Today, 4/22/2009, SCI has sent a letter to SAA requesting a reversal of their new policy requiring transport of ammunition in a locked container, in clear opposition to IATA regulations. Further, the letter requests a clearly stated definition of what the current requirements are.

The letter may be viewed on the SCI website at:
www.scifirstforhunters.org/art...=view&ArticleID=3154

Thanks to SCI and we all await the reply from SAA.

LH - Thanks for the heads up. I am going via SAA in August and would like to hear/see something on this prior to. And some here say SCI does nothing for Africa and the African hunters????

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Great to see them doing something about the situation but they need to note the policy isn't partiularly new and nor is it restricted to SAA. BA and most other airlines have been using the same criteria for some consdierable time...... in some cases, years.

Lets hope the letter gets sent to all relevent airlines.

This isn't a criticism of SCI at all, but I'd also like to see them addressing the problem on a wider basis. The USA especially have a plethora of regulations that affect international carriage of firearms and ammunition and in many cases, the various bodies who have issued them and the regs themselves contradict each other. The entire thing is a pig fuck that needs to be sorted out for the sake of all American travelling hunters.

Take a look at the bottom of the link below. The actual article is about BP, but forget that and just look at the links to see an example of how many governmental bodies (note the list is just some of them and not all of them) have fingers in the pies and then add on the Presidential orders and all the other clap trap that can affect you guys.

http://www.shakariconnection.c...-and-air-travel.html

My other beef with the airlines is that whilst people such as golfers are allowed additional free baggage allowance for their sporting equipment etc, we hunters who travel with our sporting rifles get no free additional allowance........ how the hell does that work!

Steve,

We would like to see PHASA and the other outfitter and hunting related organizations, stepping up and doing something about these unreasonable changes.

The outfitters and PH's of South Africa and the surrounding countries have the opportunity to influence a lot more travelers than either SCI or Accurate Reloading!

There are other ways to get to all those other countries that DO NOT stop in RSA. If they make it hard enough to fly there, SAA's practices could affect the RSA hunting business first!

What are these other organizations doing about these unreasonable restrictions?

Les

Oh Les, come on now.

Anyone who flies the "new" SAA deserves what they get, when Delta has perfectly good Boeings making the same trip. In country is a different story, of course, but SAA and other carriers are discriminating against hunters. Anyone, including PHASA, who can provide input would be helpful.

Les,

I think you'll find that PHASA have had more than one crack at SAA about this over the years but haven't gotten anywhere. They've also tried (and to some extent, succeeded) to improve matters with regard to the situation with suitable licenced staff to handle firearms at provincial airlines....... but really the success was minimal...... and I'd guess this SCI letter probably won't achieve a hell of a lot.

As I said before, that isn't a criticism of SCI at all......... In fact, it's a criticism of the airlines for their ridiculously greedy, penny pinching attitude.

As I see it, this is a worldwide problem that involves Governments worldwide, umpteen pieces of legislation, airlines, airports and Christ alone only knows who and what else.

As to who should take it on...... I really don't know. The PH associations are pretty much all just national bodies who although might possibly be able to take on the airline of their individual country, certainly wouldn't have any sway with governments of other countries, and the occasional one that isn't has very limited income, members and facilities.

I guess if anyone could, should or have the finances and ability to take it on, it would be some kind on international/worldwide hunting association with lots of money and lots of relevent skills at their disposal........ but I can't help feeling that even then, it'd take some kind of partnership with national organisations etc.

Frankly, even then, I can't help but feel they'd be flogging a dead horse. Let's face it, the airlines have always been grabbing bastards who are out to take the customer for every cent they can, and in this present financial climate, they're gonna be looking for even more ways to raise additional revenue if they possibly can. They sure as hell ainn't gonna be considering giving extra benefits to people who have to travel with them anyway.......

I wish SCI all the luck in the world with this but I'd bet a pound to a pinch of the brown stuff, they won't get anywhere.

I personally reckon that if we see any change, it'll be that as time goes on, an increasing number of hunters will opt to hire rifles in country rather than travel with them.

I appreciate that DOJ at least will see the above comments as a criticism of SCI and it isn't meant to be. As far as I'm concerned the problem is far too wide ranging to be defeated, and any organisation that took it on would lose anyway. So why waste the time, money and effort.

quote:

Frankly, even then, I can't help but feel they'd be flogging a dead horse. Let's face it, the airlines have always been grabbing bastards who are out to take the customer for every cent they can, and in this present financial climate, they're gonna be looking for even more ways to raise additional revenue if they possibly can. They sure as hell ainn't gonna be considering giving extra benefits to people who have to travel with them anyway.......

