Airlines 'discussing' smaller carryon bag size......

I'm not in a position to argue the relative merits of 20cm bag depth vs 23cm but I think there is a more fundamental issue to be addressed first: A significant minority of people not understanding and following the basic concept of carry-on

I have lost count of the number of times I have seen:
1. People thinking a rammed 80 litre rucksack is fine.
2. Carry on plus laptop bag plus something else
3. Item in #2 with a cubic metre of duty free or an A1 picture/ mirror and thinking that's ok for carry on.
4. Not reading their itinerary and complaining at the gate of their connecting flight when told that their carry on from #1, #2 or #3 won't go into the overhead bins of the island hopper.
5. A carry on bag that is so heavy that even healthy youngish people can't get it into the overhead bin themselves.
6. Airline carry on rules that the bins on the actual plane can't accommodate.

Sell a ticket that is for 'up to 120 kilos' to include passenger and all baggage weighed together (for modesty) at check-in. Would help with plane weight/fuel calculations too.
 
Last edited:
chrism_scotland said:
The issue really is that some idiots don't read an airlines policy before heading to the airport. It's nuts that a general policy should be enforced to suit these people.

Read the website for the airline before you go! !!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I always do but reading the new sizes if it gets the go ahead wont do many any good as my current bag for the big lens just fits and was made that way. A lot of people out of pocket buying current sizes if it gets the go ahead.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
Yeah Joe i had the 500 as well. The 600 can go and my current bag fits and its the weight i often have to worry about but the new size propasals will be an issue as well.
Click to expand...

Just had a look the suggested sizes they want to change means my Think Tank Airport Commuter will be about 1cm to deep to carry on the plane! Not much I know but if they have these stickers to go on your bags saying if you can take it on or not then your buggered. The 500mm barely fits in that bag as it is, god knows what you can get that is smaller!
 
I've just seen this too. The new sized of 55x35x19cm is going to make a big difference to many bags that currently meet carry on. I'm glad I've recently moved to an f stop bag, the XL Pro ICU is 48.3x29.2x17.8cm so it's within the new size rule if it does go ahead. It just means folding the bag flat inside the hold bag and carrying the ICU on its own. If F stops marketing team are good they will jump on these nes rules to promote their bags.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...s-set-to-reduce-size-of-carry-on-luggage.html
 
Maybe if they hadn't (relatively) recently introduced that wonderful option of not worrying about that 'duty-free' purchase they wouldn't going down this stupid path! Cynical or what? Can't help thinking Michael O'Dreary is the chief proponent of this!
 
Joeturner11 said:
Just had a look the suggested sizes they want to change means my Think Tank Airport Commuter will be about 1cm to deep to carry on the plane! Not much I know but if they have these stickers to go on your bags saying if you can take it on or not then your buggered. The 500mm barely fits in that bag as it is, god knows what you can get that is smaller!
Click to expand...

It looks like the 500mm f4 and the 600mm f4 would fit in the f stop XL pro ICU but without the camera attached. The nikon 200-400 with camera attach only just fits in with the camera attached. It would be a right PITA to take off the camera every time to get in the bag.

F stop are about to release a new ICU designed for carrying long telephoto lenses, it's going to be interesting to see it's exact size once it's released for purchase in July to see if it's affected by these changes. I've only just bought the tilopa and XL pro icu which was annoying as then released the details about the new bags. I have been thinking about whether a 500mm f4 may be more suited to the photography I mostly do, I may have to change my mind with these changes.
 
rob-nikon said:
It looks like the 500mm f4 and the 600mm f4 would fit in the f stop XL pro ICU but without the camera attached. The nikon 200-400 with camera attach only just fits in with the camera attached. It would be a right PITA to take off the camera every time to get in the bag.

F stop are about to release a new ICU designed for carrying long telephoto lenses, it's going to be interesting to see it's exact size once it's released for purchase in July to see if it's affected by these changes. I've only just bought the tilopa and XL pro icu which was annoying as then released the details about the new bags. I have been thinking about whether a 500mm f4 may be more suited to the photography I mostly do, I may have to change my mind with these changes.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the info about the f stop XL pro bag pal, I don't mind if the body doesn't fit on just want it to get there with me is the main thing! I know how you feel about being annoyed I just spent the best part of £200 on a bag that doesn't meet these new suggested requirements.
 
Joeturner11 said:
Cheers for the info about the f stop XL pro bag pal, I don't mind if the body doesn't fit on just want it to get there with me is the main thing! I know how you feel about being annoyed I just spent the best part of £200 on a bag that doesn't meet these new suggested requirements.
Click to expand...

