Smaller IATA standards for carry-ons proposed

Discussion in 'General Discussion | Travel' started by 8MiHi, Jun 9, 2015.  |  Print Topic

  1. 8MiHi

    8MiHi Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Status Points:
    945
    uggboy, Newscience and traveltoomuch like this.
  2. Ed Chandler
    Original Member

    Ed Chandler Silver Member

    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    501
    Status Points:
    645
    Not "illegal", just "noncompliant." It's a voluntary standard - the airlines decide for themselves. Just the same, my roll aboard is still within its return window so it's a consideration.
     
  3. canucklehead
    Original Member

    canucklehead Gold Member

    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    22,059
    Status Points:
    11,070
    not many compliant bags out there ATM
     
    8MiHi, uggboy, YULtide and 1 other person like this.
  4. mattsteg
    Original Member

    mattsteg Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,276
    Likes Received:
    5,543
    Status Points:
    4,170
    8MiHi, Newscience and traveltoomuch like this.
  5. traveltoomuch

    traveltoomuch Silver Member

    Messages:
    774
    Likes Received:
    912
    Status Points:
    795
    Prediction: if this initiative goes anywhere, there will be a small but thriving market in counterfeit "Cabin OK" logos.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2015
  6. YULtide

    YULtide Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,745
    Likes Received:
    10,554
    Status Points:
    10,520
    I think what we need is a standard for overhead bins so my bag will fit.
     
    8MiHi, Dublin_rfk and uggboy like this.
  7. okrogius

    okrogius Silver Member

    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    853
    Status Points:
    795
    Interesting development and curious to see why now. As-is there are currently two common standards of sorts (not really standard, but common recurring dimenstions) that I've seen - the US airline size and the international airline size (shorter but wider). I guess maybe one size might be helpful, but the weight limits are usually far more painful than dimensions.
     
    8MiHi, edekba and uggboy like this.
  8. HaveMilesWillTravel
    Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    Messages:
    12,504
    Likes Received:
    20,199
    Status Points:
    16,520
    I've never been challenged based on weight. My muscular build makes a 50 pound carry-on look like it contains nothing but a feather pillow. :)
     
    whkento, 8MiHi, Dublin_rfk and 3 others like this.
  9. edekba

    edekba Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,462
    Likes Received:
    3,783
    Status Points:
    2,145
    someway somehow i think this is just a lot of good lobbying by the manufacturers of bags...
     
    YULtide likes this.
  10. Dublin_rfk

    Dublin_rfk Gold Member

    Messages:
    4,218
    Likes Received:
    6,034
    Status Points:
    4,770
    Standard overhead bins yes. I can't judge your bag.
     
  11. disambiguous1

    disambiguous1 Silver Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    57
    Status Points:
    220
    My question is, if one has a soft-sided bag and not hard luggage with wheels, and the bag can be squeezed through the size checkers, will it be allowed on? Or are they mainly concerned about hard-sided luggage that can't be squished into conformity?

    For a vagabond trip around Europe later this year, I've set up my luggage system so that I can completely avoid checking bags, with the possible exception of the hop from Guernsey to London (the Guernsey carriers use some pretty small planes, but at least on the Guernsey end the baggage handling is less extensive). I'm hoping the restrictions won't go into place until next year at least. -DA1
     
  12. 8MiHi

    8MiHi Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Status Points:
    945
    You are right, the reporter rounded conservatively:
    "The common cabin bag size (“Common Size”) will not exceed 55 cm x 35 cm x 20 cm (+/- 1 cm) or 22” x 14” x 8” in overall dimensions (including handles and wheels)."
    This appears to be the official statement.
    This size I may be able to deal with. It's actually the depth that becomes a problem as all of my bags would fill out under most circumstances to 9" or more. From the metric measurement it would be 21.65" X 13.78" X 7.87" without the +/- 1 cm or the non-metric guidance.
     
    YULtide likes this.
  13. mattsteg
    Original Member

    mattsteg Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,276
    Likes Received:
    5,543
    Status Points:
    4,170
    The iata size proposed here fits perfectly into bins on cr7s and cr9s, as well. This can ne very handy.
     
  14. YULtide

    YULtide Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,745
    Likes Received:
    10,554
    Status Points:
    10,520
    This is rather like the difference between US Letter sized paper and A4.
     
    whkento and traveltoomuch like this.
  15. YULtide

    YULtide Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,745
    Likes Received:
    10,554
    Status Points:
    10,520
    The trouble with the +/- 1 cm is that there is no way of knowing the tolerance or margin for error of the baggage sizers used by the airlines.
     
