Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

US Airlines Say Smaller Carry-Ons Are Not In the Cards 273

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by NoKaOi ( 1415755 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @09:15PM (#49941709)

    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.

    • by gweilo8888 ( 921799 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @09:24PM (#49941769)
      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?
      • by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @09:37PM (#49941823)

        Can they also regulated the size and weight of the passenger for that price?
        The cost of flying a plane increases with weight.

      • "ban this, ban that" - as if you have so much more information than everybody else in the market what will work best. That takes gumption.

        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.

        Well, yeah - that's the whole point - to protect them from competition. What do you think campaign donations are for?

        And the answer, like it or not, is regulation.

        Or, you know, let more airlines into the

        • by jonwil ( 467024 )

          What the government should do is:
          1.Eliminate laws like the Wright Amendment (that restricts what airlines can do when flying out of Dallas Love Field, Fort Worth Meacham and Addison in order to protect Dallas/Fort Worth International) and any other similar restrictions (such as restrictions on the size or gate count of airports and restrictions on which airlines can fly to/from a given airport and where they can fly from/to). Let unrestricted competition rule and let the most efficient airports (and the one

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Those are the rules in the EU. They are one of the reasons why the EU is so great for consumers. The price they advertise is the price you pay, baggage included. But the rules go much further than that.

        If your flight is delayed by more than four hours you get serious compensation. The only exception is if the delay is due to extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances. Bird strikes are pretty common, so you get compensation if that happens. Problems fuelling, mechanical issues etc. all yield hundreds of E

      • Hidden fees are out of control in the airline industry

        I hope they keep getting more and more out of control. No I really do. I have no fond memories at all of the price of an airline ticket in the past. Going to the next capital city used to be a planned holiday, on Tuesday it was a simple and cheap day trip because I had to run an errand.

        I say keep charging. Charge us per the kilo for everything we do. Charge us for all amenities except for water and toilets. Maybe that will stop the idiot next to me from getting wasted on bloody marys because they are free (

    • by Cimexus ( 1355033 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @10:06PM (#49941949)

      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.

      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        (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.

        Virgin still operates the EMB 190's between some cities on low volume flights. They're slowly being replaced by A320's and 737's though. But regional flights are still dominated by small jets, 717's Fokker 70's, Dash 8's and even old BAe146's.

        The Regional jets aren't bad if they're being used correctly. I've flown between Panama and Santiago, DR on a EMB 190 and it was fine but COPA are actually a decent airline (checked baggage, free seat selection, food and drink) but that was only a 3 hour flight (as

      • by dj245 ( 732906 )

        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.

        The airline market in the US is much more competitive with many more players. Most don't compete on flying experience, they compete on all the things leading up to a purchase decision. So they compete on price and choice. If an airline offer 6 flights a day from Milwaukee but a competitor offers only 2, the one offering 6 is probably going to do more business. Their flights fit better into people's schedules and it opens up more opportunities for reasonable connections. They would be stupid not to offe

    • by x0ra ( 1249540 )
      They were never free, just included in the price. Just the same about free shipping; the shipping charges is averaged over every customer.
    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      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.

      Pretty much this.

      However this means that they will have to allocate storage for baggage instead of selling that storage for cargo... Erm, which means ticket prices go up.

      You can fly from LA to DC for $170 If you would like to remember how bad prices used to be, feel free to come to Australia where Perth to Sydney (roughly the same amount of air time) is around $400.

      Realistically US airlines are going to need to do something about oversized carry ons but they're probably going to go along the same r

    • Amen.

      On every flight that I've been on in the last couple of years where the first checked bag was free, there has been ample overhead storage space, sometimes entirely empty bins on planes with filled seats!

      And the reverse has been true. The airlines that charge for the bag (*ahem* American Airlines) have consistently had departure delays as the flight attendants spend everyone's time to convince the last few people to check their bags because the've squeezed every possible bit of room out of the overhead

    • But the Cargo hold is full as well... why? Because your airline is using the storage that USED to be used for Checked baggage to ship packages!

