EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Ski Bags and Airline Travel: What do you do?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Bags and Airline Travel: What do you do? - Page 3

post #61 of 74
Bags bigger than double bags can be outright refused as well if they really want to.

Delta specifically notes "team" bags shall only be used by the team in their policy, which I've always found kinda cute.
post #62 of 74
I just flew back from New Hampshire with 1 pair of skis in a single bag. I used the bubble wrap technique and had no problems except seeing my brand new Racrtigers come up on the luggage carousel..yikes!!! Any way the biggest problem was with my carry on... I have one of those Gillette mach 3 turbo vibrating razors and the TSA couldn't believe it wasn't a bomb because it had a battery in the handle.. I almost got the "Full Cavity Search..lol Dam don't those people ever watch TV? Its only been available for a year or 2..Besides that, I stopped by the smoker lounge and saw about 10 people with lighters and TSA guys having a smoke and saying nothing to them..
post #63 of 74

Just a quick note...

...steep and cheap has the dakine concourse bag today... only fits 185 skis the larger bag apparently sold out...
post #64 of 74
Thanks for the tip. Good deal for sure.

Also, the 185 size will fit skis a bit bigger than that. Won't fit my 198s I don't think, but I've put 190s in with no problem IIRC.
post #65 of 74
Concerning the 80 pound ski bags not getting thrown around because they are too heavy, I agree with you - the baggage handlers will not throw them around.......however, they can drop them the 7-8 feet from the cargo door of a 757 to the tarmac, which will cause considerable damage (I have seen it happen on more than one occasion, and after observing it on my last trip, when I got home, found out my GS 11's were bent - a good 1-2 inch bend in the tail - and Northwest said that it was too late to file a claim, becuase I'd already left the airport)

As far as the TSA is concerned, I had a $100 can of Holmenkol Topspeed removed from my luggage, because TSA said it was "dangerous, flammable liquid". Mind you, this was in checked luggage, and I didn't find out until I had checked into the hotel, and found a note in my bag. TSA simply said, "too bad, you shouldn't have been carrying it!"

Those folks are for the most part, totally clueless - they are not putting the fear of God into us, the are just making us hate our government even more - short term good for them, long term bad for them.

There will be a new government in this country someday!
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Racer
they are not putting the fear of God into us, the are just making us hate our government even more - short term good for them, long term bad for them.
Depending on who is "them", I think these unnecessary and random fear is very good for the Republican Party.
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Racer
Concerning the 80 pound ski bags not getting thrown around because they are too heavy, I agree with you - the baggage handlers will not throw them around.......however, they can drop them the 7-8 feet from the cargo door of a 757 to the tarmac, which will cause considerable damage (I have seen it happen on more than one occasion, and after observing it on my last trip, when I got home, found out my GS 11's were bent - a good 1-2 inch bend in the tail - and Northwest said that it was too late to file a claim, becuase I'd already left the airport)

As far as the TSA is concerned, I had a $100 can of Holmenkol Topspeed removed from my luggage, because TSA said it was "dangerous, flammable liquid". Mind you, this was in checked luggage, and I didn't find out until I had checked into the hotel, and found a note in my bag. TSA simply said, "too bad, you shouldn't have been carrying it!"

Those folks are for the most part, totally clueless - they are not putting the fear of God into us, the are just making us hate our government even more - short term good for them, long term bad for them.

There will be a new government in this country someday!
Let's see, if the ski bag weighs 80+ pounds, as mind does, there is usually other stuff packed in there as well, which, if you have half a brain, would be used to help secure and protect the stuff that needs it. I've never had any damage to my equipment (especially my skis) from rough handling, other than my poles beinging a bit bent once when I packed them to the outside of the bag.

I don't think there is much of a chance of the baggage handlers just dropping stuff out of cargo and baggage onto the tarmac. They, and the airlines, are responsible for the damage that they do to checked baggage and equipment. Do you think they would still have their jobs if they were constantly breaking not only luggage, but the contents inside. Musicians have to check their stuff constantly. If their synthesizers and instruments (which cost tens of thousands of dollars) can make it safely, I think my skis and boots should be able to make it ok. I'm not the least bit worried about it. My tennis rackets are another story; they have been broken on 2 separate occassions.

As far as your wax goes. Do you remember that plane that went down in the Florida Everglades a number of years ago? It was brought down by combustable canisters, killing everyone on board. Your $100 wax should be the least of your worries. If you hate your govt. sorry to hear that. You'd probably hate them more if they let your family blow up mid-flight.

