mean nobody can fly with a Swiss army knife, a dude with a dud bomb in his shoe means you should fly in loafers,...? Unfortunately air travel is one of the world's favorite targets for terror. And I would rather experience the inconvenience before the senseless deaths.


----------



## Jaysheldon (Mar 22, 2017)

I was on vacation in France on Sept. 11, 2001, scheduled to fly back to Canada two days later. When my flight was re-scheduled and i got to the airport, I was told my camera bag and all my film had to go into the luggage hold. I was distraught, figuring it would be stolen. Then I asked for and found a cardboard box and put the camera bag in, taped it up. I sweated the entire flight back, but the box came through. 
My worry is the in-cabin camera/laptop ban will spread to many countries, and include domestic flights.As it is, I don't carry my most expensive gear when I travel (one way to ruin a vacation is to lose a 6D or higher), so on my just-completed vacation to Israel I took my SL-1 (I also wanted to travel light). Even still, having to replace a DSLR in a foreign country because of airline theft would really kill the fun. And occasionally I need to take a small laptop for work when I travel. Again, having to buy a new one because of theft would be a real pain.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 22, 2017)

retroreflection said:


> This did not originate with Trump. How do I know? It is the opposite of yoooog.
> 
> This is not evidence of Islamophobia. Petty inconvenience is not the primary weapon of hatred.
> 
> ...



My major issue with this ban is that it doesn't seem to make sense. Airports like Dubai and Abu Dhabi are far more modern than most (maybe all) US airports. These two airports, along with Casablanca, weren't included in the UK ban. Also, Germany and France, who have the same intel, placed no bans.

Given that most terrorists in the US have been home grown, wouldn't it be more likely that they would attack a domestic flight?

There probably is a credible threat that this ban is addressing, but I doubt it made us any safer.


----------



## digigal (Mar 22, 2017)

Oh, joy; just what I needed!! In 3 wks we're flying from SFO to Cape Town via Dubai on Qatar. Their business class is so much nicer than the funky seat configuration on BA, as is their lounge so that's why we chose them again this time. Qatar did do one of the more thorough screening of my camera equipment than some of the other airports but I have noted in this past year all of the major international airports have become more careful about screening lenses, bodies, drives, etc. One airport in India even insisted on looking through each of the lenses! I've got an SSD that I'll backup all my pics on so I guess that and my iPhone will be all I'll have in the cabin.


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sounds a bit unsafe, to me. Countries on the current electronics restriction list for which Travel Warnings have been issued include Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. I suggest you check your facts before posting.
[/quote]

Been to any of these places recently to have sufficient facts?


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know most people have real difficulty admitting when they're wrong.



Not you - ROTFL...


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 22, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> What also is correct is the fact that these are still very safe places (see data in my previous post).


Would you consider those places safe for young female photographers who are travelling on their own and who are taking predominantly people, street and social documentary photographs?


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 22, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > What also is correct is the fact that these are still very safe places (see data in my previous post).
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 22, 2017)

Did you forget the smilie on that one?


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 22, 2017)

Yes  Messed it up somehow - must have hit quote instead of edit. Then again, I'm sure my thoughts are so important, it is only natural for people to quote them - even if I have to do it myself.


----------



## LDS (Mar 22, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> Would you consider those places safe for young female photographers who are travelling on their own and who are taking predominantly people, street and social documentary photographs? (ie what some might consider indulgent or frivolous photography)



Which places in the world you consider truly safe in such situations, even for a man? There are many places in the US and Europe which would be truly unsafe as well. But that's has nothing to do with safety of flights.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 22, 2017)

I thought we'd veered off into a discussion on how safe or unsafe the middle east is compared to Europe or the US. On a photography forum, I thought it might be relevant to find out how safe the middle east might be. I think almost everyone I've spoken to who has travelled to the more fundamentalist regions has been assaulted for taking photos. Is that bad luck, or is that an expected outcome?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 22, 2017)

kirispupis said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



Learn to read? Well, let's review what you wrote, shall we?



kirispupis said:


> But a number of these countries are typically not on state dept warnings/advisories. For example. Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Morocco are on the US list but not on the UK list. In fact, of the countries mentioned in the ban, none are considered unsafe places to go. *The ones who do have advisories (Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, etc) do not have direct flights to the US.
> *



So you are asserting that the part highlighted above, the part to which I referred previously, is correct? Moreover, you in one breath mention 'crisis' and 'war' nearby, and in the next assert safety. Your misdirecting answers and staunch defense of incorrect statements have you sounding a bit like the guy who's house I walked past last night...a big house, directly north of the Washington Monument. 

