Air travel with 120 film

[genecrumpler]

French

My wife has travelled and done business all over the world in the last 30+ years iin nearly 100 countres. She had 3,000,000+ miles on her frequent flyer account. She sold to nearly all nationals and has even personally signed a contract with F. Castro. She knows 100's of people all of the worrld. She was taken hostage in Africa. She has seen it all. Her conclusions-French are rude to Americans.

We will be in France again in the future, but will try to avoid Air France.

Qed

 

[genecrumpler]

French not all bad

We had a wonderful experience in France about 4 years ago. We went on a Grand Circle River Cruise in France. Food was unbelievable and the crew and Program manager were great. Not all experience bad,

 

[copake_ham]

Not true. Parisians are rude to EVERYONE -- they are the French equivalent of a certain type of New Yorker -- and most French don't like aggressive, know-nothing supporters of certain American shibboleths such as McDo and the war in Iraq. Support either with a good argument and the French will even tolerate that; pull 'my country, right or wrong' and you're asking for trouble. Otherwise the French are very fond of Americans: my wife (born in upstate New York, moved to California at 18) has had absolutely no problems outside Paris, and very few there.

I'm not accusing you of any of the above; I'm just trying to redress the balance for other Americans considering a trip to France.

Cheers,

R.

Sounds like the same old, same old from R.

I agree that the complaint was an overstatement. I've found the French, particularly Parisians to be quite nice folk. Parisians, like any large city dwellers, are simply busy and stressed out folk. But then again, I'm one of those rude NY'ers, so I guess that explains it!

I do have one question. If, as the pundits constantly claim, the French hate McDo so much, how come none of the stores ever go out of business and more and more keep opening up? :confused:

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The irony, Roger, is that I took offense at your remarks about the French, before realizing you had written in their defense.

I've spent a lot of time in France. (Obviously much less than you.) I've found the French almost without exception to be good people. The key to understanding the French is knowing that they are really poor linguists, as chauvinistic about their language as we are of English. When Americans (equally poor linguists) mangle their high-school French, and then complain that the French pretended not to understand, chances are they really did not understand.

I was born and raised in Virginia, but have made New York City my home, by choice, since 1991. The "certain type of New Yorker" you reference exists only in Dirty Harry movies and the cliches those movies burned into the popular culture. There is no finer place on this earth to call home ... excepting, possibly, Paris.

Sanders

Not true. Parisians are rude to EVERYONE -- they are the French equivalent of a certain type of New Yorker -- and most French don't like aggressive, know-nothing supporters of certain American shibboleths such as McDo and the war in Iraq. Support either with a good argument and the French will even tolerate that; pull 'my country, right or wrong' and you're asking for trouble. Otherwise the French are very fond of Americans: my wife (born in upstate New York, moved to California at 18) has had absolutely no problems outside Paris, and very few there.

I'm not accusing you of any of the above; I'm just trying to redress the balance for other Americans considering a trip to France.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sounds like the same old, same old from R.

I agree that the complaint was an overstatement. I've found the French, particularly Parisians to be quite nice folk. Parisians, like any large city dwellers, are simply busy and stressed out folk. But then again, I'm one of those rude NY'ers, so I guess that explains it!

I do have one question. If, as the pundits constantly claim, the French hate McDo so much, how come none of the stores ever go out of business and more and more keep opening up? :confused:

George,

Are you suggesting that we put the French, in particular the Parisians, in lead bags?

Steve

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think we are off topic.

Can we get back to "Air travel with 120 film" please?

Steve

 

[Harry Lime]

Not true. Parisians are rude to EVERYONE --
R.

Ah, yes. The Parisians. Even among the French there are many who roll their eyes, when the topic comes up.

It's been a mixed bag in my own personal experience.

I've met and worked some very nice people from Paris and had a great time when I visited the city.

I've also encountered a number of Parisians that went out of their way to be as difficult and hostile as they possibly could for no reason in particular. Oddly enough I found this behavior to be more commen with the male segment of the population, than the female. I've never been able to figure out that part.

But as a rule, I think it's a bad idea to stereotype. The troublemakers of the world know no national or regional boundries.

But then again I'm a pushy New Yorker, so what do I know?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The "put it in your pocket" approach worked for me seven years ago. See my post in this thread:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002aMZ

However, there's a new wrinkle to consider. Some airports now use synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to see through passengers' clothing. I heard there were units at Heathrow a few years back and now the US TSA is testing them. Failure to set off a magnetometer might not be good enough; if you're put through the radar, expect to cough up your film for further inspection, probably x-ray.

