New airline rules

[world~citizen]

Just wondering how people are coping with the new airline rules of no carry on luggage except a small purse.We always had a carry on packed so if the airline delayed luggage or worst lost it we would have a few days of essentials (bathing suit,shorts etc)until it caught up to us.It will make it interesting packing the extras that you usually pack the morning you get off the ship,that you have with you from the night before.Will have to repack in the ship terminal.That would be chaos.Then you have weight restrictons ,extra baggage fees and of course the liquids.

 

Of course you make valid points.

 

A real problem associated with this also is that the extra time involved with new security procedures is delaying departure of flights out of Canada. Our flight from Toronto to Boston with an ongoing connection to Munich was delayed by 2 hours. Our connection was an hour and 50 minutes.

 

Add to that, the no washroom rule was imposed for just over 2 hours as first, it took half an hour to get of the runway for deicing and traffic etc and second, because the original estimation of flight time to Boston was one hour - it actually took an hour and a half.

 

I really felt for those traveling with the sort of disorders that make for more frequent trips to the toilet, and for those traveling with infants.

 

Now, more than ever I would recommend you should plan to arrive at your port at least a day early, or even two. A lot of ports of embarkation are interesting anyway, so what the heck.

 

We are living in interesting times.

 

Smooth sailing...

[world~citizen]

While the new rules may be a pain for international travel, let us remember that there was an attempted attack on the US on the most beloved of all Christian holidays. Granted - there were major problems with intelligence prior to the flight, but airport security remains the last line of defense. And let us never ever forget how commercial airplanes were used as a weapons of mass destruction on 9-11. If it cost an extra few dollars to check a bag - so be it. Safety and security is more important. Some things really are priceless.

 

Everything you say is true. Period. Full stop.

 

What puzzles me is how it happened. We only know what we read in the papers, but for goodness sake, pre-warning by the terrorists father directly to security authorities, a one way ticket paid for in cash, wow.

 

To me it appears that the procedures in place were poorly executed if executed at all. How effective will new layers of procedure be if they are implemented with the same standard of care.

 

Perhaps the new scanners will prevent this situation from recurring when they are universally installed, but then what about other ways bad guys can hide this stuff, in body cavities and swallowing etc.

 

I hope authorities can keep up with this. I don't envy them their task.

 

Right now, air travel is miserable.

 

As an optimist by nature, I look forward to the day when travel will be a joy again. Not anytime soon though, I think.

 

Smooth sailing...

[HeatherInFlorida]

As usual, the regulations are too generalized. The focus really should be more on flights coming in from overseas (not Canada) but in order to be politically correct they've applied the rule to all international flights. Since the concern as of today is not domestic, they've not changed the carry-on rules domestically.

 

But that will change if/when something happens on a domestic flight. Eventually all the barn doors will be locked so tight no one will be able to budge from where they're planted!:)

[kakalina]

It is stuff like this that makes me so glad we don't fly. Once in 30 years was enough for me. Even driving from Az to Fl isn't as bad as it sounds. We just take a week and visit neat places along the way.

 

By not flying we have been through every single one of the continental states.

[world~citizen]

I just looked at TSA website and I didn't see they were no longer permitting carry-ons.

 

I looked at Jet Blue website and missed it there as well. :confused:

 

As far as I know this is the most up to date information:

 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-menu-5781.htm

 

I can confirm that small purse means just that.

 

Smooth sailing...

[RevNeal]

For some people, who can not afford 3 or 4 cruises per year, and save everything they can for one yearly trip - even 100.00 is a big deal.

 

I don't cruise 3 or 4 times a year. I usually book inside cabins, select my cruises in order to get the cheapest I can find for the itineraries I desire, and as a result I've been blessed to cruise twice a year. To do it I have to save and scrimp for every dime, with a certain amount being set aside every month in order to enable me to make my final payment. Still, $100 for luggage doesn't break the bank because I've also budgeted for that. It's part of the expense of cruising.

[RevNeal]

and we air passengers are losing.Knee jerk responses are rediculous. Profiling is the answer. Stop hassling little old ladies and look for the young men from Africa, the middle east and Indonesia. Our constitution doesn't guarantee them their rights.

