Global airlines to reduce size of carry-on bags(detroitnews.com)
detroitnews.com
Global airlines to reduce size of carry-on bags
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/09/global-airlines-reduce-size-carry-bags/28758065/
11 comments
I wish the airlines would dictate the size of carry-ons based on the type of plane, because the size of overhead storage bins varies tremendously by aircraft type and vintage. It's nuts that they have the same carry-on rules for a regional jet as an A380.
They do, in a way.
I have a carry-on hard case, which is certified for the cabin. As a matter of fact the airline I most often use sells it branded as carry-on luggage.
it can happen, though, that I have to check it at the gate if the plane is an Avro 100 (or something similar small) and full.
This is actually quite nice in Vienna, when my connecting flight is a Dash turboprop plane. I have to check it at the gate, put it on a cart at the plane entrance, but can pick it up immediately after leaving the plane with no wait times at the carousel.
Even though I see your point, I don't think it's practical.
I have a carry-on hard case, which is certified for the cabin. As a matter of fact the airline I most often use sells it branded as carry-on luggage.
it can happen, though, that I have to check it at the gate if the plane is an Avro 100 (or something similar small) and full.
This is actually quite nice in Vienna, when my connecting flight is a Dash turboprop plane. I have to check it at the gate, put it on a cart at the plane entrance, but can pick it up immediately after leaving the plane with no wait times at the carousel.
Even though I see your point, I don't think it's practical.
I agree, it's impractical. Just wishful thinking.
True. I already travel with a smaller suitcase that matches the proposed dimensions because I found my "standard" one was too big for most planes, especially commuter flights.
100% agree. Just stepped off a 777 and it's got great storage unlike the A380 with it's stupid roomy cabins with tiny lockers
I fly quite a bit and I haven't noticed a problem with there not being enough room for carry-ons. What I have noticed is some delays during boarding while people find a place for their bag carry-on to go. Anything that slows down boarding costs the airline money. They probably also want more people to pay to check bags.
You must not fly major legs or something.
Every hub-to-hub flight on United, particularly in the northeast corridor (e.g., ORD<->PHL or EWR, which I find myself on pretty regularly), not only do they run out of bin space, they pre-warn folks in boarding groups 4 or 5 to just check their bags ahead of time 'cuz odds are very good they ain't gettin' them onboard.
I fly on average once a month (though it's been roughly every other week for the last couple) and it's been getting worse and worse with every trip. Makes me glad I've at least maintained silver status... in the past I used to wait until the last minute to board, but these days, being in a priority boarding group is the difference between gate checking or not gate checking...
Every hub-to-hub flight on United, particularly in the northeast corridor (e.g., ORD<->PHL or EWR, which I find myself on pretty regularly), not only do they run out of bin space, they pre-warn folks in boarding groups 4 or 5 to just check their bags ahead of time 'cuz odds are very good they ain't gettin' them onboard.
I fly on average once a month (though it's been roughly every other week for the last couple) and it's been getting worse and worse with every trip. Makes me glad I've at least maintained silver status... in the past I used to wait until the last minute to board, but these days, being in a priority boarding group is the difference between gate checking or not gate checking...
I'm often on very crowded flights, but not so much in the northeast. Maybe people there tend to bring more/bigger luggage, but it seems to me the airlines created the issue by charging for checked bags.
Oh yeah, I couldn't agree more. 'course, I carry on because I don't want them to lose or damage my stuff (I get a free check bag with status but never take advantage of it), but I think most casual travelers are reacting to the fees.
If all the ads and booking sites had to include the price of the ticket with 1 checked bag and 1 carry-on then I suspect the checked bag fees would go down (or at least stop going up) and carry-on space would be less of an issue.
I still think the best solution is to make basically reverse the current rules. Make the first 2 checked bags free, charge for additional after that. Allow one small carry-on, but charge for the second. The fee for the second carry-on should be at least 2x the fee for the 3rd checked bag.
>Allow one small carry-on, but charge for the second.
I also think checked bags should be free and the carry-on bags should pay the fees.
However, allowing only 1 free carry-on is a disadvantage to women who want to carry a purse (that's 1 bag) and also a laptop briefcase (that's now 2 bags) to do work. I suppose women could stuff the bare minimum of toiletries into the pockets of a laptop bag but I think a lot of them will want everything that they carry in the purse.
The airlines could make an exception for purses, but then the men could claim they should also be able to bring on messenger bags[1]. Therefore, we're right back to 2 bags again.
