Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cargo No Longer To Be Carried On Passenger Planes?  
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Posted (7 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 14963 times:

OK I can't believe this but I was just talking with someone in the cargo industry (freight forwarding) and he was claiming that commercial passenger aircraft are no longed going to be carrying cargo when carrying passengers. Or at least USA flights won't due to security concerns and the inability for containers to be 100% scanned in a cost effective manner.

Now I argued that it couldn't be as airlines needed the additional revenue or the economic model wouldn't work. I find it hard, no impossible to believe but he stated that they (his industry) already don't ship cargo in the bellies of passengers planes.

Anyway long story short... is this true or coming?

No flaming or mean comments please, this a real question as I want o be able to refute this to him.

Thanks,

Tug


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 14924 times:

Did they tell you this today (April 1st)? It is April Fools' Day, after all. In all honesty, there is no way the airlines would go for this. There are a lot of routes that are cargo-intensive, which would not be able to succeed if not for cargo. I think there would have to be some sort of major incident first for them to ban cargo on passenger flights.

User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 14916 times:

I've also read that this is indeed a question mark - but only on flights to/from the USA.


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 14915 times:

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 1):
Did they tell you this today (April 1st)? It is April Fools' Day, after all.

Oh come on, would you really tell such a serious, un-funny story ?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineAlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 14904 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 3):
Oh come on, would you really tell such a serious, un-funny story ?

You're right. I forgot that unlikely rumors come out of the airline industry year-round.  duck 


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7405 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 14880 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tugger (Thread starter):
OK I can't believe this but I was just talking with someone in the cargo industry (freight forwarding) and he was claiming that commercial passenger aircraft are no longed going to be carrying cargo when carrying passengers. Or at least USA flights won't due to security concerns and the inability for containers to be 100% scanned in a cost effective manner.

The only that can't be carried aboard passenger aircraft is anything labled as Hazardous materials, or hazmat as commonly referred to.



Made from jets!
User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 14861 times:

There are various security concerns re cargo and these have been under review - without total reolution - since Lockerbie. LCCs don't carry freight, on the other hand a number of major airlines only stay in business on some routes due to the money they make from hold freight.

If there is any truth in the story the airlines have lost a battle they have fought for over seventeen years since the idea was first seriously mooted.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 14851 times:

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 1):
Did they tell you this today (April 1st)? It is April Fools' Day

I am confident that this is not an April Fool's joke. (but it sure sounds like it could be, I even accused him of it too.)

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 1):
there is no way the airlines would go for this. There are a lot of routes that are cargo-intensive, which would not be able to succeed if not for cargo.

I Agree! I think cargo is absolutely key to airlines. Without it airlines would have to charge significantly more for tickets to cover costs which would cause passenger traffic to drop which would cause prices to increase which...... I just can't imagine it would be possible but then that wouldn't stop brilliant bureaucrat's from making rules that cause things like this.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):
The only that can't be carried aboard passenger aircraft is anything labled as Hazardous materials, or hazmat as commonly referred to.

He mentioned that household goods can't be shipped via passenger carrying aircraft. Perhaps he was only meaning international shipments into the USA but he also referred to interstate transport too.

Tug

[Edited 2007-04-02 09:07:55]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 14812 times:

Quoting Tugger (Thread starter):
OK I can't believe this but I was just talking with someone in the cargo industry (freight forwarding) and he was claiming that commercial passenger aircraft are no longed going to be carrying cargo when carrying passengers.

Any freight forwarder knows that 75% of worldwide cargo goes on passenger aircraft. It is basically impossible to stop doing that.


User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 14812 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):
The only that can't be carried aboard passenger aircraft is anything labled as Hazardous materials, or hazmat as commonly referred to.

Maybe in the US. But in Canada hazmat can be shipped on passenger flights. With tons of regulations though.