Joe, it's one of the reason I'm going from 3 separate bags to the one f stop and a couple of ICUs. I'm a big fan of thinktank bags, they are very well made. I found I started to have too many bags, I did have an airport bag that I only ever used a couple of times, it seemed pointless having it considering the use it got.

The ICUs just slide in to the back pack so you can have different ICUs set up for different things and quickly change them. The backpack is like a normal hiking backpack, it folds flat when it has no ICU in it. The ICU has some D rings on it to attach a shoulder strap to help carry it when out of the backpack.

My idea is to have one ICU set up for my 200-400 attached to a d800 and still be able to fit a 70-200 f4, 16-35 f4, 105mm macro in. I haven't yet decided which size ICU to go with for my landscape set up. I'm going to do a blog entry about it after I've been to Skomer as it's the perfect trial of the new bag. Being able to have one bag that I can quickly adapt from long lens to landscapes and have the possibly of two ways of airport carry on was it's selling point for me. My wife was also happy I'm only going to have one bag rather than three! F stop bags are expensive bug once you start having 2-3 of more bags for different things it soon more cost effective.
 
Last edited:
Guys, good insights and feedback.

Should the new Max size as recommended by IATA be adopted the amount of gear that will be carry on'able will impact on just how much we can take. The use of ICU designs of bags will it seems be "the way to go to maximise carry on" with the container bag going into the checked baggage......plus possibly a resurgence in photo jackets??? Not forgetting for a complete system approach an ICU wrapper bag to carry the ICU securely/safely.

For this record my current main bag is a Lowepro Flipside 300 and I have been considering the 400 model.
 
Box Brownie said:
Guys, good insights and feedback.

Should the new Max size as recommended by IATA be adopted the amount of gear that will be carry on'able will impact on just how much we can take. The use of ICU designs of bags will it seems be "the way to go to maximise carry on" with the container bag going into the checked baggage......plus possibly a resurgence in photo jackets??? Not forgetting for a complete system approach an ICU wrapper bag to carry the ICU securely/safely.

For this record my current main bag is a Lowepro Flipside 300 and I have been considering the 400 model.
Click to expand...
Photo jackets/waist coat sales may soar if it does go ahead. The interesting point is if they adopt a standard weight too. Currently I think weights range from 6kg to unlimited, that does make a massive difference when thinking of carrying large lenses.
 
chuckles said:
Maybe if they hadn't (relatively) recently introduced that wonderful option of not worrying about that 'duty-free' purchase they wouldn't going down this stupid path! Cynical or what? Can't help thinking Michael O'Dreary is the chief proponent of this!
Click to expand...

New solution: Bring your lens box to the airport and put the 600mm lens in it as if you had bought it duty free. Job done.
 
Smaller!? Which airline was it that recently announced they were putting in larger overhead lockers?
 
Last edited:
Later this year I'll be flying from London City Airport to Edinburgh, then on to Sumburgh on Shetland via Flybe. As the planes are small the current max size for carry on luggage is
40 x 35 x 18 and 6Kg. It has to fit their bag sizer. At least any changes, if they go ahead, can't reduce this pitiful size any further. Looks as if I'll end up buying the biggest shoulder bag I can for the flights and putting my backpack in my checked in suitcase.
 
OldCarlos said:
Found it: Airbus (can be retrofitted too) http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/onboard-well-being/

Although the new bins add only about 10% increase in volume over the current A320 lockers, their shape and design allows for up to 60% more luggage space by allowing the loading of bags/cases on their side, rather than loading them flat. :clap:
Click to expand...
Great idea and there will still be plenty of morons who put their cases in flat because they havent got the brain power to work it out.
 
Last edited:
It's a real shame i like to take a laptop as well as my 300 2.8 and 70-200 the new narrow width of 7.5 inches will mean that I won't be able to bring the laptop
 
It's just a suggestion, airlines don't need to follow.
 
For years now I have been using an airport addicted 2.0 that, at 53x35x20, is still within the proposed dimensions and did fit either an 600mm f4 or an 800mm 5.6 and much more. Also the weight of the bag itself without some of the dividers and the laptop sleeve is under 2 kg, allowing you to take much more and still stay within the 10kg limit.

So there are solutions, just a bit more costly though.
 
Jackwow said:
It's just a suggestion, airlines don't need to follow.
Click to expand...