 

[roteague]

Ah, yes. The Parisians. Even among the French there are many who roll their eyes, when the topic comes up.

I guess it is all a matter or perspective. I was treated ruder in Japan than I ever was in Paris - I have to say, that was 20+ years ago.

 

[Eric Rose]

please, please, please do a simple search before asking questions. especially ones that have been asked a MILLION times before. geez.

in any event have a great trip.

 

[gr82bart]

please, please, please do a simple search before asking questions. especially ones that have been asked a MILLION times before. geez.

Aw cmon Eric. Don't be a party pooper. None of us get tired of this discussion every 3-4 months. One day, someone's film WILL GET FOGGED - just wait for THAT thread. You'll see. This will all be worth it ....

Besides, it's this or talk about nudes and ratings in the gallery ... or how Fuji and Ilford are so much better than Kodak ... or ... you get the idea.

Regards, Art.

 

[bjorke]

My film has been fogged. Several times. I've said so several times. Jeez.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My film has been fogged. Several times. I've said so several times. Jeez.

Unfortunately we have several people here who believe that if it never happened to them then it can't happen to you. :rolleyes: Please do not confuse them with Kodak and Fuji papers and articles stating that fogging can occur while x-raying carry-on items.

[sigh]

Steve

 

[copake_ham]

My film has been fogged. Several times. I've said so several times. Jeez.

And I don't doubt you at all.

Perhaps we're all being a little too broad here.

The general contention is that ISO 400 and lower film is safe for airport carry-on x-rays. Some even say 800 - but let's assume 400 based on the fact that they don't want to screw up the average Joe's consumer film.

But this contention is based on a generalized approach. I would imagine that if one gathered all types of ISO 400 film there is and ran it through the x-ray - most would come out okay. But a few might well fog.

So maybe that's why we go round and round with these threads? Bjorke has experienced fogging. Others haven't. It could be that the type of film Bjorke was carrying was more susceptible generally. Or maybe he just had a more "sensitive" batch?

So it comes down, ultimately, to "averages". On average, the authorities claim, and most seem to concur, that ISO 400 and lower film is safe from carry-on x-rays.

But there will always be exceptions.

Which is why I also use the x-ray bag. Though much maligned above, the bag does add a prophylactic layer if you are forced to have the film x-rayed by an uncooperative security agent who refuses to do a hand-inspection.

 

[Shmoo]

Well, I will be testing my HP5 film in either the hands of the TSA (or other check-in folks) or the X-ray machines tomorrow then...LAX, Chicago, Frankfurt, Vienna...then Salzburg, Frankfurt, Dulles on the way back. Pray for my HP5...

 

[Ed Sukach]

Well. gang ... I'm back, complete with a **miserable** head/ chest cold.

We got "caught up" in that impromptu SAS "Cabin Attendants" strike. We were flying on Icelandair, and SAS does the "ticketing" for Icelandair.... net result: Copenhagen Airport was the closest thing I've ever seen to a "constipated madhouse". MANY SAS flights were cancelled ... but Icelandair FL 205 (ours) took off ~ 25 minutes late. We arrived at the airport at 11:15; after waiting in the line, we had to run - and I mean RUN!! - to board at 14:20.

I had no time to ask for a hand inspection - so a few rolls of Fuji Pro 800Z went through the carry-on X-ray machine, along with ISO 100, 200, and 400 film. I'll let everyone know about the results when the film is processed.

Odd ... In the mad scramble security inspection, I was asked to remove my belt. With classic "deer eyes caught in headlights", I asked, "Not my shoes?". The security person reacted in `don't give me a hard time' style: "No. I said BELT!! just take off your BELT!".

I wonder why?

 

[Shmoo]

Ditto - just (literally) got back from Europe...went through LAX, O'Hare, Frankfurt, Vienna, Salzburg, Frankfurt, Dulles, and back. Whew! Got hand checked at LAX and Chicago. Everyone else had you pass the film through the carry-on Xray machines. In Frankfurt you got checked through TWICE for carry-on baggage on a US-bound flight (United) which I found interesting. We'll see how it all turns out!

Only had HP5 with me this trip. The LAX guys were the best. They opened the top of the boxes and "wiped" the sealed film packages with a testing pad and apologized for not resealing the boxes. Then they put the test pad in an electronic gizmo...interesting process.

Need to sleeeeeeep....zzzzzzzz.

