Hi,
Many years ago when having boarded a UK shuttle flight (BA not Easy) in civies, I stll had my Nav bag as cabin baggage. Early departure, so lots of attache cases far too big, being ramed into the hat racks.
Absolutely no space in the hat rack above my seat, so I spoke to one of the F/As & asked what do I do. Initial answer was, my cabin bag (Nav bag) would have to go in the hold, my answer, was no way jose & stood my ground. Eventually some hatrack space above my seat was made, there were two large items, that should not have got into the aircraft in the first place. It turned out, these belonged to pax who was sitting many rows from mine, he must have boarded at the front of the que, & run about taking up hat rack space, before sitting down. The words, ignorant, fat & businesman, would have been appropriate at the time.

passenger carry on, bags and all
 

Now folks, this is a worldwide problem not restricted to LCC's. there are a number of issue, all have been discussed previously.

But to summarize the big points:

1. Bag manufactures labeling a bag "cabin legal".

2. Different standards across the airlines/ports as to how many bags are permitted.

3. Different weight/size standard for carry on bags

4. Different level of enforcement. Ie: the issues of space on a full flight are not such a problem on one with a good load of empty seats.

But for the passengers,try this.
Jump on a set if scales, then weigh your carry on bags, then go to the airlines website and see what the allocation is for pax and bag. (84kg for my airline)

That is the maximum you and your bags can weigh. So if you are 83kgs, you only have 1kg of allowable luggage. Conversely, if you weigh 50kgs, you can bring the maximum number of bags up to the total maximum weight allowed for carry on, eg: 2 bags totaling 10kgs, (not 2 bags equaling 34kgs.)

With the "normal" person being larger than they were in the past, there are some passengers that technically are unable to use any of the carry on entitlement. (And should be paying for another seat if they weigh above the airlines maximum)

The weight and balance and performance figures for take off are calculated using the standard weights of 84kgs, plus check in bags, freight and fuel. These figures are maximized for runway length, weather, engine life etc, and provide an airline with some considerable cost saving.

There are some aircraft that can work out the actual weight once airborne using different parameters, and it is evident that the passenger/carry on luggage weight can be out a lot of the time. The biggest discrepancy I have seen is 1.5%. 1200kg's!!

That may not seem like a lot, but it could be critical in a rejected take off or one engine failure on take off. If also increases fuel burn.

Next time you are getting agitated about cabin baggage with your "standard" cabin bag, Just ask yourself, is me and my bag equal or less than the airlines maximum? Have I done everything I can to maximize my chance of stowing my bag correctly? (Check it in the bag check module, boarded early) if you have, the CC should have no reason to ask you to check your bag.

If by chance they do want to offload your bag, here's a tip, be nice, and comply, otherwise you may go to CDG, your bag may go to ANC!

As for the on board change issue, carry a note close to the value of the food/drink you intend to purchase, and let the CC keep the change, one day, it could stop your bag from being offloaded and ending up in ANC. Karma;)

I've never seen an airline website that quotes this kind of information (other than those like Samoa Air operating very small aircraft where MTOW or performance may an issue).

Can you point us towards any that you are aware of, please?

In the good old days IATA used to set a standard for baggage - checked and carry-on. IATA members applied that standard as a minimum. There were no penalties or sanctions for non-compliance. Most other (non-LCC) airlines applied the IATA standards knowing that their connecting passengers would not be inconvenienced.

LCC's being point-to-point, non connecting airlines, applied their own standards.

A few years back the European Commission told IATA that standard setting for baggage was 'anti-competitive' and if they didn't stop doing so they would see IATA in court. When IATA agreed to stop the EC Commissioner at the time issued a press release telling the world that they had stopped this awful cartel ripping off passengers.

A few airlines (EK for example) now give a more generous baggage allowance than the previous IATA standards, but most now give less.

Isn't the EC wonderful!

I'm sorry you don't like my posts. But in the future please play the ball, not the player. I stand by my comments on the safety briefing though. I do think there is a lot of room for improvement there.