Or we allow 2 small carry-ons for free and they can't be rollerbags and suitcases. If mothers with infants require a 3rd bag for a supply of diapers, toys, etc, they have to pay. We have to draw the line somewhere :-)
[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=messenger+bag&source=lnms&tb...
I also think checked bags should be free and the carry-on bags should pay the fees.
However, allowing only 1 free carry-on is a disadvantage to women who want to carry a purse (that's 1 bag) and also a laptop briefcase (that's now 2 bags) to do work. I suppose women could stuff the bare minimum of toiletries into the pockets of a laptop bag but I think a lot of them will want everything that they carry in the purse.
The airlines could make an exception for purses, but then the men could claim they should also be able to bring on messenger bags[1]. Therefore, we're right back to 2 bags again.
Or we allow 2 small carry-ons for free and they can't be rollerbags and suitcases. If mothers with infants require a 3rd bag for a supply of diapers, toys, etc, they have to pay. We have to draw the line somewhere :-)
[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=messenger+bag&source=lnms&tb...
"If mothers with infants require a 3rd bag for a supply of diapers, toys, etc, they have to pay."
That's not a 3rd bag, that's a bag for the infant. So you don't have to make an exception for parents, just say "2 bags per person", since the infant is a person too.
That's not a 3rd bag, that's a bag for the infant. So you don't have to make an exception for parents, just say "2 bags per person", since the infant is a person too.
Yes that makes sense because you're using customer's logic instead of airline's logic.
Airline's logic: "passenger" would mean "ticketed passenger" which would mean a seat that was paid for. Since most people do not buy separate tickets for infants (because infants are held in the arms), the infant doesn't get a "free bag".
For example with American Airlines policy[1], the unticketed infant gets zero bags as an allowance. However, the diaper bag is allowed as an exception. There is no "2 carryon bags per human" type of rule.
But my comment about mothers was tongue-in-cheek (note the smiley face) so we don't have to overanalyze it.
[1]https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/specialAssistance/...
Airline's logic: "passenger" would mean "ticketed passenger" which would mean a seat that was paid for. Since most people do not buy separate tickets for infants (because infants are held in the arms), the infant doesn't get a "free bag".
For example with American Airlines policy[1], the unticketed infant gets zero bags as an allowance. However, the diaper bag is allowed as an exception. There is no "2 carryon bags per human" type of rule.
But my comment about mothers was tongue-in-cheek (note the smiley face) so we don't have to overanalyze it.
[1]https://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/specialAssistance/...
On many airlines, you have to buy a ticket for an infant,but you don't get an extra seat. It's stupid.
My wife's "Diaper bag" was an oversized purse, because she didn't like the designs/styles of the actual diaper bags. When we traveled "infant in arms" we never had more than 2 carry-ons between us.
[deleted]
Even if checked bags are free, I prefer a carry-on when possible to avoid having to wait for my bags to show up and the possibility of them being lost.
+1 - carry on in the overhead, laptop under the seat infront.
I can fit a weeks worth of clean clothes into a European carry on.
I can fit a weeks worth of clean clothes into a European carry on.
Agreed on the part of potentially lost luggage, but I think having to wait is going to be a thing of the past soon. Alaska Air already has a 20 minute guarantee. If you bag isn't on the carousel 20 minutes after arrival at the gate, they give you $25 off your next flight or 2,500 miles.
Changing the baggage rules will drive innovation/competition elsewhere. I think for the better.
Changing the baggage rules will drive innovation/competition elsewhere. I think for the better.
But that still adds up to 20 minutes to your full travel time.
I often have flights that are only 1 hour. Waiting even 10-15 minutes (normal here) is annoying for me, especially when I'm trying to get to work on time.
I often have flights that are only 1 hour. Waiting even 10-15 minutes (normal here) is annoying for me, especially when I'm trying to get to work on time.
I'd wager it's very rare for a significant majority of deplaning passengers to make it out of the plane, through the terminal and to baggage claim before 20 minutes have passed.
Don't checked bags incur a higher cost to the airline than carryon, though?
(The whole sorting & hand screening & getting bags to the plane bit)
(The whole sorting & hand screening & getting bags to the plane bit)
The bigger cost to the airline is opportunity cost - they use leftover space in the cargo hold to carry packages, which is more lucrative than your checked bags.
There are 2 more angles to that...
1) more checked bags means less passengers wasting time fighting for non-existent overhead bin space. Less hassling with flight attendants. More efficient loading; planes have a better chance of pulling away from the gate on time. What cost savings there are to a more hassle-free boarding process, I wouldn't know how to quantify.
