Subject:
|
Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:06:31 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIEN@IWANTNOSPAM.antispamCTP.COM
|
Viewed:
|
523 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> > As for checked... I HATE it when I have to check something. I know that
> > at best, I am in for a delay. Sometimes a substantial delay to the tune
> > of having to come back the next day. I know that my luggage is going to
> > get tossed around unfeelingly. Anything inside is much more likey to be
> > damaged. The luggage itself is more likely to come back wet, dirty,
> > scuffed, or even damaged. If I ask for gentle handling, I get no
> > satisfaction. All I get to do is sign a waiver.
>
> I don't fly much, actually never when I can avoid it, so I don't know
> much about it. But isn't the airline responsible for any damage they
> might cause to your luggage?
Yes, but dirt, wet, straps torn off, scratches, or rips in the material
are all "normal wear and tear", so, **essentially**, no.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
Stop the FDIC from spying on us! Go to
http://www.defendyourprivacy.com and sign the petition.
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
