 |
 | 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 / September 2005Galapagos Luggage Restrictions?
Anybody been to the Galapagos Islands recently that can provide info on luggage restrictions. Everything we read indicates you can only check one bag each - has anyone been recently that has checked a dive bag and a camera bag, or second clothes bag? Thanks Bob & Geri bobandgeri@rbhayes.net http://www.rbhayes.net > Anybody been to the Galapagos Islands recently that can provide info > on luggage restrictions. Everything we read indicates you can only > check one bag each - has anyone been recently that has checked a dive > bag and a camera bag, or second clothes bag? I'm not sure where you read what you read but maybe things are different from last July when I was there. I assume you're talking about the flight from Guayaquil/Quito to the islands, since your international carrier will have its own restrictions (and there are special "embargoes" that may limit outgoing baggage, at least on Continental, so watch that you don't exceed their limits). As I recall, there are two carriers that do the island flights, AeroGal and TAME. We took AeroGal and I finally figured out what happened to all those 707s that used to fly the skies before 737s became ubiquitous. If you're at all squeamish about flying after the recent spate of 737 crashes, you might want to swim the 600 miles to the islands rather than get in one of these antiques. The bathroom certainly didn't work on the plane, so I don't see how the rest of the craft could have been too functional. Plus, the flight to the islands leaves early in the morning, so there's not even sufficient time to get drunk first. On to luggage. Yes, they have an ultra-restrictive limit, something like 20 kilos per person. What I've "heard" is that they enforce the restriction spottily. You may get nailed for a hefty surcharge, or you may not. We lucked out. A rep from the Aggressor met us at the airport, assembled all our luggage together, and we checked in as a group. I had a camera bag and a very heavy box with a Draeger rebreather and a BC and the rest of my stuff, plus a carry-on with my regulator and other important stuff, and a laptop in a small backpack. Like I said, we lucked out. On the return trip, we likewise piled all our luggage together, and again we lucked out. If you don't luck out, the surcharge was only something like $1 per kilo overweight, and I never heard anywhere that they'd refuse or even slow down your bags for being excessive, unlike TACA which only promises to get overweight stuff to your destination within 5 days and the "embargo" which I referred to above, which almost required that I leave 6 kilos behind in Ecuador before a kindly supervisor finally OK'd me. Continental wasn't even going to take money for the extra 6 kilos. >TAME. We took AeroGal and I finally figured out what happened to all those >707s that used to fly the skies before 737s became ubiquitous. mmmm...I think you mean "727". Look at it this way: After 70,000+ impacts with the runway, what's one more? The main reason they are not see much anymore in US is economy and noise. The slim, non-turbofan engine nacelles on the 727 cannot be refitted with modern engines. AFAICT: Aerogal/TAME are indistinguishable and both operated by Ecuadoran military. Our tickets were TAME and our aircraft were Aerogal. safe diving, bullshark >>TAME. We took AeroGal and I finally figured out what happened to all >>those >>707s that used to fly the skies before 737s became ubiquitous. > > mmmm...I think you mean "727". Look at it this way: > After 70,000+ impacts with the runway, what's one more I think you're right. I had 707 stuck in my head for some reason, but it must have been a 727. Still, it had been an awful long time since I'd been on one of them: http://www.aerogal.com.ec/Aerogal/index.jsp?Video=102 Apparently they only have one 727 and three 737s, so we got lucky. On our flight back to Quito, we first landed in Guayaquil. As soon as the plane came to a halt, all the power went dead. Lights, everything. We were all herded across the tarmac to another plane that was waiting for us for the hop to Quito. > The main reason they are not see much anymore in US is economy and noise. > The slim, non-turbofan engine nacelles on the 727 cannot be refitted with > modern engines. And here I thought they just retired them because they were old. Why don't we use 707s anymore? > AFAICT: Aerogal/TAME are indistinguishable and both operated by Ecuadoran > military. > Our tickets were TAME and our aircraft were Aerogal. Are you sure it wasn't some sort of code sharing arrangement? Frommers, for instance, maintains that they're separate carriers: http://www.frommers.com/destinations/print-narrative.cfm?destID=811&catID=0811020156 >I think you're right. I had 707 stuck in my head for some reason, but it >must have been a 727. Still, it had been an awful long time since I'd been >on one of them: http://www.aerogal.com.ec/Aerogal/index.jsp?Video=102 The planes are a minmum of 23 years old and could be as old as 40. I wasn't real keen to fly them either. The guy sitting next to me turned on his reading light a little too hard and the oxygen masks deployed. O-Boy. Still, our B-52's are much older, and fly just fine. Re-powering is the key after structural integrity is secure. A real dubious question >> AFAICT: Aerogal/TAME are indistinguishable and both operated by Ecuadoran >> military. >> Our tickets were TAME and our aircraft were Aerogal. >Are you sure it wasn't some sort of code sharing arrangement? Frommers, for >instance, maintains that they're separate carriers: > >http://www.frommers.com/destinations/print-narrative.cfm?destID=811&catID=0811020156 heh-heh. Maybe. I don't know. If I had my druthers, I'd choose TAME then. The Ecuadoran Air Force is probably better at aircraft maintenance. They also are just taking delivery on some brand