flysurfer

I c. Involuntary award routing. Yep, that can be a hardship.

Had to do the same a few weeks ago in the other direction. Then again, FRA is still better than LHR for transfers, but knowing LH new C, I wanted to try NZ BP. Of course, there's no way I'd consider that routing after recent developments. Luckily, my next flight, while issued on NZ ticket stock, will be operated by LH as a nonstop LAX-MUC.

So since this is an M&M award, you could still try to change your routing to the nonstop flight. Routing simplification is allowed, after all. Inventory may open up shortly before deprature, so would keep checking/asking.

Grog

Yes.

Stringer

hi folks. traveling friday iad-fra-ath. LH417 and LH3380, respectively. any reports out there from these flights on the topic at hand would be greatly appreciated. planning on arriving at iad at noon for a 4:30 departure. i saw on flytecomm that 417 departed at 5 p.m. today (thursday). thanks in advance. strin

NickP 1K

Update to my previous post... While waiting in the CDG lounge, noticed a flight to Nurnberg, asked to switch to that from the Munich flight since I was heading to Regensburg anyway. So all in all from what was supposed to be a 9:30 or so departure from Heathrow to Munich arriving at 12:20PM to be at my client my 3PM ended up being a 6:30PM arrival... 3hours 30 mins later.

My alternative to get to Regensburg from what was LHR-MUC then hiring a car:

1. Heathrow Express to Paddington
2. London Undeground/Bakerloo line to Waterloo
3. Eurostar to Paris Gare Du Nord
4. Taxi from Gare Du Nord to CDG T1
5. Flight from CDG to Nurnberg
6. Rental car from Nurnberg to Regensberg

Delay time to my meeting: 3hrs 30 mins

Truly a "Trains, Planes and automobiles" day

BTW: those stating take the Lille train then connect to CDG, the Lille train was OVERSOLD for the time slot I needed... It only took me 20 mins by Taxi to get from Gare Du Nord to CDG/T1 anyway...

transpac

From www.lufthansa-usa.com website...sounds like carry-on (hand-luggage is still allowed)


Special advisory: Liquid substances banned in carry-on luggage on flights to, from or within the U.S.


German Federal Government implements requirements enacted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

At the instruction of Germany�s Federal Ministry of the Interior, new regulations apply to all flights to the USA with immediate effect. We regret any inconvenience our passengers might experience due to these measures.

From now on, passengers are not allowed to bring liquids or gels of any size aboard aircraft in their carry-on luggage. This includes

- beverages
- shampoo
- suntan lotion
- creams
- toothpaste
- hair gel
- other liquids of similar consistency

Passengers are still allowed to have the following items in their carry-on luggage:

- baby formula, breast milk or juice (if a baby or infant travels in their company),
- essential medicine if the name marked on the medicine / prescription matches the name on the ticket.

These regulations apply to all flights to the USA with immediate effect. The items listed above must be stored in passengers� baggage ahead of travel and checked in. Lufthansa recommends that its passengers reduce their carry-on luggage to a minimum and arrive early at the airport.

For arrival / departure times please contact our Call Center at 1-800 645-3880

Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Corporate Communications


Latest update: Aug 10, 2006 (6:00pm)

daysleeper

I can think of several sorts of essential medicine which isn't a prescription drug and therefore has no prescription and no name on it.

flysurfer

I don't think any normal prescription drug in Germany has names on it. You simply give the prescription to the pharmacist and get the factory packaged drug in return.

This new no-liquid rule, if it stays in place, means that I will from now on always have to check a bag when travelling to and from the U.S.

Since checking bags at TBIT was already a major hassle even before the new rules, this will be an inconvenience. Having no liquids, cremes, shaving gel etc. on board (in LH C) is even be more inconvenient.

As nobody forces me to travel to the U.S. (or anywhere else), I'm seriously thinking about abandoning the country and cut all my investments here. I will definitely do it if the situation doesn't improve or it even gets worse. There are other countries to visit, and I'm confident that FT DOs outside of the U.S. (and the U.K.) will be increasingly popular.

daysleeper

I think I had once my name on a medicine but of course this is the exception, not the rule. After all, this new requirements were put in place by bureaucrats and since when are they able to deal with public needs?

daysleeper

I have done that years ago with only one exception: I took one of the last flights with the Concorde to JFK.

I want the good old times back.

Guy Betsy

I haven't been to the US since March last year and I live in YVR. Don't miss it. Don't need it.

andre1970

Yep, this seems to be something that applies to the US only.

At least they allow laptops on board. Well, I don't see you flying a UK<->US route anytime soon

flysurfer

Well, but for how long?

Whatever happens, this was most likely the final death spell for Connexion and similar technologies. Nobody is going to invest a dollar in onboard communication technology when it's not even clear if pax will be allowed to bring electronic devices like laptops, PDAs and cell phones on a plane in a week, a month or a few years from now. These are longterm investments, after all.

In the end, airlines may even have to stop providing inseat power, IFE and headphone sockets, as these are power sources that may be used to trigger something.

Threy

Hopefully this will speed up the discussions which technology has to be installed at major airports. There are detectors available which scan for explosives, but they were considered too expensive so far...

Maybe airports and Governments should stop the rather stupid discussions as well who has to pay for the security.The EU is also known to have a comment for everything, so maybe a multilateral decision cannot hurt.

The two women who bombed the Russian airliners two or three summers ago carried the explosives within their body...

Coming back to the original question.In the mid term, LH will benefit, cause US carriers will lose passengers. Question is, if the overall numbers of passengers decrease as well...

andre1970

Exactly, it is ridiculously inconsistent to ban wristwatch batteries while having so many other sources of power on board.

andre1970

Well, I guess, first they should get to detect the lighter that resides in my backpack for the last 5 years or so, without it having been detected by uncountable x-ray screenings and numerous hand-searches from overzealous TSA agents, vindictively awarding me with secondaries due to my refusal to take off my shoes. Those guys, they literally strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!!