 

[Daud]

Let’s get back to reality here……. Which would you sooner - the inconvenience of having film fogged, putting up with people who have a difficult job to do at the best of times (just read some of these posts) or being DEAD.

However, not withstanding the above, some of these threads really brighten my day. It is amazing how things can go off on some really interesting tangents.

I agree, the French particularly the Parisians; can be difficult especially for a Brit. Nevertheless, they do have history on their side! However, like most countries outside the English speaking world: if you make an effort to try and converse in the local language (even if only the pleasantries), the reception you get is so much better.

David.

 

[gr82bart]

Unfortunately we have several people here who believe that if it never happened to them then it can't happen to you. :rolleyes:
[sigh]

And we have even less people here who believe that if it happened to them it WILL happen to you. :rolleyes: Sigh.

Regards, Art.

 

[Helen B]

...

Odd ... In the mad scramble security inspection, I was asked to remove my belt. With classic "deer eyes caught in headlights", I asked, "Not my shoes?". The security person reacted in `don't give me a hard time' style: "No. I said BELT!! just take off your BELT!".

I wonder why?

Does it have a metal buckle?

 

[Nick Zentena]

May be they worried you had a garrot wire in your belt?

 

[Ed Sukach]

Does it have a metal buckle?

Yes, it does. That belt did not set off alarms through metal detectors in Boston, Reykjavik, Dulles, LaGuardia, JFK, or O'Hare... nor in sundry other governmental buildings I have visited as a Courier.

So...?

 

[Ed Sukach]

Let’s get back to reality here……. Which would you sooner - the inconvenience of having film fogged, putting up with people who have a difficult job to do at the best of times (just read some of these posts) or being DEAD.

Let me reply:

"For only US$ 149.95 you can be protected from Mind-bending "Q" rays directed at you by invaders from ZZorf (otherwise known as Planet 3, a satellite of Cygnus Omega). We offer a GENUINE "Q" Ray deflector helmet, constructed of the finest tinfoil available ... and GUARANTEED to ward off "Q" RAYS, if used according to instructions, for the next five miles or five minutes, whichever comes first. For an extra US$187.50 we will include a CERTIFIED 93.26V, 712Hz power supply, necessary for the operation of our helmet, so you do not have to build your own.
OR .... Would you rather be turned into a mindless automaton controlled by the ZZorfians?
WHICH IS IT???? Send us the money, or be controlled by the ZZorfians? WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE HAPPEN?? - It is up to you!!!."


Now... I am writing this nonsense to illustrate how easy it is to emphasize a point by LIMITING the Field. Outside of the two "WHICH IS IT" options you suggest (Accepting fogged film or dying), any intelligent discussion would easily recognize many more options.

Why are "potentially" dangerous items, Shampoo or toothpaste or deoderants, or ChapSticks...??, hand-inspected and allowable if the container size is less than 4 ounces when packed in "one quart plastic bags -preferably "Ziplock"... and Film, especially 35mm or 120, is met with so much resistance to the same hand-inspection?

Why does there seem to be such a lack of uniformity in the training of the Security Personnel (whom I have NO issue with)? I, and others, cite INCONSISTENCIES ... which are, IMHO, more of a threat to security than anything else.

I do not accept the idea that the existing TSA system is working well.

I do think it possible that a more efficient system can be devised - where film is NOT fogged, and aircraft are not "blown out of the air", but to me, the first step would involve adequate training; and intelligent, coherent rules - understood by all.

However, not withstanding the above, some of these threads really brighten my day. It is amazing how things can go off on some really interesting tangents.

Oh, really! Seems to pretty much ON-TOPIC to me.

 

[gr82bart]

I wonder why?

See, this is really the root cause of people's anxieties. Why wonder? Seriously. It's irrelevent to the end result - which is getting on the plane and getting to the destination.

Is the belt removal but not the shoe removal illogical? Yes, but who cares? Seriously. Well, apparently many people do and that is the reason we have these threads.

They do make me laugh.

Regards, Art.

 

[Daud]

Ed Sukach Let me reply:

I agree, the inconsistency are very frustrating, but is it any wonder given the illogical notion that blowing up a plane or train etc; can achieve a political end.
Travel used to be fun and maybe it will be again but until then I for one will put up with anything that gets me safely to my destination. So yes there is only the one option as far as I can see: accept that in almost every instance, the security services are only trying to do their best, albeit some better than others.

Off on a tangent – referred to Paris and the French!

David.