Spot on.

Steve:

Could you please provide proof that PHASA has been involved with this problem? Also, while you are at it, please provide proof that PHASA was directly involved in matters concerning firearms handling with the provincial airlines. Should be relatively easy to post the letters or at least provide a link.

After all, most Africans are fond of saying "African solutions to African problems"
The way I see it, this problem is caused by an African company (SAA) in Africa but affects those of us who travel to or through RSA.

As you will read in the letter, they are asking SAA ot adhere to and abide by the existing international caariers agreements regarding sporting arms ammunition. Apparently this is not a global issue as you suggest in your third paragraph.

The shoe is on the other foot........!

Regards,

RCG

RGC,

No mate, I'm afraid I couldn't. I'm a member of the association, not their press secretary and I don't have time to troll through the hundreds of e-mails on 4 separate computers that they've sent me over the years. Sorry about that......Hope you understand.

As I've said at least twice, it isn't confined to SAA it's pretty much every airline in the world and it has been for bloody years..... in other words, it is a global issue....... which is why I made a point of saying I reckon whoever took it on would be flogging a dead horse.

Steve,

As I understand it this is a very recent [this year] change in requirements and proceedures that is contrary to the requirements agreed to by all the airlines [IATA?].

And , as I recall, this is THE ONLY airline requiring this "hard lockable case". Sure, many here have talked about their "cashbox" solution, but when specific airlines requirements are called for [here on AR some time ago], no one could come up with any airline specifying a hard case for ammo.

Since this IS the national airline of South Africa [and the de facto airline of all of southern Africa] and their actions will likely impact the RSA outfitters and PH's first, I would think, hope, that those organizations would have the incentive to clean up the mess in their own yard! Or at least take a public swing at it!

Sheesh, we're not asking them to start a revolution, just write a letter and encourage them to do the logical thing [ Iknow.I know - it's Africa, but that excuse is wearing thin.]

Who must we contact at PHASA or any Outfitters Orgs to get them some encouragement?

Les

Les,

You recall wrong my friend. Many airlines have had the requirement for many years. BA and many others European airlines (at least)amongst 'em....... in fact, although I don't have the figures, I'd bet that the majority or airlines worldwide have had this requirement for at least 5 years.......... If you check back on my posts, you'll see that I've been commenting for years that not only is the requirement ridiculous, it's actually bloody dangerous. My comment is usually something like, 'stop and think what you're creating when you put highly flammable material into a metal case that contains the burn?'....... pretty dumb idea huh?

You'll also find that many US airlines have an identical regulation. Note, I used the word regulation. t's not a legal requirement and is not mentioned at all in the Air Navigation Order, Carriage of Dangerous Goods Act and nor to the best of my knowledge, is it mentioned in any of the plethora of laws and Presidential Orders etc that the US are lummbered with.

Believe me, this stupid rule irritates me as much as it irritates any other bugger, but I tell you now, it ain't ever gonna change. There's another thread on here about how they are now charging an additional fee for carry on bags.......... in that climate, does anyone really think they're gonna cut hunters a break?

If they do think that, they're gonna be sadly disappointed.

By all means contact PHASA. I think the site is www.phasa.co.za but if it's not, I'm sure Mr Google can direct you to the right place.

The letter itself actually goes to show that the SCI researcher and letter author need some serious retraining, because:

The 1st para is entirely inaccurate because it refers to a new policy and it ain't.

2nd para just blows SCI's own trumpet and nothing else.

3rd para is inaccurate becaue it omits to mention the requirement to keep every round separated from every other round.

4th para repeats itself and makes no mention of other requirements and doesn't mention laws vs regulations or indeed the dangers of packing highly flammable products into metal cases.

5th para fails to mention historical importance of Air Navigation order etc.

Frankly, a child could have written a better letter and I'd bet this one caused a fair bit of hysterical laughter in the SAA offices.

Maybe SCI need to offer me a job!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
RGC,

No mate, I'm afraid I couldn't. I'm a member of the association, not their press secretary and I don't have time to troll through the hundreds of e-mails on 4 separate computers that they've sent me over the years. Sorry about that......Hope you understand.

As I've said at least twice, it isn't confined to SAA it's pretty much every airline in the world and it has been for bloody years..... in other words, it is a global issue....... which is why I made a point of saying I reckon whoever took it on would be flogging a dead horse.