      They started adding fees for these things and now their SOLUTION is to reduce the size of the bag because "surprise! People take stuff when they travel!"

      Next thing you know, there will be an "air fee." "Oh, you wanted to BREATHE on your trip? Well that's going to cost you."

    • The loading and unloading time of an aircraft is extended by 20 minutes or more just to accommodate those who want to carry on their luggage. I say make a checked bag free, but charge the $25 for anything other than a personal carry-on (purse, laptop). That will stop a lot of this delay and save money/schedule as well as ease security lines.

      • >just to accommodate those who want to carry on their luggage

        I don't want to carry on luggage. I want to avoid baggage claim, not lose my bag and skip the line at check in. Carrying on is just means, not the motivation.

    • Whether this becomes an excuse for shrinking carry-ons is a different story, and that's how the news organizations have tried to field it. But if you look at their latest press release [iata.org], they try to be clear:

      The Cabin OK guideline is smaller than the size set by most airlines as their maximum acceptable for carry-on baggage. Thus, passengers with Cabin OK carry-on baggage can travel with a greater assurance that it will be acceptable across the different airline requirements. And, when travelling on a partic

    • My wife, a former stewardess for a European carrier, just suggested that this might, in part, be about safety. She thinks that decreasing the thickness of the luggage, but not the other dimensions to any significant degree, suggests that the European carriers may have been pushing toward underseat stowage of the carryons, which is much safer than the overhead bin. Basically the overhead bins are too flimsy to keep luggage from flying around. She also believes that this is a follow-on effect of charging for
  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday June 18, 2015 @09:17PM (#49941731)

    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.

    • by afidel ( 530433 )

      Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.

      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @06:55AM (#49943865)

        Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.

        As someone who has worked for an airline in both a ramp and air cargo capacity yes, they do. A checked bag might pass through the hands of 7 people, from acceptance to loading to unloading to delivery to baggage claim. Cargo goes through an acceptance agent, then another person takes it to a staging area, where at least 1 person then builds it into a container or cart. Then another person drives the container to another staging area, where another person takes from the cargo facility staging area to the gate for the flight. Then the gate crew takes it, moves it alongside the plane, then someone else puts it on the belt and the person in the bin stacks it. When the plane arrives at it's destination is it loaded into another cart/container, taken to the local freight facility, where it it is broken down, staged for pick-up, then finally delivered to the driver picking it up. That is at least 13 people handling 1 piece of frieght. And that assumes it is a small piece of freight going on a narrow body. Frieght going on a wide-body aircraft take even more people: we would routinely have 3-4+ people breaking down a single PMC. It is not unreasonable to have 20 people in some way handling 1 piece of freight. And that does not include the truck drivers or originating/destination shipper/freight forwarder facilities, or if it has to be inspected by customs for international shipments.

        But yes, by wieght cargo is more profitable because airlines can charge a premium for it, especially with things that have to be sent by air cargo such as perishable products (foodstuff, medicine, flowers-you have no idea how many hundreds of boxed of hydrangreas are shipped are freight to Dubai every week), time sensitive items, live animals, human remains, and valuable items such as gold or other precious metals or exotic/expensive cars.

      • Smart carriers don't want you to check bags, the hold is much more valuable carrying freight and freight doesn't require the army of workers that checked bags do.

        Greedy carriers don't want you to check bags, don't want you to bring carry-on, would rather you slim down and weigh less than 135 lb and have a 28 inch waist, that way they could cram one more seat per aisle, would like to do away with rest rooms, want you to line up nicely and fill the plane as if they are pouring water..

        Actually they would rather you don't fly at all, just give them the money they feel they are entitled to and stay home.

    • They will start doing it, just not right away.

    • They won't back it because it will irritate the frequent fliers that make up the core of every airline's business. I don't think it will ultimately get much international traction, either, as airlines that cater to the upper class continue to do their own thing, putting pressure on any airline that does implement the proposed standard.

    • more mandatory checked bag fees.

      LOL Did someone pass the idea that the airlines are FORCED to charge you for checking baggages?

