Is there a Rick Steve's rolling carry-on that satisfies the Vueling dimension requirements? I was going to purchase the Rick Steve's rolling carry-on (link below) but it is too large. It is 9" deep exceeding the Vueling 8" (or actually 7-7/8") deep requirement. http://travelstore.ricksteves.com/catalog/index.cfm?fuseaction=product&id=527 Rick Steve's Rolling Carry-on 13½" x 20" x 9" Vueling Carry-on Requirement 55x40x20cm (22" x 16" x 8")
Posted by
OP
Houston, TX, United States
3 posts
I should have booked EasyJet instead of Vueling. I almost did. Hindsight. I just checked, and EasyJet is 25 cm (10") but they will guarantee no hold as of this July 2 if it is 20 cm (8") deep. Ryan Air is also 20 cm (8") like Vueling 20 cm (8"). Looks like Rick Steve's rolling carry-on designed to European standards does nto meet European standards. Rick Steve 9" Vueling 8" Ryan Air 8"
EasyJet 10" (8" guarantee no hold)
Posted by
Lakewood, Colorado
19274 posts
One of the problems with the rolling bags is that they need a somewhat rigid frame. True carry-ons are flexible, and, if not stuffed, will reform to other shapes. 13½ x 9 is a slightly smaller cross section than 15-3/4 x 7-7/8 (40cm x 20 cm in inches), so it should squash to fit. My non-roller RS Convertible bag at 14 x 9 has never had problems fitting in the Lufthansa sizing box. The RS rolling bag says it has a "1-piece molded shell frame ", but I think that's around the wheels, handle, and feet. If you don't fill it completely, it should conform to the 7-7/8 thickness. Better yet, just get a convertible bag and don't worry about it. You'll get a little more volume and a few pounds less weight.
Posted by
OP
Houston, TX, United States
3 posts
Lee, good comments. It's a tough choice. Me and my two teenage kids like the the wheels (I was going to buy three of Rick Steve's tolling carry-ons). But the lighter weight, more room, and malleability of the non-wheel carry-on is nice.
Posted by
Genesee, ID
1840 posts
Our bags are convertible carry-on with no wheels and we have further modified them to be smaller by manufacturing cam buckle straps to go around the outside of the bags. It takes two around the girth of each bag. Bags that have no outside cinch straps can hold a certain amount of air that makes them look larger than they need to be.
Posted by
Texan in CA
4415 posts
Floron, I have that RS bag you're asking about. My bag is 4.5" deep at the top, 7.75" deep at the bottom, 8.5" wide, and 20.5" tall. (Those are the frame measurements; you can stuff it silly though!) You can, of course, pack enough in it that you lose those dimensions, but it technically fits as well as any other bag does. But, if you're even considering a backpack... that's what I carry - not for this reason, but for every inch of your backpack, add at least 1" for wheels, handles, etc. That is a lot of bag volume to give up :-(