Official vs actual carry-on luggage dimensions (USA)

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:16:48 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

wrote:

I bought a carry-on from the Rick Steeves site that was advertised as
meeting the 45" requirements but when I received it the wheels were
half an inch too long. I love the bag, though, so I check it.

I thought the limit was 42 inches

45" in Canada.

I presume both of you mean cm?

tim

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:09:06 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:16:48 -0800, "Mr. Travel" wrote:

wrote:

I bought a carry-on from the Rick Steeves site that was advertised as
meeting the 45" requirements but when I received it the wheels were
half an inch too long. I love the bag, though, so I check it.

I thought the limit was 42 inches

45" in Canada.

I presume both of you mean cm?

tim


Inches, height+length+depth. We've switched from inches in Canada,
but my brain hasn't fully converted. I know that I spent all morning
shovelling 61 cm of snow out of my driveway, but unless I get out my
calculator and divide that by 2.54 I have no idea how much snow that
was other than "a lot".

"Craig Welch" wrote in message
...
mag3 said:

Everyone in Europe and Asia since August 2006.

Not so.

Where isn't it enforced?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"William Black" wrote in message
...

"Craig Welch" wrote in message
...
mag3 said:

Everyone in Europe and Asia since August 2006.

Not so.

Where isn't it enforced?

I think the point is that it isn't enforced randomly.

On my regular journey it certainly doesn't seem to be enforced at CPH, but
as my return journey (from LHR/LGW/STN) most certainly is regularly
enforced, my being allowed to waltz on with an oversized carry on at CPH
helps me not one jot as I would be unable to take it back again.

tim

Thanks to everyone who responded. I've learned that (1) there is a
great deal of inconsistency in regulations, (2) there is a great deal
of uncertainty about them, and (3) if I always fly the same routes I
can assume that a slightly oversize item will be allowed to slip
through (or won't) unless something happens that makes the enforcement
policy change.

I'm going to see what answers I can get from people in the airline and
luggage industries, starting with some of the service people I will
encounter at the airport week after next. I'll report back if I learn
anything conclusive.

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 08:10:51 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:

mag3 said:

Everyone in Europe and Asia since August 2006.

Not so.

And in Australia, it's even worse. The length dimension IIRC is only 20"
not 22". No exceptions! And heavily enforced.

Not heavily enforced at all.

Well, let's put it this way... It sure was when I was traveling from CNS to SYD on Ansett
a few years ago. They made me gate check it, and almost threatened me with boarding
denial if I refused. I was allowed to remove all the contents and transport them in plastic
bags on board, putting them in the overheads....

On my trip home from CNS to GUM on CO, the CO check-in agent (an Australian) tried to
force me to check it again when I had to remind her of CO's policy of 9-14-22". It took
some negotiation but she allowed me to bring it on....

I've never been back since to challenge it....
____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold

On Jan 1, 9:49*am, mag3 wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 08:10:51 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
mag3 said:

Everyone in Europe and Asia since August 2006.

Not so.

And in Australia, it's even worse. The length dimension IIRC is only 20"
not 22". * No exceptions! And heavily enforced. *

Not heavily enforced at all.

Well, let's put it this way... It sure was when I was traveling from CNS to SYD on Ansett
a few years ago. They made me gate check it, and almost threatened me with boarding
denial if I refused. I was allowed to remove all the contents and transport them in plastic
bags on board, putting them in the overheads....

On my trip home from CNS to GUM on CO, the CO check-in agent (an Australian) tried to
force me to check it again when I had to remind her of CO's policy of 9-14-22". * It took
some negotiation but she allowed me to bring it on....

I've never been back since to challenge it....
____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold

So the bottom line is, you got it on, which to me, means they didn't
enforce the rules. If the rules were enforced, it would be checked in
with your other luggage. You just unpacked it and spread it out in
the overheads, taking up space that others could have used for their
"legal" carry-ons.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:06:44 -0800 (PST), Jim Davis wrote:

Well, let's put it this way... It sure was when I was traveling from CNS to SYD on Ansett
a few years ago. They made me gate check it, and almost threatened me with boarding
denial if I refused. I was allowed to remove all the contents and transport them in plastic
bags on board, putting them in the overheads....

On my trip home from CNS to GUM on CO, the CO check-in agent (an Australian) tried to
force me to check it again when I had to remind her of CO's policy of 9-14-22". * It took
some negotiation but she allowed me to bring it on....

I've never been back since to challenge it....
____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold

So the bottom line is, you got it on, which to me, means they didn't
enforce the rules. If the rules were enforced, it would be checked in
with your other luggage. You just unpacked it and spread it out in
the overheads, taking up space that others could have used for their
"legal" carry-ons.

