Please sign in to post.

Boeing retrofitting jets w/more overhead bin space

Boeing - more bin space

I am hoping this link of the news about bin space takes.

Linda

Posted by
6644 posts

Linda the link worked fine. The pessimist in me tells says that that just means people will bring more and bigger bags.

Posted by
21726 posts

And since they are lowering the overhead space, tall people will feel more packed in than ever. The retrofitting will take time.

Posted by
5697 posts

Maybe the subtext is that the larger bin space will be redesignated as "private compartments" ??

Posted by
710 posts

Of course, they will use this as an excuse to reduce seat pitch even more.

Posted by
27752 posts

They are only doing that so they can turn the airplane into a double decker; that way all the luggage goes into the hold and you have one layer of people lying down in the bins and another layer of people sitting upright in seats.

Posted by
18312 posts

"tall people will feel more packed in than ever."

On the other hand, short people will be able to reach the overhead buttons (lights/call) and such (air) without standing up.

Why not use barriers to divide the bins over six seats into six sections, each one assigned to a seat number?. So for a 30 inch seat pitch, you would have a little less than 60 inches of bin length over two rows, about 9 inches (regulation bag thickness) per section.. This would prevent people from putting overly large roll-aboard in sideways, and each seat would have their own assigned section, so someone who got on earlier could not take their section and another one. Luggage that didn't fit in one section would have to be checked.

Posted by
2580 posts

The simplest answer has been suggested before - charge NOTHING for checked bags, charge to carryon based on either size or weight. Watch how fast bags get put underneath .........

Posted by
799 posts

Well, I for one, am glad there will be more bin space. I am still able to get my preferred roll aboard piece (22") into the bin and certainly my new 20" piece fits fine. I have been a carry on proponent way before the airlines were charging for checked bags just because I don't want to deal with lost or delayed luggage on my valuable vacation time. Until it gets too difficult for me to lift my carry on into the bin, I will continue to do so. Yea, agree that for some tall people the diminishing headspace will prove annoying. However, the number of passengers in the range of 5' to 5' 8" far outweigh the number of passengers that are taller and, like another poster said, they will be happy to reach the light switch etc easily. When my preferred airlines start charging for carry on, I MIGHT reconsider. But, as I mentioned earlier, for me it is the wasted time that checked bags involve.

My two cents.

Posted by
2349 posts

Show of hands- how many would pay $25 one way to carry on your bag, if checked bags were free? I think I'd pay. But, sshhh. Don't tell the airlines.

Posted by
6644 posts

For more details, there is an article titled "Finally, Room for Your Carry-On" by Scott McCartney in today's (October 15, 2015) Wall Street Journal. Its hard to believe that it took this long for the industry to figure out there was a problem.

Posted by
18312 posts

I'm with Linda. I started carrying my luggage on long before there were checked bag fees.

"The simplest answer has been suggested before - charge NOTHING for checked bags ..."

"charge nothing for checked bags"?!! The whole reason for the checked bags fees is for the airlines to make more money. Haven't you been reading the news? The airlines are making billions on checked bag fees. Free checked bags is not going to happen without some regulations.

Maybe the answer is to require the airlines to include one checked bag with the price of a ticket. Then "Watch how fast bags get put underneath".

Or, instead of making the bins larger, make the maximum carryon size smaller. How about 19 x 13½ x 8 (2052 ci) or 18 x 13 x 7 (1638 ci), and, like the beloved RyanAir, check every oversized bag brought to the gate and charge double to gate check oversized luggage. Then watch how fast bags get put underneath. And the airlines will still make a profit. Win, win.

Posted by
3491 posts

United Airlines already has several of the 737's with the larger bins. Haven't really noticed the lessening of the overhead space (and I'm tall). The main issue is the passengers have not been educated to place their roller bags in the bins on their sides to allow for the extra number of bags in each bin. And you still have those who are trying to bring every thing they own with them onto the pane as carry on and the airline lets them.

Posted by
2580 posts

I know the airlines are making money off checked bag fees, but there will come a breaking point when delayed departures, frustrated passengers and the cost of modifying bins will outweigh those charges. I'm willing to bet this will change in the next year or two.

Posted by
1016 posts

I know the airlines are making money off checked bag fees, but there will come a breaking point when delayed departures, frustrated passengers and the cost of modifying bins will outweigh those charges. I'm willing to bet this will change in the next year or two.

