PDA

View Full Version : easyJet scrap weight limit on hand luggage


LTNman
4th Jul 2004, 10:21
According to a report in the Sunday Times today, easyJet has removed all weight restrictions for carry-on luggage.

It has also increased the bag size restrictions to 55cm x 40cm x 20cm, to match BA Club World (previous restriction 45cm x 35cm x 20cm).


With no weight limits is safety being compromised?

jettesen
4th Jul 2004, 10:31
Just beacause it is easyJet, there is no need to accuse it of safety bein comprimised. Several eurpoean airlines ( if not all) have no weight limit restrictions on handbaggage. However, they do have a size restriction. The bags will still be screened in the normal way, and if they do not fit in the overhead bin guages at check-in, they will not be classed as handbaggage. The passenger is also informed if they can not lift it into the overhead bins themselves, the bag will be removed to the hold.

By removing the wieght limit, there will be less problems on boarding as pax will not be trying to find places for 5 or 6 bags!!!

Think it is their best idea yet!

jammydonut
4th Jul 2004, 10:41
Avoid any destinations for divers!
A 20 kilo weightbelt is a small volume.....

Avman
4th Jul 2004, 11:50
Weight limits are OK if they are sensible in the first place (which leaves that [email protected] outfit RYR out). V Bird, for instance, allows 1 or 2 pieces of hand baggage with a total combined weight of 10 Kg and 1 or two pieces of checked baggage with a total combined weight of 20 Kg. I consider that a fair limit.

Mr Seatback 2
4th Jul 2004, 12:01
I still think there needs to be a maximum weight for total handluggage brought aboard an aircraft.

Essentially, any piece of handluggage has the potential to become a missile during an accident, especially if the overhead lockers either spill out their contents or collapse. Combined with laws of physics, when speed, gravity and weight combine, the consequences can be almost lethal should something as innocent as a 10kg bag fall out onto someone's head, if not a child's!

Furthermore, overhead lockers on all aircraft (that I have worked on at least) have a maximum weight limit for each locker/bin section. What would be the consequences - from an engineering standpoint at least - of these lockers being constantly exposed to excessive weight?

Whilst I'm all for being flexible with hand luggage requirements, etc, I do believe there needs to be some measure of common sense applied.

A carrier I used to work for performed check in for a smaller, pacific airline. One day, a friend of mine was checking in a lady and, as per procedure, asked her to load her trolley bag onto the scales to see if they met requirements.

The bag weighed in at 40kg - and it wasn't big either (looks can be deceiving).

When she opened it, she discovered the lady was carrying several engine components to give to her brother in arrival to fix!

Food for thought!

jettesen
4th Jul 2004, 12:28
As I said before, the bags will be monitored, and if they are too heavy to lift then they will be off loaded from the cabin and will be placed in the hold.

Memetic
4th Jul 2004, 12:57
There is a stunt waiting to happen here, just to prove how ridculous this is.

Take one power lifter and a video camera on to an easyjet flight along with. One strong bag, filled with fine lead shot.

Assuming a volume of lead in the bag (packing density of lead spheres/ usable volume of bag etc.) of 50cm x 35cm x 15cm accoring to

http://www.allmeasures.com/Formulae/static/materials/20/density.htm

This bag would weigh approx 297kg

Assuming our power lifter can carry it and lift it into the overhead do you think anyone from easy jet managment would be happy to sit beneath it? I would not...

What would this do to weight and balance?

etrang
4th Jul 2004, 13:04
"One day, a friend of mine was checking in a lady and, as per procedure, asked her to load her trolley bag onto the scales to see if they met requirements.

The bag weighed in at 40kg - and it wasn't big either (looks can be deceiving)."

It would be difficult to even lift that and put it in the o/h locker.

jettesen
4th Jul 2004, 13:23
MEMETIC - get real! As if that is ever gonna happen. Don't you think that a few questions would have been asked at security search if he has a bag full of lead????

Engine overtemp
4th Jul 2004, 13:35
Never have had my hand luggage weighed anyway so what's changed?

outofsynch
4th Jul 2004, 14:57
I cant wait to see what eJ reaction will be when CAA get wind of all this, and add 5-10kg to pax standard weights.....

They WILL have to wont they?

Tower Ranger
4th Jul 2004, 15:11
The reason behind the policy change is an attempt to reduce hold baggage to a minimum and help keep the turn around times down but it is bound to cost them a few quid in excess baggage charges.

hapzim
4th Jul 2004, 15:44
All the CAA have to say is actual weight for pax and bags. Standard weights tend to under-estimate in western europe. May as well take out some seats as you won't be able to take the payload with normal seat density. More legroom for all and removes the complaints of being treated to conditions not allowed for the transport of livestock.

