As a layman I would have guessed the aircraft itself can be turned around in about the same time. As passenger I observe that luggage gets unloaded and loaded rather quickly compared to people and other things done to the aircraft during turn-around. Or is loading and unloading hold luggage actually the bottleneck? Of course it would be slower for the passengers who have to check and retrieve their luggage, but that happens independently of turn-around. Are airlines actually concerned with that? Is there per-piece or per-weight cost involved with handling baggage at airports or is that a fixed fee?

I firmly believe disembarkation and boarding would be much quicker if there was less tonnage to haul off and on.

I also find that cabin crew sometimes struggle with the amount of stuff brought into the cabin. On several occasions I have heard calls to allow luggage put into the hold during boarding, by then for free. "Just leave your bags at the end of the jetway and they will be loaded in the hold". I realize that this is not "the airline" speaking, but my distinct feeling is that those people working at the coalface surely would prefer a lot less hand luggage.

Another infamous hard landing by a Russian aircraft:

The problem of retrieving cabin baggage in an emergency has been a focus of multiple studies and is extensive, shown to involve up to ~50% of passengers. The technology of remote locking already exists. Better safety instructions are likely important regardless, but i.m.o. only a lock would make everybody consciously aware of the issue and actually adapt behavior and packing habits. You can blame individuals with the best of arguments, but so far that hasn't fixed the problem.

2000; Safety Study - Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-s...nts/SS0001.pdf
Page 66: Retrieval of carry-on luggage

2018; EMERGENCY EVACUATION OF COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AEROPLANES
https://www.aerosociety.com/media/85...anes-paper.pdf
Page 44: 9.28 Cabin baggage
(Russian Irkhut MC-21 is already designed with this feature: “Optionally, the bins may be equipped with remotely-controlled interlocking electromechanical locks, and be visually monitored by the cabin crew.”)

Page 71: Recommendation 15 :
"AAs should consider the feasibility of introducing a certification requirement for a means of remotely locking, from the flight deck, overhead bins in passenger cabins that do not contain emergency equipment, for taxi, take-off and landing."

Articles:

https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2...an-evacuation/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisag.../#3a98bae3356b

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisag.../#5048d8593b6b

No its not and an occupied lavatory is tad different from a situation right after a crash, the wreck on fire and utter chaos. And I have seen more than one person trying to get into locked doors - despite them being locked. If you think that humans in panic situation do react rational, then you do not need to lock the bins. Because they would react reasonable, Which a lot don´t.

true, I haven't worked in these places. But what i suggest might work in Europe and the US.

The question is: why do airlines encourage PAX to bring as much crap as possible into the cabin. "To generate revenue" can't be the answer, as quite a bit of the hand luggage then goes into the hold, for free, at the gate. I'm guessing it's so they can advertise cheaper "hand luggage only" flights, but does that really have such an impact on sales/revenue that you have to do it? Not very long ago the luggage allowance was 2 hold bags free of charge, and I seem to remember there was much less crap in the cabin, hand luggage was sort of hand bag / small rucksack sized.

Why not charge per kilo for cabin luggage and give a free hold baggage allowance up to, say, 20kgs? Of course you would have to get all airlines to do it (legislation?).

From my personal experience PAX are deterred from putting luggage into the hold by the costs levied by airlines, also the wait times at their destination, the risk (albeit small) of luggage going astray or it missing a connection etc.

Absolutely right. If you knew the overhead lockers to be were locked whenever the seat belt sign was lit, in the event of an emergency or whatever, you'd make sure you had the essentials (passport, phone, wallet, meds, phone chargers...) on your person. Sheesh before you know it the airport shops would be offering all manner of shoulder holsters for this stuff.

Evacuation
 

Completely wrong, utterly stupid idea. 99.9% of pax would have no idea what the law or punishment was. In any case in an emergency situation people revert to instinct, they don't stop and think calmly about something they were told but didn't listen to long ago.

The last time I flew on Aeroflot (which was about 30 years ago), cabin baggage sat on the non-folding table in front of me. I think they have different standards.

Yep, in mine as well.

Some smart Airline needs to apply reverse logic - apply higher charges for carry on cases or put it in the hold for free.
Failing that no carry on cases.
The obvious answer seems to be lockable overheads - we can lock the Flight Deck door now.
What ever happened to the word "hat racks" from the good old days...

I think the only realistic solution would be for airlines to switch to "rolling cart overhead bins" placed on the jetway where passengers would place large carry on items. These would reappear at destination jetway shortly after landing. Already done to some extent for small regional jets.
This would get around the very rational resistance to even free checked bags..

Passengers then limited to one under seat carry on, although not ideal those are much less likely to cause a jam in an evacuation.
This would significantly speed both boarding and especially exit times.

Retrofitting locks is not going to happen and has all the already mentioned human factors issues.

The freed up overhead bins could be used for passenger comfort items such as blankets and pillows //exit dream on mode//

The April 2018 Royal Aeronautical Society paper linked to by mickjoebill is very important but it is some thirty-five years late.

The emergency exits in the SSJ-100 SVO incident were woefully inadequate as they are on most narrow body aircraft. The aviation incident was completely survivable. The static killing and maiming by fire and smoke was medieval. Burn through clearly is the killer and it has nothing to do with flying other than the fact that coming back to terra firma too easily dumps you in such a terrible situation. The speed of onset of danger in with an ignited fuel spill means you must be able to get out of the cigar tubes sat in those flames immediately, and it is of course is impossible if you can only use the two front exits and you are in the back. Why do we still tolerate this risk?

The ridiculously simplistic one-time 90 second test was always a finger-in-the-air nonsense, and is now terribly out of date.

Wake up people. Now!