Kris



Word
User currently offlineAerlinguscargo From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 14797 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):
The only that can't be carried aboard passenger aircraft is anything labled as Hazardous materials, or hazmat as commonly referred to.

hazmat, is carried regularly in the bellies of PAX aircraft. Hazmat suitable for airtravel is classified either Cargo Aircraft Only(CAO) or PAX which can travel on passanger flights.

Quoting Philb (Reply 6):
LCCs don't carry freight.

Both Jetblue, and Southwest carry at least some cargo


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 14754 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 8):

Any freight forwarder knows that 75% of worldwide cargo goes on passenger aircraft. It is basically impossible to stop doing that.

This guy has been in the business for 30+ years he knows exactly how things flow. And you may be referring to aircargo but most cargo in the world travels on a ship not a plane. And admittedly most of his material is carried by ship as speed is not of the essence.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9166 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 14664 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 5):

The only that can't be carried aboard passenger aircraft is anything labled as Hazardous materials, or hazmat as commonly referred to.

It has been said already, that only DGR (Dangerous Goods) classified as CAO (Cargo Aircraft Onöly) cannot be loaded on passenger planes. I write thois to refer to the proper words/abbreviations.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 11):

This guy has been in the business for 30+ years he knows exactly how things flow. And you may be referring to aircargo but most cargo in the world t

I am approaching 40 years in that business and prohibiting cargo on passenger flight would be a most stupid and unacceptable move. I know there are intentions by US lawmakers in that direction but so far intelligence prevailed over stupidity.

To get things straight - Lockervbie was nit "cargo" but passenger baggage. It has since been made impossiblem that passenger fbaggage flies in an aircraft without the passenger who owns to that baggage sitting above in the cabin. It happens regularly that flights are delayed for a few minutes because those bags get offloaded.

Freight Forwarders know their customers, we never accept cargo from unkown people and put this freight unchecked on the mnext flight out. This "known shipper" procedure has been in olace for many years. Since last year, a EU directive with further precautions has been put in place oin all EU countries.

A disctintion is made between "secure" cargo which meets all the criteria and is tendered to the carrier as suc, and cargo that does notmeet this criteria, which is then checked separately by the carrier. After these checks, there is no reason wuatsoever, not to place such cargo on passenger aircaraft.

Furthermore, there are regulations in place to secure all cargo over 68 kgs with band iron or plastic tape, to prevent persons from using such cases as "stow-away". As an old freight dog, who has moved thousands of tons over the years, such non sense regulations can be dreamed up only by people who know absolutely, nothing of what they are talking about. These people are commonly called "Politicians" all over the world.

As mentioned before, so far there is no regulation to restrict freight on passenger aircraft anmd I hope there never will be. There have been talks to check such freight "100 üercent" and some morons even have suggested to open every piece of freight. What such a move would do to international trade is simply explained. It would stop all activities since it simply cannot be done.

Besides, it is absolutley unnecessary, the known shipper regulations and freight forwarders make sure that air cargo is safe.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 14552 times:

If such an inane rule were to be adopted, economic bloodbath could be avoided by requiring that bureaucrats be shipped in the hold with the pets -- at full F fares.

User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 14368 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
To get things straight - Lockervbie was nit "cargo" but passenger baggage.

But Lockerbie highlighted a possible area of danger and concentrated attention on bombs in the hold instead of the then almost singular attention given to potential hijackings.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
Freight Forwarders know their customers, we never accept cargo from unkown people and put this freight unchecked on the mnext flight out. This "known shipper" procedure has been in olace for many years. Since last year, a EU directive with further precautions has been put in place oin all EU countries.

... and you know as well as I do that the "known shipper" arrangement, started in the UK in the 1990s, is open to abuse. I had a great deal to do with the discussions in the UK at airline, handler, ground transport provider levels and saw the implementation in action, the changes that had to be made and, even now, the system is by no means foolproof.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
As mentioned before, so far there is no regulation to restrict freight on passenger aircraft anmd I hope there never will be. There have been talks to check such freight "100 üercent" and some morons even have suggested to open every piece of freight. What such a move would do to international trade is simply explained. It would stop all activities since it simply cannot be done.

