 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / Scuba Locations / May 2005New baggage restrictions on Taca (Roatan)
Just received noticed that Taca has made a restrictive change regarding their baggage allowance for all flights. This would naturally applie to flights heading to Roatan. If you purchased a ticket prior to March 18, the former policy still applies, to wit: 1 carryon (22lbs, 45 linear inches (L+W+H) 2 checked bags (70 lbs EACH, 62 linear inches) For Tickets purchased AFTER March 18, the new restriction is: 1 carryon (22 lbs,45 linear inches) 2 checked bags (100lbs Combined, 62 linear inches, no single bag may exceed 70bs) For first class, you will be allowed three bags whose combined weight will not exceed 100 lbs. Any overage in weight, size or number is a $100 additional fee per excess bag > Any overage in weight, size or number is a $100 additional fee per > excess bag Worse than the fee, is TACA's "promise" that overweight/extra bags will make it to your destination within 6 days. That's not very helpful for a week-long dive trip. >> Any overage in weight, size or number is a $100 additional fee per >> excess bag > > Worse than the fee, is TACA's "promise" that overweight/extra bags will > make it to your destination within 6 days. That's not very helpful for a > week-long dive trip. There was a time when flying TACA meant even **you** weren't assured of reaching your destination in 6 days. > There was a time when flying TACA meant even **you** weren't assured of > reaching your destination in 6 days. Has their service improved? > > > There was a time when flying TACA meant even **you** weren't assured of > > reaching your destination in 6 days. > > Has their service improved? I've used them several times a year for the last decade and only been stuck at the airport once (and they compensated me 175% the cost of the ticket). So no complaints. This new limit does affect me since I carry small cargo down with me. I was usually withing ounces of the limit on each bag going down (and had only a carry-on for the return). "Daniel Arrepas" <arrepas.daniel@butler-rosebury.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :There was a time when flying TACA meant even **you** weren't assured of :reaching your destination in 6 days. The nickname was Take A Chance Airlines Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. >>> Any overage in weight, size or number is a $100 additional fee per >>> excess bag [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There was a time when flying TACA meant even **you** weren't assured of >reaching your destination in 6 days. Take A Chance Airline Also remember, TACA rhymes with caca.  Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. > TACA rhymes with caca. Aha ha ha....*THAT* I hadn't heard before :^) Take A Coffin Along? >>TACA rhymes with caca. > > Aha ha ha....*THAT* I hadn't heard before :^) > >> Any overage in weight, size or number is a $100 additional fee per > >> excess bag [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There was a time when flying TACA meant even **you** weren't assured of > reaching your destination in 6 days. You still aren't guaranteed of reaching your destination. SO spent a weekend transiting Central American airports (San Pedro Sula Honduras, San Jose Costa Rica and San Salvador El Salvador) without ever reaching his destination of San Andres Island, Colombia. All thanks to Taca...and no luggage to go with him. It was left in San Pedro. That was Nov 2004. Sandi "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Worse than the fee, is TACA's "promise" that overweight/extra bags will make :it to your destination within 6 days. That's not very helpful for a :week-long dive trip. Don't see it being a problem at all if you stay within the limit. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. Ron T <ombligo@tampabay.rr.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :For first class, you will be allowed three bags whose combined weight :will not exceed 100 lbs. No big deal. On most Canadian charter airlines the limit is 20 kg (~44 lbs) per person. Done that more times than you can shake a stick at. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. >For Tickets purchased AFTER March 18, the new restriction is: > >1 carryon (22 lbs,45 linear inches) >2 checked bags (100lbs Combined, 62 linear inches, no single bag may >exceed 70bs) Many of the airlines switched to a 50lb limit. At least TACA lets your main dive luggage stick to the old 70. SignatureJason O'Rourke www.jor.com > >For Tickets purchased AFTER March 18, the new restriction is: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Many of the airlines switched to a 50lb limit. At least TACA lets your > main dive luggage stick to the old 70. So far, so Continental still allows for 2 bags of 70 lbs each. > So far, so Continental still allows for 2 bags of 70 lbs each. American allows 50 lbs per checked bag or 40 lbs per carry-on. >> So far, so Continental still allows for 2 bags of 70 lbs each. > > American allows 50 lbs per checked bag or 40 lbs per carry-on. IIRC, they were the first of the major U.S. carriers to downsize from 70 to 50 on domestic flights and now they're surreptitiously done the same for international. Hopefully this won't start a trend like the domestic downsizing. We almost got nailed on the way to PR, which they consider international, but fortunately had bought our tickets before the March 1 transition date. Each of our dive bags are under 50 with a few pounds to spare, as is the camera case. Unfortunately it's hard to cram a week's worth of clothing for two in a 50 lb bag if you need a mix of nicer clothes for dining, plus beach and casual wear, and stuff you can only wear once on the dive boat before it smells of rotted plankton, and it's further compounded when your SO has a shoe fetish to rival Imelda Marcos: "Honey, do you really need all 10 pairs of shoes for a weekend trip?" Tust me, she can justify (in her own mind at least) each and every pair. >> >For Tickets purchased AFTER March 18, the new restriction is: >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >So far, so Continental still allows for 2 bags of 70 lbs each. The problem is that they still run 50 lbs on domestics. At least according to the two different people I talked to on the phone. Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. > >> >For Tickets purchased AFTER March 18, the new restriction is: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The problem is that they still run 50 lbs on domestics. At least > according to the two different people I talked to on the phone. Last time I checked, Roatan was international. >> >> >For Tickets purchased AFTER March 18, the new restriction is: >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Last time I checked, Roatan was international. Yeah, but if you're making a domestic connection, the domestic rules. Or at least that's what the profit motive, erh safety rule says. Since we can drive to Houston, we're in the clear. Do you know which rules will apply to you? Some of the airlines consider Canada to US to be a domestic flight. With customs and immigration. Flying back from Aus last week, I saw a number of people stripping the Qantas "heavy" tag off between customs and American re-check. Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. > Yeah, but if you're making a domestic connection, the domestic rules. > Or at least that's what the profit motive, erh safety rule says. That's not what airline rules say. Domestic vs. international is decided by the final destination. The traveler only runs into a problem if she flies the domestic leg on a different airline. Otherwise only those within driving distance from Houston or Newark would get Continental's 70 lb. intl. baggage limit and that's not very fair. > > Yeah, but if you're making a domestic connection, the domestic rules. > > Or at least that's what the profit motive, erh safety rule says. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > driving distance from Houston or Newark would get Continental's 70 lb. intl. > baggage limit and that's not very fair. Well, what about me? What about my overnights in Houston? >> > Yeah, but if you're making a domestic connection, the domestic rules. >> > Or at least that's what the profit motive, erh safety rule says. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well, what about me? What about my overnights in Houston? Why would you want to overnight in Houston? > >> > Yeah, but if you're making a domestic connection, the domestic rules. > >> > Or at least that's what the profit motive, erh safety rule says. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why would you want to overnight in Houston? So that I don't miss my flight on Saturday. That's the reason for on the way down. The reason for one on the way back is so that I don't have to come home on a Saturday. > > Well, what about me? What about my overnights in Houston? > > Why would you want to overnight in Houston? I thought I explained all this to you the other night? >> > Well, what about me? What about my overnights in Houston? >> >> Why would you want to overnight in Houston? > > I thought I explained all this to you the other night? Perhaps you did. If so, the memories are safely stored away somewhere in my big head. I just forgot the combination. Anyway, the way to get around it is to check your luggage all the way through, and treat the overnight as merely a long layover between flights. Before our little 'ole regional airport got ourselves our very own red-eye flight to connect to Houston early in the morning, I'd notice, when itinerary planning on continental.com, that certain flights would trigger a red-lettered warning that I'd have to spend the night in Houston. Of course I'd avoid those flights. But if the artificially intelligent computer picks out such an itinerary, the luggage would get checked through, and you'd be stuck with your carry-ons for the 15-hour layover or whatever it turns out to be. Fortunately Continental generously allows one 22" carry-on, plus a "personal item" that can be a separate large purse or small backpack or laptop case. On the other hand, if a lesser intelligent travel agent picks out your itinerary, you had better hope she did it right. If she instead strung together two separate itineraries, I could see that you might have to get your luggage and then recheck them and then you'd be screwed. IIRC, you clear American customs in Calgary, so when you land in Houston you can simply leave your bags in the safety and security of the Houston baggage handlers and head right to your hotel without being hassled by lecherous Texan Customs Agents. On the way back, though, how does that work? Do you clear customs in Houston with all the other Americans, then recheck your bag, or are you considered a foreigner in transit, subject to immediate execution if you tread over the yellow line? And are you getting a hotel, or just finding an occupied area of the airport to set up camp like Tom Hanks did in Terminal? If the latter, since they finished the big E-terminal, you can find peace and quiet all the way at the end of one of the C-terminals (I forget the numbers, I think it's the upper 20s, but when you're headed away from E, make a left at the T-intersection which has C gates in both directions and keep going straight). >>> > Yeah, but if you're making a domestic connection, the domestic rules. >>> > Or at least that's what the profit motive, erh safety rule says. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Why would you want to overnight in Houston? Really. Especially since they have a three foot rule. Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. > >> Well, what about me? What about my overnights in Houston? > > > >Why would you want to overnight in Houston? > > > Really. Especially since they have a three foot rule. What the heck is that? Shouldn't bother me since I'm 5'3"? ;^) >> >> Well, what about me? What about my overnights in Houston? >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Shouldn't bother me since I'm 5'3"? ;^) Dancers can't come within three feet of patrons. Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. >> Yeah, but if you're making a domestic connection, the domestic rules. >> Or at least that's what the profit motive, erh safety rule says. > > That's not what airline rules say. Domestic vs. international is decided > by the final destination. The traveler only runs into a problem if she > flies the domestic leg on a different airline. For most of my flights to the Pacific I connect thru LAX, but seldom do I use the same airline from DEN to LAX that I use for LAX to POM, SYD, DPS or whatever. I fly coach within the US....Biz or 1st anywhere else and I have never had a carrier try to charge my 3 bags at 70 lb. if I show them my international ticket. Usually I fly Frontier to LAX, but I have had the same experience on AW and AA. United gave me a bit of grief once, but ultimately didn't charge. I don't know if it is our local agents who don't push the weight issue much, or if it is a courtesy the airlines are beginning to extend one and other, but it has worked for me a number of times since the baggage limits have become such a big deal. > I don't know if it is our local agents who don't push the weight issue > much, or if it is a courtesy the airlines are beginning to extend one and > other, but it has worked for me a number of times since the baggage limits > have become such a big deal. Now that you mention it, I've had it work for me using a different domestic carrier as recently as January. We flew EVA as far as Bangkok, then switched to Thai for the domestic leg to Phuket and I was prepared to shell out a bit for the 3rd bags, but EVA managed to check the bags all the way through to Phuket and Thai Air was mum about any extra charge even when I checked all the bags with them on the way back. What was remarkable about this flight was that I had stupidly booked a Thai connecting flight that took off ever before our EVA flight was scheduled to land, which cost us a 6-hour layover in Bangkok until I could catch the next Phuket flight with open seats. Somehow, miraculously, our luggage actually made it to Phuket when we did. Still, I swear that had heard about some people getting charged for going over 50 lbs on a domestic leg/different carrier situation, but now I'm not so sure whether it was an anecdote related at a seminar somewhere or actual experiences of people I met. Never mind. I'm just pleased that I can sit at home awhile and not have to fly anywhere