 

Given the current political environment in Washington DC, that will not happen. And, given that illegal combatants captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan (read: "Al Queda soldiers") while engaged in operations against US and Allied Armed Forces are being granted full Constitutional Judicial Rights (including Miranda Rights), I would say that YES, the current Justice Department will, indeed, grant such terrorists full constitutional rights, including the 5th.

[RevNeal]

Secondly, the most ludicrous restriction of all in the current batch is the "one-hour measure" imposed on passengers on flights from Canada to the U.S. (presumably also on flights to the U.S. from other international destinations). Passengers are not permitted to leave their seats during the last hour of the flight and are not even permitted to have anything on their lap (like a blanket, a pillow). The rationale? A terrorist would more likely want to detonate his device over American soil so that the impact will be more significant.

 

DUH! While that might apply on a flight from, say, Heathrow to New York, what about Heathrow to L.A.? Or Toronto to L.A., Seattle, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Tampa, etc. etc. etc.?

 

Does anybody ever THINK before introducing this stuff? Or is it all knee-jerk response?

 

While I agree that they're not really thinking, just engaging in knee-jerk reactions, nevertheless I don't think the restriction is entirely ludicrous. Even a flight that spends 4 or 5 hours over the US en-route from Europe will still have the last few minutes over the target city as the principle zone of danger. At least, that was the case this time. The problem is that the terrorists are like the Borg from StarTrek ... they adapt. Once they can blow themselves up over a sufficiently populated area to generate death, terror, and significant collateral destruction, I think they'll do it. They won't wait to get over the destination airport and the targeted big city. Not with this new regulation.

[sail7seas]

As far as I know this is the most up to date information:

 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/backgrounders-menu-5781.htm

 

I can confirm that small purse means just that.

 

Smooth sailing...

 

 

Thanks for the rules as apply to Canada.

 

Interesting reading.

 

We will be flying U.S. domestic so hopefully, we will be permitted our usual carryon allotments.

 

Some posters do not have a 'location' in their signatures so we do not always know in which country they live. The OP seems to fly from Canada but without identifying that, it is hard for all of us to know that.

 

Same as your signature. Someone who doesn't know, doesn't know. :) Of course, no one needs to give any identification but can't expect people to know if you choose to not. Same as mine. It does not indicate we are from Massachusetts, USA

 

[igraf]

Between leaving the ship and checking in at the airport you add the last few pieces of clothing to your luggage, thus avoiding having to check in additional luggage.

 

igraf

 

 

 

 

It does cost to check extra bags so it may not be rocket science but it's going to cost more. I'm not willing to pay $50 or more for my carry on. This comment was uncalled for.

[world~citizen]

Given the current political environment in Washington DC, that will not happen. And, given that illegal combatants captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan (read: "Al Queda soldiers") while engaged in operations against US and Allied Armed Forces are being granted full Constitutional Judicial Rights (including Miranda Rights), I would say that YES, the current Justice Department will, indeed, grant such terrorists full constitutional rights, including the 5th.

 

Of course there is much controversy, even bombast in what you say. None of which may be adequately or appropriately explored in this forum.

 

I would simply like to note (in a non-partisan manner) that I cannot rule out that the bad guys are going to be put away for a very very long time. I had the privilege of living in NYC for many years, (where I believe the tribunals will be held) and these guys are nobody's fool.

 

Take the high road and justice will win out.

 

I believe that.

[IRL_Joanie]

While the new rules may be a pain for international travel, let us remember that there was an attempted attack on the US on the most beloved of all Christian holidays. Granted - there were major problems with intelligence prior to the flight, but airport security remains the last line of defense. And let us never ever forget how commercial airplanes were used as a weapons of mass destruction on 9-11. If it cost an extra few dollars to check a bag - so be it. Safety and security is more important. Some things really are priceless.

 

 

AMEN!!! And my thanks to you for attempting to remind everyone!!

 

My safety is prime importance to me and whatever it takes to get me from point A to point B I am willing to go through!!