As for those places 'being very safe', you're welcome to your opinion. Atatürk Airport wasn't very safe on a particular day last year. Nor was Nice, France, for that matter.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 22, 2017)

The last time I went to Qatar (to visit family working there) I was treated very suspiciously at border control because I was white and from Europe. My camera was disassembled and inspected....even the mirror was lifted and battery re-x-rayed. Every lens had their caps removed and visually inspected...and re- X-rayed. It took well over 1/2 hour. Finally after returning all of my kit...the inspector claimed that "yes...I was just a photographer!" and that was just to get into the country.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Mar 22, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> I thought we'd veered off into a discussion on how safe or unsafe the middle east is compared to Europe or the US. On a photography forum, I thought it might be relevant to find out how safe the middle east might be. I think almost everyone I've spoken to who has travelled to the more fundamentalist regions has been assaulted for taking photos. Is that bad luck, or is that an expected outcome?



I never felt unsafe in Saudi Arabia (though the Mosque next to the hotel I stayed in has since been blown up), but I definitely wasn't treated very nice. The camera and computer ban would have been a moot point while I worked there, as I was forbidden to have them.


----------



## LDS (Mar 22, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> I thought we'd veered off into a discussion on how safe or unsafe the middle east is compared to Europe or the US. On a photography forum, I thought it might be relevant to find out how safe the middle east might be. I think almost everyone I've spoken to who has travelled to the more fundamentalist regions has been assaulted for taking photos. Is that bad luck, or is that an expected outcome?



There's no a "single" Middle East, you need to be more specific. In some places of course it's better to avoid popping up naively to take photos, but that's true outside Middle East as well.

"Fundamentalist" doesn't automatically mean "dangerously violent" or "criminal", although it can take a wrong move to turn the situation into a bad one (just like in some district of some Western cities...) . Moving with a reputable local guide when you go outside the big cities and the classic tourist venues is usually advisable. It will allows to contact people, and understand if taking photos is OK or not. Usually being polite and respectful helps. 

Entering are with known criminal/fighting activities requires far more care and preparation.

But in these days that's true in some parts of Ukraine as well, for example.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 22, 2017)

I usually fly Emirates, which means stopping in Dubai. I've never stepped outside the airport, but I've always been curious about spending a week or two somewhere around there. By middle east, I've nowhere specific in mind. Cairo, Mecca and Medina are probably the most likely destinations. I'd like to get out and see more of the countryside, but I'm not really a tour group person. And I don't think girls can drive in Saudi Arabia anyway (even if you are tourists), so I'm not even sure how I'd get around.


----------



## LDS (Mar 22, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> I usually fly Emirates, which means stopping in Dubai. I've never stepped outside the airport, but I've always been curious about spending a week or two somewhere around there. By middle east, I've nowhere specific in mind. Cairo, Mecca and Medina are probably the most likely destinations. I'd like to get out and see more of the countryside, but I'm not really a tour group person. And I don't think girls can drive in Saudi Arabia anyway (even if you are tourists), so I'm not even sure how I'd get around.



I spent time in Dubai and Sharjah. The latter aims to be the "cultural" and more "conservative" emirate, but even there it was quite liberal for being a Muslim state. Dubai is quite cosmopolitan, and you'll find as well many women from Europe and other countries working there. I took trips to the coast, the desert and the mountains in Oman (hiring guides), without troubles.

Saudi Arabia is of course a very different country, and I guess it's quite difficult, if not impossible, for a woman to travel alone there. I've been in Egypt too many years ago, I won't comment on the actual situation.

I'm not too a tour group person, and prefer to setup my own tours. But in many countries, especially when going outside the main cities and touristic area, I prefer to hire a guide, he or she will help to save time and move quickly, avoid potentially dangerous situations, and act as an interpreter to communicate with people easily and avoid misunderstandings.

For example even when I traveled some years ago across Moldova to photograph landscapes, country villages, ancient monasteries and fortresses, I had to be careful to avoid to cross inadvertently the border with the Transnistria disputed region, back then it could mean some uncomfortable time spent with local police, especially if caught with lots of photo gear.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 22, 2017)

I rather doubt that this is about security.... It is most likely about economics.......