Correct and, therefore, the system will never be 100% foolproof and safe.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
Besides, it is absolutley unnecessary, the known shipper regulations and freight forwarders make sure that air cargo is safe.

Not true. They go a long way to helping but there are still ways to defeat the system as, if you are in the industry, you will be aware and these are as open now as they were when I first facilitated a cargo security conference shortly after Lockerbie.


User currently offlineSkyexramper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 14352 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 6):
LCCs don't carry freight

Well that's not true.....SWA sure does frieght. http://www.swacargo.com/

AirTran does cargo http://www.airtrancargo.com/


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 14319 times:

Air Tran does do cargo, Southwest does packages

User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 14292 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 7):
I am confident that this is not an April Fool's joke. (but it sure sounds like it could be, I even accused him of it too.)

It is not. This has been under discussion by politicians for some time, it's not the first time it's been in the news. I've read it a couple of months ago in a serious news report.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 14256 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 14):
the system will never be 100% foolproof and safe.

And what is that supposed to tell us? No system will ever be. Do you really think that cargo transportation by aircraft should be banned?

The consequence is obvious: increased shipping costs on many consumer goods, resulting in higher sales prices. Plus increased ticket prices for most international routes. And what do we gain? A protection that is still not 100% foolproof.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9166 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 13967 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 14):

But Lockerbie highlighted a possible area of danger and concentrated attention on bombs in the hold instead of the then almost singular attention given to potential hijackings.

again, Lockerbie was baggage. Baggage shipped as cargo was handled with special care before Lockerbie. It was either screened or put into a pressure chamber, or stored at least 48 hrs. before flight or a combination of the 3. Boh Lockerbie and the UTA flight that exploded over Chad was State terrorism and Mr. Ghaddafi had paid up, at least in terms of cash., he is not jailed, unfortunately.

. .

Quoting Philb (Reply 14):
and you know as well as I do that the "known shipper" arrangement, started in the UK in the 1990s, is open to abuse. I had a great deal to do with the discussions in the UK at airline, handler, ground transport provider levels and saw the implementation in action, the changes that had to be made and, even now, the system is by no means foolproof.

But it is not abused. You have a highly professional system, with cargo agents, mostly (ATA approved, we know our shippers, people we don't know get the treatment under -see above - we have companies and careers at stake. The system has been refined and is noit the same anymore it was in the early 90s. New regulations came into place last year. The system is safe and proven. Not a single incident has happened. Warehouses and cargo centres are restricted areas, it takes usually a couple of hours, often more than a day until freight gets actually on a plane, just to mnention some precautions..

.

Quoting Philb (Reply 14):

Correct and, therefore, the system will never be 100% foolproof and safe.

much better than the cleaning or loading staff at airports. It is impossible, to physically check every cargo item, as was suggested by some people in the US. Besides that air cargo would grind to a stop, damages to goods would be dramatical. Try opening - and closing - a professionally packed carton, crate or whatever, by people earning minimum wage. That would be a desaster. Open a DGR shipment and you can immediately send it back to the packers, open a radioactive shipment, or an infectuous. Have fun. I could make an endless list.



Quoting Philb (Reply 14):
Not true. They go a long way to helping but there are still ways to defeat the system as, if you are in the industry, you will be aware and these are as open now as they were when I first

The systen hasn't been defeated in decades of air cargo, not in the high times of high jacking and not by terrorists in more recent times,. Guess why, too much hassle. You don't get into airport cargo areas just like that, you don't tender a piece of freight through an agent just like that. If you do, the cargo is delivered as "unsecured" , same if they go direct to the airline. You don't even know which plane the goods get on. On outsider does not have a chance to plant a bomb on a particular .aircraft.