I assume the max dimensions of permitted hand baggage are such that on an aircraft where all seats are occupied the baggage can be stored in the overhead bins without having to go under the seats.

In passing I've always found ExXB replies accurate and informative and I've benefitted from information that the poster has given freely. Leave off Spicejetter. Thanks.

In the case of most narrow-bodies, that assumption would be incorrect if every passenger chose to bring on board an IATA-standard carry-on bag.

I didn't know that David.

Regarding the space under the seat in front of you. Has this been designed to accommodate the carry-on-baggage of the max dimensions / weight the airline stipulates?

It depends. You might think that a standard triple economy seat - usually about 60" wide - would be able to accommodate 3 x standard IATA carry-on bags, each 18" wide, underneath. But you can almost guarantee that the position of the seat legs/tracks and/or the curvature of the sidewall mean that only one, or at best two bags can fit.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../4/0049443.jpg

Roj approved said:
I confess I haven't seen that on any of the airline websites I've been on, and I'm fairly good at reading the conditions etc. Could anyone give more information on where this is likely to be found? I don't know anything about the poster, nor her/his veracity.

What does surprise me is the figure of 84kg. I am 6'6" (198cm) and the only way I'd get below 84kg is to have a leg amputated! Given that the average height in western countries is increasing, this figure seems very low (I'm not sure I know anyone who would be under 84kg) and needs reconsidering since, as pointed out, it is important in calculating fuel-loads.

Deep in the past I'm sure the baggage wizards had a wonderful formula for calculating how much carry-on to expect. But in those days load factors above 70-80% were the exception rather than the rule and people were comfortable with less in the cabin. Anyone else remember the open hat-racks?

If there was any magic in calculating carry-on it was from a different era.

And many airlines use the overhead space for O2, blankets and pillows and crew stuff. This reduces the space available for passengers.

Thread drift. What bugs me on TUI flights is the safety briefing video starring children, or perhaps I'm getting old and grumpy.

High load factors can only mean smaller carry on baggage in the future. When you think of it why pay for fuel to carry 10kg if you can stipulate a smaller 6kg. Samsonite would be delighted and the saving on fuel would be considerably more than doing away with window shades.

Until airlines can 100% guarentee that items placed in the hold are not going to be droped, lost, thrown, stolen and mistreated then there is no way I am going to put anything I carry on in a suitcase. Carry on is for items of value that passengers do not want to be apart from (in my case photographic equipment & laptop)

I recently travelled LHR - FRA on the shiny new A380 that BA are "practising" with. I was in the Y cabin, in the K window seat.

BUT... half the "foot space" was taken up by the IFE box; there was another (slightly smaller) IFE box between H&J, and there as a "frame" limiting the foot space around H.

I couldn't get my feet into "my bit" of the foot space - so I ended up sitting "twisted". It was bad enough for a 1h 20m flight - I wouldn't like that on a 12 hour flight, and you would need a seat mate who was prepared to share their space.

There is *no way* that you could get three medium bags under the seats in front. Granted, the A380 does have a good amount of overhead storage, but if many people bring their 2 pieces of carry on, (bag + laptop sized) then there will be an almighty scrum to get it all on board safely...

Luggage didn't fit in seat in front
 

Can I ask a question please?

I flew on an almost full Dash 8 - 400 recently. By the time I boarded the overhead compartments were all full. I had to put my suitcase (which was within size) under the seat in front of me. It was too long for the space, so I had to sit with my feet on the protruding suitcase for take off.

I noticed too late (when the plane was taxiing) a row of 3 empty seats further back. Had I seen them earlier, I would have asked to move there, or at least put my suitcase under one of these seats.

After take-off I asked to move nearer to the front (not because of my suitcase but because the plane was very warm and there was some light turbulence and I felt quite claustraphobic). The crew were fine about this, so I moved forward minus my suitcase.

What would you have done were you me (apart from join the boarding queue earlier).

Thank you.