Ban laptops from the competitor's jets.... business travelers (the most profitable sector of the flying public) will go to another airline where they can use them..... and market share of those "native" carriers goes up. This is just an extension of "buy American".......

Same holds for tourists and cameras.....


----------



## tron (Mar 22, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > According to BBC
> ...


I think there is a bypass. You can reroute if you can afford some more money and time of course. Not ideal but doable. Go from Instabul to Athens or Sofia and fly from there back home. And you get to visit other places at the same time 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 22, 2017)

Jaysheldon said:


> I was on vacation in France on Sept. 11, 2001, scheduled to fly back to Canada two days later. When my flight was re-scheduled and i got to the airport, I was told my camera bag and all my film had to go into the luggage hold. I was distraught, figuring it would be stolen.



The problem is that as soon as this policy spreads - and it will - people working at airports will have a lot more motivation to open your bags and "clean" them out. 

Now, I already have my own list of airports where I leave _nothing _of value - and I mean *nothing *as not even a pair of hq sun glasses - in my luggage. This will be a disaster for a lot of travel destinations.

Cannot wait for the first flight company to offer "safe" transport of our valuables for a "modest" fee...


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 22, 2017)

tron said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


Yes. But my problem is time - not money. My travel planning is literally about making every minute count. And I fear this will quickly spread to others as well. And once implemented, it never gets removed.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 24, 2017)

bluenoser1993 said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we'd veered off into a discussion on how safe or unsafe the middle east is compared to Europe or the US. On a photography forum, I thought it might be relevant to find out how safe the middle east might be. I think almost everyone I've spoken to who has travelled to the more fundamentalist regions has been assaulted for taking photos. Is that bad luck, or is that an expected outcome?
> ...



Poking a humorous finger here...so you felt safe in an unsafe radicalised country with far right oppressive rules? How safe would you have felt if you were Jewish? Now very I suspect and yet I can't think of a single Jewish terrorist. But I can name an awful lot of Islamic ones, mostly with Saudi inspired Wabbist theology.


----------



## lion rock (Mar 24, 2017)

Now there is a chance for airlines to offer another "service" at a price! Rent you one of their laptops for the flight in additional to WiFi charges.
-r


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Jaysheldon said:
> 
> 
> > I was on vacation in France on Sept. 11, 2001, scheduled to fly back to Canada two days later. When my flight was re-scheduled and i got to the airport, I was told my camera bag and all my film had to go into the luggage hold. I was distraught, figuring it would be stolen.
> ...


Not only that, but checked baggage is subject to a lot more stress than your carry-on. Cargo holds are (almost always) not pressurized, not heated, and baggage handlers are nowhere near as careful with stuff as you are.


----------



## LDS (Mar 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Not only that, but checked baggage is subject to a lot more stress than your carry-on. Cargo holds are (almost always) not pressurized, not heated, and baggage handlers are nowhere near as careful with stuff as you are.



AFAIK, modern planes holds are pressurized as well, and temperature is also kept well above zero (°C). Many cargo items would suffer or become dangerous otherwise.

In larger planes, they can also be accessed by the crew when needed, and animals can travel there.

Baggage handlers are the real issues  Airlines could sell 'premium handling and storage' now.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2017)

LDS said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that, but checked baggage is subject to a lot more stress than your carry-on. Cargo holds are (almost always) not pressurized, not heated, and baggage handlers are nowhere near as careful with stuff as you are.
> ...


I checked on the pressurization... On the long haul flights the holds are pressurized to 10,000 feet. I stand corrected!


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 25, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that as soon as this policy spreads - and it will - people working at airports will have a lot more motivation to open your bags and "clean" them out.
> ...


Traveling *a lot* I can confirm that baggage often gets an _incredible _beating. You can effectively protect a laptop & camera in a hard case, but it takes time - and importantly space. And it will still not protect you when:

1) someone wants to steal your stuff (and there are airports where this happens a lot)
2) if someone like TSA open your bag and mess your stuff around (happens at least once or twice a year to me)

Now I have the privilege of having a Gold/Platinum card for all my most used airlines (= extra baggage). But most people travel with 1 limited sized suitcase and 20 kg total luggage allowance and very limited carry-on.


