a slender Aeronaut....an Aeronette?

[flitcraft]

Me too. I love my Western Flyer, but I could really use a bag somewhere between that size and the Aeronaut. And without the sling strap, for those of us without flat fronts!

[scotlib]

size suggestion

Hi,

I have been wondering about the possible new bag, too, and also reconsidering my "perfect" size. Looking at the Western Flyer and Aeronaut, this size bag would create a neat, orderly progression:

18 x 12 x 7 .. Western Flyer
20 x 13 x 8 .. suggestion for new bag
22 x 14 x 9 .. Aeronaut

Any chance of one of these by the beginning of April? :-) Cheers.

[timothy]

btw, though this sounds like a great bag, I have a suggestion, if it should come to fruition: please don't call it an "Aeronette."

Tangential but I think instructive example: Smith & Wesson sells a series of guns branded "Ladysmith," intended to appeal to women. (It's light, fairly compact, I think mostly imagined as a gun that a woman might carry in her purse, though with increasing CCW, they're probably fairly well suited for that.)

Thing is, they're pretty high quality guns from what I've heard, no matter the anatomy of the user -- but the name is offputting, because for many possible buyers, the name is just cognitive dissonance in solid form. (Maybe it's still overall a win for Smith & Wesson -- maybe they lose some male buyers but pick up more female buyers. To that extent at least, I realize this analogy is broken.) Sort of like a big pickup truck in what is conventionally considered a feminine pink -- it might not change the function one iota, but it would (sadly, you might think, or just predictably) limit the audience. Yes, I've seen some soft-pink pick-up trucks, and I'm sure they haul just as much as ones in Darth Vader black, so long as the paint's the only thing different.

Maybe I'm dwelling on this too much Maybe the "-ette" ending would stick out to others less than it does to me; I realize that in England, people say "Laundrette" rather than Laundromat, and I've used a pipette in high-school science class.

I'm just one of those crazy guys who likes luggage (and most everything else man-made that's not silk, or related to safety indicators) to be black, grey, white, or maybe (when I'm wild and crazy) a conservative blue, and for things other than color, some sort of aesthetically analogous set of possibilities.

Cheers,

timothy

[Jenne]

My guess is they'll come up with a very cool name that doesn't have gender connotations-- I'm just using it here because I'm lazy. :-)

[cpau]

Hi,

I have been wondering about the possible new bag, too, and also reconsidering my "perfect" size. Looking at the Western Flyer and Aeronaut, this size bag would create a neat, orderly progression:

18 x 12 x 7 .. Western Flyer
20 x 13 x 8 .. suggestion for new bag
22 x 14 x 9 .. Aeronaut

Any chance of one of these by the beginning of April? :-) Cheers.

Scotlib: From my perspective, a major impetus for wishing for a new bag is so that it fits in with common small cabin baggage rules. This is usually 19x13x9. 20" is a touch long (and yes, that 1" can make the difference between it fitting in the frame and not). You also get more increase in volume by going up to 9" from 8 rather than to 20 from 19. A touch fatter is easier to disguise than a touch too long. It does depend on how it's made - TB bags seem good at looking more compact than they actually are.

I'm being a bit picky I know, but I'd still prefer 19x13x9 (or 8", but 9 is really much more common). The "most common small cabin baggage size" would be a better marketing point than "fits in between these two products, one of which isn't based on anyone's rules".

Pity the AUD has tanked

[scotlib]

You also get more increase in volume by going up to 9" from 8 rather than to 20 from 19. A touch fatter is easier to disguise than a touch too long. It does depend on how it's made - TB bags seem good at looking more compact than they actually are.

I'm being a bit picky I know, but I'd still prefer 19x13x9 (or 8", but 9 is really much more common). The "most common small cabin baggage size" would be a better marketing point than "fits in between these two products, one of which isn't based on anyone's rules".

Hi cpau,

Thanks for your insight. Crunching the numbers on the calculator I see how right you are about the increased 8 to 9 in width rather than length:
20 x 13 x 8 = 2080
19 x 13 x 9 = 2223

I clicked on the blog instead of forum by mistake yesterday and noticed this thread was a link as an example of the conversations in the forum! Perhaps it is an indication that this in-between bag is a serious consideration.

Cheers.

[scotlib]

renewed Desire for 19x13x8

My Western Flyer arrived on Thursday. I do love it; however ...

