Main TOM BIHN website
 
emailus@tombihn.com

COMMUNITY FORUMS

Welcome! We're glad you are here. This is the place to ask for bag advice, help other people out, post reviews, and share photos and videos.

x

First, select your desired search engine:

  • Google Search
  • DuckDuckGo
  • Original Forum Search Engine

User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 46 to 54 of 54
  1. #46
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by binje View Post
    I see a business opportunity in counterfeit "Cabin OK" labels.
    I'd also like a few of these. Have a 56L pack that has only gotten one glance while carrying on... but would be hilarious to badge as "Cabin OK"

  2. #47
    Forum Member ceepee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Share
    Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
    Posts
    639
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by darwin View Post
    Personally, I see this as a ploy from the Airlines to extract more funds from Passengers. They imposed exorbitant fees on checked luggage so people appropriately started carrying more stuff on. The Airline's ATM started running dry, so time to create new restrictions.

    I still firmly think that Airline fares should be directly related to the entire shipping weight... INCLUDING THE PERSON. Think of us all as freight. That's what the Airlines would prefer anyway.

    If I pack a 50# bag and check it, my total freight weight is still under 200 pounds. If I'm a few pounds over, I get additionally charged. Really tired of that.

    A large portion of the people getting on the planes outdo that without "additional baggage." Really sorry, but I'm tired of paying for others while getting bent over myself.

    Make it fair for all. Charge per pound you want to transport from Airport A to Airport B.

    I understand that this will be seen as promoting discriminatory practices- But the current regulations are already discriminatory to those of us who aren't "average" or "over average" weight. Fair is fair- pounds are pounds- especially when comparing fuel requirements per pound per mile.

    The fix is quite simple and the technology already exists: Livestock scales at checkin. Step on with all of your bags, pay your fee above base rate. Move on. I'd gladly do this.
    Would you gladly do this if you were above average weight? Maybe for reasons outside of your control? I think tall people, for example, might object to your suggestion.

  3. #48
    Forum Member marytattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,732
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by darwin View Post
    Personally, I see this as a ploy from the Airlines to extract more funds from Passengers. They imposed exorbitant fees on checked luggage so people appropriately started carrying more stuff on. The Airline's ATM started running dry, so time to create new restrictions.

    I still firmly think that Airline fares should be directly related to the entire shipping weight... INCLUDING THE PERSON. Think of us all as freight. That's what the Airlines would prefer anyway.

    If I pack a 50# bag and check it, my total freight weight is still under 200 pounds. If I'm a few pounds over, I get additionally charged. Really tired of that.

    A large portion of the people getting on the planes outdo that without "additional baggage." Really sorry, but I'm tired of paying for others while getting bent over myself.

    Make it fair for all. Charge per pound you want to transport from Airport A to Airport B.

    I understand that this will be seen as promoting discriminatory practices- But the current regulations are already discriminatory to those of us who aren't "average" or "over average" weight. Fair is fair- pounds are pounds- especially when comparing fuel requirements per pound per mile.

    The fix is quite simple and the technology already exists: Livestock scales at checkin. Step on with all of your bags, pay your fee above base rate. Move on. I'd gladly do this.
    The airlines would lose most of their business. Good thing I don't fly. While I understand your reasoning, I think it's unkind. As someone pointed out, what about tall people? Pregnant people? Men vs women? Some people have reasons beyond their control for being "larger". And some people have reasons beyond their control for being smaller.

    Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

  4. #49
    Forum Member PaulT00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Share
    By the seaside, England
    Posts
    462
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @darwin - I can understand your frustration, but speaking as a 6'2" male who currently weighs in at 238lb... there isn't a reasonable way for me to reduce my 'freight weight' by a significant margin short of lopping off a leg or two. I haven't been under 200lb since my early 20s. It's difficult enough fitting a sensible packing list into a bag which doesn't weigh half a ton, when you're my sort of size (46" chest measurement in a jacket, 17.5" shirt collar, 33" inside leg trouser) and I have often looked at diminutive ladies pulling a minute wheeled case through airports with some envy...