new Embraer 170's. Maybe they'll put them on the Galapagos run. For my money, doing the overnight in Guayaquil is better than Quito. Quito gave me a giant headache (9000 ft elevation), and stops in Guayaquil anyway. Our hotel in Guayaquil was the Oro Verde, in the business district. It was a really great hotel (in the way that NY hotels used to be great). Modern roads and complimentary airport limos make the short trip to the airport very easy. Contrary to the shoot-em up that Doc Adelman claims, it was completely safe and clean, whereas the our stay in Quito was anything but. We wound up having to do both because they closed the Guayaquil airport. Next time it is Guayquil all the way, and the Oro Verde for sure. Hell, their breakfast buffet is so good, I was thinking about flying down just to eat there. safe diving, bullshark > The planes are a minmum of 23 years old and could be as old as 40. I > wasn't > real keen to fly them either. The guy sitting next to me turned on his > reading > light a little too hard and the oxygen masks deployed. O-Boy. Our flights were pretty uncrowded and I grabbed a seat in the old first class section - the cushy big first class seats were replaced with the same three-three configuration as the rest of the cabin, but they left the first-class leg room intact. They also served a cheese plate, which was rendered inedible by the stench coming from the nonfunctional lavatory. > For my money, doing the overnight in Guayaquil is better than Quito. Quito > gave me a giant headache (9000 ft elevation), and stops in Guayaquil > anyway. I tried to be extra helpful and grabbed most of our group's bags off the conveyor and ended up nauseous for the next couple of hours, the altitude greatly compounding the fresh-off-the-boat feel. > Our hotel in Guayaquil was the Oro Verde, in the business district. It was > a > really great hotel (in the way that NY hotels used to be great). Modern > roads > and complimentary airport limos make the short trip to the airport very > easy. And 24-hour room service, a nice touch when your delayed flight and lost luggage problem prevents you from getting to the hotel before 1 a.m. > Contrary to the shoot-em up that Doc Adelman claims, it was completely > safe and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thinking > about flying down just to eat there. We stood around waiting for the buffet to open and ended up having only 10 minutes to scarf something down before our prearranged transfer to the airport. The rooms were a bit "quaint", though. I much preferred the spacious and modern corner room we ended up with at the Grand Mercure Alameda in Quito with a huge wrap-around balcony offering an 11th floor view of the city below. But Quito got a bit scary as soon as the sun went down, leaving only prostitutes and la policia armed with submachine guns and holding Rottweilers on sturdy chains. Certainly scarier than anywhere I've been in Mexico. >Anybody been to the Galapagos Islands recently that can provide info >on luggage restrictions. Everything we read indicates you can only >check one bag each - has anyone been recently that has checked a dive >bag and a camera bag, or second clothes bag? We were there in November. No problems whatsoever. Your information is right (I think). According to the Aggressor website 1 checked (35kg) 1 carry-on (???) ...and one personal item. Be careful with the carry-on size. As Greg points out below, they have some older aircraft. Their overhead compartments are small. Modern hard-side carry-on might not fit. Good luck with your trip. I wish I was going again. safe diving, bullshark Quick Recap: We spent 2 nights at the Grand Mercure Alameda in Quito and loved it. During the day we walked to the park (3 blocks away) and then onto Old Town. Great time - felt very safe, even though we did see a knife fight going on in the park (they take soccer pretty serious!). At night we walked 3 blocks to a resturant and once again - no issues. The hotel is very nice and offers 4 computers with free internet access, as well as wi-fi - free for email - $12 if you want to access the Web. On our lst night we took a cab ride to dinner - La Ronda - very very good place to eat - $2 for the cab ride. Cab to the aiport is $5. The local Rep for Peter Hughes met us at the aiport and took care of our luggage - we checked 3 bags each weighing 45 lbs with no additional charges, and each took a good size carryon. The plane (Arigol) was in great shape - it looked new inside. We were served a sandwich on the way to Guayaquil, and lunch on the flight from Guayaquil to San Cristobal. Very pleasant flight. Diving was great - Shore excursions were even better! We did the 10 day trip which adds the southern islands. Saw 2 Whale Sharks (swam within a foot of each for about 60 seconds), hundreds of hammerhead and galapagos sharks (hundreds on one dive alone!), many turtles, etc... Ashore we had sea lions coming up and sniffing our feet, pups kissing our cheeks, Albatross birds running into us as they played, etc.. On the return trip the boat took care of getting our checked luggage to the airport and checked in for the flight - no charges. The captain of the boat said they have been doing this for the last two years and have not had to pay luggage charges. All in all a great trip that we would recommend to anyone. The crew on the Sky Dancer worked harder than any live aboard we have been on in the past, and most were still on the boat from our last trip 3 years ago. It will take a couple of weeks but pics will be posted on our web page. rbhayes.net >>Anybody been to the Galapagos Islands recently that can provide info >>on luggage restrictions. Everything we read indicates you can only [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >bullshark Bob & Geri bobandgeri@rbhayes.net http://www.rbhayes.net |
Reply to this Message |
 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.