Carry-on baggage banned by Pan Am

[mattjs]

"SANFORD -- Pan American Airways, which operates a hub at Orlando Sanford International Airport, on Wednesday became the first U.S. airline to ban most carry-on luggage.

The carrier now allows passengers to carry on only wallets, purses and, for those traveling with infants, diaper bags. But that's it......."


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-asecspanam27092701sep27.story?coll=orl%2Dnews%2Dhe adlines

[Firefighter Mickey]

I guess we'll all be getting notes from our Doctors and throwing a few "Depends" in a bag now along with a few other odds and ends.

I don't have a problem with limits in numbers or size, but to outright ban all carryons goes way beyond silly.

[skeezixspud]

PanAm is already in trouble, and this won't help. People may think it is a good idea in theory, but I predict that that it will be very unpopular in practice. They will have scenes at the gate that you won't believe. Other airlines have a liability limit of $2500 pp for checked bags, but here's what's in PanAm's small print:

"Terms include, but are not restricted to (1) Limits on liability for baggage including fragile or perishable goods. Carrier will not be responsible for money; jewelry; cameras; video and electronic equipment, including computers and similar valuables contained in checked or unchecked baggage."

So they are trying to tell you that although they are forcing you to check it, they won't be responsible for damages to it. That won't fly, if you'll pardon the pun.

[bigsis1970]

They are gonna have tons of cranky kids !!! who will have nothing to do while flying but hit the seats ahead, run in the isles, play with the shades & pillows.. Hope the other airlines
DON'T follow suit.. Michelle
64 days to go...

[nuthut]

sounds good, maybe there will be room for the passengers now. Hope all other airline follow.

[casmanuel]

Nuthut, here is your FLAME!!! :D :p

[sgtdisney]

Does Pan Am have a death wish? I understand the reasoning, not that I agree with it, but Pan Am is not in the best of shape to risk being the first to implement such restrictions...

[SleepyatDVC]

As someone earlier suggested - clothes, vests, & coats with big pockets - BIG POCKETS ;)

Anyone see the potential for even longer lines at the security check point? Going through all those pockets instead of throwing one purse on the conveyer belt?
:rolleyes:

[sgtdisney]

What if you buy something fragile on vacation, like a snow globe, and they force you to check it? Will the airline pay for it? These are all things that concern me. I know they need to take measures to make the aircraft as safe as possible. But how does any of this account for, or take care of the box cutters that were found stuffed into airplane seats during the few days after the tragedy? It seems that they need to tighten security on the non-passengers who have access to the planes as much as anything else.

[ducklite]

I wouldn't fly them anyway. But even if I would, there is no way I'm checking laptop, cell phone, etc. They just lost the lifeblood of the airline industry with that insane rule--the business traveler. I do'nt know anyone willing to check a laptop, and I know a LOT of business travelers (and companies they work for) who would tell them "Don't get on that plane, we'll rebook you on an airline with some common sense."

If you have stock in this obviously inept company, I highly sugest you dump it ASAP, because within a month it won't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Another one bites the dust... which is fine with me, that much more business for the carriers I will fly, who I want to see stay afloat.

Anne

[Ted and Holly]

Pan Am is a miserable airline to fly anyway. They run like a small business and they'll fall like a small business making terrible decisions such as these. You'd think with only a few planes, that they could keep to their schedules. They couldn't before this whole ordeal, and making passengers check EVERYTHING is not going to make it better.

Bottom line, they'll lose passengers. They've already started charging as much or more than the other airlines... they're never on time despite flying out of small airports, and their planes are always breaking. "You are the weakest airline.... goodbye"

Holly P

[seashoreCM]

1. Find out what kind of extra baggage insurance you can purchase.

2. Ask for a no-charge change to a later flight so you can go out to UPS or the post office and send your valuables home insured.

3. Ask for an on the spot refund of your ticket and cancellation of your reservation. It does not make sense to have to choose between (a) forfeiting your airfare for sure or (b) taking a chance at losing your laptop computer.