Excuse me, but I'm entitled to my fair share of that space as much as
anyone else. And yes, the rule *was* enforced becuse the bag wasn't
allowed on! That's the rule! "Not enforced" means that the bag would have
been permitted on, making it not necessary for me to substitute with a different,
less protective, less secure container but one which *did* satisfy the rule!
I did what I did in order to protect and keep control of my personal property....
I wouldn't have had to do that if the rule wasn't enforced, or if the rule was
more consistent with "reality."
____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold

On Jan 1, 10:26*am, mag3 wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:06:44 -0800 (PST), Jim Davis wrote:
Well, let's put it this way... It sure was when I was traveling from CNS to SYD on Ansett
a few years ago. They made me gate check it, and almost threatened me with boarding
denial if I refused. I was allowed to remove all the contents and transport them in plastic
bags on board, putting them in the overheads....

On my trip home from CNS to GUM on CO, the CO check-in agent (an Australian) tried to
force me to check it again when I had to remind her of CO's policy of 9-14-22". * It took
some negotiation but she allowed me to bring it on....

I've never been back since to challenge it....
____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold

So the bottom line is, you got it on, which to me, means they didn't
enforce the rules. *If the rules were enforced, it would be checked in
with your other luggage. *You just unpacked it and spread it out in
the overheads, taking up space that others could have used for their
"legal" carry-ons.

Excuse me, but I'm entitled to my fair share of that space as much as
anyone else. And yes, the rule *was* enforced becuse the bag wasn't
allowed on! *That's the rule! "Not enforced" means that the bag would have
been permitted on, making it not necessary for me to substitute with a different,
less protective, less secure container but one which *did* satisfy the rule!
I did what I did in order to protect and keep control of my personal property....
I wouldn't have had to do that if the rule wasn't enforced, or if the rule was
more consistent with "reality." *
____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm just looking at this from a different point of view. Maybe I'm
getting "picky", but it's just for the sake of discussion. (not
intended to be an argument)

You stated that you unpacked, and split them up. After the split, how
many pieces did you have. If you had more than two, it was beyond the
one carry-on + one personal item rule.

I've seen bags get split into 3 or 4 pieces. It certainly violates
the rule.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:40:23 -0800 (PST), Jim Davis wrote:

Excuse me, but I'm entitled to my fair share of that space as much as
anyone else. And yes, the rule *was* enforced becuse the bag wasn't
allowed on! *That's the rule! "Not enforced" means that the bag would have
been permitted on, making it not necessary for me to substitute with a different,
less protective, less secure container but one which *did* satisfy the rule!
I did what I did in order to protect and keep control of my personal property....
I wouldn't have had to do that if the rule wasn't enforced, or if the rule was
more consistent with "reality." *

I'm just looking at this from a different point of view. Maybe I'm
getting "picky", but it's just for the sake of discussion. (not
intended to be an argument)

You stated that you unpacked, and split them up. After the split, how
many pieces did you have. If you had more than two, it was beyond the
one carry-on + one personal item rule.

It resulted in two pieces. But remember, this was an Australian based airline flying
under Australian domestic rules (not even international). The 1+1 rule started as a US
based rule which may now be replicated by other world wide airlines for consistency (hopefully).

I'm not sure if 1+1 was in effect in Australia at the time. I think the greater concern was, "can
it fit either under the seat or in the bin?" The rule that *was* enforced was that any carryon
(no matter the qty) had to fit in the "sizing" box both at check in and at the gate or it could not
be carried on. The sizing box clearly was built for a max length of 20", not 22". After getting on
board (an Airbus A320), I'm certain my carryon (a standard 9-14-22" Samsonite hard shelled
Rollaboard) would have easily fit in the overhead bin. But that didn't matter. The length exceeded
20" and therefore, it was disallowed. I should have seen this coming as I was waiting the terminal
at CNS. The check in agent strongly advised me to check it. As I was in the waiting area, I saw that
no one else had any carryon that long. All that I saw were under 20" max length.

Point being, all of these carry on regulations need to be standardized "internationally" so that
everyone is on the same page and knows what the limits are. That said, the "standard" should
allow for the max. convenience of each pax. while being fair to all pax. Ideally, I'd like to see a
"1 carryon" in the bin per seat (45" linear max), and then allow any/all other personal items that
will correctly fit under the seat. If that's 2 or 3 or 4 items, that's fine, as long as the all properly
fit under the seat....

____________________________________________
Regards,

Arnold