      "Forced! Forced I say! Why, I don't know what we'll do if the Big Government makes us take more money in fees from our passengers!"

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18, 2015 @09:24PM (#49941771)

    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.

    • by jwdb ( 526327 )

      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.

      Funny, I see it happen all the time with regional jets. By the time they hit the last boarding group it's assumed the overheads are full, and they'll often start tagging every single roll-on for gate check-in. Maybe you're just not flying enough?

      As for intercontinental jumbos, no surpri

  • now they're shrinking carry-on luggage?

    Fuck, there's only so much air you can pump out of a vacu-seal. I can only get two suits, four sets of undercrackers, a pair of sneakers and my laptop into carry-on as it is. BTW, here a carry-on follows Ryanair's example: 55x40x20cm, to fit in the overhead. Ryanair also allows a smaller piece of hand luggage as a second (since May last year as their passenger cabins only have rack space for 90 carry-ons, excess baggage goes into the hold), which in practical terms mea

    • BTW, here a carry-on follows Ryanair's example: 55x40x20cm, to fit in the overhead.

      You've just identified your own problem: Ryanair. Stop trying to save yourself a few pennies and just buy a seat on a decent airline. Just as a random example, British Airways allows carry-on of 56x45x25cm. That might not sound a lot, but crunch the numbers and BA is giving you 43% greater carry-on allowance per passenger.

      So-called "budget" airlines almost always work out to be significantly more-expensive than their tra
  • Instead of charging extra per bag, ihey should charge on the total weight (of passenger, carry on and checked bags)
    since its the wieght that is the main cost for the modern airliner.

    • by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Friday June 19, 2015 @12:34AM (#49942471)
      A better solution would be to stop building planes that have a CYLINDRICAL fuselage when all our baggage is RECTANGULAR!
    • Instead of charging extra per bag, ihey should charge on the total weight (of passenger, carry on and checked bags)
      since its the wieght that is the main cost for the modern airliner.

      You honestly think airlines haven't considered that. They figured out it costs more than it will save.

      Besides that, do you think an airport rent-a-cop is going to tell Mr SteroidJunkie that he has to pay and Mr Tubby gets through for free he weighs more than the Chubster?

      BTW, when you fly on light aircraft in commercial service like a Dash-8, you do get weighed because that plane has a very low MTOW. There's a reason they know it's unworkable.

    • The marginal cost by mass is actually pretty low. The main constraint is the cost of putting the plane in the air.

  • The IATA is asking for change. Can they make it happen?

    They are, at first, a considerable global consortium of airlines, possibly in the realm of super-villians (given the global nature).

    But, they only charge $15,000 USD per airline annually ($30,000 USD to join).

    https://www.iata.org/about/mem... [iata.org]

    Further, they have 256 member airlines from all around the globe (US based majors included).

    So, they have a guaranteed annual revenue of $3.84M USD (excluding application and acceptance fees, non-recurring).

    And tha

  • Do you think removing the share button from slashdot could be in the cards?
  • If you are an elite 100k flyer the airlines won't screw with you; as long as you aren't trying to drag a hugh bag on they will give you a pass because you are their best customers. The casual flyer will get screwed because the airlines can but they'll bend over backwards for the top tier flyers. Of course, beyond the few dicks most frequent flyers know the drill and just want get to their destination with their stuff with minimal hassle for all involved.
  • If it needs wheels, it is not a frgggin' carry-on!

    Overhead bins do NOT mean that there is a compartment for each passenger! You're supposed to share that space! But no, everyone nowadays has to bring these cases that aren't much smaller than the suitcase I regularly use for checked baggage! carry on is your survival pack with stuff you need between checking and retrieving your regular baggage, plus a pair of clean underwear and a towel and what you might need if your regular baggage is late.

  • Every single flight there is always several scumbags trying to force an obviously too overstuffed or too big of a bag in the overhead. They just let them continue to smash other peoples stuff and force it in there instead of saying, Bag must be checked, $25.00 plus a $10 cheap jerk fee.

  • Not once have I seen an airline actually enforce carry-on size regulations, in 40 years of air travel.

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...