Air cargo is much safer than passenger baggage, be it checked or carry on. Banning air cargo from passenger planes would be the most stupid thing to do. It would not make aviation safer. It would seriously harm international trade and make a lot of business models obsolete, ruin companies - not only freight forwarders but shippers who depend on air freight. Banning air freight from passenger flights would be like suicide in fear of death.

..



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 13922 times:

Quoting Tugger (Thread starter):
he was claiming that commercial passenger aircraft are no longed going to be carrying cargo when carrying passengers

Personal effects cargo is not permitted as belly-frieght on pax aircraft operating to/from the USA.

Commercial cargo from "known shippers" is very much permitted as belly-frieght worldwide.


User currently offlineOOer From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1464 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 13876 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 6):
LCCs don't carry freight



Quoting Philb (Reply 16):
Air Tran does do cargo, Southwest does packages

If it wasn't for cargo WN would lose money every quarter even with the hedges!!!

I remember last year every morning we would have at least 30 cases of fish going out on every flight out of MCO!!!! Sometimes we would have over 3k pounds of cargo.


User currently offlineMGASJO From Nicaragua, joined Feb 2005, 463 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 13847 times:

Quoting B747-437B (Reply 20):
Personal effects cargo is not permitted as belly-frieght on pax aircraft operating to/from the USA.

Not true. Personal effects are to be opened and screened fully -100%- in order to be loaded on pax aircraft. This is done very often coming and going to USA.



C208B
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5421 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 13821 times:

Quoting B747-437B (Reply 20):
Personal effects cargo is not permitted as belly-frieght on pax aircraft operating to/from the USA.

OK! - This could make his comments make sense finally! Thank you!!!
A few follow-on questions then: Why is this so? Why ban "personal effects cargo" and what is its definition? When did this go into effect? And what will prevent the idiots from expanding this? (The answers to the three previous questions may answer this one.)

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9166 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 13734 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 23):
OK! - This could make his comments make sense finally! Thank you!!!
A few follow-on questions then: Why is this so? Why ban "personal effects cargo" and what is its definition? When did this go into effect? And what will prevent the idiots from expanding this? (The answers to the three previous questions may answer this one.)

The proper term for "Personal effects" is " Baggage, unaccompanied", or "Baggaged shipped as cargo"
is:

A passengers baggage, inclduing personal wearing appearal and personal artciles, (incldg portable musical instruments, portable type writers,and portable sports equipment, but without machinery, machine or spare parets, money, securities, jewellry, watches,plate and plated ware, furs, film, cameras, documents,tickets, licquors, and artciles of household furnitures and salesman samples.) when shipped as cargo.

Special precautions for unaccompanied baggage are in place for a very long time, I could not say how long, but it was in place before Lockerbie. Again,Lockerbie was accompanied baggage. I am not aware of a single case where air cargo placed by terrorists or other crominals has caused the destruction of an aircraft. There have been cases where improper declared cargo has been the cause, such as the SAA 747 combi en route from Taiwan to JNB. FEDEX has seen a couple of cases where improper declared DGR caused the destruction of a plane or serious incidents. With FX and other integrators, the fault is in the system. You have uneducated clients, no freight forwarder in between who discovers the mistale and no time to check.

Bingo. UPS at Philly last year might have been another case..

