Originally Posted by
zombietooth
Since we now know that NZ's policy is that photography equipment and laptops are exempt from the weight limit, how is it arrogant for tommyleo to have carried what he was apparently legally allowed to carry? (As an aside, this shows how stupid the rule actually is because they exempt laptops, which are the most dangerous of all carry-on items, so if safety is their reason for the weight limit, they have shot a huge hole in their argument.) He did have a back-up plan with his girlfriend having the empty rollaboard--I call that wisely prepared for small-minded bozos with authority, far from arrogant!!!
Thank you. And by the way, I also had a jacket with huge pockets in case I had to put some lenses in my pockets so that my bag would be light enough.
Originally Posted by
SFOSpiff
However, I can definitely say that I asked on two occasions at LAX, as a J passenger, if I could carry on my 21" rollaboard, and was told no, as it weight (slightly) more than 7kg.
Amazing. As I wrote above, I told the woman at the LAX lounge that I had a heavy bag and she told me that it would not be a problem -- which it wasn't.