The beancounters will not like the idea though.

fimbles
4th Jul 2004, 16:18
I doubt it's got owt to do with processing hold baggage, few less pieces aint gonna make a big time saving. It's a definate attempt to attract the business type with his overnight bag and lap top. These people dislike standing in line to collect their bags and will do their level best to get hand luggage only on board. Let them know that they will not be hassled over reasonable hand luggage and they may opt to book on your flights!
Joe public generally have no need to load up their hand luggage and those that abuse will have it tagged and stuck in the hold anyway.

Oshkosh George
4th Jul 2004, 17:35
Engine overtemp

We had our hand baggage weighed on boarding Flybe at Southampton late last month.

jonathang
4th Jul 2004, 18:02
Avman : (which leaves that [email protected] outfit RYR out)

Justify that comment.

Many airline's limit is 5kg, Ryanair's has just be increased from 7kg to 10kg

Jonathan

FlapsOne
4th Jul 2004, 18:42
outofsynch

The CAA have been aware of this for some time and have been involved in the approval of the policy.

Avman
4th Jul 2004, 19:51
Jonathang ,

RYR's sudden decision to increase their cabin baggage allowance to 10kg most probably came as a result of pressure brought upon them by the vastly superior allowances on other LCCs. However, their checked baggage remains at a very unrealistic 15 kgs. It might be in their interest to reconsider that too.

Departures Beckham
4th Jul 2004, 20:58
I cant wait to see what eJ reaction will be when CAA get wind of all this, and add 5-10kg to pax standard weights.....

As from July 12th (when the new hand baggage 'restriction' comes into force), easyJet adult weights are being increased by 5kgs. Therefore the following weights will apply:

Male = 93kgs
Female = 75kgs
Children = 35kgs
Infants = Nil

jonathang
4th Jul 2004, 22:05
RYR's sudden decision to increase their cabin baggage allowance to 10kg most probably came as a result of pressure brought upon them by the vastly superior allowances on other LCCs. However, their checked baggage remains at a very unrealistic 15 kgs. It might be in their interest to reconsider that too.

Vastly Superior, name LCC with hand luggage allowances over 7kg. Except easyJet and Ryanair there are few.

5kg - 7kg is fairly standard for hand luggage.

15kg-20kg is not a realistic figure I agree however it's what you are paying for when you buy your ticket.

The assumed weights for baggage pieces for mass and balance purposes are between 11kg-13kg. Just because you as a passenger would like to take 30kg's in the hold. This does not mean the aircraft or the airline is capable of taking this.

Hence the restriction and the extra cost if you do choose to take extra. There has to be something to discourage extra weight on aircraft.

Imagine 189 passenger take 30kg in the hold of a Ryanair flight

Actual Weight: 189 * 30 = 5670 kg
Assumed Weight: 189 * 13 = 2547 kg

If the aircraft departs at Maximum Take-off Weight (MTOW).

Aircraft is actually going to land 3123kg over-weight

For that extra weight to stay legal you have to trade other payload (revenue), extra passengers (revenue), ferry fuel (revenue).

Who pays for that? The passenger taking that weight, all fair in my opinion.

Memetic
4th Jul 2004, 22:32
Read the first line of my post :D

I was suggesting this extreme scenario to make the point that setting no limit on hand baggage weight is ridiculous. And i'm speaking as somone who does most of my flying with hand baggage only.

Don't you think that a few questions would have been asked at security search if he has a bag full of lead????

I really hope so!

hasta lueGO
5th Jul 2004, 06:12
It may seem like a good business move to entice more business travellers etc but what about the implications?

- Slower turnarounds? Passengers hunting for locker space, crews getting into arguments, cabin secure etc, delayed passengers through baggage screening

- Cost? This will surely affect the money made on excess baggage payments, extra fuel etc

Hmmm, it's a difficult one but i'm not convinced!

Avman
5th Jul 2004, 08:57
Depends how far you look Jonathang. LCCs were born in the USA. Most of them (Southwest, Frontier, ATA, Jetblue) have a size but no weight limit on carry-ons and offer between 25Kgs (ATA & Frontier) and 31Kgs (Southwest and Jetblue) for checked baggage. I often fly LCC in the USA (Jetblue whenever I can) and I will compare their products with European LCCs. In Europe RYR is by far the worst in many respects. The best, so far, V Bird and Germanwings. Personal opinion of course.

Cejkovice
5th Jul 2004, 10:24
In terms of safety any hand luggage is bad. Who wants to survive a crash if they get killed by someones lap top that spills from the overhead bins?? :confused:

no sig
5th Jul 2004, 11:11
I have no doubt that easyjet will have thought this through very carefully and as Flaps One advises, involved the CAA in the new policy.

jonathang
5th Jul 2004, 13:15
Depends how far you look Jonathang. LCCs were born in the USA. Most of them (Southwest, Frontier, ATA, Jetblue) have a size but no weight limit on carry-ons and offer between 25Kgs (ATA & Frontier) and 31Kgs (Southwest and Jetblue) for checked baggage. I often fly LCC in the USA (Jetblue whenever I can) and I will compare their products with European LCCs. In Europe RYR is by far the worst in many respects. The best, so far, V Bird and Germanwings. Personal opinion of course.