2) Passengers will bring carryons knowing ahead of time there will be no bin space and it will have to be checked at the jetway. (The ground crew takes the last bags down the stairs and and tosses them into the plane.) These "checked" bags don't pay the fee. Eliminating the checked bag fee removes the incentive for this loophole. However, I wouldn't know how to quantify the savings.
1) more checked bags means less passengers wasting time fighting for non-existent overhead bin space. Less hassling with flight attendants. More efficient loading; planes have a better chance of pulling away from the gate on time. What cost savings there are to a more hassle-free boarding process, I wouldn't know how to quantify.
2) Passengers will bring carryons knowing ahead of time there will be no bin space and it will have to be checked at the jetway. (The ground crew takes the last bags down the stairs and and tosses them into the plane.) These "checked" bags don't pay the fee. Eliminating the checked bag fee removes the incentive for this loophole. However, I wouldn't know how to quantify the savings.
It's in inches, but aren't those sizes right around the normal European carry-on size?
My wife and I have a couple of European size carry-ons (a couple of rollers, one medical bag style) and then a couple of American size carry-ons for when we travel to the U.S.
The Tumi expandable carry-on bags are nice, and my Tumi laptop bag is normally nice and compact but when I expand it I can hold enough for a few days consulting.
The European size Tumi expandable roller cannot be expanded though and be carry-on size.
I know this sounds like it would make a boring conversation but when you travel as much as we do it becomes important and is a common topic of conversation with colleagues that also travel.
My wife and I have a couple of European size carry-ons (a couple of rollers, one medical bag style) and then a couple of American size carry-ons for when we travel to the U.S.
The Tumi expandable carry-on bags are nice, and my Tumi laptop bag is normally nice and compact but when I expand it I can hold enough for a few days consulting.
The European size Tumi expandable roller cannot be expanded though and be carry-on size.
I know this sounds like it would make a boring conversation but when you travel as much as we do it becomes important and is a common topic of conversation with colleagues that also travel.
The recommendation is metric http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2015-06-09-02.aspx
It's 55 x 35 x 20 cm which is rounded down quite a lot to 21.5 x 13.5 x 7.5 inches. That is only 92% of the volume of the metric size. Be sure to get a European bag :-)
It's 55 x 35 x 20 cm which is rounded down quite a lot to 21.5 x 13.5 x 7.5 inches. That is only 92% of the volume of the metric size. Be sure to get a European bag :-)
I don't see any clarity on size requirements, and since my idea of a "carry-on" is a backpack with my laptop and a change of clothes, I'm really concerned about this.
That's generally what I travel with as well, and I usually just stick it under the seat in front of me.
Airlines absolutely created this problem themselves. Aircrafts are designed to carry large bags in the hold, and small bags in the cabin.
But airlines decided to actively discourage people from checking bags with ever more insane checked bag fees (e.g. $25 on a $100 ticket!) and even worse if you try to take a bag that is clearly too big onboard, they waive the fee at the gate which "punishes" the people responsible enough to check.
Honestly the entire system seems silly to me.
But airlines decided to actively discourage people from checking bags with ever more insane checked bag fees (e.g. $25 on a $100 ticket!) and even worse if you try to take a bag that is clearly too big onboard, they waive the fee at the gate which "punishes" the people responsible enough to check.
Honestly the entire system seems silly to me.
I'm no expert, but didn't the concept of packing everything into your carry on develop because of the fear (rational or not) that your bag would be lost if checked? The exorbitant bag checks fees seem to have arisen in the last 5-10 years seemingly as a result of the 2008 economic crisis and overall crappy business model (cheap fares etc.)
I think it's a bit of both. I stopped checking bags in because of all the hassles - delays, lost bags, etc. This was well before airlines started charging for checked bags, and I know many others (mostly frequent travelers) in the same boat. It's not a lot of fun showing up in London without your luggage when you have a meeting in Cambridge the next morning.
Less frequent travelers I know stopped checking luggage in after the airlines started charging.
Less frequent travelers I know stopped checking luggage in after the airlines started charging.
Certainly a portion of carry-on travelers do so because of the reasons you listed, but the rise of checked baggage fees unquestionably made matters worse. I've been traveling for business since around 1999. Not a terribly long time, but long enough that I remember the days of simple metal detectors at security checkpoints and family greeting me at the gate when I landed. Overhead space was rarely a concern except for commuter-heavy routes. These days, I rarely get on a flight where some passengers have to gate check. The "overhead bin space is going to be tight" announcement has become a standard part of many flight attendant's duties.
That's sure why I don't check. After they permanently lost thousands of dollars of clothes for me, I stopped checking.