 

Joanie

[IRL_Joanie]

and we air passengers are losing.Knee jerk responses are rediculous. Profiling is the answer. Stop hassling little old ladies and look for the young men from Africa, the middle east and Indonesia. Our constitution doesn't guarantee them their rights.

 

 

Steve, remember the shoe bomber wanna be? He was a White Male American. There are many just like him who are amongst those that want to kill us, the innocent Americans...

 

Joanie

[IRL_Joanie]

I'd like to make two points. First of all, the commercial airplanes used on 9-11 were all domestic flights. Yet the stringent regulations now in effect (at least for Canada-U.S.) do not apply to domestic flights. Reality check, please!

 

Secondly, the most ludicrous restriction of all in the current batch is the "one-hour measure" imposed on passengers on flights from Canada to the U.S. (presumably also on flights to the U.S. from other international destinations). Passengers are not permitted to leave their seats during the last hour of the flight and are not even permitted to have anything on their lap (like a blanket, a pillow). The rationale? A terrorist would more likely want to detonate his device over American soil so that the impact will be more significant.

 

DUH! While that might apply on a flight from, say, Heathrow to New York, what about Heathrow to L.A.? Or Toronto to L.A., Seattle, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Tampa, etc. etc. etc.?

 

Does anybody ever THINK before introducing this stuff? Or is it all knee-jerk response?

I do not think it is all a knee jerk response.

 

HOWEVER, Consider this also... A pat down still would NOT have found the explosive material the young man tried to use on Christmas Day, no matter what country he flew into or out of!

 

WHY? Because in a pat down the TSA are NOT allowed to touch anywhere near a sexual area, i.e., genital or breast area of a body!!

 

Until all airline passengers are screened the same way by what may end up to be entrusive means, full body scans, etc.. we will have these same headaches and near disasters, if not worse:mad:

 

Joanie

[world~citizen]

I do not think it is all a knee jerk response.

 

HOWEVER, Consider this also... A pat down still would NOT have found the explosive material the young man tried to use on Christmas Day, no matter what country he flew into or out of!

 

WHY? Because in a pat down the TSA are NOT allowed to touch anywhere near a sexual area, i.e., genital or breast area of a body!!

 

Until all airline passengers are screened the same way by what may end up to be entrusive means, full body scans, etc.. we will have these same headaches and near disasters, if not worse:mad:

 

Joanie

 

All true.

 

I think I can say that the passenger screening we had in Toronto was at least as thorough, if not more thorough than the one we experienced in Boston.

 

Out of Boston no one was restricted to seats.

 

This will all be sorted out I suppose, over time.

 

Smooth sailing...

[cruz chic]

AMEN!!! And my thanks to you for attempting to remind everyone!!

 

My safety is prime importance to me and whatever it takes to get me from point A to point B I am willing to go through!!

 

Joanie

So please explain to me how this is going to keep us safer. Do you think the terrorist is going to put a bomb in a carry on? I really don't know how people can defend this. Since you live in the US you are not being affected by this rule so it's really easy to be supportive of it. On your next trip please take a small purse and NOTHING else and see if you are still as supportive.

[cruz chic]

I don't cruise 3 or 4 times a year. I usually book inside cabins, select my cruises in order to get the cheapest I can find for the itineraries I desire, and as a result I've been blessed to cruise twice a year. To do it I have to save and scrimp for every dime, with a certain amount being set aside every month in order to enable me to make my final payment. Still, $100 for luggage doesn't break the bank because I've also budgeted for that. It's part of the expense of cruising.

Good for you if you want to pay an extra $100 or more. I usually take 2 bags with me and end up paying for one of them...sometimes 2. On most airlines I don't think it's even an option to check a third. Seems odd to me that someone would scrimp and save to pass $100 over to the airline. IMO that is not money I am willing to part with.

[GLP]

I may be missing something but I fail to see what this person hiding a bomb in his underwear has to do with carry-on luggage.

[cruz chic]

I may be missing something but I fail to see what this person hiding a bomb in his underwear has to do with carry-on luggage.

Well at least a few of us seem to understand that concept. Maybe you need to be Canadian to udersatnd it:D.

[Two@Sea]

Ok, let me see now... if I plan a cruise for the springtime, and I think I can manage maybe eighteen or so miles a day, what month should I start walking toward the port? :eek:

[Ya Ya Cruiser]

GLP - my point exactly.

