45x35x16 - What a ridiculous set of measurements!
 

Having to go to the UK, I just measured out the new restrictions for hand baggage. Utterly ridiculous is all I can say. Invented by complete morons who obviously never travel commercially by air. The terrorists must be laughing their socks off!

Agreed.

In a few years the Brit press will be asking why the once profitable airline sector has gone the same way as the car industry.

So are we REALLY saying . . .
 

. . . that my expensive, fitted briefcase/laptop case which measures

46x35x9 (exterior max dimensions, including knobbly sticky-outy bits) will not be allowed?

In all the years that I've been travelling transatlantically, this has been almost the smallest piece of cabin luggage I've seen anybody travel with.

Nope, not by morons. The size was chosen, quite cleverly I believe, by an organisation that would rather have had passengers with no hand-baggage at all but was being pressured by the industry to allow some hand-baggage. So they deliberately chose a size that was smaller than most carry-on bags, on the assumption (probably a valid assumption) that at least in the short term many passengers would not go out and buy new bags and would thus be forced to check much more than they had done in the past. This limitation thus achieved their objectives of severely limiting hand-baggage by the back door, whilst still appearing to be sensitive to industry and passenger concerns.

Andy

That = "morons" to me Andy, because a more realistic size would not have made that much difference with regard to security whilst still ruling out some of the ridiculously large and bulky carry-ons that became OTT.

What annoys me is the fact that you can currently fly into the UK (from most places) with the larger dimensions. So for example a businessman flying in from the continent to the UK for a day meeting with only a slightly abnormal laptop case (as I happen to own *) will not be stopped and will be fine flying in. Unless he has had the time to measure it, he will probably not even realise that his case will not be accepted on the way back, unless he checks it in! (and just who wants to do that?) :ugh:

* = mine happens to be 1.5cm too wide, but I would normally never have measured it, because I've always considered it to be tiny.

Just tell these morons (only word for them) what you think by writing to:

[email protected]

As I understand it, the previous hand baggage max size was expressed as the sum of the three measurements. Can the new limits be used the same way - i.e. is a bag whose dimensions are less than 96 cm in total allowable?
Second question - are the checkin desks (LHR and LGW in particular) insisting that ALL hand baggage go in to the cages (or hastily assembled MDF boxes) to check compliance or is it done by sight judgement only?

Personal experience rather than theory would be helpful.

Cheers,
Jet.

Precisely the point of my question in post #3 above. My case would be 90 cm in total dimensions.

45x36 is pretty much standard with most Samsonites. The question is: will the security jobsworth tolerate the extra 1cm? Do you dare risk it? I've purchased a Carlton model 42x34x15 just to be on the safe side.

Eastmids is correct in his explanation of the choice of hand luggage size.

The reason for the problem, is all down to the clowns at BAA who have over the years failed to adequately invest in security hardware, baggage systems and personnel, so when the sh*t hits the fan, they cannot cope.

Their way to deal with the situation is just to restrict the amount of hand baggage that can be taken on. The size limit is not for security reasons, it is simply because the clowns at BAA cannot cope with the intensive searches currently required with normal hand baggage levels.

This also explains why you can enter the UK with larger hand baggage, which has been screened somewhere else abroad. The size of the hand baggage is not a security issue per se, it is just because BAA cannot deal with screening it. Incompetence at it's worst.

It really is a f***ing joke for anyone in BAA to say they are doing all they can. It's all about profits for BAA, security comes way down their list of priorities.

I personally, will try to fly as little as possible until someone gets the finger out, and demands BAA sort it out, and I can travel with a very reasonable piece of cabin baggage.

Honestly, this country is a joke.

Rant over.

I personally, will try to fly as little as possible until someone gets the finger out, and demands BAA sort it out, and I can travel with a very reasonable piece of cabin baggage.

If you are based there, you have little choice.

Those of us who do have a choice will vote with our feet.

At EGCC the answer is a definite and resounding NO! There is no discrection and no common sense applied at all.

This experience was, as they say, upclose and personal at LHR last Friday morning ... This was for a BA to TXL (Berlin) from T1 with an 08:50 departure.
Jetnoise UKFirst The answer is NO!
Second The answer is YES!

If your bag does not fit in the reduced sized frame then you get sent back. When I reached the front of the queue to enter air side, there was a very polite woman checking bags into the frame. She was patient in helping people and very smartly saying, "If it doesn't fit in to the frame - they will send you back to check it in." Actually, No 'they ' would not as she was the one doing the sending!! But she was cleverly offsetting the potential arguments by making out that there lay some further size related screening ahead which, of course, I knew that there would not be!! Effectively, she was saying that there was no good complaining to her!