You can not compare the economics of air travel with a European and US low-cost carrier.

The extra cost of taking 31kg of Hold luggage which is nearly half a female adult would have to be absorbed by taking less fuel, payload or passengers. European Operating costs are far higher (Fuel).

Considering the price of the fares it is hard to justify not paying the extra 4 x 15Kg = 60 Pounds for that extra luggage you as a passenger decide to take when youíre only paying 5-20 pounds for your ticket.

The airline can't operate at a loss.

jammydonut
5th Jul 2004, 14:33
Don't you think that a few questions would have been asked at security search if he has a bag full of lead????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why - it wont show up on the scanner will it ?

jonathang
5th Jul 2004, 15:00
I think watching the passenger try to lift it onto the belt would ring alarm bells.

size to weight ratio lol

Sure they would want to search the bag when a very heavy small metal object is displayed on the screen.

Jonathan

Avman
5th Jul 2004, 15:08
You can not compare the economics of air travel with a European and US low-cost carrier.

As a user, yes I can! I'm not a professor in airline economics, just a passenger who spends his own money and is looking to get good value for his outlay - irrespective of whether he's flying LCC, Major, Y or C.

jonathang
5th Jul 2004, 15:20
I agree you can compare them but you can not blame the low costs of Europe for having higher restrictions than the US when they have higher operating costs.

Comments like:

"which leaves that [email protected] outfit RYR out"

Must be justified, it's an unfair comparison.

From my own experience the 15kg limit for Ryanair and other low costs is a reasonable limit for the price of the ticket.

An average by European standards case weighs 15kg at check-in.

So would you argue that it would be justified to increase the ticket prices across the board to accommodate the small minority who travel with 31kg of luggage? Rather than charging the majority less and minority more.

Take less pay less, take more pay more.

Fair in my book.

Avman
5th Jul 2004, 17:38
OK, let's stay in Europe. I have given you comparisons, namely V Bird and Germanwings. I suppose that my negative comment about RYR stemmed not only from their baggage policies, but their entire product and attitude to their customers. Easyjet's not that far behind. If you have no problems with their product that's your choice. I too have a choice and I won't fly RYR because I don't like their product. Incidentally, what do you think would be the financial penalty per ticket with a 20Kg allowance as opposed to 15Kgs? On a B737-800 it must relatively little.

autobrake3
5th Jul 2004, 17:51
Getting out of Ciampino with increased weights should be a laugh. Whats's the locker weight limit ?

jonathang
5th Jul 2004, 18:03
OK, let's stay in Europe. I have given you comparisons, namely V Bird and Germanwings. I suppose that my negative comment about RYR stemmed not only from their baggage policies, but their entire product and attitude to their customers. Easyjet's not that far behind. If you have no problems with their product that's your choice. I too have a choice and I won't fly RYR because I don't like their product. Incidentally, what do you think would be the financial penalty per ticket with a 20Kg allowance as opposed to 15Kgs? On a B737-800 it must relatively little.

You have the right to your own opinion about Ryanair off course the comment was just unjustified. Why?

The financial penalty would be that the assumed baggage weights would be increased.

If you actually take the real weights of the bags.

15kg, 29kg, 19kg, 5kg, 7kg, 8kg, 19kg etc etc..

And divide them by the number of bags you will find the figure for the average baggage weight comes out at around 11kg-13kg.

You can see this when actual weights are used for some carriers at check-in.

The load sheet is approved for assumed weights because this is far quicker than using real weights of bags.

If you increased the "allowed" weights for baggage you would be required to show an increase in the assumed weights for baggage. On paper work (to satisfy the authority) this means the weight carried in the aircraft would increase this would prevent the airline from carrying other payload where they can make other revenue.

So adding 5kg to the extra passengers allowed weight would be a total of 945kg of extra weight.

Thatís a tonne extra which in principal could be used to carry cargo (revenue making), extra passengers (revenue making) and off course cheaper ferry fuel for the return trip.

I have seen Ryanair Flights I have Dispatched where 189 passengers are travelling, 189 bags approx are travelling at the assumed weights and the required fuel because of weather is onboard and there is zero underload at MTOW. i.e. the aircraft has ZERO extra capacity for weight.