 

As a Canadian and frequent flyer to the US with a purse that I think meets the standard of "2 sheets of 8 1/2 x 11 paper" which is how they are telling people to measure their purses, I'm glad Air Canada is allowing us to check our carry on bags free of charge. I am now going to see how I can fit jewellry, camera(s) in that purse because I don't trust putting valuables (even costume jewellry has value;)) in checked luggage.

 

With all due respect, I think this is a knee jerk reaction to an intelligence community that dropped the ball by not communicating information - which seemed to be a factor in the 911 tragedy as well. I think it's being done the way it's being done more for optics than any genuine benefit it provides just MHO.

 

In any event - we will comply and hope that saner heads will prevail in the coming months and we can get back to normal, the intelligence communities will learn, once again, the value of communication, and we'll make the terrorists head back to the drawing board; exploding shoes didn't work; exploding underwear didn't work.......hmmmm.........

 

YaYa

[world~citizen]

GLP - my point exactly.

 

...I'm glad Air Canada is allowing us to check our carry on bags free of charge...

YaYa

 

They have also put folks up in the Hyatt in Boston (with meal allowance) if they miss connections due to security delays.

 

They have been one class act in all of this.

 

Smooth sailing...

[irishjim]

What makes you think it is only americans they want to kill,they wish to kill as many people as thay can regardless of where you are from,it was not just americans that were killed in 911.RIP.

[bloofer]

Ok, let me see now... if I plan a cruise for the springtime, and I think I can manage maybe eighteen or so miles a day, what month should I start walking toward the port? :eek:

 

Too funny! :):D

 

My solution has 4 tires and a steering wheel. I'm driving - from Canada.

[world~citizen]

Dear xxxxxxxx;

 

 

On behalf of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), we thank you for your e-mail dated December 30, 2009, in which you enquired if you may transport certain medical essentials and personal items and what is an acceptable size of a small purse when going through pre-board screening.

 

 

 

With respect to acceptable dimensions, small purses that are 25 cm x 30 cm x 14 cm or less will be allowed past the checkpoint. However, please note that this is a guide, and screening officers will not be intercepting purses that are an inch or two greater in size. Clothing material that fits within the purse dimensions mentioned above is permitted.

 

 

 

In regards to the transport of skin lotion, our Liquids, Gels and aerosols provision still applies. Passengers are permitted to bring liquids, gels and aerosols through security screening at Canadian airports provided that the items are packaged in containers with a capacity of 100 ml / 100 grams (3.4 oz) or less, and that the containers fit comfortably in one clear, closed and resealable plastic bag with a capacity of no more than 1 litre (1 quart). The approximate dimensions of a one litre/quart bag are 15 cm by 23 cm (6 in. by 9 in.) or 20 cm by 18 cm (8 in. by 7 in.). One bag per passenger is permitted. Oversize cosmetic or toiletry items (i.e. greater than 100 ml / 100 g) such as hair shampoos, skin creams, shaving gel, sunscreen, and hair spray are permitted in checked baggage.

 

 

 

Personal items such as medication or medical devices, or any special needs items are permitted to be transported within their own sealed bag respectively, due to the fact they are deemed as essential items.

 

As per your husband transporting a small backpack, under the temporary guidelines he would not permitted to do so. Carry-on bag means items to which a passenger has access to during a flight, but does NOT include personal items such as small purses, cameras, coats, items for care of infants, laptop computers, crutches, canes, walkers, containers carrying life sustaining items, medication or medical devices, musical instruments, or any special needs items.

 

Further information regarding these measures is available at the following URL: http://www.catsa.gc.ca/Page.aspx?ID=...esures&lang=en

 

We thank you for your feedback and wish you a safe and enjoyable flight

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Client Satisfaction / Satisfaction des clients

 

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) /

 

Administration canadienne de la sûreté du transport aérien (ACSTA)

 

Toll free 1-888-294-2202 (8:30-17:00 ET)

 

 

 

NOTE:--------------------

 

1 inch = 2.54 cm

 

Smooth sailing...