Bruce Watson
Veteran
Really? They can get smaller?
Airline group suggests smaller carry-on bags.
- Thread starter Bern Caughey
- Start date
They'll be the size of their in-flight meal trays.
Last edited:
I once carried on a 9'6" surfboard - but then I'm even older than you... I used to love the adventure of air travel, now I dread it. These days I either take just a Pocket Camera with a Z-Finder Pro and two lenses in a small PortBrace, or I ship FedEx.
Run&Gun
Veteran
It still blows my mind some of the things that they let people carry on board even today, like SKATEBOARDS. But I've been given crap and told "it's too big" countless times over my VariCam. I'm no more important than anyone else on the flight, but I feel that a $70K camera should be given priority in the overhead over a $100 skateboard.
Flying used to be fun. I hate it, now. The two times that I'd have to board the plane every trip used to be the most stressful part of my weekend.
Kraut69
Well-known member
Check in with people who work in hospitals. You will be surprised at the frequency of cases they have to treat where people have been seriously injured by suitcases falling out of overhead storage compartments on planes. Apparently this type of injury is not reported in the media very much.
brettsherman
Well-known member
I agree. I've spent a lot of time and energy getting a carry-on bag arranged that will fit under every seat of every plane I've ever been on, Dash 9 included. I'm not sure who came up with the new dimensions, but the 7.5" dimension is ridiculous. You can easily get 9.5" under a seat. I'm not sure I can get a bag that works that's only 7.5" high. And overhead compartments can easily take 10". All you are doing is wasting 3" above the bags.
If they want to go with these dimensions, they need a media exemption. Airlines don't want to be liable for damages or losses of equipment either. Bottom-line, if it fits under the seat they should let you take it on with you.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
This.
We can always complain about tourists carrying everything on the plane, but we don't have as many options. I suspect that the airlines would figure out a way to monetize that media exemption, so we'd probably wind up getting screwed either way.
Everything in the airlines philosophy has changed to maximizing profits above all other considerations. The airlines are currently making a huge amount of profit off of the fees. Fuel prices have dropped, yet they're still keeping the "fuel surcharge" pricing levels in place. That whole "prices have dropped since deregulation" meme is a little out of date and not entirely accurate. The prices paid for business and full fare flights may have dropped, but not all the prices have. Some routes are way more expensive today than they were in the 90's. I've bought tickets at the airport to fly same day to Europe with open ended return for $400 back in the early 90's. Try that today. Try changing a flight and see how much it costs you.
While I'm ranting, what's with the pricing out of certain cities? Flying out of Seattle often costs twice as much as flying out of Vancouver (2 hrs north) even when the Vancouver flight connects through Seattle! How can it legitimately cost twice as much for the same flight or even one less plane ride?
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Unless you have legitimate media credentials you'll often have a hard time getting media rates, or exemptions. And even if you have the credentials many airline personnel are unaware of their own company's policy.
brettsherman
Well-known member
As far as I know there is no authorizing authority determining what is or isn't legitimate media in the U.S. It really boils down to what the airline considers as "legitimate media."
Run&Gun
Veteran
Some airlines do not have a "media rate" anymore. Others that still have them make it difficult to get/use and if you do use the "media rate", you usually absolve them of ANY liability to damage of loss to your equipment(USAir used to be like this when they had one). And as far as loss or damage of equipment under normal circumstances, they don't care and if you read your ticket(contract), they have (VERY) limited liability. The dollar amount they cover might pay your insurance deductible, if you're lucky(meaning IF your deductible is a few hundred dollars).
lovecameras
Carbonite Member
greedy bloody airlines......
This was published in the Atlantic on February, 28, 2013 but is now either behind a paywall or gone entirely, so all I could get was the lead/lede.
This was from Time mag in 2010.
This was from Time mag in 2010.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Bored on a plane from Frankfurt to Madrid, I ran the math about how full it could be before space would be a problem. My result: if the number of carry-on suitcases is higher than two thirds of the number of seats, the overhead space won't be enough.
So, maybe it makes sense to change the regulations. But definitely not as they say they want to change them. Making suitcases thinner or less wide doesn't solve the issue. You'd have to make them shorter, by a lot. If they propose a change from the current 22x14x9 to something like 15x14x9, they are trying to solve the problem. They could even go 15x14x11 or something like that, to try to minimize the blow on passengers. With the current proposal, they are just trying to force people to buy new suitcases.
So, maybe it makes sense to change the regulations. But definitely not as they say they want to change them. Making suitcases thinner or less wide doesn't solve the issue. You'd have to make them shorter, by a lot. If they propose a change from the current 22x14x9 to something like 15x14x9, they are trying to solve the problem. They could even go 15x14x11 or something like that, to try to minimize the blow on passengers. With the current proposal, they are just trying to force people to buy new suitcases.
They should eliminate the ridiculous suitcase fee, or at least lower it. I think it's so greedy to charge so much for a single suitcase, and it pushes those who can't afford it to bring all they can in their carry-on bags. They're basically shooting themselves right in the foot and now they want their clients to clean their mess. What's next? No suitcases or carry-ons allowed? We'll be flying naked soon.
OK, so bring a sandwich along for the ride. I know some recipes. They're delish.
As to stagnant wages, it's not the airline problem. In some countries, they're stagnant. In others, they are not.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Bruce Watson
Veteran
What makes you think that's the problem they want to solve?
I don't imagine they care if their passengers have to buy new suitcases, because the airlines won't see any of that money. What the airlines want is more money for themselves. They can get that through more checked bagage fees. And they can get that by making the carry-on bag size just a little smaller. As they have done several times before. And as they will continue to do as long as they can get away with it.
I've been at the point where I'd rather drive for well more than a decade now. My destination has got to be more than two days drive away for me to want to endure the pain of air travel.
Bruce: You nailed it, I just got back from flying Southwest (4 fights 2-3 hours), it was like an old time cattle car, just push them in, slam the door, light the fans and don't move until they land and open the loading ramp. We had that priority seating scam...paid extra for it and was #39 in the line.
They do not offer business class or first class, just cattle car class, no leg room, small seats, etc. I never take my camera(s) on board unless I hand carry them, my carry on is my GH4 camera bag.....can't wait for the airlines to squeeze us for more money for flying. I'll drive instead, also need to check out the trains for travel. My 2 Cents.