Steve,

I hope you keep the above posting by you in mind when you go on your next rant against SCI looking for facts from AR members and get a reply such as this:

"We are members of SCI, not their press secretary and we don't have the time to do your research for you. Hope you understand mate."

Regards,

RCG

Steve,

Please do AR readers a huge favor and find a hobby. Perhaps a course in writing business letters? You are so full of shit and self-promotion and perceived expertise it would be unbelievable were you not "Mostly South African".

I know this won't have any impact upon you, other than to elicit a reply telling me how right you are, but I simply couldn't help myself any longer. Your FUD knows no bounds.

I agree with lion hunter. And, how does
a pH have so much time to be able to post
so much here? Nearly 5000 posts??

Well, I've looked, again, at several International Airline web sites [British, Air France, Delta, United and American] and again can not locate the requirement for a locked/lockable hard case as SAA has requested. Maybe they are leading the way!

I think I will write to PHASA see here!

and the East Cape Game Management Association @ ecgma@global.co.za

I wonder if there are any other Outfitter or Game Management organizations in South Africa!

Les

Gents,

I'll answer your comments in turn.

RGC,

You misquoted me. What I actually said was:

'No mate, I'm afraid I couldn't. I'm a member of the association, not their press secretary and I don't have time to troll through the hundreds of e-mails on 4 separate computers that they've sent me over the years. Sorry about that......Hope you understand'

What that means is that I'd have to troll through tens of thousands of emails on 4 separate computers, one of which has a broken screen to try to find a handful of e-mails. It'd probably take me days not hours to do that.

I don't rant against SCI, I make my comments in a calm reasoned argument. In this case, I went out of my way to point out I wasn't criticising SCI but was criticising whoever researched and wrote the letter. Those points are perfectly valid. That letter is wildly misinformed and there's no doubt whoever researched the subject didn't do their research properly. Hell there's not even a single mention of the essential fact that each round needs to be kept separeated from every other round, or of the overiding/ruling legislation of airlines worldwide or of the dangers of using a metal case that effecively turns a flammable product into something considerably more dangerous.

LionHunter,

I get an awful lot of messages from members asking for advice and thanking me for my input into the forum and many say what they appreciate, is my info is 100% accurate. If you don't like my comments, you can do the opposite, hell, you can even use the ignore button if you wish. But I don't need your permission or approval to post anything I choose. Actually, if you had any appreciation or understanding of the English language, you'd note I don't go in for self promotion at all. I never sell here, only very rarely post special offers (probably less than a handful in the years I've been posting) and the info I give is always free and unbiased.......... even to the extent of recommending my opposition when necessary.

Added

Your lack of command of the English language is evident in that you seem to think that the info line reads I'm 'mostly South African'. Whereas if you read it properly, it says: 'Location: mostly South Africa'

577ne

It's quite simple really. I've been a member since 2002, I don't do all of our hunts personally nowadays and I take not one but two BGANs when I go on safari......One stays in camp and the other comes in the truck with me. if you don't know what a BGAN is go look it up on Google for exact technicalities, but if it'll help, it's a doo hickey that allows you to access the internet from anywhere, including the middle of the Africam bush and it's a doddle to use.

If you doubt my experience, all you have to do is visit either of the sites in my signature line and you'll find plenty of proof there.

Les,

I sent you a PM but I can assure you the ammo case requirement has been in force with most airlines, including SAA for many years. It's also been discussed on AR for many years. I can certainly remember flying out on LHR with BA in February 2001 and being made to use a locked metal box for my ammo. I can also remember the same rume being applied by both SAA and Air Tanzania at least as far back as 2003.

Regarding PHASA, they're a great organisation but I'm sure you'll appreciate it ain't the biggest organisation in the world. Membership is around US$100 a year and their budget and skills base for lobbying etc is obviously gonna be limited. My guess is whoever took this on will lose and I'm pretty sure PHASA couldn't afford any concentrated effort that would stand any chance of success. - Actually, I seriously doubt ANY organisation could succeed in winning this...... and if they stood any chance, they'd have to pour millions of dollars into the campaign to stand any chance of success.

Look at it another way guys. Do you really think that in this post 9/11 and post financial crash society any airline is going to slacken the rules on what they percieve as a safety issue (sure they're wrong on that, but you'll never convince them of it) and/or change a rule that will cut their revenue. If you do think that, you're gonna be disappointed.