. .
To answer the question, what will prevent some people from expending this - nothing, If iditots want to act idiotoic, they just do it. There actually has been legsialtion in process to prevent cargo from passenger flights. Only by Industry Lobby can such a ridiculous, ill informed legislation be held up before it becomes law.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
25 Post contains images Smylinpilot : For some airlines like America West, carrying passengers is merely a bonus. A large part of thier revenue is actually from the shipping of cargo such
26 DALCE : Why does it not surprise me to hear this kind of non-sense coming from the US. No offence to US a.netters but it's always for the USA that rules have
27 N766UA : The airlines would never let the revenue they make from cargo be snatched away from them. It'll never happen. Mind you some pets, outsized luggage, an
28 Boeing7E7 : You can blame the TSA for this, not US a.netters.
29 Magyar : What I find somewhat amusing is that when the cargo advantage of the A32X over B737NG comes up in the weekly AvsB threads here, all the Boeing crowd i
30 Midex461 : I like that idea! This might get the bureaucrats to use some intelligence, especially since not all airlilnes carry pets in the hold!
31 Pdxcof9 : Don't forget Frontier!! They carry cargo too!!!
32 Lotsamiles : I miss the days of counter to counter shipments before 9/11. It was very useful to drop a package at the local United Express desk and have a package
33 Floridaflyboy : So clearly, LCCs DO carry freight. From your list, I can't think of one that DOESN'T carry freight.
34 PanHAM : Ryanair and EASY both do not carry freight. Air Berlin does. It depends on the business model, Air Berlin's is smarter. .
35 Floridaflyboy : I was referring to US LCC's. That's interesting, though, that Easy and Ryanair don't.
36 Post contains images Tugger : Of course didn't I hear something about Ryanair putting passengers in containers in the belly as a way to increase revenue further....... Seriously t
37 EKSkycargo370 : The answer to this topic....biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard!
38 MGASJO : Given that FR does not carry cargo and I have read somewhere in this forum that they charge to check bags, are those cargo holds always empty??? what
39 Ha763 : I work for an airline in cargo and there hasn't been anything said about no cargo on pax flights from my managers or the freight forwarders we deal wi
40 B757fan : This is a move that doesn't surprise me at all. I used to be a long time employee for a U.S. based Legacy carrier and I worked in the Air Cargo dept.
41 Jetdeltamsy : US airlines have been given new security standards set by the TSA that will require much more screening of freight. There is too much revenue and rev
42 PanHAM : 738 have no containers loaded in bellies.320s/321s have AKH's. Means that Ryanair might introduce "cellar class" There have been talks about that. So
43 Post contains images Maverick623 : El-wrongo. (Sorry, spent a long day doing Mexico inbounds! ) When the facilities exist, the bags go through "sophisticated" X-ray machines that can a
44 PanHAM : we are not talking about baggage here. Whatever the TSA does, let them do it. Cecking inbound baggage AFTER the flight arrival is for contraband but
45 Maverick623 : Again, wrong. But as you said: Thus I will conclude with this: Cargo will forever be a part of passenger airline service.
46 Philb : Obviously and No. No need to repeat yourself. I'm well aware of the cause of the Lockerbie incident. Just how many pressure chambers were there in Eu
47 Dc10bhx : I can remember an Air Lanka (Before the name change to SriLankan) L1011 being written off on the ground at CMB due to a device hidden in a shipment o
48 PanHAM : the one in Frankfurt was recebtly scrapped because there are much better means to handle the situation. you have a point here, however, with the new
49 DC10BHX : The UL L1011 is actually quoted as a terrorist act during the training material. If memory serves me right this actually happened prior to the rise o
50 Philb : So, by my reckoning, there are now 2 available for civil use in Europe - not one at a major airport. One of the major loopholes still exists therefor
51 PanHAM : I agree that the 9/11 terrorists were smart, dedicated idiots. I don't see a loophole in the non-existance of pressure chambers. We have a 100% scree
52 Floridaflyboy : I know that. This thread, however, is about cargo no longer being allowed on UNITED STATES airlines.