until July 1. Oh wait, my cousin's getting married in your fair town and I have to fly there at the end of June. (Delta, via SLC, out of ONT; I did the ONT-DEN direct flight on Frontier's mini-plane once with a drunk lady narrating the sights all the way back and that was the last time I'll ever make that flight.) I'd offer to get together with you for a beer, but as I'm only in Denver for 36 hours or so, my time will likely be monopolized by the family I see at most once a year. I'm not even sure where the wedding is to be held, but when I find out more info I'll let you know and maybe you can crash the party. > Still, I swear that had heard about some people getting charged for going > over 50 lbs on a domestic leg/different carrier situation, I'm sure it happens because if the traveler is not proactive the agent will never know they have an international destination. All they'll know is where the domestic ticket terminates. I have always pulled out my ticket, or a copy of the itinerary, for my international leg and showed it to them. > Oh wait, my cousin's getting married in your fair town and I have to fly > there at the end of June. (Delta, via SLC, out of ONT; I did the ONT-DEN [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in Denver for 36 hours or so, my time will likely be monopolized by the > family I see at most once a year. I'd enjoy that, but no problem. I'm not home last two weeks of June anyway because of a family thing as well. My wife copped a beach house in Wrightsville Beach and invited her whole family down, so I'm gonna go enjoy the South for a bit. I love North Carolina style barbeque and cole slaw........I should be in hog heaven for a bit (pun intended). Enjoy your visit here and If some late evening you need a couple hours out I'd suggest Samba Room on the corner 15th and Larimer in Lodo. Cuban style food. Fun bar. Quite good. I know your stay is short, but when I visit family I often have the need to get away, and late at night seems the only time that makes sense :^) > Enjoy your visit here and If some late evening you need a couple hours out > I'd suggest Samba Room on the corner 15th and Larimer in Lodo. Cuban style > food. Fun bar. Quite good. I know your stay is short, but when I visit > family I often have the need to get away, and late at night seems the only > time that makes sense :^) Since I'll be staying only two blocks away at the Westin, I certainly shall give that a try. Last time we ate an odd place called Vesta Dipping Grill. I notice that Samba Room's menu has a listing for Arepas. Any relation? > Last time we ate an odd place called Vesta Dipping Grill. It has a sterling reputation around here, but I haven't yet had a meal there that measures up to that. Most of the people in Lodo are drunk, so one has to factor that into the reputation. There are restaurants here with huge acclaim based solely on the quality of the Mojitos and Caipirhinias :^) > I notice that Samba Room's menu has a listing for Arepas. Any relation? Yes, my brother Empanada is the proprietor and our sister Chimichurri the chef. > Yes, my brother Empanada is the proprietor and our sister Chimichurri the > chef. Chimichurri is so tasty, I just love it on my meat. :-D > >> >So far, so Continental still allows for 2 bags of 70 lbs each. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Since we can drive to Houston, we're in the clear. Do you know which > rules will apply to you? Whoa!! Good question. Usually me flying straight through to the Caribbean via Houston, means International but my next trip has a one night layover in Houston on the way there and on the return. I guess I'd better find out for sure!! > Some of the airlines consider Canada to US > to be a domestic flight. With customs and immigration. Yes, I know. > Flying back from Aus last week, I saw a number of people stripping the > Qantas "heavy" tag off between customs and American re-check. Always a good plan, not that I do it. And fer sure, I never strip off my old Priority or First Class tags. I don't know if it is making any difference, but hey, ya never know. :^) > >So far, so Continental still allows for 2 bags of 70 lbs each. > > The problem is that they still run 50 lbs on domestics. At least > according to the two different people I talked to on the phone. Both American and Continental changed to 2 bags at 50 lbs each for international flights on tickets sold after March 1. So all are the same although Taca allows one bag to weigh up to 70-lbs. However the Taca carry on limit is 21 lbs while the other two allow 40-lbs. >> >So far, so Continental still allows for 2 bags of 70 lbs each. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > However the Taca carry on limit is 21 lbs while the other two allow > 40-lbs. That may be so for TACA but not for Continental. http://www.continental.com/travel/policies/baggage/check.asp?SID=C6E47652682A448 1BD6D6056A0CC7189 A recent direct email to customer service confirmed the stated limits, and that mean 2 bags EACH 70 pounds. My bad... I read the limits for Continentals domestic flights. Sorry about that. > My bad... I read the limits for Continentals domestic flights. > > Sorry about that. No worries. Be happy. :^) >> Sorry about that. > > No worries. Be happy. :^) Easy for you to say. How many days left before you leave? >>> Sorry about that. >> >> No worries. Be happy. :^) > > Easy for you to say. How many days left before you leave? She just emailed me to ask if I knew anyone who wanted a cheap ticket to Roatan. She is not going. "Rudy Benner" <newsgroups@rudybenner.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :She just emailed me to ask if I knew anyone who wanted a cheap ticket to :Roatan. She is not going. Don't the names on the tickets and passports have to match? Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "Rudy Benner" <newsgroups@rudybenner.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don't the names on the tickets and passports have to match? Do you believe everything you read on the net? "chilly" <slarson@shaw.canada> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Do you believe everything you read on the net? Of course. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > >>> Sorry about that. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > She just emailed me to ask if I knew anyone who wanted a cheap ticket to > Roatan. She is not going. LOL. > >> Sorry about that. > > > > No worries. Be happy. :^) > > Easy for you to say. How many days left before you leave? I leave Friday. > Both American and Continental changed to 2 bags at 50 lbs each for > international flights on tickets sold after March 1. Continental? Not yet, as far as I know. The 50 lb. limit only extends to domestic travel (including Canada). International travel (including Roatan) is still 70 lbs. for each of 2 bags. Plus Continental allows a third bag for business and first class, and allows "Elite" flyers to bring 70 lb. bags on domestic flights. American's baggage policies suck, but then they're the ones who started the downsizing to 50 lbs. for domestic and the other airlines will probably catch up to their international squeeze in no time at all. > Many of the airlines switched to a 50lb limit. I was bit by this one a few weeks ago. Some quick rearragements avoided the extra charges. "nospam@all.please.net" <nospam@all.please.net> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I was bit by this one a few weeks ago. Some quick :rearragements avoided the extra charges. What were you carrying that weighed so much? Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "nospam@all.please.net" <nospam@all.please.net> pounded away at his > keyboard resulting in: > :I was bit by this one a few weeks ago. Some quick > :rearragements avoided the extra charges. > > What were you carrying that weighed so much? Winter clothing and a printer. When ever the airlines start to ding me with overage charges I just ask them what is the maxium passenger weight allowance. When they tell my there is none I then put on my religious articles such as my protective bcd. I then wrap my sacred regulators around my neck along with the light of innocence strobe. And if that is not good enough I shove few batteries in my pockets just to make the TSA wonder. More seriously though it pisses me off that they give someone who weighs 200lbs the same luggage allowance as someone who weighs 120lbs. If they are going to charge for extra baggage they should charge for combined passenger and baggage weight. I have used this argument more than once as well and not been charged. Just let someone bigger than you go ahead of you in line. Allen > When ever the airlines start to ding me with overage charges I just ask > them what is the maxium passenger weight allowance. When they tell my [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Allen I absolutely agree! I like your religious slant to the issue, can I use it too? I'll try to work it into my dive gear, my video gear, my camera gear, my camping gear, and my dear gear. I need more pockets. I think the bottom line is their bottom line - they do this because they can. They don't want to appear politically incorrect by offering price differentials between large and small passengers, so they pick on something that's not supposed to justify a defence - their baggage. Unfortunately, when it comes to divers, that policy creates problems rather than solve them. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> When ever the airlines start to ding me with overage charges I just ask >> them what is the maxium passenger weight allowance. When they tell my [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Unfortunately, when it comes to divers, that policy creates problems >rather than solve them. Bottom line is right. You can fly with up to 100 lbs, if you are willing to shell out the cash. The claim is that it's there to protect the baggage handlers from injury. Bullshit. Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. > More seriously though it pisses me off that they give someone who > weighs 200lbs the same luggage allowance as someone who weighs 120lbs. > If they are going to charge for extra baggage they should charge for > combined passenger and baggage weight. I have used this argument more > than once as well and not been charged. Just let someone bigger than > you go ahead of you in line. Little people wear little clothes and little shoes and little BCs. If the weight limits were sensible, they'd limit little people to less baggage than big people. We big people already have to suffer enough in the little seats they give us even though we pay the same ticket price. >> More seriously though it pisses me off that they give someone who >> weighs 200lbs the same luggage allowance as someone who weighs 120lbs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > than big people. We big people already have to suffer enough in the > little seats they give us even though we pay the same ticket price. If bigger seats were an option, I would be willing to pay a reasonable premium. I am not talking about first class. Instead of 3 seats in a row, 2 seats in a row. I don't expect something for nothing. Wedging myself into one of those little seats for 3 hours is not my idea of fun, even less fun when the a.shole in front insists on reclining, or when they serve those 'meals'. > If bigger seats were an option, I would be willing to pay a reasonable > premium. I am not talking about first class. Instead of 3 seats in a row, > 2 seats in a row. I don't expect something for nothing. Wedging myself > into one of those little seats for 3 hours is not my idea of fun, even > less fun when the a.shole in front insists on reclining, or when they > serve those 'meals'. A few international carriers are doing just that, adding a "Deluxe Economy" class in between economy and business. You get the bigger seat, but the same bad food. For instance, EVA has its Evergreen Deluxe Class which has a 38" seat pitch compared to the 34" of its economy class and the 747 cabin is configured 2-4-2 instead of 3-4-3, so the seats are obviously wider though I couldn't find the exact specs. A sample L.A.-Bangkok R/T itinerary yielded a price of $1,287.15 for Economy and $2,195.15 for Evergreen Deluxe. Are those 4 extra inches worth a $900 surcharge? It's not a 3-hour flight, it's a 14-hour followed by a 4-hour flight. Business class costs $2,991.15. >A few international carriers are doing just that, adding a "Deluxe Economy" >class in between economy and business. You get the bigger seat, but the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >those 4 extra inches worth a $900 surcharge? It's not a 3-hour flight, it's >a 14-hour followed by a 4-hour flight. Business class costs $2,991.15. You're talking about a 75% upcharge for service that adds only about 35% to their cost. Clearly, I am in the wrong business! SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. >If bigger seats were an option, I would be willing to pay a reasonable >premium. I am not talking about first class. Instead of 3 seats in a row, 2 >seats in a row. I don't expect something for nothing. Wedging myself into >one of those little seats for 3 hours is not my idea of fun, even less fun >when the a.shole in front insists on reclining, or when they serve those >'meals'. 5 across seating insted of 6 across in a 737 or 757 would require approximately a 16.7% increase in ticked price to generate the same revenue. Some of that would be off-set by less baggage to handle, less "security cost", less ticketing cost, etc., so call it a 10-15% upcharge to break even. I fly fairly often between Florida and Philadelphia or Boston. The upcharge would amount to about $20-30 round trip for these flights. Occasionally, I've been on flights that have offered a 1st class upgrade for $50. I've almost always taken this -- if I could get in line fast enough! So if ever body thought like me, this would work. However, the reality today is extremely price sensative. The airlines have reacted by cutting prices and service and comfort. There is also the problem that offering reasonable seating and reasonable prices would kill off a LOT of the business class and 1st class busiess -- ant that business easily brings in 2-3 times the revenue of economy. So from that point, it is a looser for the airlines. BUT... I wonder if a start-up airline coudnt' make a good living, at least on the more heavily traveled routes, by offering the type of added comfort we're talking about for, say 20% over the "no-frills" carriers? NOTE TO DELTA/SONG: I would gladly trade those seat-back TVs for a seat wide enough to allow me to have my arms at my side without playing armsie with the person seated next to me. I am 5'10" tall and weith 185 lbs. This puts me toward the top of the "average" range, but I am by no means an expecially large person. SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. "Rudy Benner" <rudy.benner@gmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: : Wedging myself into :one of those little seats for 3 hours is not my idea of fun, even less fun :when the a.shole in front insists on reclining, or when they serve those :'meals'. I like to be comfortable when I travel, so I recline my seat. How does meal service decrease your enjoyment? Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > I like to be comfortable when I travel, so I recline my seat. > > How does meal service decrease your enjoyment? On a red-eye flight back from Tahiti, 8 hours nonstop to LAX, I wanted to be comfortable while I made a feeble attempt to sleep, so I reclined my seat. About an hour into the flight, when I was almost there, they decided to serve a 2 a.m. dinner. The nice fellow behind me complained to the flight attendant about my reclined seat. I tried to ignore her insistent tapping of my shoulder, but finally it was too much and I gave in. She asked me to return my seat to the upright position so the nice fellow behind me could eat his 2 a.m. dinner in comfort. As usual, they took their sweet time to pick up the trays, thus interrupting my sleep for an hour or so. Finally I asked the flight attendant if the nice fellow behind me was done with his meal so I could re-recline. She said he was, and I did. Nice fellow apparently didn't appreciate my re-reclining, and began to kick my seat. Fortunately the rhythm of his kick actually lulled me to sleep, until 5 a.m., that is, when they decided to serve an early breakfast and the whole process started anew. Oh, and there were cockroaches running around the overhead bins, but the economy-class food was actually decent if you don't mind eating at 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. with roaches running around. Air Tahiti Nui, the French way to fly. > How does meal service decrease your enjoyment? Getting rid of it thirty minutes afterward? Talk about a walk on the wild side. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>> More seriously though it pisses me off that they give someone who >>> weighs 200lbs the same luggage allowance as someone who weighs 120lbs. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >when the a.shole in front insists on reclining, or when they serve those >'meals'. Meals? The only meal I've had in the last three years was on Qantas this last week. If that's what they serve in coach, I'd love to see 1st class. The "pods" in business were pretty neat, too. Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. > We big people already have to suffer enough in the little seats they give > us even though we pay the same ticket price. Often times the larger individual "flows" into adjoining seats garnering additional value for his or her ticket dollar. The little guy is encapsulated, like a python crushing a mouse. I'm sure there is plenty of suffering for everyone involved but I know it would be better for me if I only paid for the portion of the seat I actually used. You're right, the same ticket price is not justified. >> We big people already have to suffer enough in the little seats they give >> us even though we pay the same ticket price. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >only paid for the portion of the seat I actually used. You're right, the >same ticket price is not justified. I had a flight where the guy next to me kept lifting the armrest. He wasn't merely large, he was a real fat a.s. I finally told him to either leave it down or I'd bust his face. He bitched to the fa, I denied it and the person on the other side (who was apparently fighting the same battle) hadn't heard a thing. The fa said "you'll have to keep the armrest down, sir" and walked off. Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: : We big people already have to suffer enough in the little seats :they give us even though we pay the same ticket price. And you get the same size seat. On many flights there are bigger ones available for a small fee. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. Sorry, not sure I understand what you are getting at here. We all pay the same ticket price whether you are big or small or short or tall. I agree the seats suck no matter your stature. For some they are too narrow. For me at 6'0" at160lbs there is not enough leg room. As for limiting based on size I doubt there is much of difference in total weight. I bet my wife's gear weighs with in 5lbs of my gear. I'll weight it next mouth before our trip. The bottomline for the airlines is in their fuel charges. The planes are constant volume, not weight so as others have said if they have room for cargo they want to take it because they charge by wieght. But the bottomline for the airlines is in fuel. > More seriously though it pisses me off that they give someone who > weighs 200lbs the same luggage allowance as someone who weighs 120lbs. > If they are going to charge for extra baggage they should charge for > combined passenger and baggage weight. I have used this argument more > than once as well and not been charged. Just let someone bigger than > you go ahead of you in line. Do you actually think they are charging you for weight, per the planes capability? Baggage restrictions are about revenue. A 120 pound man, (do they really exist?) is as good a revenue source as a 300 lb'er. >Do you actually think they are charging you for weight, per the planes >capability? Baggage restrictions are about revenue. A 120 pound man, (do >they really exist?) is as good a revenue source as a 300 lb'er. There are some Looooooong routes -- like across the Pacific -- where the large amount of fuel required does make the flight weight limited (rather that space limited, as on domestic flights). On these routs the ariline can either gain added revenue by carrying freight or carry overweight bags. On these routes, an overweight surcharge is not unreasonable. (Although the AMOUNT of the charge may be unreasonable.) SignatureCharlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA (hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying) All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's. hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com (Charlie Hammond) pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :There are some Looooooong routes -- like across the Pacific -- where the :large amount of fuel required does make the flight weight limited (rather :that space limited, as on domestic flights). It's not just really long flights. On the Quito to Miami leg of my Galapogos trip, the airline coaxed about two dozen people to take later flights, and we flew with lots of empty seats. This had to be weight related, and Quito to Miami is not that long a flight. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > :There are some Looooooong routes -- like across the Pacific -- where the > :large amount of fuel required does make the flight weight limited (rather > :that space limited, as on domestic flights). I think some of those longer flights are actually more economical. Much of the fuel is used for takeoff and climb to altitude, so a 6000 mile flight doesn't use anywhere near twice the fuel of a 3000 mile flight, for the same aircraft and load. Also, by putting more people on a bigger plane, the fuel mileage per passenger is reduced. As a crude comparison, flying 500 people from NYC to Paris burns about the same amount of fuel as if the passengers all drove to Paris in Geo Metros, one to a car. > It's not just really long flights. On the Quito to Miami leg of my > Galapogos trip, the airline coaxed about two dozen people to take > later flights, and we flew with lots of empty seats. This had to be > weight related, and Quito to Miami is not that long a flight. They probably had to choose between taking enough fuel to get there or taking all of the passengers and baggage (figuring 2 dozen passengers is the same as 5 to 6000 pounds of fuel). I've got no idea how long a runway they have at Quito, but it's harder to get the plane off the ground in the thin air they have there. On a flight from Grand Cayman to Philly several years ago our pilot announced that we'd be making a refueling stop in Atlanta. Because GCM has a short runway and it tends to be warm there (that thin air problem, again), he had to choose between leaving without some baggage or leaving without some fuel. He figured we would all want out luggage when we got home, so he left a few thousand pounds of fuel behind. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. > On a > flight [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > luggage when > we got home, so he left a few thousand pounds of fuel behind. I seriously doubt that since you don't just land and pull up to a pump like driving a car. That stop was sceduled but never announced, why? to save on fuel costs. Fuel on an island costs 2x-3x what it does in the states. The airline saved a great deal of money making that stop even after paying the additional landing fees at Atlanta. Ron T <ombligo@tampabay.rr.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I seriously doubt that since you don't just land and pull up to a pump :like driving a car. That stop was sceduled but never announced, why? Why should it be announced? All the passengers need to know is when the plane is scheduled to depart and arrive. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > I seriously doubt that since you don't just land and pull up to a pump > like driving a car. That stop was sceduled but never announced, why? to > save on fuel costs. Fuel on an island costs 2x-3x what it does in the > states. The airline saved a great deal of money making that stop even > after paying the additional landing fees at Atlanta. The pumps at airports are even more convenient than the ones we use when driving cars because they're on wheels. You don't need a free gate because the pump comes right to the plane, and it's always full-service. It would have been an extremely simple matter to have the refueling planned and scheduled before we started the takeoff roll. It would also have been an extremely simple matter to schedule all of their flights with stops at Miami or Tampa instead of making unannounced stops 1000 miles further north, thus reducing the required fuel for departure, or run most of them through Charlotte. The guaranteed cost of an extra stop would be enough to offset a substantial portion of any savings. The potential costs of missed connections and unhappy customers could pay for a full load of fuel. If you ever worked for an airline I can only assume it must have been Eastern or Pan Am. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. > The pumps at airports are even more convenient than the ones we use when > driving cars because they're on wheels. You don't need a free gate because > the pump comes right to the plane, and it's always full-service. I had this sort of thing happen to me once on a flight out of Denver (long ago, Stapleton Airport) to Newark. It was summer, and it was HOT. The airline representative explained the conditions (altitude and temperature) meant using extra fuel for takeoff, and asked for volunteers to deplane. If a sufficient number of people would not deplane, the plane would have to make a stop for refueling. Suffice it to say, the plane did stop. In Indianapolis, if memory serves. Or maybe it was Pittsburg ... Oh, they DID have to go to a gate. The jetway was never deployed, and we were not permitted off of the plane. The airline explained that the only permitted refueling location is at a gate. SignatureArt Greenberg artg AT eclipse DOT net Steve <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :They probably had to choose between taking enough fuel to get there or taking all of :the passengers and baggage (figuring 2 dozen passengers is the same as 5 to 6000 :pounds of fuel). I've got no idea how long a runway they have at Quito, but it's :harder to get the plane off the ground in the thin air they have there. I don't actually know the reason, I just know what I saw (empty seats) and what I heard (if you give up your seat will give you something). My guess is that there was some very heavy cargo on that particular flight, stolen Inca treasures or something like that. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > I don't actually know the reason, I just know what I saw (empty seats) > and what I heard (if you give up your seat will give you something). > My guess is that there was some very heavy cargo on that particular > flight, stolen Inca treasures or something like that. On our trip to Micronesia I was looking out the window and watching baggage and cargo being loaded. I saw a lot of cargo plastered with stickers that said "Must Ride". I can only assume that if maximum takeoff weight means it's a choice between that cargo and your dive gear you'll be renting gear for a day or two. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. >>Do you actually think they are charging you for weight, per the planes >>capability? Baggage restrictions are about revenue. A 120 pound man, (do [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > bags. On these routes, an overweight surcharge is not unreasonable. > (Although the AMOUNT of the charge may be unreasonable.) Apart from the implication that a Trans-Pacific equipment has a lower weight/distance ratio, that is entirely accurate and why along with weight restrictions you will also get charged for exceeding their size restriction, even if you do fall below the weight limits. The point to point parcels were the whole reason weight and size were ever initiated as baggage limits...and then costs. But since the terminal purpose is to create revenue it's nonsensical to believe they will credit you for being skinny :^) Internationally I always fly Biz or 1st so I don't have many problems with baggage weight, but getting to an international gateway (in Denver we can get to Germany or Britain non-stop, otherwise we connect at one of the coasts) from DIA I fly coach and always check in at the curb. I don't care how cold it is. If the porters outside are tipped reasonably they never send you inside to get weighed, and we don't have exterior scales at DIA. > Do you actually think they are charging you for weight, per the planes > capability? Baggage restrictions are about revenue. A 120 pound man, (do > they really exist?) is as good a revenue source as a 300 lb'er. Absolutely. Just because the tickets are priced by the passenger instead of by the pound doesn't mean they don't have ideas about what the average passenger weighs, and how much baggage they bring. As a matter of fact the airline industry has recently revised it's estimates of average weight upwards. If you're not sure why, go have a look around your local mall, or better still, a Walmart. The airlines make more on 120 pound passengers than 300 pound passengers because they don't get the plane in the air by flipping the gravity switch to the off position. Every pound they have to lift to 30,000 feet burns fuel, and fuel is one of the biggest expenses in the airline industry. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. >> Do you actually think they are charging you for weight, per the planes >> capability? Baggage restrictions are about revenue. A 120 pound man, (do >> they really exist?) is as good a revenue source as a 300 lb'er. > > Absolutely. They aren't. They are charging you for the space you take up. And until they are able to instantaneously resize seats and legroom for different sized passengers, they will continue to do so. Look, the added weight of passengers since 1990, at 10 lb. per passenger, is estimated by the CDC and ATAA, to cost the entire US airline industry 350 million gallons of fuel per year (the FAA is currently reviewing both studies). There are approximately 10,840,000+ US flights per year (FAA, 2003, last year reported on their website). So we are talking about, at the highest current fuel prices....$ 96.00 per flight, and at the average fuel prices....$ 67.00 per flight. You still think they want to credit your baggage surcharge with your body weight credit? And just in case you are thinking that adds up over all the flights: the same multiplier that would say $ 96.00 per flight equals $ X for 3100 flights per day at say US Air, applies to collected baggage fees as well. It's a revenue producer...pure, plain and simple...and they aren't going to barter with it. As such it becomes nonsense to argue with the gate agent about getting a body weight credit to use against your baggage weight overage, because you are arguing a point that isn't a component of their costing doctrine. There are a number of aviation experts who are beginning to claim the airlines' constant carping about increased fuel prices and plane weights, vs. the surcharges and baggage fees collected as well as Union givebacks, is nothing more than an "obfuscation technique". Nationally the airlines are actually profiting more per ton-mile today than they did 5 years ago. They lose the money in other areas of their business and business practices. > until they > are able to instantaneously resize seats and legroom for different sized > passengers, they will continue to do so. If they thought it was actually feasible to sell only as much seat as passengers need, they could already have a bunch of smaller seats that cost a few bucks less. Selling tickets by the seat is just the easiest cookie cutter approach, but the expected weight of the average passenger is part of their expense model. > You still think they want to credit your baggage surcharge with your body > weight credit? If you reread my previous post a bit more carefully you may discover that I didn't say anything about baggage surcharges. I simply pointed out that you were wrong when you said they make just as much on a 300 pound passenger as a 120 pound passenger. > It's a revenue producer...pure, plain and simple...and they aren't going to > barter with it. As long as they can get away with it, why should they? Of course it isn't even a matter of negotiating the total weight allowance. You may be allowed two 50 pound bags, but if you want to travel light and bring only one bag that weighs 55 pounds they may well charge you even though you're allowed another 45 pounds. Other than the hassle of schlepping the luggage I'd find it amusing to produce an extra suitcase and relocate the extra 5 pounds while pointedly displaying the 40 pounds of lead in the second suitcase. Unfortunately, even if one of the airline's MBA's was there to see it they probably wouldn't figure it out. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. >> until they are able to instantaneously resize seats and legroom for >> different sized passengers, they will continue to do so. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > lead in the second suitcase. Unfortunately, even if one of the airline's > MBA's was there to see it they probably wouldn't figure it out. I've done this on more than a few occasions - offloading some gear into a backpack which is otherwise not used separately for airline travel. My main gear pack is ~65 lbs, but often gets a big red "heavy" tag. But if they're going to slap me with a surcharge, I can produce enough bags to split it however I want. I've never understood the difference of 65 lbs in one bag or two. <shrug> Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > I've never understood the difference of 65 lbs in one bag or two. <shrug> Who carries your bag? <shrug> Have you ever gazed your eyes across the counter to look into the face of the person taking your bag from you? <shrug> You need to do something to gain understand. >>I've never understood the difference of 65 lbs in one bag or two. <shrug> > > Who carries your bag? <shrug> Have you ever gazed your eyes across the > counter to look into the face of the person taking your bag from you? > <shrug> You need to do something to gain understand. I carry the bag through airports, up and down stairs, through miles of rain forest and across more beaches than I can count. As far as gazing into the eyes of another, the only reason I can figure why I'd do that is either I'm going to fxck it or kill it. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I carry the bag through airports, up and down stairs, through miles of :rain forest and across more beaches than I can count. As far as gazing :into the eyes of another, the only reason I can figure why I'd do that :is either I'm going to fxck it or kill it. So what do you look at when you are talking to people? The person who puts a tag on your luggage and puts it on the conveyor belt for example. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: > :I carry the bag through airports, up and down stairs, through miles of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > puts a tag on your luggage and puts it on the conveyor belt for > example. Oh, okay, you're asking about a moment when I'm actually engaged in some sort of interpersonal communication with another person for the purpose of completing a business transaction. For some odd and unexplainable reason, my mind wandered into the Blue Marlin Bar. Okay, under those circumstances, I'd be looking at a face, but I don't recall actually concentrating on the eyes in particular. I also can't recall a time when I've witnessed what happens to my baggage after I've paid the fare, collected my papers and trundled off. I remember seeing a conveyor belt in the terminal area at Coz, but it was for off-loaded baggage coming in. While I have used airlines for travel, I rather prefer bus or private vehicle depending on whether I'm pressed for time. I'm in the states for a while, but I didn't bring anything more than a small bag for personal items. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: : I've never understood the difference of 65 :lbs in one bag or two. <shrug> Two are easier to lift. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > I've never understood the difference of 65 lbs in one bag or two. It's partly a union issue, similar to UPS' weight limitations a few years ago....which I think were set at 50 lb. too (could be wrong). And they can negotiate better premiums and insurance coverage for their workers if they set lower weight limits on baggage. >> I've never understood the difference of 65 lbs in one bag or two. > > It's partly a union issue, similar to UPS' weight limitations a few years > ago....which I think were set at 50 lb. too (could be wrong). And they can > negotiate better premiums and insurance coverage for their workers if they > set lower weight limits on baggage. Well, okay, this I can understand, and it makes more sense than anything else I've heard. Assuming this to be accurate, why don't they just say so in the first place? Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' <snippage> >> As long as they can get away with it, why should they? Of course it >> isn't even a matter of negotiating the total weight allowance. You may [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >to split it however I want. I've never understood the difference of 65 >lbs in one bag or two. <shrug> They tag everything over 50 lbs with a heavy tag. Carol's bag in Sydney was tagged "heavy" for weighing in at 24 kilos, even though the limit was 32. I've told her to strip the heavy tag off after clearing customs in LAX. They don't weigh, but will see the tag if it's on there. Of course, I took some of her stuff home with me, so she may be okay. Signaturedillon Women should be obscene and not absurd. >> You still think they want to credit your baggage surcharge with your body >> weight credit? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you were wrong when you said they make just as much on a 300 pound > passenger as a 120 pound passenger. If you reread my previous post a bit more carefully you may discover that isn't what I said. Please note: by almost all reference to gross and profit, there is a difference between "revenue" and "make". They indeed, if ticket prices are equal, generate the same revenue from sitting a 300 #'er vs a 120 #'er. Your implication that the 120 #'er allows them more baggage weight, and hence more pay cargo, is wrong since the baseline for that calculation is set by the FAA and both passengers will be worth 190 lbs' in the summer and 195 lb in the winter. By that calculation the 300#'er doesn't reduce the cargo/baggage capacity and the 120#'er doesn't increase it. I have already showed, predicated on FAA documents, that added fuel use as a result of extra passenger weight, is positively microscopic. >> It's a revenue producer...pure, plain and simple...and they aren't going >> to barter with it. > > As long as they can get away with it, why should they? I'm not complaining. I actually think they have every right to set weight limits and charge for extra baggage. And I have every right to employ various techniques to avoid discovery. I was responding to the notion that arguing for a body wieght credit against one's baggage overage is useless. > Of course it isn't even a matter of negotiating the total weight > allowance. You may be allowed two 50 pound bags, but if you want to travel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of lead in the second suitcase. Unfortunately, even if one of the > airline's MBA's was there to see it they probably wouldn't figure it out. There is nothing about their weight restrictions, total or per bag, that warrants ridicule. Considering employee fringes as well as lost man-days, it make a lot of sense to lower individual bag weight and pay lower premiums, or garner higher coverage's where insurance is concerned, and to have fewer employees lose work time due to strain and injury. > If you reread my previous post a bit more carefully you may discover that > isn't what I said. Please note: by almost all reference to gross and profit, > there is a difference between "revenue" and "make". So maybe you should write more carefully? You may have intended your comments to be about gross revenue, but since the discussion was about weight and baggage surcharges the discussion clearly related to profits. You used the phrase "as good a revenue source as". Gross revenue of $3000 that results in expenses of $295 is not as good as $300 of revenue that results in expenses of $294 a while allowing you to gain another $100 that only costs $75. The second is clearly a better source of revenue, isn't it? > They indeed, if ticket prices are equal, generate the same revenue from > sitting a 300 #'er vs a 120 #'er. Your implication that the 120 #'er allows [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the 300#'er doesn't reduce the cargo/baggage capacity and the 120#'er > doesn't increase it. In the long term 1000 small passengers and 1000 heavy passengers may result in the same net revenues as any other group of 2000 passengers, but 120 pounders are better than 300 pounders. Predicting their capacity based on an expected average may work most of the time, but when it comes to maximum weight, they have to use real values instead of what was expected. Even if weight has only a minimal effect on fuel consumption, a plane full of smaller people will either save them fuel or allow them to carry more cargo compared to a plane full of heavier people. My flight that had to make a refueling stop that I reference in another post is an example of the effect on revenue when the load turns out to be more than they expected to carry. Lighter passengers and a bit less duty free rum might have reduced their costs substantially. >I was responding to the notion that > arguing for a body wieght credit against one's baggage overage is useless. Well, it's useless in that it isn't likely to get you anywhere. If enough people complained it could potentialy change the way things are done, although it's not politically correct to "penalize" people for being obese. > There is nothing about their weight restrictions, total or per bag, that > warrants ridicule. Considering employee fringes as well as lost man-days, it > make a lot of sense to lower individual bag weight and pay lower premiums, > or garner higher coverage's where insurance is concerned, and to have fewer > employees lose work time due to strain and injury. Agreed, but it would be nice if they allowed a bit of grace. You've never been pulled over for going 57 in a 55 mph zone, have you? If they'll charge you more for a bag that weighs 99 pounds, they're clearly willing to take 99 pound bags. A year ago my friend got charged twice for an overweight bag. He got charged for being over 50 pounds (and deserved it) and again for being over 75. He was only over 75 by 1.5 pounds. A little discretion would be warranted, especially when the surcharge is based on a profit motive rather than actual cost. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message |