Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

easyJet scrap weight limit on hand luggage

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

easyJet scrap weight limit on hand luggage

Old 4th Jul 2004, 22:32
  #21 (permalink)  
Supercalifragilistic
expialidocious
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 584
Jettesen

Read the first line of my post

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!
Memetic is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 06:12
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 78
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!
hasta lueGO is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 08:57
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Limbabwe, NL
Age: 69
Posts: 2,128
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.
Avman is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 10:24
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 44
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??
Cejkovice is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 11:11
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Vancouver, BC.
Posts: 746
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.
no sig is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 13:15
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 270
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.
jonathang is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 14:33
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 198
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 ?
jammydonut is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 15:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 270
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
jonathang is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 15:08
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Limbabwe, NL
Age: 69
Posts: 2,128
Devil

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.
Avman is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 15:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 270
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.
jonathang is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 17:38
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Limbabwe, NL
Age: 69
Posts: 2,128
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.
Avman is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 17:51
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A25R
Posts: 167
Getting out of Ciampino with increased weights should be a laugh. Whats's the locker weight limit ?
autobrake3 is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 18:03
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 270
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

Last edited by jonathang; 5th Jul 2004 at 18:30.
jonathang is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 21:11
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Limbabwe, NL
Age: 69
Posts: 2,128
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.
Avman is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2004, 22:24
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 270
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

Last edited by jonathang; 5th Jul 2004 at 22:38.
jonathang is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2004, 12:24
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
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.
In trim is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2004, 14:47
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Majorca ��������
Posts: 41
Devil

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
alternatelaw is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2004, 14:59
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 198
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
jammydonut is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2004, 15:47
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 270
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
jonathang is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2004, 20:53
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Could be VERY interesting , feel sorry for the crew

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 .
Anti-ice is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.