Like I said guys, I hate the requirement as much as you do and in fact, not only is it ridiculous, it's also bloody dangerous if you stop to think about it....... but that doesn't mean it's a new requirement, doesn't mean it's restricted to SAA and doesn't mean it's gonna change, cos it ain't. Frankly whoever drafted that letter didn't do their research properly.

Hope that helps you understand.

Just more FUD from Steve, as expected and predicted.

Well bwana, if you don't like it, feel free to use the ignore button, because I don't give a flying fig whether you approve of me or my posts or not.

Les,

Let me add that you ain't gonna get far by writing to the PHASA that you mention in your post. The link you posted here: http://www.phasa.org.za/index....y&catid=34&Itemid=55 is for the Public Health Association of South Africa not the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa.

You don't by any chance work for SCI do you, because that appears to be about their standard of research.



Sorry about that mate but I just couldn't resist commenting when I saw your link. - No offense intended.

I'll add that although some of this is official policy, some also is not. A largish factor of this is that some airlines don't put their ordinary baggage through the same security system that the firearms go through...... also that the firearms baggage handlers sometimes are unable or reluctant to handle large bags that have ammo in them.

On more than one occasion, I've gone through JIA and the check in agent has said it's OK to put my ammo case into my suitcase and take the whole lot to the firearms handling unit. Then when I've gotten there, they've insisted I take my ammo case out and get a separate baggage tag for it and then my ordinary bag has to go back to check in for ordinary handling and my ammo case back to the firearms handling unit. Last time that happened to me was about 2 or 3 years ago. Last time I flew out of JIA was about August last year and I had to take rifles and ammo case ONLY to the firearms handling unit.

Steve:

I did not misquote you. I cut and pasted your exact comments in your post and then added a response. No misquoting whatsoever. Look again.

Regards,

RCG

quote:

Originally posted by RCG:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
RGC,

No mate, I'm afraid I couldn't. I'm a member of the association, not their press secretary and I don't have time to troll through the hundreds of e-mails on 4 separate computers that they've sent me over the years. Sorry about that......Hope you understand.

As I've said at least twice, it isn't confined to SAA it's pretty much every airline in the world and it has been for bloody years..... in other words, it is a global issue....... which is why I made a point of saying I reckon whoever took it on would be flogging a dead horse.

Steve,

I hope you keep the above posting by you in mind when you go on your next rant against SCI looking for facts from AR members and get a reply such as this:

"We are members of SCI, not their press secretary and we don't have the time to do your research for you. Hope you understand mate."

Regards,

RCG

Yes you did. Your post which has been edited since I last looked at it, is quoted above and the pertinent line is, or should I say, was:

"We are members of SCI, not their press secretary and we don't have the time to do your research for you. Hope you understand mate."

Whereas I said:

No mate, I'm afraid I couldn't. I'm a member of the association, not their press secretary and I don't have time to troll through the hundreds of e-mails on 4 separate computers that they've sent me over the years. Sorry about that......Hope you understand.

My point is that to find individual emails, I'd have to go to 4 seperate computers and each one receives something like 3000+ emails a year and as I've no idea when this was going on, I'd have to go through several years worth of messages to find the right ones. To say nothing of the fact that all the time I was doing it, that computer would be out of use for anything else. To put it into English venacular, bugger that for a lark!!!

Steve:

I know it is Friday night there and you are probably having a sundowner or five, but read my post VERY carefully and you will see that I have not edited anything.

I merely cut and pasted your exact comments and then added a hypothetical response to your comments. The tone and language was similar to yours. Get it? No misquoting of your comments, no editing of mine.

Have a great weekend.

Regards,

RCG

'Fraid I'm sober as a judge. We don't do sundowners in this house.

You did misquote and you did edit afterwards...... unforunately for you, you made the mistake of forgetting to re-edit your mistake of where you altered I to we on two occasions. You remembered to alter the rest, but forgot to alter that.....

Anyway, be that as it may, it doesn't alter the fact that the SCI letter was very badly researched and that the ammo in a case requirement isn't new and nor is it restricted to SAA.

RGC,

I see you've edited your post YET AGAIN in the last hour or so........ too late, bwana, too late.

No matter how often you edit, it doesn't alter the fact that the SCI researcher got his or her facts completely wrong.

Steve is never wrong, just full of FUD. Everyone else, especially we Americans, are always wrong. It's an Afrikans thing, don't you know.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
Steve is never wrong, just full of FUD. Everyone else, especially we Americans, are always wrong. It's an Afrikans thing, don't you know.