    With a serious diet I could maybe get to 210lb, but without antigravity luggage (and even TB's amazing Aeronaut with its inbuilt dimensional stabilisers and pocket black hole doesn't quite achieve that) there's no reasonable way to get me under 200lb including luggage any time soon. Maybe if I went back in time and picked different parents, or arranged for them to starve me during childhood? You would seriously suggest that I should pay more than you to travel on the same aircraft? Maybe we should have a discussion about how to achieve parity between an 8 stone petite female and a 17 stone large framed male, or debate exactly what should be considered the 'threshold' weight, perhaps operating on a 90th percentile basis - in which case huge numbers of North American passengers would be paying twice as much as passengers originating in the Far East. Can't see it happening, and it would fly in the face of nondiscrimination legislation the world over - and that's before we start talking about people with disabilities, in wheelchairs etc against whom such discrimination is already widely against the law. Considering that were we to be seated next to each other on the same plane we would both occupy seats of the same size, I am already discriminated against in terms of being unable to fit comfortably in a seat designed for someone smaller than me; yet I am not unreasonably large, merely built to a different scale than you due to genetics. I'll consider paying more when I get a bigger seat for the money, thank you very much, and not before.
    Last edited by PaulT00; 06-19-2015 at 07:52 AM.
    A45CC K CQPC 3DCCGES25 SK SCBQKTTMCBLSB TT TSS4 PCSBSCBTT CQPC PQBPQK LT SETT 3DCCQKS19 TT P3DCCTS PP BBLCBCP TTRi QK NFTD A30DLBC

  5. #50
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The flyer from IATA (and indeed the whole proposal which is very hand-wavy) has exceptions and contradictions that make this very inconsistent and confusing. They never talk about any sort of "authentication" of the badge, they even describe it as a "label" and the example they show is pretty much a luggage tag so as discussed in this thread, it can be "counterfeited" or procured after-the-fact even for a bag which technically wouldn't comply. Measurement will still have to be performed because the badge doesn't really guarantee anything. This completely negates the purpose of the badge.

    The proposal states:

    "The airline agrees to accept any bag displaying the Cabin bag logo for on-board carriage".

    But this is dumb because what if I have an ostensibly larger bag with the badge?

    There's also this which suggests, at least, the proposal doesn't outright refuse non-badged bags:

    "For avoidance of doubt, each airline is free to accept bags without the Cabin bag logo, additional bags and/or larger size bags on board their aircraft"

    We could speculate endlessly about how to interpret the language in the proposal, and on logistics to ensure by the time a bag makes it to the gate, it's already known to comply with the size specs, badge or not but luckily IATA has put the proposal on "pause" (IATA - IATA Pauses Rollout of Cabin OK to Reassess Initiative). Hopefully, if it doesn't die "on the table", it will be reworked to a point where everybody is satisfied with it, because all over the media (Internet included), the response has been largely negative. Maybe it was just IATA launching a purposefully-vague initiative to "test the waters" and tweak based on feedback. Though I may be overestimating their sagacity with this theory Smilie

  6. #51
    Volunteer Moderator Alumni Ilkyway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Share
    GMT +1 Germany, North
    Posts
    2,942
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You all said it... but I still feel the earage to tell (again) that I am 6.2" and I am being at a big disadvantage as it is because seats are more often than not so close thogther, that my knees are stuck. So if anybody gets to pay less (NO I am not proposing that) it should be thouse who have it more uncompftable on the airplaine due to above average anything.

    What I am proposing is: lets try and be mindfull about our differences. Diversity is a GOOD thing. Standads help to "handle" THINGS but people are not THINGS.

    Ilkyway
    “Ankh-Morpork people considered that spelling was a sort of optional extra. They believed in it in the same way they believed in punctuation; it didn't matter where you put it so long as it was there.”

    By Sir Terence David John Pratchett from The Truth

  7. #52
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    572
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank II View Post
    I have said the following over and over and over again and yet so few people pick up on it.

