There's much talk on this board, and others, on what we can and cannot carry on to flights regarding the size of our luggage. Let's face it, most of us, would prefer to carry our bags onto planes rather than check them. So, let's see if we can find the airlines with the WORST carry on restrictions. (Please use the airlines website for the info so we are accurate.)
I'll start:
Aer Arann 17x11x8 15 lbs
Luxair 21.6x13.7x6.3 15 lbs
Virgin 22x14x9 13 lbs
Aer Lingus 22x18x10 13 lbs
When I flew SAS and KLM they both had the 13 lb. restriction. It forced me to get this lighter suitcase. Less than 3 lbs!
Alitalia 22 x 14 x 10 11 lbs
Although since they never seem to enforce the size/weight restrictions, I'm not sure if it should count.
I say Alitalia, just 11 lbs. I has much more then that, but they didn't weigh it. I had a day pack with a heavy laptop and a bunch of accessories, but they all fit in the pack. I carried it on my shoulder like it was light like a feather.
I'm flying Virgin Air for the first time this summer and I think the 13 lb thing is a little crazy. I'm wondering though, if I check in online, don't check any other bags, then go straight through security to the gate, will they ever weigh it? What would cause them to weight it?
What is the worst that can happen- they weight it then check it at the gate?
"What would cause them to weight it?"
Who knows? If the bag looks bulky, if the overhead bin space is tight, if the gate agent is having a bad day. I haven't flown that airline so I don't know how consistent they are about weighing carryons. Lufthansa has a reputation for being very strict and Alitalia, as mentioned above, never seems to weigh anything.
ETA: Missed your last question. Most likely yes, although that then increases the risk of your luggage getting lost.
It's also interesting to note that the next generation of long-haul aircraft, the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 787, have been designed with larger overhead bins. They wouldn't have done this unless the airlines wanted it.
Oh I so agree. What is worse is that when on duty travel all my hold luggage gets the Star Alliance priority tag. It NEVER gets priority handling except in Barbados. It always arrives five minutes after everyone elses.
I fully understand about bad handling by baggage monkeys. I use hard shell Carlton suitcases. Go on you sons of a gun - try and break that ! Prior to the hardshells I had a leather holdall cut with a knife at Malta and items removed. I've had bags go missing when flying with Lufthansa ( priority tagged ) Virgin ( no tags ) and even my own airline ( priority tagged and on a one hour flight from AMS to EMA ). Twice a year I visit our 'lost bags' team and the stories they tell make my hair go grey.
All I can say is make sure your luggage is well insured and if you can survive on hand luggage only ( I can't ) good luck to you. 'Cos when it comes to ailine luggage we all need the luck of the Irish and then some.
Can I put the case from the other side of the fence? Firstly the airline I work for doesn’t care about weight just the size of the bag AND you have to be able to lift it into the overhead bins unaided. It seems to me that most passengers want to fly for the lowest cost possible. When passengers book the rules are explained to them. Some airlines impose a weight restriction on hand luggage to keep the costs down. Is it really fair to take advantage of an airlines prices and then try to ignore the very rules that are there to keep costs to a minimum? Let’s face it some of the violations we have all seen of the hand luggage rules are staggeringly outrageous and the worst thing is that in every case the passenger thinks they have some divine right to blatantly break the rules they agreed to.
I agree with you that carry-on luggage should fit easily into overhead bins or under seats for safety purposes. And I agree that some people try to break those rules by bringing monstrous bags and amounts onto the plane.
But, so many people now have rolling bags that there should be one standard size allowed so the luggage industry will know what to make.
There is one statement, however, I question. You wrote:
"Some airlines impose a weight restriction on hand luggage to keep the costs down."
How? If I can't take my bag into the cabin, I'm going to be forced to check it. So, the weight is still added to the aircraft which means the same amount of fuel. If I check this same bag, numerous airline employees have to touch the bag and that takes time. If I carry it on, I'm the only one who has to think about it. The only thing these bags do is slightly slow down loading and deplaning of passengers. And since most airlines don't have that quick of a turnaroud, it shouldn't
matter. It's the flight attendants who have complained the most.
And with tighter security, more and more bags are being checked which means bigger delays at baggage claim, and many more incidents of lost luggage. And that costs the airline money.
So, I don't see why bag "A" weighing 6 kg is okay, but bag "B" the exact same size of bag "A" and weighing 10 kg, is not okay and costs more to take on board than to check? (I can see it from the standpoint of airlines who charge for checked luggage. It's income to them. But that has happened yet on most airlines.)
Or...is it that by limiting hand luggage, the airlines can leave checked bags behind and free up weight for paying cargo? And that's going back to my point at increased lost luggage.
Weight and Balance regulations aren't my specialist area so this is 'friend of a friend' info.
As I understand it when bags are placed in the hold they are loaded centrally and 'squared off' ( no I don't know what that means either ) to give the best possible flight balance and reduce fuel consumption.
