Someone took my luggage
Jan 27, 2015, 8:44 pm
#31
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: UA MP 1K 1MM
Posts: 50
I've got that same Samsonite bag with the three clasps. If those ever got busted there'd be no way to hold the suitcase closed. My solution: I bought a few big (6-8 inch square) bright yellow reflector stickers and put them on both sides of my hard case luggage. The uglier the better - makes it easier to recognize and less likely someone will walk off with your bag either intentionally or in error. I have not yet found as good a solution for the clone black soft case rollerboards. Everyone's got a ribbon attached to the handle.
Last edited by eegulleye; Jan 27, 2015 at 8:56 pm
Jan 27, 2015, 11:02 pm
#32
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: IAH
Programs: Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist, DL Plat, UA Silver
Posts: 4,043
It was in Hong Kong papers last year that they have caught a theft ring targeting certain brand of luggage in Hong Kong. Those were expensive luxury branded luggage. Mine is not an luxury bag, but a common season bag for some frequent traveller or crews. So, I thought I check with this community to see if there are other occurrences.
It's kinda like the same thing about your wife choosing her hand bags. Not bringing to a Hermes to Italy if she feels "unsafe" about it.
Jan 27, 2015, 11:06 pm
#33
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: LAS HNL
Programs: DL DM, 5.7 MM, UA 3.1 MM, MARRIOTT PLATINUM, AVIS FIRST, Amex Black Card
Posts: 4,479
Zip Ties can be your friend. A bag of 50 at Harbor Freight Tools for $1.49 or free with a coupon. I very rarely check bags, but I have used them to secure both ends of the zippers together. TSA only have cut them off two bags with perhaps 100 or so checked bags and many, many times storing luggage with the bell captain at your hotel. Just throw a few zip ties in your bag for the return flt and use a nail clipper to cut them off when you arrive at your destination.
Jan 28, 2015, 12:11 am
#34
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: ATL/TLV/SDF
Programs: AA EXP, UA LT Ag, Marriott LT Ti, Hyatt Glob, Avis PC, Busted-Knuckles Club Grand Poobah.
Posts: 2,590
I lock my Tumi TecraLite* (TSA lock) bags because #1 it keeps the zipper pulls secure and 2) even though it's a premium brand, someone behind the scenes will go for the unlocked bag first. Never anything too valuable in it anyway except a Jambox.
*used UA miles to buy these, I'd never pay the stupid-tax for Tumi but it's held up well over three years of weekly trips.
*used UA miles to buy these, I'd never pay the stupid-tax for Tumi but it's held up well over three years of weekly trips.
Jan 28, 2015, 12:25 am
#35
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
I disagree with using locks to deter unscrupulous baggage handlers - to me that just identifies the bag as having something in it worth locking.
Jan 28, 2015, 12:28 am
#36
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Jan 28, 2015, 1:33 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
I've been known to use paper clips to secure the zips. Just loop through both zipper holes and it's a breeze.
Jan 28, 2015, 2:01 am
#38
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by euslaner
Why would United be responsible for someone taking your luggage?
In this case, it seems pretty clear that the airlines' choice not to provide security and match bag tags to their owner contributed significantly to the episode. Since they provided such security in the past, is is clearly feasible but not cost effective. Therefore, the airline should pay damages, and seek to recover that from the person who took the luggage if they wish.
They've made the choice to not provide adequate security and should pay the alternative price, i.e., making the customer whole.
Originally Posted by euslaner
Why would United be responsible for someone taking your luggage?
In this case, it seems pretty clear that the airlines' choice not to provide security and match bag tags to their owner contributed significantly to the episode. Since they provided such security in the past, is is clearly feasible but not cost effective. Therefore, the airline should pay damages, and seek to recover that from the person who took the luggage if they wish.
They've made the choice to not provide adequate security and should pay the alternative price, i.e., making the customer whole.
Jan 28, 2015, 2:03 am
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
Originally posted by Doc Savage
In this case, it seems pretty clear that the airlines' choice not to provide security and match bag tags to their owner contributed significantly to the episode. Since they provided such security in the past, is is clearly feasible but not cost effective. Therefore, the airline should pay damages, and seek to recover that from the person who took the luggage if they wish.
They've made the choice to not provide adequate security and should pay the alternative price, i.e., making the customer whole.
Exactly. I'm sure the airlines know this. I'll be surprised if any claim in these circumstances was turned down.
Jan 28, 2015, 2:24 am
#41
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: ORD/IND
Programs: UA Platinum, Avis Preferred, Hertz PC, Hyatt Discoverist , Marriott Titanium
Posts: 742
Sorry, makes no sense. In most big airports the airline has no authority to be checking bags in the baggage claim. Many airports (SLC comes to mind as well as SFO International) the baggage carousel often has bags from multiple flights and multiple airlines together. The responsibility for security lies with the airport, IMO.
Jan 28, 2015, 7:30 am
#43
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 8,634
Because, as someone who described using one for a non-locking purpose explained above, they can be opened with a paperclip. Adding the TSA master key bypass is like adding a guess-a-number-between-one-and-ten bypass to your vault.
In the grand scheme of lock security level, it goes:
In the grand scheme of lock security level, it goes:
- TSA Master Bypass
- Crummy File Cabinet
- High School Locker
- All Other Locks
Jan 28, 2015, 7:49 am
#44
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: All of them, UA-Plat, 1MM*G
Posts: 881
PAX have no contract with airports for their services. Airlines have contracts with airports for these services and Pax have contracts with airlines. If the airport screws up, it is UA's responsibility to go after them. If I were the OP, I would file a claim with UA.
See this FT thread for evidence that (a) airlines remain responsible for baggage stolen from carousels; and (b) airlines pay claims for such stolen baggage. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...carousels.html
Last edited by seenitall; Jan 28, 2015 at 7:56 am Reason: Added reference
Jan 28, 2015, 9:12 am
#45
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Because, as someone who described using one for a non-locking purpose explained above, they can be opened with a paperclip. Adding the TSA master key bypass is like adding a guess-a-number-between-one-and-ten bypass to your vault.
In the grand scheme of lock security level, it goes:
In the grand scheme of lock security level, it goes:
- TSA Master Bypass
- Crummy File Cabinet
- High School Locker
- All Other Locks
There are lots of people who touch my luggage on a trip, and most of them have neither the time nor skill to know how to break into a TSA approved lock.
It's always been my thinking that the people who steal contents of luggage would choose the easiest opportunity and would therefore prefer to target a bag that can be immediately and easily opened vs. one that requires breaking a lock.
And, is it really true that all TSA locks can easily be opened with nothing more than a paper clip?
Furthermore, the lock serves the purpose of keeping the zipper closed.
I don't see that using a TSA lock is a bad idea. If someone can break it open, then I'm no worse off than if I had no lock anyway, but it would deter some people, and it keeps the zipper closed.
Someone said upthread that the lock makes it a target but I don't buy that logic either. Locks are very common, so I don't think the existence of a lock represents a reliable signal that valuables are inside.
The only thing that's been said on this topic, which I agree with, is concern about use of high value luggage, like Rimowa. I have two Rimowa pieces, but they're both carry-on only.