More Disney tips:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

9/65 Disneyland
3/75 (World Inn* off I4 near DD)
4/85 (Kon-Tiki* on 192)
'80s Disneyland once or twice
7/94 PORiv
9/97 ASMu
11/98 ASMu
12/98 (Knights Inn on 192)
9/99 ASMo
12/00 ASSp
9/01 ASSp
11/01 ASSp still planned
*no longer exists

[dvm2b]

Originally posted by bigsis1970
They are gonna have tons of cranky kids !!! who will have nothing to do while flying but hit the seats ahead, run in the isles, play with the shades & pillows.. Hope the other airlines
DON'T follow suit.. Michelle
64 days to go...

Hmmm... you know what kept me well-behaved, quiet, and respectful when I traveled as a child? Good parenting skills from my folks. Anyone who uses this as a whine/excuse about their kids becoming bratty needs to take a look at themselves.

Brenda

[Firefighter Mickey]

I am truely sorry that the rest of us parents don't measure up to yours.

Speaking for myself, I try very hard not to abuse my children with threats of bodily harm (most of the time, anyway), and to provide them with an enjoyable travel experience. Something which having a carry-on allows me to provide in a variety of ways.

Kids are kids, and they will get "fidgety" on long flights if not kept occupied. Good parenting skills also involve understanding things from a kids point of view and trying to anticipate ways to keep your child happy. Simply telling them to shut up and be still doesn't cut it.

This is a stupid move on PanAm's part, and I will most certainly be very vocal about this to my congress-people/senators if the FAA begins to seriously consider this or implements it. It's a knee-jerk reaction to what has happened. Not having a carry-on would not have prevented what happened on 9/11.

[Planogirl]

My mother was adamant about me being well behaved at all times and we traveled to Europe from time to time. Those flights were particularly difficult for me as a child. She provided me with coloring books, paper dolls and things of that nature to give me something to do. I fail to see why a child should have to sit still throughout a flight that might take hours with nothing to do.

That said, I saw some VERY big purses at Target the other day... :D

[bigsis1970]

So i guess dvm2b your children can sit for 2-3-4 hours long without a thing to do and not get fidgety !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks planogirl and firefighter mickey !!! i am not going to respond any further on this matter after this post as i feel personal attacked and to let you know you should not judge others by what is written on this board is it was a generalization...i wasn't saying <MY KIDS> were going to be the ones doing that and to attack me personally was just wrong !!! my kids do need distractions but not because they are bad kids but because they are kids and use to being busy and to sit and sit and sit with nothing to do would even make some adults insane!! and I would think twice before putting them in that position and if those were the rules on my airline then i might even cancel for the sake of the other passengers comfort ... so dvm2b stick that in your pipe and smoke it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry if i have offend anyone else in this discussion michelle

[kkzarnld]

Unfortunately, my family is scheduled to fly PanAm from Portsmouth, NH in 12 days. I have 3 kids ages 3, 8, & 11. Their carryon policy will make this a difficult trip. They said I could bring 1 coloring book with crayons for my 3 year old and weren't sure about gameboys for my 2 older boys. I have to call back for more info today. My husband wants to use his palm pilot to catch up on some work while flying but that is not allowed. We originally had a direct flight of 2 1/2 hours home but they changed it to a 4 1/2 hour flight with one stop. The short direct flight was the reason we went with them to begin with. I called about a refund and was given the run around. At this point I'm not sure if I'm going to push the issue or just go with them. It's a little too late to start shopping around now!

Enough whining!! We can't wait to go. We'll probably just make do with the inconveniences because we'll have a great time once we get there!

[ducklite]

Actually, if the flight is going to land you more than two hours after the original flight time, I'm pretty sure you can ask to invoke RULE 240 for a full refund. Check your times to be sure, and if that's the case, call back and get in their faces about it.