    8MiHi likes this.
  16. 8MiHi

    8MiHi Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Status Points:
    945
    The current United bag sizers appear to have some wiggle room built in. I have a bag that is 22" X 14.25" X 9" when empty. When stuffed that 9" is a bit larger. When I tried this bag in a sizer it fit with some gentle persuasion. It may be some time before they change the requirements and then I assume the US carriers will provide the stated 22" X 14" X 8", not the metric limits.
    Until they change the shape of the bins to go with the "on the side" storage scheme, I am not sure they will gain much space by limiting the depth to 8".
     
  17. mattsteg
    Original Member

    mattsteg Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,276
    Likes Received:
    5,543
    Status Points:
    4,170
    As mentioned by @8MiHi - many/most sizers have a bit of wiggle room built in.

    Also many/most bags underreport their actual size...or report interior dimensions.


    And this gains nothing except airspace in the bins until we get bins tall enough to put bags on their side.

    I carry a bag that complies with this "standard" already (actually 21 x 8 x 14), with the following main benefits:
    Fits wheels-out on the short side of MD80s (rapidly becoming less relevant...)
    Fits in the overheads of CR7s and CR9s, as long as the crew doesn't make you check it.
    Fits in old-school 767 bins and other older, smaller bins.
    Compliant with international carriers who are sometimes pickier too.

    In an era of expanding bins, this doesn't really make sense by the claimed reasons, and makes little difference until bags can go sideways. From that perspective, as well as setting the groundwork of a true standard size to shoot for for such configurations, it makes sense.
     
    8MiHi likes this.
  18. YULtide

    YULtide Gold Member

    Messages:
    2,745
    Likes Received:
    10,554
    Status Points:
    10,520
    FWIW I tend to fly A320 and E190 on Air Canada a lot and have never had a problem putting my bag in an overhead bin. On the bigger planes, it slides in nicely with room to spare. But I think it's probably 1/2 inch too tall for the official Air Canada standard, so I risk being caught with an oversized bag. A standard that everyone agrees to would probably be useful, though I have little doubt it would require me to buy yet another carry-on bag.

    But, then, it matters not as Air Canada and Westjet have apparently both rejected the idea.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ay-no-to-standardized-carry-on-size-1.3108747
     
  19. canucklehead
    Original Member

    canucklehead Gold Member

    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    22,059
    Status Points:
    11,070
  20. 8MiHi

    8MiHi Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Status Points:
    945
    Voluntary standards only work if they are easy to follow or if there is an incentive. Who knows, maybe elite status will determine what size your carry-on could be.
    Since I often use smaller bags when it makes sense, I would be happy to consider one that meets these standards if they become available. The voluntary size would probably cost me my extra pair of shoes, though, so it would probably not work well for multi-day business trips.
     
    canucklehead likes this.
  21. canucklehead
    Original Member

    canucklehead Gold Member

    Messages:
    5,895
    Likes Received:
    22,059
    Status Points:
    11,070
    well, an extra pair of shoes.....and a new suitcase to comply. I have 2 wheelie carryons that would not longer be IATA cabin approved if this goes through.
     
    8MiHi likes this.
  22. 8MiHi

    8MiHi Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Status Points:
    945
    D
    Downsizing travel space is the pits. I do like my (currently) legal carry-ons and would be unhappy if they were no longer acceptable.
    It would be worse if they were to downsize the seats further. I can get new luggage, I can't easily get a new butt.
     
  23. mattsteg
    Original Member

    mattsteg Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,276
    Likes Received:
    5,543
    Status Points:
    4,170
    It takes a lot of butt to fill and overfill an airliner seat.
     
  24. 8MiHi

    8MiHi Silver Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    1,255
    Status Points:
    945
    Actually my problem is with my shoulders and elbows. Running keeps my butt down, but I thought the butt reference line was funnier.
     
    traveltoomuch likes this.
  25. mattsteg
    Original Member

    mattsteg Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,276
    Likes Received:
    5,543
    Status Points:
    4,170
    Yup - people say the butt...but shoulder and elbow is a much bigger deal. Charlatans like southwest play off on this BS by advertising new wider seats that really just have narrower and presunably worse armrests. Dimensions where it matters are of course unchanged.
     
    8MiHi likes this.

Share This Page