Securing Cabin Baggage Act: what do you think?

[Darcy]

Read the NYTimes article - Cutting Those Carry-Ons Down to Size - here.

Excerpt:
"THE law of unforeseen consequences came to mind the other day as I was reading through a bill recently introduced in Congress that addresses the problem of too many oversize carry-on bags. The bill would standardize the size of carry-on items and require the Transportation Security Administration to enforce limits by measuring the bags at its checkpoints."

Read the full text of the bill - Securing Cabin Baggage Act - here.

Our Aeronaut, Tri-Star, and Western Flyer carry-on travel bags all meet the size requirements outlined in the bill.

[bluedenim]

I actually think this is a good idea as it would standardize everything across airlines. but what woudl be even better if they could somehow do it for all airlines across the world so everything would be standardized.

I know imposible but it is a dream

[timothy]

As things that could be done by the TSA go, this strikes me as one of the more sensible, in a (literally) weights-and-measures way. In the distant past, a time or two I've tried to carry on bags beyond the stated limit (which is easy to rationalize, when you see that others violate the stated rules w/ impunity), but have reformed: now, it's fairly aggravating to see people "sneaking" (not much sneaking to it, though) obviously over-limit bags on, and taking much more than their notional share of the overhead bin space. (Yes, some people bring *less* than that space, and I'm glad that there's some flexibility.)

On the other hand, if anyone's going to be in a position to make judgements, I'd rather it be the airlines, rather than the TSA.

"But this fits fine."

"No it doesn't, you have to go back to your airline's check-in desk."

"It bulges."

"That lets it squeeze into the bin even better!"

"Resistance is useless!"

timothy

[maverick]

if more manufacturers would make their bags to be sized within the guidelines posted by airlines, such a law wouldn't be necessary.

kudos to tom bihn for making bags like the aeronaut, tri-star, and western flyer that are sized correctly.

[Nana8]

Thank goodness for Tom Bihn and his foresight! I think this bill makes perfect sense particularly if one (or many) have connecting flight on different airlines (different carry-on dimensions). Too bad the airlines themselves couldn't agree on this in some sort of collaboration rather than TSA!

[timothy]

2d thoughts ... there's a big downside here!

I've been thinking about more since posting my above reply, and after a while flashed on what I see as a real problem in this approach: flexibility! It discourages airlines from introducing different baggage-handing ideas altogether.

At least one airline is (or might? but same thing, for the purpose of this argument) about to eliminate checked-luggage altogether, instead basically institute jetway checking as the default / only choice for larger bags.

http://blog.flightwisdom.com/2009/06...-checked-bags/

(I'm glad to see it, and I hope it spreads to this side of the pond -- I've been wistfully suggesting it for years.)

You might *not* prefer this "all you can carry down the jetway" system, but airlines should be free to experiment with such systems, and travelers should be free to vote w/ their butts about whether their experiments are good.

It's a bit like Southwest's seating system, which distinguished them from other (domestic, U.S.) carriers -- now partly emulated by others, with some small steps toward self-chosen seating, and boarding groups based on traffic flow analysis. It's not that every carrier should have the same system, but rather that setting things in stone mean that an important incentive for change and innovation is knocked away. Predictability is good, but it's not the only good. What if an airline, following Ryanair's idea above, decides to offer slightly larger overhead bins as a way to attract customers, in the same way that some airlines offer slightly wider seats, or ones that recline more fully, or have more cool media playing options? Unlike in cars, I've rarely seen an actual headroom problem in (full-sized) airplanes, and world travelers / those with smaller-plane connections would have to pack for their actual journey -- but that's true anyhow.

This concludes your free(r)-market rant of the hour

Cheers,

timothy

[backpack]

The standard is already in place and should be enforced by the airlines, but it isn't.

I don't like the idea of transfering bag size requirement to the TSA.

It is also a flawed law since it doesn't describe what a "personal item" is.

The Brain Bag/Large Cafe bag system I use on domestic flights takes little room and is way below the standard size but what if a TSA person decide that the Large Cafe Bag is "too big" to be a purse but then allows businessmen with rollaboards and huge briefcases all around me.
What could I do? Nothing.

I already feel that the liquid requirement is a way to hamper women's travel, besides shaving gels/mousse, which happen to be widely available in containers below 3 oz, men don't need any other liquid.


I fly Southwest and like to deal with all their staff.
They always seem happy for me to fly with them and they enforce the carryon luggage requirement without fuss.


The carryon limit enforcement is the airlines responsibility. They should do it.
But... on most other airlines, the gate agents are busy checking their computers, talking to each other or flight attendant, or plotting to find a way to make somebody's day miserable by switching seats or messing up luggage destinations.
There are airlines personnel blogs which admit freely doing this kind of stuff to "pax", the nickname given to passengers.

I am certain that gate agents and flight attendants union's fought to get the responsibility of enforcing carryon size rules out of their hands.

[maverick]

just a thought... TSA stands for Transportation Security Administration.

how is the size of my bag a security issue?

i haven't read the bill, but i don't see why the TSA should be policing this.

[timothy]

Maverick: hear, hear!

However: lots of things can be twisted into "security" (not necessarily disingenuously) by saying, for instance, that this gives the airlines one less thing to worry about at the gate, lets the "focus on real issues of passenger safety" or something. It all depends who asks the first poisoned question / frames the debate

(Or are you one of the people who wants airline crews to be distracted from terrorist threats?*)

timothy

* Note, that was just an example

[MagicTiki]

I also agree with Maverick's comment: why is this a national security issue? Shouldn't individual airlines be responsible for enforcing their own rules for the benefit of their customers?

Take US Airways, for example. On more than one trip I would have appreciated some real enforcement of the carry on rules, especially when you're trying NOT to get a concussion from the guy who is stuffing a steamer trunk into the overhead bin above you. When they started charging for checked bags, it got even worse. On more than one flight I was afraid I would end up in a brawl to make sure I got the overhead luggage space I paid for, because someone else chose not to pay for checked luggage.

In comparison, however, we flew Southwest for the first time on our trip last week. We did all carry-on on the way down, and checked bags on the way back because we had too much stuff. Both ways there was no problem with room in overhead compartments... the whole experience was downright pleasant. Both flights were 100% full, too. It seems that some airlines have it right, and some just don't.

If the TSA says that tighter regulations will help them efficiently check carry ons for our safety, I am all for it. If that's the way it goes, however, they HAVE to find a way to do the enforcement as passengers arrive at the airport, so that those of us who are following the rules are not held up by arguments between airport staff and ignorant passengers at the gate. Please. That's all I ask.

Meanwhile, I'll just fly Southwest in and out of Philadelphia. Free market rules, Timothy... I am with you on that one!

--Bob