Airlines shrink carry-on bag size

[davester]

Ombligo wrote: The precise size is 55 centimeters (21 inches) tall, 35 centimeters (13.5 inches) wide and 20 centimeters (7.5 inches) deep.

That's really annoying, since we bought new carryon luggage last year which is 22x14x9 inches (i.e. 1 inch, 0.5 inch, and 1.5 inches too large in each dimension, respectively). The 22 and 14 dimensions might be fakeable, but the 9 inch dimension is definitely not.

Also, that is a massive volume reduction, which will make carryon impractical for many and will vastly increase the profits the airlines get from checked bag fees. It's win-win for the airlines and the bag makers. Lose-lose for the rest of us poor suckers.

[IronMac]

My fave carry-on (Red Oxx Ruck Sack) is still smaller than this so-called new size. It has more than enough room for an MBP, electronics, wiring and a change of clothing.

http://www.redoxx.com/Shop-by-Gear-Item/...13/Product

I'm not sure about the weight but I've always thought that it was 22 lbs or 10 kgs for carry on luggage.

[Paul F.]

I wonder when the first modern trans-atlantic and trans-pacific liners are going to be built... Not a "cruise ship" with lots of luxury, but a passenger ship that will cost less than a business class seat with a gazillion dollars in luggage, rules, taking off your shoes at the airport, etc...
I'd be up for a trip across the atlantic that takes 5 days, if I can bring a reasonable about a luggage for a 20 day trip!

Just kind of an idle thought...

[cbelt3]

FWIW... I've never used one of those wheelie bags. I hate 'em. Laptop backpack with enough room for my meds, electric shaver, and change of clothes. Good enough for an overnight trip. I can move through crowds faster that way, and my arm isn't in agony because I'm pulling a handle designed for someone much shorter than me.. or with longer arms. Orangutans ? The way checked luggage transport costs, it's easier to just buy extra jocks and socks at a discount store if my stay extends.

[IronMac]

Paul, look into using freighters.

[Paul F.]

IronMac wrote:
Paul, look into using freighters.

Actually, I have... (neat idea), but they're pretty expensive for a passenger fare.

[NewtonMP2100]

is this what they mean when they refer to......'shrinkage'.......????

[Mike Johnson]

davester wrote: That's really annoying, since we bought new carryon luggage last year which is 22x14x9 inches.

Is it for reals? So many bags these days don’t match their advertised specs. Sometimes they’re bigger, sometimes they’re smaller. More than once I’ve seen somebody have to gate check their Tumi 22” because it’s actually 24” tall.

[mikebw]

They don't specify a date this will go into effect, but I suspect a lot of pushback by consumers to come soon.

[Mike Johnson]

Argh. Last year Delta et al went to 22x14x9 inches. They picked that size in part because at 45,000 cm3 it’s in line with what the Europeans require. I’m sure they were hoping it’d catch on. I don’t think they expected this new proposal, amounting to 38,500 cm3, so soon.

I doubt there will ever be a standard size, though. Right now you can have a bag that’s okay with Air France but too big for Air Berlin, and another bag that’s completely arse-versey. And don’t get me started on US airlines that just add up length + width + height. That’s never made any sense.

I’ve had my carry-on luggage weighed plenty of times. At some airlines it’s SOP, all carry-ons get weighed and tagged. Some airlines it’s at the discretion of the employee. If your carry-on looks heavy they’ll weigh it.