I had carefully measured by old computer bag at home and knew that it was within spec. When I put it into the frame it stuck up just above and she suggested that I try it horizontally. Jamming the bag in and out of the frame was not straightforward and so I also took her advice to see if there was something that could be rearranged. I took an item from the width of the bag (CD pack) and placed it nearer the top, so shrinking the bag's width. It then went in horizontally and I was off to enjoy the next part of the day.

There was one other unexpected side effect to all of this. Because many people had gone on-line to check details, many many more than usual had checked in on-line. The self-serve machines were almost empty and with no queues - because most folks had their print out in hand. This meant that there was a very long queue for the newly named SLOW BAG DROP. :}

As always, if you were polite to the staff, they were appreciative of a smile and sympathy. I would not have their job. In the end we were 30 minutes late out but no explanation as to why. The flight was not posted for a gate until almost time to push-back, so it looked like an unrelated delay but no one said a word.

On board was the usual pleasant BA experience (All Day Deli that tasted like ti was produced by MacDs) but the staff were as good as always.

Returning on Sunday evening was normal - except that the baggage hall at T1 was in melt down. Here a note I posted in another forum.

... Sunday 20th arriving into T1 from Berlin at about 21:00 ... the airport that was now 'running normally' certainly was!

The T1 baggage hall was awash with bags, dozens pulled off the carousels and sitting around on trolleys and cluttering up the hall, many with new routing labels on them.

The hall was packed and the escalator delivering more every minute. The indicator board (to advise which carousel) was full and four entries had several garbage characters so as to render the entry invalid. For example there is no carousel '54', although it might be helpful if they did have that many.

The board was not updated for nine minutes after I started watching it and then the four entries were replaced by 'Please Wait' for another eight minutes.

Yes, it was good to know that the airport was fully back to normal. Now to open the duty free ... and then :zzz:

PAXboy - thanks for the concise reply - even though it was not what I wanted to hear! I have just checked my camera bag and it will squash down to within the required dimensions on the side that is 1cm too long. I do not want the camera in there when I do it though!
I understand that all electrical items have to be removed from the bag at security and x-rayed seperately. Therefore my digital camera and lenses will be removed in advance of the bag size check (to speed up the x-ray process of course :ok: ) thus allowing the bag to fit.

Can anybody confirm the arrangements at Gatwick are the same as those described at LHR - that the bag size check is done at security and not at check-in?

Cheers,
Jet.

So cleverly that friends transiting via LHR from SE Asia
ended up having check in hand baggage.

Of course it got lost (along with their all their checked-in).
That was Saturday. The airline suggested they would deliver
the bags mid-day Tuesday. So they have made two trips to
the airport yeserday and today to find their bags. Today's
visit was in desperation as a result of the given help line
denying the existence of their last outstanding baggage. (Looks
like the system is overwhelmed as they were directed to search
for the last bags in a room of unprocessed bags).

When they do the trip again later this year they won't be
using a UK airport for transit or a UK airline.

So I would suggest that the jokers who set the rules
are in fact total morons. The industry is being damaged
and the UK looks like a sad third world shambles.

46x35x9 chappie.
 

Soooo . . . the extra 1cm on my case will cause the plane to explode?

Is that right? In the name of God, what is going on?

Edit: I've now emailed the DfT to ask them that very question.

When I said that they were not morons but were being clever, I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with them - I merely meant to point out that rather than setting an arbitary limit, they had set the sizes with a deliberate and calculated objective in mind. Whilst the ramifications of the size may indicate those who set it were moronic, I believe that the reasons they had for making the decision was far from that. IMHO, 10secondsurvey is absolutely spot on with the analysis of the underlying drivers for the decision, and I think its sad that the UK government has effectively allowed the commercial interests of the BAA to be one of the prime motivations for setting such limits.

Andy

You realise it won't, Michael O'Leary realises it won't - hence his recent ranting. But sadly and as pointed out previously, that isn't the reason why the limit was set as it was.

Andy

Sorry, guys, I've lost interest in the reasons. The ruling and its blind enforcement to the last centimetre are plainly stupid and unconnected with my or anyone else's security.

I'll post the inevitably inane response from the Dft if our obedient civil servants ever deign to reply.