Slashdot Mirror


US Airlines Say Smaller Carry-Ons Are Not In the Cards

New submitter callgen writes: Airlines for America, a trade group for U.S. carriers, has rejected proposed international standards for carry-on bags. Last week, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced an initiative to "optimize" airlines' accommodation of carry-on bags by suggesting a new standard luggage size. It suggested a standard of 55cm x 35cm x 19cm, 58% of the size that Southwest allows. Most standard carry-ons are larger than IATA's recommendations, meaning travelers would have to purchase new luggage if the smaller size was adopted.

12 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Stop charging for checked bag by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If too much carry on luggage is a problem, then stop charging for checking a bag. When everyone got a checked back for free, there was plenty of overhead storage space, not to mention loading and unloading passengers was a lot faster because people weren't blocking the isles dealing with their carry ons. Now everyone tries to carry on as much as they can so they don't have to pay.

    1. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the answer, like it or not, is regulation. Hidden fees are out of control in the airline industry, and it's high time that they were banned. The solution is simple: The advertised ticket price is the *only* thing the airline should be allowed to charge you for your seat, baggage (checked or carry-on up to a regulated size and weight), and any additional services offered to you during booking, in the airport or on the plane.

      It's also high time that overbooking or fuel surcharges were banned, as well. It's not like the airline refunds you a portion of your ticket prices when gas costs less than expected, or refunds you if you decide not to travel on a ticket you paid for, so what possible reason is there for them to be allowed to raise the contractually-agreed price after you've already paid it or to sell your seat to somebody else as well and hope one of you doesn't show up?

      Sadly, there's zero chance any of this will ever happen because our government operates solely in the interests of big business, not what's best for the general public. But I can dream, can't I?

    2. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by gweilo8888 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't disagree more. There has been a standard carry-on size for as long as I can remember, but it's only since airlines started nickel-and-diming their customers with hidden fees that most people started taking advantage of it.

      And frankly, if you want efficient stowage, having a standard size is a GOOD thing. There's a reason container ships use standard container sizes, and that air freight uses standard unit load devices: It's the most efficient way possible to fit in the maximum quantity of cargo. The same is true of baggage -- if there's a standard carry-on size, overhead compartments get made (on all but the smallest aircraft) to fit that size as efficiently as possible.

      And that's why the whole IATA proposal is bunkum -- if they decrease size just fractionally, all that will do on most aircraft is leave small spaces in each overhead compartment that aren't sufficient to fit another bag. You're not going to get any more people jamming bags in the overheads without a very significant change in bag size, or a redesign of the overheads to match the new, smaller bag sizes optimally.

    3. Re:Stop charging for checked bag by Cimexus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. I moved from Australia to the US a couple of years ago. I am a very frequent flier (140+ segments per year).

      In Australia it was never a problem getting overhead space because:

      (a) The carry on bag size limits were enforced

      (b) Most airlines (including the major two - Qantas and Virgin) allow one checked bag as part of the ticket price (I won't say 'free', but it's not charged as an extra fee)

      (c) Less of those godforsaken small regional jets (EMB 120s, 175s and CRJ 200s and 700s in particular) that have tiny overhead bins. The proportion of flights in the US (and Canada) that these aircraft amazes me. You get them even between major (4M+ population) cities. You'd never get anything smaller than a 737 or A320 in Australia between major city pairs.

      Having said that, addressing (a) and/or (b) alone would probably be enough to solve the issue in North America.

  2. I would have expected US carriers to back this by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Smaller carry-ons would reduce their utility for many people, resulting in more mandatory checked back and more mandatory checked bag fees. The flight attendants would like it because there would be less boarding chaos with morons who fuck up the overhead bins. And the luggage industry would have a field day.

    Really, if you stop and think about this it's a miracle they're not backing it, because if they did everybody but the consumer makes money off the deal.

  3. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Centimetres, a metric measure. The entire world (not just Europe) with the exception of Liberia, Myanmar and USA use it. I'm sure you must be proud to be part of the only 1st world nation still using the deprecated imperial measurements.

  4. Why bother with new rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just enforce the fucking current rules.

    I've yet to see anyone - except on tiny turboprops - forced to tag and check their godforsaken, obviously bigger than the fucking demonstrative cubic area display, entire motherfucking overhead compartment consuming suitcase.

    Tell these fuckers, "Yeah, no." And suddenly, there won't be a problem.

    Profanity because fuck you, I'm not moving my backpack under my seat and having three inches of leg room for six hours.

  5. Re:What are... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Zero first-world nations still use imperial measurements.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  6. Re:What are... by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Units are complicated and many people overstate the benefits of having uniform worldwide units. If I'm choosing a unit for how I sell my goods, what's more important, that the person down the street is familiar with the unit, or somebody from Ghana will be familiar if he travels to my store.

    In industry, whatever tool or system you're dealing with, you're going to either use something that is either imported or exported or has to be compatible with something that is imported or exported. Thus you are guaranteed that there will be SI units somewhere in your process and it is usually just easier to go with it for the whole process, as is done in the military, NASA, and most US engineering firms. In addition to being internationally compatible, it is also a damn lot easier to use. Sure, if you use no unit but feet, pounds and seconds in your calculation there is no unit conversion that needs to be done, but as soon as you go into the range where you might think in miles or ounces, it becomes fairly difficult to reconcile intuition with units unless you do some fiddly calculations. Whereas a native SI user knows intuitively how long a Km and mm is in the same way an American might recon a mile or an inch.

    So you may say: "why don't I buy a 2 pounds of apples, then walk a mile to work where I use SI to design parts and trajectories and what not?" Problem is, if you're thinking in non SI, then non SI units tend to sneak into where they don't belong. The Mars Climate Orbiter for example fell out of the sky because Lockheed used pound-seconds instead of newton-seconds in a calculation.

    Considering how much success other countries have had switching, I'm always surprised at America's feeble efforts to do so. I think it is just something to do with Americans natural paranoia about as you say a "New World Order" or whatever else that prevents it.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  7. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You realize that your entire justification for using your existing units is because you are used to them right? Believe me when I tell you that metric units seem completely reasonable for the kinds of everyday things that people encounter when you are used to using them. We even have weather maps, beers, and shoes!

    At least try to internalize the fact that you aren't being remotely objective.

  8. Re:What are... by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is barely anything that is a foot long

    But how many centimeters long is a pornstar?

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  9. Re:What are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not 65, 75, 85 degrees in your example?

    On the highway, if I'm driving 60 mph (~100kph), I know I'm going a mile a minute. So, see a sign for "rest stop, 40 miles", I know it'll take me about 40 minutes to get there. In metric, how long does it take you to drive 64 km at 100kph?

    Examples can be pulled out of each. The metric system is not some system where all math problems are magically simplified for us.