Jonathan

Avman
5th Jul 2004, 21:11
That's all understood but you didn't answer my question in terms of pounds shillings and pence. Bottom line is that if I plan to fly somewhere with 20 Kgs of baggage I shan't be going RYR. I'll most probably find just as cheap a flight with a major or other where I won't be charged for my extra 5 kgs. I respect your mathematics, but you are approaching the issue purely from that point of view and not from the customers' point of view. The point I'm making is quite simply that as a passenger I would think twice about using an airline that restricts me to 15Kgs checked baggage, unless I'm travelling light of course. Likewise, I won't fly on airlines (not talking RYR here) that restrict my carry-on baggage to 5kgs.

jonathang
5th Jul 2004, 22:24
That's clearly your decision as a customer and one that I may also make.

What I am trying to explain is the carrierís reasons for the decision to limit luggage.

The fact they don't accept as much as 20kg is not because they are "crap."

Decision based on operating costs.

Passengers seem to have an unrealistic view and expectations what they should expect from a low cost carrier.

If you pay less you get less.

The bottom line is the more the carrier gives in service the more this costs or the less profit generated for the carrier.

but you didn't answer my question in terms of pounds shillings and pence.

This is a good question to ask. It is difficult to answer in a general case.
If the carrier is able to carry lower price fuel and ferry it for the return journey this will reduce operating costs. Clearly this depends on the actual prices in use.
The extra cargo which can be carried instead of the extra baggage weight the revenue from this will depend on the type of cargo being carried for example.

Low Costs, Remaining Profitable, On-time performance and Safety are all top priorities for low cost carriers. Customer service clearly comes below these with many of the low costs. Bottom line is customers are cost driven.

Jonathan

In trim
6th Jul 2004, 12:24
The CAA have been fully involved in the EZY assessment in relation to baggage weight, and the increased pax notional weight which has been adopted in order to account for this.

Even if every single square inch of locker space is filled with baggage (i.e. No empty space at all) at typical baggage densities, structural limitations for the overhead lockers are not breached. (There still remains a large margin to account for higher baggage densities if that is indeed the case.)

Properly controlling volume will ensure that on many flights there is unlikely to be much difference in terms of what is taken on board, as many places do not currently monitor weight carefully anyway.

alternatelaw
6th Jul 2004, 14:47
To all on this subject,
does it really matter as most of the world airlines have not limited cabin baggage since just after the fuel crisis.
Will it matter when the big bang happens due to the more important issue of fatigue both by pilots and ATC

jammydonut
6th Jul 2004, 14:59
Later this year regulations come in that ban any item weighing more than 35 kilos - an EU regulation on health grounds for the max a baggage handler can lift - this can be very difficult for business travelers who have to ship equipment as accompanied baggage...anyone know how this will be implemented

jonathang
6th Jul 2004, 15:47
Later this year regulations come in that ban any item weighing more than 35 kilos - an EU regulation on health grounds for the max a baggage handler can lift - this can be very difficult for business travelers who have to ship equipment as accompanied baggage...anyone know how this will be implemented

This rule has already been implemented in the UK at a limit of 32kg maximum for any single item of luggage.

At check-in if the suitcase is over weight the passenger must repack the bags contents in other bags or in boxes provided at a cost by the handling agent.

Seems to be working fine.

Unfortunately whether the passengers likes it or not the health and safety of the baggage handlers has to be first priority.

Jonathan

Anti-ice
6th Jul 2004, 20:53
Could be VERY interesting , feel sorry for the crew :ugh:

Easyjet A319 156 passengers

BA A319 100-118 passengers (depending on C load)

Also BA club is 5 across which obviously frees up some locker space.
Most BA aircraft have wardrobes too (really for coats, but if you are 10 seconds away from pushback the odd large bag can go if the hold is closed)

They are biting off more than they can chew, and perhaps a CAA audit will reveal some overloaded cabins?

Will also harm their 'megafast' turnround practice , which is essential for lo-co .

bealine
7th Jul 2004, 14:53
Low Costs, Remaining Profitable, On-time performance and Safety are all top priorities for low cost carriers

.......In that order, I presume?

jonathang
7th Jul 2004, 16:48
I guess as a cynical view point you could say that. :rolleyes:

What I was getting at is Customer Service is down low on the list.

Safety and Security is generally everyones top priority.

Jonathan

Avman
7th Jul 2004, 21:17
What I was getting at is Customer Service is down low on the list.

Whilst it goes without saying that safety and security must take top priority, I firmly believe that customer service should have equal billing. Treat your customers with contempt and you'll soon suffer the consequences!

jonathang
7th Jul 2004, 22:29
Avman, while I do agree with you to some degree.

If you offer a very cheap product and have still reasonably high operating costs.

Leaves little for the frills. If you still want to make profit.

bealine
8th Jul 2004, 17:52
For anyone in any doubt about the safety of cabin baggage and the strength of the overhead lockers (or the locker door catches)

http://www.itf.org.uk/itfweb/SECTIONS/Ca/bagpolicy.htm

and

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/pdf/dft_avsafety_pdf_502831.pdf