Considering that US airlines reportedly collected $3.5 billion in baggage fees in 2014, I will take that bet. That is a lot of income that would have to be made up.

Posted by
31471 posts

While this is certainly a step in the right direction, I doubt that it will work as well in practice. As mentioned in the video, "real world" passengers use a variety of size and shapes of luggage so these items won't fit the bins as well. Presumably the new bins will be applied to the larger aircraft as well.

Posted by
3683 posts

A small point of clarification. The headline on this thread says "retrofitting". Unless my reading isn't thorough enough, the news report talks about new B-737s. I supposed older airplanes could be retrofitted, at the carrier's expense. But since the 737 is the most numerous plane in the air, narrow-bodied and designed for shorter flights, I'll bet the older configuration will still be common for a long time to come.

Posted by
6644 posts

Southam, you are right. Other articles on the subject do discuss retro-fitting, but note the airlines would have to pay for it, and as long as customers continue to fill the seats at current pricing schemes, its hard to believe they would do so voluntarily.

Posted by
1253 posts

I agree with Lee, the airlines need to start enforcing their carry-on bags size. On a recent trip to Boston, I was amazed at what people considered carry-on luggage. I've gotten to the point if someone asks me for assistance in putting their bag in the overhead bin, I politely refuse. Their responses have been less than polite.

Posted by
31471 posts

Joel,

I tend to agree with you on helping people lift gargantuan bags into the overhead bins. If they can't lift it, they should have packed lighter. However, I try to base that on the person asking. If they're older or appear to have health issues, I'm a bit more lenient.

A "less than polite"comment to me would result in a "less than polite" response from me!

Posted by
2580 posts

Well the people who should be helping with the overheads are the flight attendants, and you may have noticed they will have nothing to do with that because those things weigh a ton. They're just there to slam the doors shut before takeoff.

Posted by
3933 posts

I'm thinking of the short lady on our last flight home with Air Canada who I'm very sure was standing on the seat (or kneeling on the armrest) to get her stuff into the overhead. Whatever she was doing, her feet were not on the floor. I'm average height, so not an issue for me to get stuff into the overhead.

Posted by
18312 posts

"the people who should be helping with the overheads are the flight attendants"

Not according to the airlines. Note this line on the carry-on baggage page for American Airlines.

"Please note, you’ll also need to be able to lift your bag into the overhead bin"

Posted by
2478 posts

I have always wondered if this means that very short people are thus not allowed to have carry-on because they physically cannot put even a 1 pound bag into the bins. My wife is 5'1" - I always put both our bags up.

Posted by
3683 posts

Lee's advice applies to Air Canada too. Middle-aged flight attendants cannot be expected risk back injury to heft bags into the deep overhead compartments of a 777. In consideration of my own altitude shortcomings, I do not hesitate to use an arm rest as a ladder, and do not carry any bag I can't pick up with one hand. Any other assistance for those who refuse to check heavy luggage should require an extra fee.

Posted by
3933 posts

Yeah...I'm pretty sure the stress on flight attendants if they had to lift dozens of 20+ lb bags all the time would mean lots of back injuries and workers comp. I don't hesitate to take bags down for people or if there was an older/shorter person I'll give them a hand getting it in. Someday when I can't do it myself I hope some young tall strong person will take pity on me. :)

Posted by
18312 posts

The requirement that you be able to put it in the overhead bin applies primarily to US airlines, which do not otherwise have a limit to the weight of carryon bags. European airlines, which limit the bag weight (in the case of Lufthansa to 17.6#), don't seem to have that requirement.

Posted by
7614 posts

Joel, I love it! I agree. Except for elderly people, my thought is,if you can't hoist it, don't bring it!

I have definitely been on planes where I've had to step onto my seat to get the bag in the overhead bin though, as I'm only 5' tall. I simply don't have the reach. That's pretty rare, but there definitely has been a time or two when I've had to do it.

Posted by
1000 posts

Ditto, Kim, and bravo, Joel! I am only 5'2" and not the greatest upper body strength. If I am traveling alone and can't lift my bag over my head, it gets checked. I do not wish to be at the mercy of a strong, tall stranger!

If a person can't manage their bags on their own, the bag should be checked. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.