Add in the dangers of flight cancelations (sorry your bag is on this plane and we can't get it until tomorrow), the time spent waiting at the belt to pick up on the other side, the chance of damage, and the fees, and nope, I never check and never will when I can avoid it.
Add in the dangers of flight cancelations (sorry your bag is on this plane and we can't get it until tomorrow), the time spent waiting at the belt to pick up on the other side, the chance of damage, and the fees, and nope, I never check and never will when I can avoid it.
Nuh-uh. This is your fault, Internet. Bag fees came along when booking websites cut fares to the bone, but neglected to factor in bag fees.
Edit: This is also plausible - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9691867
Edit: This is also plausible - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9691867
Not sure the messenger is to blame. Customers wants the cheapest possible base fare and booking websites gave them what they wanted.
Customer wants the cheapest total price, not base fare; internet provider base fare comparisons, which are presented and perceived to represent cost comparisons, airlines game the system so that they can minimize what people are able to easily compare on while maximizing revenue.
Business travelers have done this for years since their stays are so short and a checked bag that misses the flight is a big issue.
Also please consider competition for cargo space. I've "next day air" shipped things to avoid checking bags because, hey, why bother with the hassle? And for non-international stuff I don't need soon (dirty socks?) I've ground shipped at the very cheapest rates. I've walked on to planes and trains with little more than a tiny bag for camera and tickets and phone and such a couple times. Its a nice way to travel. Not as nice as paying for 1st class, but not as expensive, shipping is well worth the money.
The problem is that cheaper air shipping means it may very well be in the same plane I'm flying on, insane as that sounds. Then multiple middlemen all trying to get their cut, etc.
Shipping is infinitely more reliable than airline baggage, which is weird to me. The difference in loss rates is like 100 to 1. Everyone knows someone who ended up with missing baggage if not themselves, but its incredibly rare to lose a tracked postal package. I really don't understand this beyond maybe baggage handlers are more likely to be thieves than USPS mailmen.
The problem is that cheaper air shipping means it may very well be in the same plane I'm flying on, insane as that sounds. Then multiple middlemen all trying to get their cut, etc.
Shipping is infinitely more reliable than airline baggage, which is weird to me. The difference in loss rates is like 100 to 1. Everyone knows someone who ended up with missing baggage if not themselves, but its incredibly rare to lose a tracked postal package. I really don't understand this beyond maybe baggage handlers are more likely to be thieves than USPS mailmen.
The first thing that came to mind was that it's an offense to open mail but really it seems like it's just stealing either way so that's probably not the big deterrent.
Maybe there are more restrictions/logging that prevents mail from getting lost. I would find that a bit weird (that USPS would be more secure) but I somehow doubt it's because postal workers are just more honorable.
Maybe there are more restrictions/logging that prevents mail from getting lost. I would find that a bit weird (that USPS would be more secure) but I somehow doubt it's because postal workers are just more honorable.
Having a reputation for losing bags, and also the fact that it takes longer to get your bag from the hold doesn't help either.
...even worse if you try to take a bag that is clearly too big onboard, they waive the fee at the gate which "punishes" the people responsible enough to check.
What annoys me is the airlines that have responded to this problem by posting "minders" outside the security gates.
These folks are usually positioned to maximally embarrass and psychologically pressure (there are people behind you waiting!) anyone foolish enough to try to prove their bag actually does fit, even in the absurdly small "tester" frame.
And whatever you think of the TSA, I don't like airlines piggy-backing on the nominally important security process. It's dishonest "authority by association"—the TSA couldn't care less about a few extra combined inches in your luggage—and promotes degrading the screening process into general purpose policy enforcement.
What annoys me is the airlines that have responded to this problem by posting "minders" outside the security gates.
These folks are usually positioned to maximally embarrass and psychologically pressure (there are people behind you waiting!) anyone foolish enough to try to prove their bag actually does fit, even in the absurdly small "tester" frame.
And whatever you think of the TSA, I don't like airlines piggy-backing on the nominally important security process. It's dishonest "authority by association"—the TSA couldn't care less about a few extra combined inches in your luggage—and promotes degrading the screening process into general purpose policy enforcement.
To be fair, the TSA security process has always been little more than general purpose policy enforcement in the pursuit of "security theater." When you have 95% failure rates for DHS penetration tests [1], it's tough to argue that the security provided is anything other than illusory. In that sort of environment, why not chastise flyers over the size of their bags? They're already being chastised over everything else.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-tsa-screeners-...
[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-tsa-screeners-...
> with ever more insane checked bag fees (e.g. $25 on a $100 ticket!)
