Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
ArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneous
Discussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK Scuba
DirectoryScuba Clubs

Scuba Forum / General / June 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Galapagos Aerogal Luggage Restrictions

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Nate D. Tuck - 05 Jun 2004 02:53 GMT
I was wondering if anyone here had traveled on Aerogal's 737 to the
Galapagos recently.  If so, can you tell me what the weight restrictions
are?

All the websites say 20 kg, but they all mention TAME's 727 at the same
time.

I'm hoping that Aerogal allows a little bit more before they start charging.

Thanks,

nate
Greg Mossman - 13 Jun 2004 04:56 GMT
> I was wondering if anyone here had traveled on Aerogal's 737 to the
> Galapagos recently.  If so, can you tell me what the weight restrictions
> are?

I just came back.  They fly 727-200s.  I always wondered where all the 727s
went after they died.

They plane ran just fine, but the "heads" were a different story.  We sat up
front on the ride there, in what used to be the first class cabin.  Seating
is "Southwest Airlines" style, i.e. grab what you can.  The front seats
still have the old first-class leg room though the've been replaced with a
coach-class 3-3 configuration.  Still, the plane was more than half empty
and thus nice and roomy.  Unfortunately the front head stank pretty bad and
didn't improve the appeal of the inflight meal they served on the flight.

Same roominess on the way back, though I sat in the middle of the plane this
time because they had already picked up passengers in San Cristobal (we flew
to/from Baltra).  When I paid a visit up front to the stinky head I finished
off the last bit of toilet paper and couldn't find any replacement rolls.
They had one piece of Kleenex handy and then I had to switch to wet paper
towels to finish the job.  Luckily the very last two were enough to finish
the job and I disposed of them in the trash because the signs were very
specific about not throwing anything but TP down the hatch and besides,
Latin Americans tend to do that sort of thing anyhow even when they have
sewers and flush toilets.  No wonder why the planes reek.  And we were only
a half-hour into the flight.  Every passenger I noticed on the way back from
their bathroom adventure wore quite an interesting grimace.

Our flight had to stop in Guayaquil before heading to Ecuador.  Except that,
when we taxied off the runway, the plane's batteries died and cut off the
loudspeaker midsentence as well as all the batteries.  They quickly switched
the transit passengers to a new 727 and away we went without further
incident.

Aren't you glad you asked?

Oh, you just wanted to know the weight restrictions.  AFAIK, they're the
same as TAME's, i.e. 20 kg total which includes your carry-ons, with an
overweight charge of 1% of the cost of the ticket per kg over 20.  But we
checked in as a group with the rep from the Aggressor both ways and not only
did we avoid the line of individual passengers waiting to check in (which
I've heard is standard) but we managed to avoid any overweight charges even
though we all had close to or more than the max allowed on Continental.  We
lucked out both ways, though I've heard that they can enforce the overweight
charges more stringently on the return flight.  As for carry-ons, I had no
problem bringing on the maximum-sized "rolling suiter" carry-on of bloated
weight as well as the bulging heavy laptop bag.  But you might not be so
lucky.

> All the websites say 20 kg, but they all mention TAME's 727 at the same
> time.

> I'm hoping that Aerogal allows a little bit more before they start charging.

Good luck.  I don't know whether our luck was simply luck or whether the
Aggressor guys had anything to do with it but the Aggressor website does
warn of the possibility so perhaps it was really lucky after all.  Since
Continental delayed half our groups bags for a couple days which
subsequently delayed our Aggressor itinerary, we deserved a bit of luck.
Dan Nafe - 17 Jun 2004 23:17 GMT
Regarding the weight restrictions on AeroGal, if you are with a group
that has a leader, you are unlikely to be charged for weighty bags, or
extra bags...

Just got back yesterday, saw 7 whale sharks on one dive.

Dan
dan@scuba-training.net
http://www.scuba-training.net
chilly - 18 Jun 2004 12:28 GMT
> Regarding the weight restrictions on AeroGal, if you are with a group
> that has a leader, you are unlikely to be charged for weighty bags, or
> extra bags...
>
> Just got back yesterday, saw 7 whale sharks on one dive.

So just returned yesterday?  So you weren't the guy diving with Greg?
Greg Mossman - 18 Jun 2004 16:55 GMT
> > Regarding the weight restrictions on AeroGal, if you are with a group
> > that has a leader, you are unlikely to be charged for weighty bags, or
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> So just returned yesterday?  So you weren't the guy diving with Greg?

No one on our trip saw more than 4 on any dive.  How sad.
Nate D. Tuck - 27 Jun 2004 02:23 GMT
>I just came back.  They fly 727-200s.  I always wondered where all the 727s
>went after they died.

I just got back, we got a 727-200 one way and a 737-200 the other.

The seating was assigned and I had no problems with luggage.  However,
the "no problems with luggage" was completely contingent on the fact that
we did a group check-in mediated by our guide from Quasar Nautica.

While we were in the Galapagos, someone died on one of the Aggressor boat.
Of course it was the usual "having a heart attack" after running the tank
dry.

The diving was spectacular.  4 whale sharks on one dive.  >500 hammer heads
on the next.

nate
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.