Jeez but you guys are as dumb as a sack of spanners. I've proved the writer of the letter didn't do his or her research and was completely wrong and yet you're still arguing. You're also trying to divert the debate with childish insults and re-editing previous posts.

I certainly don't think you Americans are always wrong, just that this little clique is wrong on this particular subject.

BTW, oh great slayer of Lions and mangler of the English language, the word is Afrikaans not Afrikans and I'm neither Afrikaans nor Afrikans. I'm British by birth and English by the grace of God.



Unless anyone can add anything intelligent, I'm outta here. Byeeeeee

Steve:

Trying to have a discussion with you can be likened to the story of wrestling a pig in the mud. All you do is get dirty and pretty soon you realize the pig likes it.

I am through with this thread.

Sorry "LionHunter" for the direction this took with our thick SA friend. Maybe he should put that he is always right on his self promoting website.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Les,

Let me add that you ain't gonna get far by writing to the PHASA that you mention in your post. The link you posted here: http://www.phasa.org.za/index....y&catid=34&Itemid=55 is for the Public Health Association of South Africa not the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa.

Yikes! That was a miscue for sure, I got that from the ECGMA web site - sort of an odd link!

It SHOULD be :PHASA

No offense taken, I recognize it as "South African humor"! [Which usually seems to revolve around someone else's pain!]

As far as the baggage requirements, I am just calling them like I see them!

BUT whatever the others airlines say, SAA is using this silly rule and they are the problem. Does anyone over there care? is there no RSA national organizaton representing the hunting industry?

SAA are ALMOST the only game in town, but not quite, if they manage to make it hard enough to use their flights, I'm sure the other airlines will benefit.

Les


See below some examples:

British Airways : Ammunition must be for sporting purposes. The total weight of the ammunition (including shell) must not exceed the allowance of 5kg (11lbs) per passenger. Sharing weight allowance between passengers is not allowed. Ammunition must be packed in hold bags, an ammunition case or the gun carriage case. An ammunition case will be considered as an additional piece of hold baggage and excess baggage charges may apply. Ammunition must be packed in either its original packaging or in a suitable container that prevents movement between shells or cartridges, i.e loose ammunition is not permitted. Bags with ammunition must not bear 'explosives' labels.

Delta Airlines : Small arms ammunition, in quantities not exceeding 5 kg (11 lbs.) per person, are allowed as checked-baggage only when securely boxed and intended for that person's own use. More than one passenger may not combine quantities into one package.

United Airlines: A maximum of 11 lbs. of small arms ammunition is allowed in checked luggage in the original manufacturer's box or securely packed in a fiber, wood, or metal box to prevent movement of cartridges.

American Airlines: Only small arms ammunition for sporting purposes is allowed as part of checked baggage, amount may not exceed 11 lbs./5 kg

Air France:Accepted ammunition
The following are accepted:
ammunition for all hunting weapons,
ammunition for calibers less than or equal to 19.1 mm.
Packaging
This ammunition must be packaged in fiberboard, wooden or metal boxes, up to a maximum of 5 kg gross per passenger (gross weight = weight of cartridges + weight of box used to package them).
Cartridges must be correctly fitted inside their packaging. In order to avoid the cartridges slipping, any free space must be filled with stuffing material.
The transport of loose cartridges that are not correctly packaged is prohibited.

Les,

You must be wrong! Steve says it ain't so and that all the airlines require ammo in locked boxes and have done so for years. You and SCI are simply too ignorant to gather the correct information or to write an intelligent response!

Thanks for the research. I wasn't gonna do it 'cause I was aware of Steve's FUD from the git-go and knew it wouldn't make any difference to him anyhow. He refuses to understand that IATA is the proponent organization with over 93% of international commercial airlines subscribing to their regulations; it's why they exist. I've told him all this in the past and you can see how much impact it's had on him - ZERO!

Cheers

Les,

Glad to see and happy to respond to an intelligent post on this.

I assume you got my PM and now know why I know what I'm talking about?

English humour please, those South Africans sometimes miss the subtlety! English humour does however tend to take the piss!

I agree with you that it's a silly rule and yes a great many people here, including me, do care about it........ but no, the closest thing to an organisation that represents the industry is PHASA and as I've said, I think you'll find they have tried and failed and simply don't have the money to 'chase the case'

I note your quotes from the sites, but I absolutely guarantee that if you try to fly BA out of LHR, they'll only let the ammo travel if it's in a locked metal case..... incidentally, they also require 72 hours notice that you're travelling with a firearm.