You could also file a dispute with your credit card company and take another carrier and hope for the best. I would use verbage along the lines of:

Pan Am has significantly changed their rules of carriage from when we initially booked and paid for tickets. They have changed the non-stop flight to a flight with an additional stop, as well as delaying our times of arrival by over "X". Additionally they are now making unreasonable demands of passengers by not allowing any carryons, including small items to keep three children entertained during the trip. Their unreasonable action goes far above any flight safety rules required by the FAA, DOT and NTSB, and is certainly more restrictive than any other commercial carrier. For these outrageous reasons we have decided not to fly on this carrier. We have serious concerns over the way this airline is currently handling customer care issues, and expressed our concerns to them. They refused to negotiate an equitable solution to our concerns, and denied our request for arefund of our fare. Due to their questionable business practices we are disputing the charges on our "X" card.

Good luck!

Anne

[Ted and Holly]

Not to add fuel to the Pan Am flame but I sure hope they don't decide to have one of their "unscheduled maintenance" delays. I have read of a few 5 and 6 hour delays, heard and experienced mid travel delays due to broken planes (our was the windsheild).

And they like to have to sit in the plane, on the tarmac, while they figure out what to do. And in those 727's, the air conditioning does not work well while they are sitting still...

kkzarnld I am sure you will have a great time anyway. The drive from Sanford to WDW is a breeze.

Pan Am is VERY convenient for us, being 15 minutes away from Pease (NH) and free parking. But with the price not really a value and the flights being changed to stop in Worchester, and the problems they have had, I would not fly them again. The carry-on deal makes it that much worse! Southwest from Manchester is what we are trying this time.

Ted

P.S. - Unfortunately, rule 240 is not a real rule anymore, but most airlines will honor it IF you ask for it. When we were stopped in Raleigh/Durham for 7 hours after the emergency landing, we should have known to ask. Usually, they will put you on the next available flight to your destination, even if it is a different carrier. I doubt Pan Am would do this anyway.

[kkzarnld]

Thanks Anne. Good suggestions. First I'm going to check the rates to fly out of my local airport which happens to be Portland, ME. But that happens to be where 2 of the terrorists originally flew from before getting on an airplane at Logan Airport from. Yikes!

[j7r2813]

I cannot believe my eyes. How many of you would have complaind about this on Sep 12th?
As far as having cranky children, well at least you may have your children alive to be cranky. IMHO, not allowing carry-on items is a logical step and ALL airlines should follow suit, right now. What is the discomfort of a few extra hours out of a day when compared to the potential benefits. Remember, the easier it is fo security (whoever may be doing that job) to screen people and materials, the better the security will be. Also remember, that the security people, for the most part, are not the ones getting on the plane.

It only took 3 weeks for peoples attitutes to return to 'normal'. Oh my, this nation is deep trouble.

Good-job Pan-Am. Now lock those cockpits, so that any potential terriost or any other nut cannot use that airplane as a weapon, or force it to go anywhere but its destinaiton.

[flyingcircus]

kkzarnld-

Why can't your husband bring a palm pilot?? Did Pan am say?

As for the game boys, have the boys stick them in their pockets!! They can't prevent you from doing that!!! Just make sure they take them out before security, and then put in thru the machine.

[ducklite]

Originally posted by j7r2813
I cannot believe my eyes. How many of you would have complaind about this on Sep 12th?
As far as having cranky children, well at least you may have your children alive to be cranky. IMHO, not allowing carry-on items is a logical step and ALL airlines should follow suit, right now. What is the discomfort of a few extra hours out of a day when compared to the potential benefits. Remember, the easier it is fo security (whoever may be doing that job) to screen people and materials, the better the security will be. Also remember, that the security people, for the most part, are not the ones getting on the plane.

It only took 3 weeks for peoples attitutes to return to 'normal'. Oh my, this nation is deep trouble.

Good-job Pan-Am. Now lock those cockpits, so that any potential terriost or any other nut cannot use that airplane as a weapon, or force it to go anywhere but its destinaiton.

I WOULD HAVE! Denying any carry ons is completely outrageous. Let's say I'm on my way to a business meeting. I can't carry on my laptop, and have to check it. Then it gets stolen or damaged. Who's paying? It's worth a lot omre than the measely $600 they'll pay out, and the Warsaw conventions specifically states they don't have to pay for such items. They are making unreasonable demands. They will fold or change their ways mighty quickly, I can guarantee they have lost the lifeblood of the air travel industry, the business travel with their idiotic rules. As a barely surviving startup they should be following the lead of the majors, allowing one bag, thouroughly searched as a carry on. Their tactics are absolutely unreasonable.

