 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Flew with easyJet Gatwick/Geneva last sunday and back yesterday (exceedingly nice new Airbus A321). The two ladies in front of me had clearly been on a shopping spree and got charged £189 and £154 respectively for excess. They didn't seem to mind.
I was bang on the 20kg (including ski boots in the bag) but pals all carried ski boots on board despite the fact there was no way those bags would fit in the dreaded frame. The check in staff seemed very strict with some and didn't care about others. Methinks its luck of the draw. The staff at Geneva didn't seem to care less. So it seems to be a game of chance. I figure these days it is better to travel light anyway - you always come home with tons of unworn stuff.
muzza77, I like that weights & measures stuff. That'll come in very handy one day. The other one, apparently, is to quote the Warsaw Convention at them regards the free carriage of sporting equipment. Evidently they are meant to have a copy handy to refer to but never do and I have never tested it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| muzza77 wrote: |
| I have contacted Trading Standards who tell me that all airport scales come under the Weights and Measure Act. |
Seems you are right about this. 
So who is going to be the first person to take an airline to court for a refund of the excess baggage charge on the grounds that the scales did not display the stamp
And you just know that the airline will say they do not operate the scales so it's BAA who are the ones to claim your money back from and BAA will say - well we did not charge you anything it was your airline. OMG
Any lawyers out there to give advice?
_________________________________________________-
Regulations implement in the United Kingdom the requirements of Council
Directive 90/384/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC, relating to nonautomatic
weighing instruments. The scope of that Directive extends to a wider range of
applications than those covered by the traditional concept of “use for trade” under Section 7
of the Weights and Measures Act 1985, and in particular will cover some applications for
which there has hitherto been no legislative provision.
with effect from 1 January 2003, all instruments first taken
into service for any of the purposes listed in Schedule 3 (“the Schedule 3 applications”) will
have to comply with the essential requirements of the Regulations.
Schedule 3 Applications – Explanatory Notes
2. Determination of mass for the calculation of a toll, tariff, tax, bonus, penalty
remuneration, indemnity or similar type of payment. This type of use not only includes
situations where the payment is directly proportional to the mass e.g. remuneration, tax etc.
but also situations where the mass value determines the cost of the service, e.g. post office
use, laundry or airport baggage tariff, charge for transporting goods, disposal of waste.
equipment is required to be of an approved form and must be ‘passed as fit for use for trade’ by an Inspector of Weights and Measures (commonly referred to as a Trading Standards Officer). The Inspector checks that the equipment is suitable for its intended purpose and that it is sufficiently accurate. If the equipment is correct it will be ‘stamped’ with a Crown, an identification number and a year mark.
If the equipment does not bear the stamp, it must not be used for trade purposes.
When equipment is found that fails to comply, action could result in equipment being forfeited and the institution of legal proceedings. On conviction, the courts may impose a fine of up to £5000. If equipment is used fraudulently the courts can impose an unlimited fine or a sentence of up to 2 years imprisonment, or both
As you can see I'm bored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Wayne wrote: |
| muzza77 wrote: |
| I have contacted Trading Standards who tell me that all airport scales come under the Weights and Measure Act. |
Seems you are right about this.
So who is going to be the first person to take an airline to court for a refund of the excess baggage charge on the grounds that the scales did not display the stamp
|
Just because they can be fined for it (becsue it is a criminal offence), does not necessarily mean you have a civil case against them for it.
You would have to show that the scales were inaccurate, and thus you wree overcharged, rather than showing that they did not have the stamp.
But I would be surprised if any don't anyhow.
The issue is not going to be the accuracy of the scales themselves, but themn being used wrongly (not being initialised, or the case)s) not being placed correctly or similar).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
The accuracy of some airport scales has been noted by myself before, as someone else poste, I also had a bag weighed at check in which was about 2kg heavier than what it was weighed on a big pair of gym scales, they told me I was going to get excess baggage, even though I was sure the scale were wrong!
To sort it out, much to the moaning of others in my group and also passengers waiting behind me, I went to the WH Smiths and bought two 1 lt bottles of water and promptly put them on the scales ( I had a bit of a sweat on!) sure enough the scales weighed the 2 litres at 2.41kg, the check in girl argued that the 1/2 kilo was the weight of the plastic bottle itself!!! but once logic had applied, ie no way does 2 empty plastic bottles weigh 1/2 kilo they swiftly moved me on without charge.
The scales were very clearly wrong and not calibrated, I never knew about the weights and measure sticker but was aware that the scales should be calibrated if used for charging by weight.
I have printed off the weights and measures act and will keep it with me when flying with my ski and climbing equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mark handford, FWIW - I watched a programme not that long ago whereby they did a "check" of a number of check-in scales at, I think it was London Gatwick and Manchester airports - it transpired that a lot of the check-in scales (I think it was about 20%) were incorrectly set.
I've put a posting in the Apres section regarding baggage weight and a machine I've recently bought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
which seemed a little harsh (I know there has to be limit). The extra charge was £10 per kilo! After a short amount of time the queue became that long they ended up having to pull 3 lots flights out the check-in queue just so people could get their flights and stopped this silly charging. 