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2017)

Most irritating regulation.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2017)

Changing gears a little bit: in case this ban sticks / metastasizes and moves to other countries, carriers, etc. I have a trip to Scandinavia this spring and I'd like to plan accordingly.

Were I to bring the following...


5D3 -- no grip, no speedlite
Two of the these three: 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (most likely the first two)
One small prime (35 f/2 IS, 50 f/1.4, etc.)
Gorillapod + small ball head (I'd leave that at home to make room if the 70-200 made the trip)
Filters, hoods, charger, BR strap, etc.

...I'm assuming I need a check-able Pelican (or similar) hard case. 

Which one? I'd like to keep it small as we'll be training about while we're there and I don't want to lug around some overkill sarcophagus along with our suitcases. What size/model might you guys recommend? Preferably doesn't come in black and looks more like luggage than an electronics treasure chest.

Just saw that LR rents Pelicans out. Shipping might be nasty given their size, but that's still a nice option.

Ideas? Thx!

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Changing gears a little bit: in case this ban sticks / metastasizes and moves to other countries, carriers, etc. I have a trip to Scandinavia this spring and I'd like to plan accordingly.
> 
> Were I to bring the following...
> 
> ...


When I travel for work, I usually have 2 or 3 of the BIG pelican cases. They get shipped air-cargo and because of the size/weight they do not get tossed around like regular baggage. I have never had a problem with them....

You could pack your camera bag and clothing in one and use it for vacations.....


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Mar 25, 2017)

A personal experience just occurred to me. It doesn't even matter if you put it in a protective case if the wrong people are looking at it. I had a cordless hair trimmer/shaver with rotating head I travelled to work with for years until one day someone at the airport felt it necessary to disassemble it. There was no notice of it, but it was obvious because it was re-assembled incorrectly and internal clips were broken, making it useless. The fact it was assembled backwards made it obvious that it wasn't just damaged by rough baggage handling. 

How would insurance handle that situation with a camera? Good luck proving the camera was fully functional when you packed it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Changing gears a little bit: in case this ban sticks / metastasizes and moves to other countries, carriers, etc. I have a trip to Scandinavia this spring and I'd like to plan accordingly.
> 
> Were I to bring the following...
> 
> ...



All of that would easily fit in a Storm im2500 (or the equivalent Peli 1510), which are the carry-on approved sizes. Or the Pelican Elite Luggage 22" Carryon that I now use for travel. There's no reason you can't check a case that size, but that way you have the flexibility. 

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned a trip to China. Packed in my Flipside 400 AW for that trip were a gripped 5DII, 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, TSE-24mm f/3.5L II, 35mm f/1.4L, 430EX II, 1.4x II Extender, 77mm 500D Close-Up Lens, a PowerShot S95, and various filters, cleaning supplies, etc. I loaded up the Flipside, then packed that into a Pelican Storm im2500 carryon hard case. Gear was well padded, and the backpack was nesessary at the destination. 

In the image below, everything except the 17" MacBook Pro and the CF tripod/head went into the Flipside 400AW, which then went into the Storm im2500.


----------



## LDS (Mar 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Which one? I'd like to keep it small as we'll be training about while we're there and I don't want to lug around some overkill sarcophagus along with our suitcases. What size/model might you guys recommend? Preferably doesn't come in black and looks more like luggage than an electronics treasure chest.



IIRC Pelican (and other makers) makes bug in different colors. Don't know, get one olive green or desert sand, maybe handlers could become more careful thinking it's military stuff - or just blow them apart  Other colors are orange and yellow...

Their new "Air" line should be lighter, but no one looks more like "luggage" - even their explicit luggage cases are not exactly "anonymous".

Their site is quite exhaustive about available models, some have wheels, others don't, I have a small foldable cart to carry them around, but I still never tried to board it also  Maybe in the near future I'll need.

Some also can cut foam on your design - there are also bag with moveable dividers, foam protects better, but is not versatile.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 25, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> I usually fly Emirates, which means stopping in Dubai. I've never stepped outside the airport, but I've always been curious about spending a week or two somewhere around there. By middle east, I've nowhere specific in mind. Cairo, Mecca and Medina are probably the most likely destinations. I'd like to get out and see more of the countryside, but I'm not really a tour group person. And I don't think girls can drive in Saudi Arabia anyway (even if you are tourists), so I'm not even sure how I'd get around.