You probably know this, but to be fair, this is because they need to make a certain amount to have a viable busines, and an easy way to do that is to reduce ticket prices while increasing fees for other services. In the absence of checked bag fees (and assuming all else is equal) that hypothetical $100 ticket probably would have been closer to $125. But there is clearly a psychological difference.
> if you try to take a bag that is clearly too big onboard, they waive the fee at the gate which "punishes" the people responsible enough to check.
Yea that is a bit unfair. But it likely stems from the fact that airlines often end up gate-checking bags, once the overhead bins are full. If they enforced the bag check fees at the gate and had to measure every bag to decide if it should be free or charged, flights would be delayed and passengers would be (even more) unhappy.
You probably know this, but to be fair, this is because they need to make a certain amount to have a viable busines, and an easy way to do that is to reduce ticket prices while increasing fees for other services. In the absence of checked bag fees (and assuming all else is equal) that hypothetical $100 ticket probably would have been closer to $125. But there is clearly a psychological difference.
> if you try to take a bag that is clearly too big onboard, they waive the fee at the gate which "punishes" the people responsible enough to check.
Yea that is a bit unfair. But it likely stems from the fact that airlines often end up gate-checking bags, once the overhead bins are full. If they enforced the bag check fees at the gate and had to measure every bag to decide if it should be free or charged, flights would be delayed and passengers would be (even more) unhappy.
In Toronto, Air Canada is now size checking and tagging carry-ons at the check-in counter. That prevents delays from doing it at the gate.
I have seen similar things in Chile as well. But not yet in the US.
" they waive the fee at the gate which "punishes" the people responsible enough to check."
Who does this?? Try bringing a bag slightly too big or too heavy to the gate with Ryanair, EasyJet, Jet2.com, GermanWings or WizzAir - you will pay 5x as much as it would have cost to have it checked in normally. Is it a US-only thing?
Who does this?? Try bringing a bag slightly too big or too heavy to the gate with Ryanair, EasyJet, Jet2.com, GermanWings or WizzAir - you will pay 5x as much as it would have cost to have it checked in normally. Is it a US-only thing?
They do it because when the bins fill you are forced to gate check and people would be pissed if you charged them just because they were in a late boarding group.
Huh. Every flight I've been on (United, American, etc) have these little bins by boarding they can drop your bag in real quick to see if it'll fit the overhead.
If not, they certainly don't wave the fee. . . damned protruding wheels.
If not, they certainly don't wave the fee. . . damned protruding wheels.
Airlines are doing everything they can to make people check bags. Why? Because it's revenue that doesn't get taxed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/29bags.html?_r=0
It'd be in their best interest to get rid of carry-on storage altogether, drop ticket prices, and raise checked-bag fees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/29bags.html?_r=0
It'd be in their best interest to get rid of carry-on storage altogether, drop ticket prices, and raise checked-bag fees.
Strange, it doesn't seem to explain the reasoning behind this other than that airlines like it (obviously). It goes against the general principles of tax accounting policy as well: they (indirectly) deduct the cost of handling the bags as expenses, so why not the income therefrom? Both should count towards net income, or neither should.
How about when you bill out as a consultant, you can charge $1/hour, plus baggage handling fees of $199/hour?
How about when you bill out as a consultant, you can charge $1/hour, plus baggage handling fees of $199/hour?
tldr:
IATA recommend new guidelines (non-binding) for carry-on luggage to be 21.5 x 13.5 x 7.5 inches.
Let's hope competition keeps us from having to buy new carry-ons now.
Carry on != personal item.
Carry on max: 22 cm x 35 cm x 56 cm Personal item max: 22 cm x 25 cm x 43 cm
On at least U.S. airlines the personal item is always free. The carry on isn't always free, e.g. Frontier. And also gate checking the 1st bag isn't always free, it can be quite a bit more expensive, again e.g. Frontier which will charge $60 at the gate.
Carry on max: 22 cm x 35 cm x 56 cm Personal item max: 22 cm x 25 cm x 43 cm
On at least U.S. airlines the personal item is always free. The carry on isn't always free, e.g. Frontier. And also gate checking the 1st bag isn't always free, it can be quite a bit more expensive, again e.g. Frontier which will charge $60 at the gate.
My last Ryanair flight was horrible in every respect. From booking the flight on their buggy website infested with ads and extras and deceptive nonsense to broken baggage promises and legroom that isn't even enough to get into the recommeded heads down safety position in case of an emergency.
I guess I brought this upon myself by making cheap fares the only priority. Well, no more! From now on I'm going to want to know how much legroom each airline/flight offers and I'm going to pay for more or simply stop flying if they charge excessively for it.