It is a proposal that is guidelines, the airlines are able to choose their own limits. It can't be forced on them as it's a guideline not an international standard. The IATA covers 260 airlines, accounting for 83 per cent of air traffic. 7 airlines have already said they will follow the new suggestion (Air China, Avianca, Azul, China Southern, Emirates, Lufthansa and Qatar). Interestingly Ryanairlne and Easyjet are not IATA members.
 
micloi said:
For years now I have been using an airport addicted 2.0 that, at 53x35x20, is still within the proposed dimensions and did fit either an 600mm f4 or an 800mm 5.6 and much more. Also the weight of the bag itself without some of the dividers and the laptop sleeve is under 2 kg, allowing you to take much more and still stay within the 10kg limit.

So there are solutions, just a bit more costly though.
Click to expand...

That bag should be ok but there is confusion over the actual size as it's been reported as both 19cm and 20cm. It looks like the confusion has been caused by reports stating 7.5 inches and the conversion to metric, some say it's 19cm and others say it's 20cm. I checked, 7.5 inches is 19cm.
 
rob-nikon said:
That bag should be ok but there is confusion over the actual size as it's been reported as both 19cm and 20cm. It looks like the confusion has been caused by reports stating 7.5 inches and the conversion to metric, some say it's 19cm and others say it's 20cm. I checked, 7.5 inches is 19cm.
Click to expand...
The IATA proposal is clearly, unambiguously, 20cm.

20cm is 7.87 inches. Normally you'd round that to 8 inches, but that would be inappropriate in this case because that would imply an 8-inch bag would be acceptable, and of course it wouldn't be. So somebody somewhere, writing for an audience who don't understand metric units, has decided to express it as 7.5 inches. And somebody else is too dim to realise that of course IATA would use centimetres, or too lazy to check, and they've converted 7.5 inches back into metric and got 19cm.
 
StewartR said:
The IATA proposal is clearly, unambiguously, 20cm.

20cm is 7.87 inches. Normally you'd round that to 8 inches, but that would be inappropriate in this case because that would imply an 8-inch bag would be acceptable, and of course it wouldn't be. So somebody somewhere, writing for an audience who don't understand metric units, has decided to express it as 7.5 inches. And somebody else is too dim to realise that of course IATA would use centimetres, or too lazy to check, and they've converted 7.5 inches back into metric and got 19cm.
Click to expand...
Thanks Stewart, I tried to find the IATA size on their website but couldn't find it. 20cm sounds good. That will be the telegraph and the BBC who have both stated 7.5 inches and 19cm and 20cm in their reports. 7.87 inch/20cm sounds much better. It does look like this metric/imperial/metric conversion has caused a few report errors, even the economist got it wrong.
 
Last edited:
#‎FAQ‬ Thanks for all the messages about the proposed carry-on ‪#‎luggage‬ sizes. A couple of points to note;

IATA is only a trade body and can't enforce its regulations.

This is from their own FAQ:

"My current carry-on is larger than IATA Cabin OK bags. Will airlines now insist that I check it? Will I have to buy a new, smaller carry-on?

No. Each airline is free to set its own policy regarding baggage, but this new initiative is not expected to result in any sudden spate of baggage rule changes."

You can find their article / FAQ here : http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-infra/baggage/Pages/cabin-ok.aspx
Click to expand...

From the THINK TANK facebook page.
 
s7eve.c said:
From the THINK TANK facebook page.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. Having followed it back to an IATA website it seems it was them who did the 7.5" to 20cm (rounded down like Stuart said) metric/imperial conversion on their initia press release on 9th June (found here). Since then some reporters have altered it to 19cm. Quote below is from the IATA press release.

"Working with airline members of IATA and aircraft manufacturers, an optimum size guideline for carry-on bags has been agreed that will make the best use of cabin storage space. A size of 55 x 35 x 20 cm (or 21.5 x 13.5 x 7.5 inches) means that theoretically everyone should have a chance to store their carry-on bags on board aircraft of 120 seats or larger".

Although it's only an IATA suggestion to airline members it must have bag manufacturers a little worried about their current airline compliant range of bags that are above these new suggested dimensions. If I was looking for a bag for flights I would now be looking for something that complies with the new suggested size as otherwise it could be an expensive mistake if this IATA suggest is adopted by many airlines. The good news is Ryanair and Easyjet are not IATA members.
 
Honestly I actually find one advantage of traveling with a cheap airline is the lower carry on limites mean theres a good deal more space so I don't have to worry about someone crushing my camera gear trying to jam stuff into the overheads.
 
Moreorless said:
Honestly I actually find one advantage of traveling with a cheap airline is the lower carry on limites mean theres a good deal more space so I don't have to worry about someone crushing my camera gear trying to jam stuff into the overheads.
Click to expand...
Cheap airlines often have quite generous carry on allowances. EasyJet and Ryanair for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top