53 TheCol : WS carries cargo on most Canadian routes. It is more difficult to abuse cargo regulations then you think. Up here, Transport Canada makes it a policy
54 PanHAM : no, it's about passenger airliners and if it would become reality, it would be for ALL airlines flying to or from the US, regardless of flag. Thanks
55 Philb : I don't "think" I know. As Transport Canada were one of my contributors/attendees I'm very much aware how much they have contributed to advancing sec
56 Floridaflyboy : Well, if you want to split hairs, let's do it. Last time I checked, EasyJet and Ryanair didn't fly to the United States, making that argument irrelev
57 Philb : If you read the first para of the lead post properly you will see the writer first states "commercial passenger aircraft" then, in his second sentenc
58 Floridaflyboy : That's YOUR logical interpretation, not THE logical interpretation.
59 AA61Hvy : I'd say more like 40%. Not to mention the forwarders use the big cargo airlines to fly their stuff around anyway. No hazmat's on any passenger flight
60 Philb : But I've a degree in English and over 35 years of writing reports, copy and interpretive documents and reading and understanding those written by oth
61 BlueFlyer : The threat to ban cargo from passengers flights to/from/within the US is used nowadays by certain politicians who are trying to speed up the screenin
62 Floridaflyboy : Congratulations, I'm happy for you. I can interpret the "logic of the original post" however I would like, as can you.
63 DC10BHX : Once again I beg to differ. According to the Dangerous Goods regulations you can send hazmat on passenger flights subject to the Airline and Governme
64 AA61Hvy : Perhaps it is in the nature of the hazmats-non infected blood would be fine I am sure etc. But other things may not be. I would like to see a source
65 Musapapaya : " target=_blank>http://www.airtrancargo.com/ As said, Air berline does carry cargo and i believe 4U also does too.
66 PanHAM : Exactly. Airlines can set their own rules. For that, we have the rules book, TACT Section 8.3. enlightens the reader. TACT 8.3. tells you for instanc
67 AA61Hvy : Don't get bent out of shape, buddy. I asked for a source, so I can read up on it and share it with some co-workers. I am by no means a safety risk. M
68 Post contains links MGASJO : Infected blood with HIV? Corrosive materials? Radioactive Materials? Paint? Fuel? Bleach? Flammable gases? You bet! we'll take it! As long as the shi
69 MGASJO : According to your profile you work in Fedex Sales. Run down to your OPS and ask them for the DGR of 2007. It's a big book with a bunch of regulations
70 AA61Hvy : In all honesty I do have a copy of that. Though I skimmed it (at best) and never really read it. As I said, I do not have any Hazmat shippers so this
71 AA61Hvy : In all honesty I do have a copy of that. Though I skimmed it (at best) and never really read it. As I said, I do not have any Hazmat shippers so this
72 PanHAM : You see, that's exactly the point. You say that you do not have any "HazMat" shippers.How do you know that, when you don't read the DGR books? How ca
73 Jetdeltamsy : Right. MGSJO doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a completely random percentage of bags that are checked. Certain routes receive more scrutiny
74 Post contains images AA61Hvy : Because my territory is downtown Los Angeles, 99% of my shippers are banks/law firms/account firms the other 1% is apparel shippers. I have a full li
75 MGASJO : Bags? Who said anything about bags? we are talking about cargo. Personal effects traveling as cargo, unaccompanied, no passenger, no bag tag, only a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cameras To Be Banned On Planes? posted Sun Jul 11 2004 17:05:19 by Wally236er
Bogotá Airspace To Be Closed On Sunday posted Thu Mar 8 2007 04:29:50 by RCS763AV
Security Fees To Be Doubled On Intra-US Flights? posted Sun Feb 12 2006 10:13:45 by LH492
PW6000 Engines To Be Offered On The A318 Elite. posted Tue Jan 24 2006 19:38:43 by WINGS
B6 E190 To Be Revealed On 10/11 posted Sat Oct 8 2005 00:47:11 by Werdywerd
Airport To Be Built On St. Helena Island posted Mon Sep 26 2005 22:02:38 by A342
Brit Air , No Hurry To Order 70-100 Seats Planes posted Sat Jul 9 2005 18:28:52 by FCKC
Air Madrid To LPB And No Longer To VVI? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 21:32:59 by 123
Southwest- No Longer "Neutral" On Wright Amendment posted Fri Nov 12 2004 18:43:30 by Sccutler
Can It Be Carried On Board An A/c? posted Sun Nov 7 2004 19:48:38 by Soups
BA No Longer To Sell Openskies posted Sat Dec 12 2009 06:22:33 by BALHRWWCC