    A soft sided bag, like all the bags here, do not have rigid frames. While they are designed to be a certain size, by not packing them full or doing a little squishing, they can be made to fit sizers that are near to their size.

    And the actual imperial measurements of the new size limits is 21.6 x 13.8 x 7.8
    Correct - but - the whole gimmick here is that those bags with the "Cabin OK" logo are guaranteed a place - the actual size may be immaterial as the airlines won't be looking for size - only for the goofy logo.

    This also doesn't affect the frequent flyers that are allowed to bring their footlockers on board as section 1 boarding. It only means that the bags with the logos are "guaranteed" a place in the cabin - perhaps under your feet.

    One purported motive is to speed up boarding. That can't happen if they stop to size bags that "might" fit.

    I use my TriStar frequently with the center compartment empty so it would easily fit the new guidelines but it probably won't get the sticker because "could" be fully packed and not meet the guidelines.
    When in trouble, obfuscate.

  8. #53
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,254
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ceb, I don't know if you read the news or have looked at any other thread about this topic here....but.....IATA has withdrawn its proposal. It is not happening. There is no "Cabin Okay" tag. It was a gimmick, as you noted, but not to speed up boarding but to make money for airlines, bag manufacturers and IATA.

    The only airline I know of that does this where only a smaller than max carry on is guaranteed on board is Easyjet. And if it has to be checked, but still meets the max carry on size, it is done so for free. It makes boarding take longer.

    I agree the airlines should come up with a standard carry-on size, but this was not it and a tag only means those willing to buy a new bag, even if their current bag meets the new rules, would be allowed.

    Let me repeat...the IATA proposal is no more, it has met its maker, is does not exist, it is an ex-proposal. (Kudos to Monty Python.)
    Editor--One Bag, One World: News, Reviews & Community for Light Travelers. http://www.1bag1world.com

    Aeronaut(2), Tri-Star(2) Cadet , Large Cafe Bag, Travel Tray, Travel Money Belt, Absolute Straps(3), Side Effect, Clear Quarter Packing Cubes (2), 3D Organizer Cubes (4), Aeronaut & Tri-Star Packing Cubes, Clear Organizer Wallet, numerous Organizer Pouches,, Guardian Dual Function Light, Vertical Netbook Cache, Nexus 7 Cache, RFID Passport Pouch, numerous Key Straps.

  9. #54
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    572
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank II View Post
    Ceb, I don't know if you read the news or have looked at any other thread about this topic here....but.....IATA has withdrawn its proposal. It is not happening. There is no "Cabin Okay" tag. It was a gimmick, as you noted, but not to speed up boarding but to make money for airlines, bag manufacturers and IATA.

    The only airline I know of that does this where only a smaller than max carry on is guaranteed on board is Easyjet. And if it has to be checked, but still meets the max carry on size, it is done so for free. It makes boarding take longer.

    I agree the airlines should come up with a standard carry-on size, but this was not it and a tag only means those willing to buy a new bag, even if their current bag meets the new rules, would be allowed.

    Let me repeat...the IATA proposal is no more, it has met its maker, is does not exist, it is an ex-proposal. (Kudos to Monty Python.)
    Frank - I guess we'll see. As you well know, the airline industry will stop at little to make money and this initiate is just that. While you may strongly believe that it is dead (much like the Norwegian Blue parrot), I'd suggest a wait and see posture because it ain't dead yet. This is not quite "bereft of life" and "no more." We are continuing to deal with shrinking cabin space and attempting to fit more and more people on the planes.

    From the latest IATA press release:

    "IATA reiterated some key principles of the Cabin OK initiative which will continue to guide the reassessment: Cabin OK is a guideline for an optimally sized cabin bag, not an industry standard. Cabin OK does not seek to define a maximum size for carry-on bags, which is something each airline does individually. And no consumer will be forced into buying a new bag as a result of this voluntary initiative."
    When in trouble, obfuscate.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4