Anne

[GEM]

I agree, Anne. My brother flys for business reasons a lot - sometimes as much as four times a week! In the past, he has flown with Pan Am quite a bit. But, I GUARANTEE that he won't be doing that ever again. No way is he going to check his EXTREMELY expensive and delicate laptop! Are they crazy??

As for what j7r2813 had to say several posts above, I think that is definately something worth ignoring. Wouldn't you agree? Let's not let one person turn this thread into something ugly by spouting off a few ridiculous statements . . .
:rolleyes:

[kkzarnld]

FlyingCircus,


PanAm said no electronics. I think their customer reps are still trying to figure out the new rules.

Ted,

What did you do about transportation from Orlando to WDW? I'm finding it quite expensive.

J7r2813,

I think I speak for most people. We are all in favor of tighter security. We just hope to make several hours on a plane tolerable. I think being able to bring snacks and a few things to occupy the kids would make the flight easier for all passengers. However, I will live with whatever security measures they want. You don't have to be so judgemental and nasty. Of course we are all thankful that we have our children and will be forever sorry for those who lost their families and friends.

[Ted and Holly]

The first trip, we took Coach USA. In my opinion, this was terrible!

First, we waited for two hours for a van to fill to go there. Second, it was $22 per person. Third, the driver did not even let me put my bags on the Bell Services cart before he started acting as if he was not getting his $5 tip. Which, he informed me was what the rate was. His words were, when I told him that I was getting to it was, "It's a $5 tip." Literally with his hand out!

On the way back, we rented a car. We picked it up at one of the DTD hotels and returned it at the front of the airport. The drive was EASY.

The next time, we rented a car from Sanford. And darned good thing getting there at 10:00pm! We rented from Dollar. It was a bit expensive but we got the convertable. The drive down was nice and easy and we were able to stop at our leisure at a grocery store. Drop it off at DTD and bus it back to the hotel.

Even if you don't want to keep the car the whole week, I would suggest renting to get from Sanford to WDW.

This time, we are flying SWA from Manchester to Tampa. We plan on doing the rental car, obviously, for one day to get to WDW, and one day to get back to the Tampa area.

Ted

[j7r2813]

I am not trying to be judgemental at all. As for me, my job requires that I am flying 2 weeks out of every month. I just think that it (all of the complaining about things like carry-ons), is just another example of how spoiled we all are.

Being someone who flies often, I can say that my least favorite part of air travel is not the waiting in line, or the people at the ticket counters or the rental car agencies. No the worst part is the absolute crush that occurs upon boarding and un-boarding the plane because of the "carry-on" scramble. Let's face it, the concept of carry-on luggage has been taken to the extreme. Frequent travelers trying to avoid baggage check-in and claim altogether. As a result, bigger and bigger carry-ons, not used to pack the immediate necessities, but being used to pack everything.

So now we have carry-on bags that are, in reality, small suitcases. And it is nearly impossible to inspect each one (at least to the level that is apparently necessary) without hand-searching each one. Since that process would clearly ground many, many flights and add greatly to the cost of travel altogether. Someone has to pay for it and guess who that would be? So an obvious answer is just what we are seeing. Eliminate or significantly alter the present rules so that security problems from this angle are virtually eliminated. The result is a few more hours spent in processing, and being, perhaps a little safer.

As far as computers go, I can understand you point of view but the matter of electronic devices is another subject altogether. As communications gets more and more complex, and at the same time becomes more and more accessible to the everyday individual, there will be a bigger need to control there transport and use in aircraft. I won't go into the technical details, but there is a reason that they prohibit their use during take-offs and landings. Imagine a bomb that gets through security into the baggage compartment and only needs a little radio signal to detonate it. Let's say the kind of signal that can be sent from a computer? or other elctronic device? A lot of possibilities there . . . Just how long can we be "un-plugged" from our electronic world before we stop functioning. My guess is that 5 or 6 hours away might not be all that bad.