This is a little OT but it is forbidden for non-Muslims to enter Mecca.


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 25, 2017)

Before anyone gets carried away with this ban, here's some more information I found.

- The ban DOES apply to lenses. However, the maximum size of a lens allowed as carry on varies by airline. I haven't found any documents from specific airlines, but if you're flying one of them it makes sense to call.
- The ban is set to be expire/reviewed in 7 months. Who knows what will happen at that time.
- Italy, France, and Germany have reviewed the same security information and decided not to ban.

As I mentioned before, there is a discrepancy in that the UK did not ban flights from Morocco, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai. This article from the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/21/trump-wont-allow-you-to-use-ipads-or-laptops-on-certain-airlines-heres-the-underlying-story/?utm_term=.767fc9a03a8c gives a good explanation on why that may be. 

If this article is true, then I don't think we'll need to worry about the electronics ban expanding.

In my particular case, I have a trip to Morocco in a few weeks, but I have stops in Madrid and Heathrow, so I'm not affected. I have further trips to South Africa, Luxembourg, Belize, and Greece, so despite my concern for the ban I'm not affected for awhile.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2017)

LDS said:


> Some also can cut foam on your design - there are also bag with moveable dividers, foam protects better, but is not versatile.



Thx, appreciate the post.

I will 100% TrekPak it if I get a hard case -- I believe TP has kits dialed in for specific Pelicans if memory serves. (Permanent pick-n-pluck foam or generic dividers drive me nuts.)

- A


----------



## kirispupis (Mar 25, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > What also is correct is the fact that these are still very safe places (see data in my previous post).
> ...



With any country, one needs to do one's homework and be culturally aware. There is no excuse for stupidity, no matter where you are.

For example, recently I traveled to Jamaica. We stayed at a large western resort and for our excursions to the countryside we contacted locals in advance and always had a guide and driver. We had an amazing trip and found the locals very friendly. Not once did we fear for our safety. A friend of ours recently traveled to Jamaica too. She booked a cheap hotel in Kingston and was scared for her life. She didn't do her homework.

In the case of these countries affected by the electronics ban, any photographer should know that most women will react negatively to taking their photo. Interestingly, they sometimes won't object if another woman takes the photograph - so when we're in a Muslim majority country my wife usually takes the people photos.

In terms of whether these places are generally safe for women photographers, from those women I know who have done so they're as dangerous as Greece or Russia - doable with common sense.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 30, 2017)

Pros and others traveling to Turkey etc are just likely to not fly direct, but to go through a European hub with luggage retrieved at the hub and taken through customs by the owner to the flight to the USA. The regulations aren't going to ban laptops etc from carry-on luggage in between NYC and Dusseldorf.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > Some also can cut foam on your design - there are also bag with moveable dividers, foam protects better, but is not versatile.
> ...


We ship a lot of test equipment in Pelican cases......the pick-n-pluck foam really works well, plus you can get extra foam fairly reasonably... Never had a problem with damaged gear, including one case that fell off of a frigate into the Atlantic ocean.....


----------



## LDS (Mar 31, 2017)

NancyP said:


> Pros and others traveling to Turkey etc are just likely to not fly direct, but to go through a European hub with luggage retrieved at the hub and taken through customs by the owner to the flight to the USA. The regulations aren't going to ban laptops etc from carry-on luggage in between NYC and Dusseldorf.



Turkish is itself a large airline with its hub in Istanbul - it's not just the base airport of a regional company - it flies directly to several US destinations. It was able to run ads with several sport stars, including Lionel Messi and Kobe Bryant, to promote its flight services and its large network.

Retrieving the luggage usually requires you to re-check in it, it takes time, and in some airports, a lot of walking


----------



## Maiaibing (Mar 31, 2017)

LDS said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Pros and others traveling to Turkey etc are just likely to not fly direct, but to go through a European hub with luggage retrieved at the hub and taken through customs by the owner to the flight to the USA. The regulations aren't going to ban laptops etc from carry-on luggage in between NYC and Dusseldorf.
> ...


Dubai and Istanbul are two of the world's largest international flight hubs and Turkish and Emirates are two very big airlines... Probably have 50 flights/yr routed through these two.


----------