As a little aside: remember the big brouhaha a couple of years ago about the airlines not letting the mother on the plane who had the breast milk in bottles for her kid. Apparently, they told her that she couldn't bring open containers of liquid on the plane. She maintained that they were breast milk, and that she need them for her kid. They said no, unless she just wanted to proved to them that it was breast milk by her opening the containers and tasting it. Otherwise, she would have to leave the milk or feed her kid before boarding the plane. She was disgusted and refused. She was refused access to the flight. She sued. Ok, let's look at this. It was her own breast milk, yet it was still too disgusting for her to taste, though she was going to feed it to her kid. Ok, I guess I can let that slide, for I guess someone can be disgusted by their own breast milk. I don't get it, but then, I could chow down with the best of them on Fear Factor and still be hungry afterwards. Next, it was a three hour flight. If she had just dumped the breast milk, she could have still fed her baby three hours later. Next, I assume that her breasts were still attached to her body. If it were such an issue, she could have just breast fed the kid on the plane. So anyway, everyone was up in arms when this happened (well, all the liberals and the ACLU, anyway). Then, shortly after that, another woman in France tries to board a jet with the same rouse, only this time the "breast milk" was actaully some type of accelerant. I'm very happy that there are more stringent precautions, and although all of us have been inconvenienced, I'll take that over the alternative.
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docjoque
As far as your wax goes. Do you remember that plane that went down in the Florida Everglades a number of years ago? It was brought down by combustable canisters, killing everyone on board. Your $100 wax should be the least of your worries. If you hate your govt. sorry to hear that. You'd probably hate them more if they let your family blow up mid-flight.
If its the product I'm thinking of, its packaged without a propellant and has a flashpoint of greater than 600 degrees. It is not highly flammable like a butane propelled can of hairspray.

The plane you are talking about (from the ever so safe airline AirTran/Valujet) was carrying oxygen generators that were not safetied or packed properly. Vastly more dangerous to carry than some flourocarbon wax.

There are a wide range of things you shouldn't bring on an airplane. Flourocarbon waxes aren't among those unless they have flammable propellants. I've never seen an air-shipping limitation on wax products from any of the major manufacturerers...
post #69 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
If its the product I'm thinking of, its packaged without a propellant and has a flashpoint of greater than 600 degrees. It is not highly flammable like a butane propelled can of hairspray.

The plane you are talking about (from the ever so safe airline AirTran/Valujet) was carrying oxygen generators that were not safetied or packed properly. Vastly more dangerous to carry than some flourocarbon wax.

There are a wide range of things you shouldn't bring on an airplane. Flourocarbon waxes aren't among those unless they have flammable propellants. I've never seen an air-shipping limitation on wax products from any of the major manufacturerers...
ANYTHING questionable is going to catch their eye, and a pressurized cannister is certainly one of those things. I didn't say they had high IQs, and even if they did, how would they know the contents of every pressurized cannister that came on board? Jeez, if they confiscate nail cutters.......
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docjoque
how would they know the contents of every pressurized cannister that came on board?
They have spent billions of dollars on fancy test equipment....it isn't exactly rocket science to determine whether or not something has a highly flammable propellant.

If they mistake the pressure vessel for hazmat because of low IQ, what does that low IQ do for them when truly dangerous materials are successfully disguised to look innocuous?
post #71 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
They have spent billions of dollars on fancy test equipment....it isn't exactly rocket science to determine whether or not something has a highly flammable propellant.

If they mistake the pressure vessel for hazmat because of low IQ, what does that low IQ do for them when truly dangerous materials are successfully disguised to look innocuous?
Well, not every airport has billions of dollars worth of expensive equipment, and IT IS rocket science to figure out if something is a flammable propellent. Read my post about the breast milk that turned out to be an accelerant. The Tamil Tigers used butane canisters disguised as perfume to make smuggled blow torches. The same can be done with hairspray cannisters and a bic. So these supposed low IQ guys don't need to MISTAKE a pressure vessel for hazmat. Hazmat doesn't mean crap. A pressure vessel is enough. So yeah, I like when these supposed low IQ TSA agents confiscate ANYTHING that is even remotely suspicious.

At least now Bears know not to bring their Flourocarbon wax onto commercial flights.
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docjoque
So yeah, I like when these supposed low IQ TSA agents confiscate ANYTHING that is even remotely suspicious.

At least now Bears know not to bring their Flourocarbon wax onto commercial flights.

I have a problem of this big brother attitude. Your breast milk example is actually a fine example of stripping individual rights to satisfy the hunger of the police state. The burden of proof of breast milk should not be on the shoulder of a mother with a crying, hungry child.

After all, "anything that is even remotely suspicious" can include anyone that question the actions of the police state. In short, anyone that question the Iraq war can be added onto the no-fly list. Anyone that do not obey the Party (I guess, in this case, your party of Republicans) are considered terrorists.

If you definition of safety is that confiscation of anything is acceptable, then all personal freedom and liberty are subject to confiscation and seizure, if you object or do not agreed to the Party's definition of "freedom and democracy." "1984" is here.
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docjoque
I don't think there is much of a chance of the baggage handlers just dropping stuff out of cargo and baggage onto the tarmac.
Yeah, I doubt they purposely try to drop things onto the tarmac. But they seem to like to throw luggage from the cargo bay conveyor belts to the luggage transports and vice-versa. I'm sure more than a few bags have missed their target or fallen off afterwards.

Quote:
Musicians have to check their stuff constantly. If their synthesizers and instruments (which cost tens of thousands of dollars)
That's exactly what we need! Someone like SKB, Pelican or whoever to make a hard case for skis and snowboards.
post #74 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docjoque
and IT IS rocket science to figure out if something is a flammable propellent. Read my post about the breast milk that turned out to be an accelerant. The Tamil Tigers used butane canisters disguised as perfume to make smuggled blow torches. The same can be done with hairspray cannisters and a bic.
All of these things you are talking about contained flammable (butane) propellants. Testing a device for a butane propellant is most certainly not hard....I used to do it all the time when I was 12.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Ski Bags and Airline Travel: What do you do?