Bags in overhead bins are a more random distribution of weight and it's not infrequent that the weight vs balance causes an uneven load and leads to increased fuel consumption especially in turbulance.
By the bye, we don't allow stowage of bags under the seats under any circumstances - that's where the life vests are, and if we ever need you to grab those life vests we don't want you coming up with a handfull of lingerie bought on impulse from Victoria's Secrets.
But I'm perfectly prepared to admit it could all be horse feathers and it's only done to get a few quid more out of you.
By the way, as regards a standard luggage size that conforms to airline regulations - I've had one for years and years. It's basically a large black box briefcase, often refered to as a 'pilot's bag' or 'doctor's bag'. Mine's as old as the hills but a lot of colleagues have newer versions with wheels and a handle. All I know is it holds a lot of stuff, particularly if you detatch the internal dividers. There's a shop in Britain called Argos, it's a very basic store which has desks and catalogues and you order out of the catalogue and pay and collect. Their stuff is really cheap, it's where my bag came from and I've had it since 93 and it's been across four continents.
Al, what you said makes a lot of sense from a physics pt of view, but also those F/As must see alot what goes on w/those carry ons. There were a few occasions when a healthy male & female whacked me w/theirs, were aware that they did it, & never expressed an apology. I can envision a scuffle occurring after such an incident, if the right personalities were involved, escalating into something unmanageable. Imagine a bar room brawl over the Atlantic in cramped quarters! It's an extreme example (hopefully not possible!), but those F/As have to keep the passengers calm. If it means tight regulations for carry ons; so be it.
I suppose people wouldn't care so much if not for the following reasons:
1) as I watch out the window while the baggage handlers put the luggage on the ramps, they are never anything that even resembles the same area code as reasonably gentile with the bags. Once I had a bag that weighed 15 lbs (just over the 13 allowed) and I swear the baggage person had a personal vengeance against my luggage. I watched helplessly as he slammed my suitcase with my souvenirs in it as hard as he could rather than simply placing it on the ramp.
2) Getting luggage at baggage claim is far from efficient. I don't know how to make it more efficient. But I can save myself 20-30 minutes when I get to my destination by carrying on my luggage.
3) Let's face it, luggage gets lost. Once I was flying from Fargo, ND to San Diego. My body connected through Denver but my luggage connected through Chicago! It took about an hour for my luggage to make it to me. The airline bought me lunch
I'm sure others can relate
Jarrod, I can certainly sympathize w/you. I've seen those same baggage handlers do wonders w/mine. Unfortunately, they have been doing this for yrs & yrs & yrs. I always cross my fingers when checking in luggage & always pleasantly surprised when things go well. The odds are that it does go well. I try to mitigate any luggage problems by packing unbreakables, like clothes, that I don't care if it gets lost or not. Valuables, real or personal, stays w/me at all times. I also do some basic airline research like asking about a particular airline's reputation on this helpline. Certain airlines have a reputation of doing everything you described. Don't use them no matter how cheap the fare is. Maybe if enough people did that they would get the hint & improve their customer service while maintaining the inexpensive fares to lure you back.
Quite a few times, my luggage has been damaged--such as broken zipper pulls--and the airlines claim they are not responsible for minor repairs. Have you ever tried to open a zipper without a zipper pull? Especially if you are just starting a trip? I once had to go out and buy needle nose pliers just to open and close my bag.
And if you think the baggage handlers are bad, you should see the "new" baggage machines that route your luggage to the proper cart. Cheap luggage will not survive.
Working in the lost baggage office of an airline is one of the worst jobs a customer service agent gets assigned to. And then try to explain you lost a bag to an agent who doesn't speak English.
JC, should I ever hit you with my bag, not only will I apologize profusely, but I'll offer to buy you a drink. You'll need it because the wait time at the baggage carousel is just going to get longer and longer. With only a carry-on, I'll be halfway to my destination before you leave the airport.
Frank, I'll take a bottle of Warre's 1994 or 2000 vintage. 1 drink just won't do it, esp if I have an extra long wait at the baggage carousel, if your prediction is correct. I might as well enjoy staring at the "merry-go-round."
Warre? I guess you're assuming they're going to feed you. Don't tell me you drink it before you eat.
Frank, I drink vintage port anytime, anywhere, w/anyone who appreciates a fine beverage. Now, you're telling me there may not be food served on those planes! Then I insist on 2 bottles, the 2nd being of lesser quality. The 1st bottle is to numb my pain that may incur when fists or projectile-like items fly around in the cabin because a very hungry passenger became leader of the assault. He/she forgot to bring a sandwich after the new rule of no onboard food service went into effect. The 2nd bottle is going to be used to wash down the sandwich that the leader swiped from you who was about to tear into it. Hopefully, he/she will fall asleep after I kindly insist the whole bottle be drunk, creating a sense of relief not only for the F/As but for the rest of the passengers. But seriously, on the long haul flights, I believe sustenance(not necessarily palatable) will always be served. Maybe that's why Ryanair's niche is in the short flights.