At any rate, I apologize if I am being judgemental, that is not my intent. I just think that some precautions are obvious and necessary. I for one would be glad to give up a little to feel safer while flying. After all, I know that I have nothing in my bags, but what about the people next to me, or the people sitting next to my children. Everything needs to be put into perspective and I feel that our least important point of reference should be convinence and our most important one should be safety and security.

Just my HO!.

I know that when I take my kids to WDW in December, I will take a long look at everyone seated around me. The rules have changed.

[ducklite]

There is a huge difference between carrying on the kitchen sink, and carrying on a small tote (soft sided breifcase basically) with a book, laptop, toothbrush and paste, deoderant, brush or comb, and wallet. Heck, if they don't want me to turn it on in flight, that's fine--I seldom do anyhow!

Until the airlines agree to compensate me entirely for breaking or losing my laptop (that includes HOURS of lost productivity reloading software and files, and any missed revenue from a meeting where the laptop was vital), I'll simply choose to fly one who can handle inspecting one carry on per person. If Pan Am can't, than they lose my business.

Not to get everyone in a tizzy here, but it's looking more and more like the knives used in the September 11 hijackings were never carried through security. They were placed on the plane in advance. Secondly, they were the plastic razor blades (available at auto parts places) which could easily be hidden anywhere on the body and walked right through security, even now.

So getting crazed about carryons isn't going to do a bit of good. As I see it, Pan AM is simply using a tragedy as an excuse to speed the boarding process in order to increase ontime performance. That's simply shameful, and it won't really matter when they lose their customers over their inane policies.

I would love to see the carriers crack down on the carry on system as we have it today. but Pan Am has taken it to extreme. It's a commercial carrier, not ConAir for crying out loud. We have a choice to not fly them, my guess is taht when word gets around about their policies, they'll be out of busines really soon.

Anne

[NoodlesTheRabbit]

Well-said Anne...I agree whole-heartedly with your logical, reasonable posts. Glad we are not flying Pan-Am.

[lisapooh]

Well, I can see that musicians willno longer be flying Pan Am. Well maybe those who don't travel with their inetruments like pianists will but most will not. No way.
I know my daughter's profs quartet will not put their instruments in the baggage compartment. One of the violinists plays a Strad. My own daughter's instrument is over $10,000 in value. And you all think laptops are expensive!

[SueM in MN]

Check with your homeowner or rental insurance to see if your bags would be covered if anything happens. My DH's suitcase was stolen once and the homeowner's insurance covered it.
Our DD has a specialized communication computer since she can't speak. Our insurance would cover that and our regular computer when we travel. The limit on the homeowners insurance was about $2000 for the computer. Her communication device would cost over $8000 to replace, so we got a separate policy just to cover that. I still would not want to put it in the baggage, since it has hours of programming on it, but at least I know the replacement cost would be covered if we have to put it there and anything happens.

[LindaBabe]

meds and camera gear in a checked bag, either, although I dislike getting whacked in the head by oversized carryons that people can't lift into the compartments. There's got to be some middle ground. Sorry, Pan Am.

[CarolMN]

I wish the airlines would just strictly enforce the carry-on size limits that they already have. I have often wondered what the purpose could be for their "carry-on sizing boxes or cages" that I see in the ticket counter line or at the gate. (Never see an airline employee using them to check the size of anyone's bags). I think that everything people want to carry on should fit in that box without sticking out. It wouldn't matter to me if they could get two or more bags in there as long as they all fit (put them all in at same time) and didn't stick out. If the airlines did this, IMHO, there would be pletnty of storage and it wouldn't take too long to hand search if needed. I cannot believe the size of many carry on bags - the retailer may say they meet guidelines, but they sure don't look like it to me, especially after they are stuffed full (and fall on someone's head ;) ).

JMHO. YMMV.

[kkzarnld]

Thanks for the info about your experiences getting from Sanford airport to WDW. I'm going to check into renting a car just to get to WDW and then renting again to return to the airport. Good luck with your flight out of Manchester.