As for the US airlines such as Delta or United. I'm not 100% sure on their requirements, but if you go to the African hunting forum, I think you'll find posts there that go back several years and say they do require a locked metal case. I might be wrong on that but I don't think so.

If you or anyone wants to know the history behind the carriage of dangerous goods on commercial airlines etc, it's all in the link I posted earlier...... and it is relevent.

Personally, I don't think there's a hope in hell of getting this requirement removed from a single airline anywhere in the world, but if it could be changed, I reckon the only way to do it would be with a letter detailing and explaining why it's dangerous and pointing out that hunters tend to be wealthy, influential and in positions where they can influence which airlines their companies spend their money with...... and they won't spend it with those companies that stick to this policy.

That letter should also direct the recipient to cases where dangerous goods have been mistreated or abused etc such as the Value Jet in the Everglades incident and should also be sent to bodies such as the AAIB. (Air Accident Investigation Bureau.

Incidentally, IATA are not and have never been a ruling regulatory organisation and again, the article in the link I posted explains who is. All IATA are is a glorifed trade association

AAH Steve, you promised to take your FUD and go away!

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
AAH Steve, you promised to take your FUD and go away!

Yet another example of your failing to comprehend the English language..... what I actually said was

'Unless anyone can add anything intelligent, I'm outta here. Byeeeeee'

Les did have something intelligent to add, so I responded.

You however, do not.

Please also see the Confederation of Hunters Associations

Which may or may not be able to do anything, but a letter encouraging them to get on the SCI bandwagon is the very least we can do. What could it hurt!

Les

Les,

I'd forgotten about CHASA and actually know someone who I think either sits or used to sit on the board. I'm seeing him in a week or two and will discuss it with him then, but my guess is the news won't be great as it's such a widespread and long established problem.

Like I said, my guess is that nothing could be achieved by any group or association of groups but if anything were to be achieved, the only way to do it would be a worldwide programme that is directed to all airlines and far more importantly, organisations such as AAIB.

IMO, the safety aspect of it is probably the best way to approach it and will also probably be the way to apply the most leverage.

quote:

Let me add that you ain't gonna get far by writing to the PHASA that you mention in your post. The link you posted here: http://www.phasa.org.za/index....y&catid=34&Itemid=55 is for the Public Health Association of South Africa not the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa.

You don't by any chance work for SCI do you, because that appears to be about their standard of research.



Sorry about that mate but I just couldn't resist commenting when I saw your link. - No offense intended.

Steve,

You owe me a new keyborad mate!?

I have just finished exercising, got a can of Pepsi, and had a big swig from it as I hit this link.

That mouthfull came straight out, landing mostly on my wireless keyboard, table and monitor!

Eishhh, poli sana, Bwana!

I find it strange why having to put ammo in a lockable box is percived to be such a hassle by so many???

While I think its its a pretty pointless from a security point of view, its one of the easier things to comply with.

Personally it annoys me more that as Steve says most airlines treat rifle cases as part of your luggage allowence but allow golf clubs ect as free extras...Or that you can't carry you bolts onto the plane in your hand luggage...That would be a real improvement in firearm security and with no downside to it...

Heck, I would just be pleased if the Check-In staff at the airports knew and understood the regualations for checking-in a rifle and/or ammo, and didn't try toenforce their own interpretations of them instead...

Getting back to the requirement for a lockable ammo container, I should add that Steve is correct, this has been a requirement by many airlines for along time; certainly back to 2000 anyway.

And before the Yanks here start jumpring up and down again, you have to remember that historically, international regulations concerning travel to and from North America have always been different to those governing the rest of the world.

For instance, Americans historically had far more generous luggage allownences...I think what is happening is that the regulations that affect America are now slowly starting to come in line with the rest of the world and your luggage allowences have been reduced. Having said that I suspect they are still more generous than those granted to people traveling for say Europe..

Pete,

You've been saying this for years, and still I did not find an airline , other than SAA, that requires it. [using their public web sites as reference]though I certainly did not check them all.

So... Whatever!

Since I must fly SAA, and I need to deal with the issue more urgently, I will obviously have a hard case and thus less clothes and stuff when I go in July.

But, you all keep going along with these silly, punitive regulations, meanwhile we'll keep throwing the Tea into the Harbor!

Les