Maddie
 

I am not sure I understand the question but the way, I move once I board a Dash8 -400 or any other aircraft which is quit full, is to look around a few rows back and forth to see if an overhead compartment has space to put my carry on - if the space above my seat is full. Obviously it helps since I board either first of last.

And it often helps to ask the crew for "directions" where to stow the bags, but be careful because you can end with you bag gate-checked. If there is space they will point to it.

Simple solution.
Check the airline's website, if it says 55 x 40 x 23cm, maximum weight 8kg, that's your allowance.
Carry a tape measure just in case someone challenges you.
Where's the problem?

Luggage didn't fit in seat in front
 

Good evening,

Just to clarify, I did check my luggage in advance it did meet the criteria, I wasn't flying with Stobairt Air so the 7kg weight limit didn't apply.

RevMan2 It seems to be that Maddie is asking a different question and your reply does not really fit.


Maddie, I've not been on a Dash8 for a while but it sounds like you did all that you could. In the past, I've had to put my cabin legal bag under the seat and it still projected as you describe. I think that asking to move - and leaving the bag - was the simplest, given that you were feeling uncomfortable. Perhaps if you ask the question in the Flybe thread in AA&R http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...be-7-a-12.html then you might find some cabin crew respond.

(a) People are so precious about their electronic equipment...
Q. how do you think it gets to you in the first place ?
A. packaged in cardboard, with a bit of foam, stuck in the hold as cargo !

(b) I've got two words for you if you insist.... "F-Stop Bags"

They are all size compliant... BUT ... if you find yourself on the receiving end of a gate dragon and don't fancy an argument .... ICU out and with you ... bag with cables & gubbins in the hold.... 10 seconds, dragon sleighed and you can change your equipment-baby's diapers in-flight ! Wonderful bags !

Oh and one last word for you .... " I N S U R A N C E" ;)

@mixture



As I'm sure you should be well aware the electronic equipment does not hold any personal/financial/commercial data during delivery so I can fully understand people's concern.

I'm afraid I don't buy that nonsense counter-argument for one reason :

ENCRYPTION

Available on Mac, Windows and Linux, and has been for some time.

What happens if someone steals your laptop from your hotel room / from you at the airport ? How does that differ from the data risks of putting it in the hold ? Exactly ! It doesn't ! If its valuable... encrypt it and back it up !

The only people who treat their electronic equipment like babies and over-react to any dent or scratch are those who don't use their kit in a professional capacity (and indeed, probably haven't even bought professional kit and are fretting over some $300 piece of plastic).

How do you think the likes of the BBC/Reuters/CNN/[insert name of your choice] work when they take vast amounts of high-end kit out to remote locations for filming ? Do you honestly think they keep much (or any) of it attached to them like a baby-carrier ? No. It goes into well padded bags/cases and into the hold.

You don't necessarily need fancy Peli cases either if you feel it would clash with your sense of fashion .... decent suitcases such as Tumi ones are pretty solid and indestructible, in all my years of travel I've yet to see a baggage handler do any damage to a Tumi (infact I've yet to see much damage at all.... all I've seen are a few scuffs and marks on the fabric from the baggage handling machines).

I treat my equipment as it should be... like tools, not babies. And you know what, in all the years I've adopted the policy, its not been damaged once in transit.... infact the only occasion where damage occurred was when the equipment was at arms length from me and in-use .... didn't notice quick release was loose and camera plummeted to the ground.

Mixture,

to replace my 2 camera bodies & 2 lens would be over £5k (pro equipment) and still you wonder why I do not want it in the hold. Its all very well saying insurance but that does not get me replacement equipment immediately.

You menton the big news companies but the people who use that kit do not own in.

Er, (from BA conditions of carriage)

Note that they don't say 'should not' they say 'must not'. You are not given a choice.

mixture

What is meant by 'ICU out and with you'?

What's the big issue with checking in baggage? We are a long time dead, the odd 20 minutes isn't much of an issue. On business trips my personal productivity is so high that the company share price drops if I am seen to be inactive for half an hour.