Last spring I used an Eagle Creek Sport Companion duffel for a week's trip to Scotland. With my new Western Flyer I bundled packed 2 pants and 4 shirts around my pj top/bottom in the undivided side. On one divided side I put shoes (stuffed with undies) and 2 prs socks, the divided side behind the front pockets got 2 more prs socks, 2 bras, a washcloth, and a scarf. Putting soft stuff behind the pockets meant I know I could put the 3-1-1 bag in the upper, deep front pocket by smooshing in the soft stuff.

I had some more room for little stuff, but I also put in a fleece vest, hat, and travel umbrella into the duffel. So, I put in about 90% of what I took in the larger duffel. You can consider this a pre-order for a 19x13x8 bag, lol!

If it is not ready by my next April vacation trip I have already decided to use the Western Flyer and leave the shoes at home. I lugged those 2 lbs of dead weight, wearing them only 1 day out of 8, and I am not doing that again.

My personal preference at this time for design is to make it like the Western Flyer with the slide pocket and 2 front zippered pockets, but make two compartments, each without a divider. Those clips can go in (I suppose some need them), but in the now divided section I would instead put a zippered mesh pocket against the inner wall. (My duffel had those and I miss them.)

I love the slide pocket on the front. I use it to stuff the Absolute Strap and not leave it on the floor for anyone to trip over.

Can we have a contest for a name for the new bag? :-)

[scotlib]

Now I see I contradicted myself .. 19x13x9 vs. 19x13x8 .. how about 19x13x8.5 (2100 cu in) :-)

[flitcraft]

I may be a minority voice on this one, but here's a plea for 7 inches deep rather than 8 or more. Some airlines are getting particularly strict on carry-on size these days, and I suspect strongly we'll be seeing even more of this in the future, particularly as checked bag fees become an important revenue generator. And some of those sizers are very unforgiving. It doesn't take much overpacking to push a bag an inch or so over its nominal depth. I know because I've done it with my Western Flyer. Doing it with an 8 or 9 inch bag and it's hello, checked bag.

There are lots of options for one bag travelers who want thicker bags, but not much for those of us trying to go with carry on only but who are traveling on the airlines with tight restrictions like Ryan Air. It's an unserved market, and as I said, one that is likely to grow.

My vote on the name, in keeping with the Amtrak route theme, is the Starlite. And a bit of a play on the "lite" idea too.

[scotlib]

I think you are right, flitcraft, to think narrower rather than thicker. How thick can you get the Western Flyer with stuffing?

As of this typing Ryanair is 55cm x 40cm x 20cm for carry on .. 21.6 x 15.7 x 7.87 in inches.

I think I would like the 19x13x8, but more voices' insight would be interesting to read. Cheers.

[flitcraft]

I didn't measure it precisely, but when I took my Western Flyer along as my suitcase for a week long trip, I pushed the envelope packing-wise and definitely exceeded nominal depth, probably by an inch. The Western Flyer is a good bit more rigid in shape than the Aeronaut, so it doesn't bulge dramatically, but it doesn't take much to provoke the eagle eyed Baggage Police on some airlines.

I'm already thinking of the new bag as the Goldilocks==not too big, not too small, but just right. (Of course, if Aeronette is too femme, then I guess Goldilocks is a complete non-starter. OK, my vote is still for Starlite.)

[backlasher]

I've heard of people on business trips having to gate check even regular carry on bags because the overhead bins were full by the time only half the passengers were on the plane. Sooner rather than later I think a smaller carry on size and enforcement will be the order of the day. A 19X13X8 bag ought to be good for a long time. I'd buy one!

[timothy]

"Starlite" is a great name, btw

As long as the Amtrak copyright folks don't fool themselves into thinking that someone could mistake his wife for a hat -- I mean, a bag for a train.

timothy

[timothy]

I volunteer to help you test a 19x13x8, with full pictures and review

timothy

[scotlib]

The stars were especially bright and beautiful last night when the doggy got me up and out twice (2am and 4am), so Starlite brings good thoughts to mind. Another "star" connection, for me, is Wind, Sand and Stars by Antoine de Saint Exupéry, an early aviator (he also wrote The Little Prince).

My own first thought was International Flyer, but more than just flyers will find potential, here, from this bag, so I surfed the web for a few more possibilities and/or inspiration:

Bihndonian
Meridian
Travel Express
Overlander