How to make enemies...! [by weighing carry-on]

[Deleted member 29185]

Weight does not equal volume. If space is the issue, use the sizer at the gate. Weighing bags won't help.

We’ve been tested using both volume and weight. Both needed to comply.

Likewise here. Scale at the bottom of the sizing cage. Quick easy check, unless people argue.

I made this comment on the VA thread. If an airline decides to annoy their pax, they may as well do the job properly. Buy a heap of the combined size and scale units and place two at every gate (in QF's case they only need one at every gate as they ignore priority boarding anyway). That way, at least some pax will be happy because of the freed up overhead space.

Except it's not quick, not easy. Weighing and sizing take time.

That's not correct IMHO. The confusion and inevitable argument is what takes time. As a FFer of routes that require weighing (including body weights) every flight, I can say from experience it takes no longer than normal. The difference is that we are used to it and we don't argue. The airlines have had the rules in place forever and all we are seeing now is them trying to enforce those rules. If they are consistent, pax will get used to it (although possibly begrudgingly so). If they are inconsistent, there will be continued delays as there will still be people thinking those rules do not/should not apply to them (and we've seen evidence of that on this thread) and they will be the ones that delay the flights. I carry $7 luggage scales with me all the time (and they are remarkably accurate) so I know what my luggage weighs before I leave the hotel room.

 

[Pushka]

Except it's not quick, not easy. Weighing and sizing take time. Gate-checking takes time. And weight is a pointless thing to check. Better would be to eye bags, and size-check those that look iffy. That way it's only a few bags that need to be checked, and it directly addresses the issue of bin space and fairness (not letting one person take up the bin room of more than one person).

On our latest flight, before boarding was called, and while early, an announcement was made for people with dubious bags to come to the front counter. And someone from Qantas went through the crowd as well. It didn’t take up any more time. If Qantas can be bothered to be organised they can run this operation smoothly or as in one experience, like a dogs breakfast when it was left until boarding commenced.

 

[anabolism]

In my own experience, stopping people as they board to weigh their bags of course takes extra time. How can it take the same amount of time to walk through as to put bags on a scale to see the reading, then remove the bags and walk through? And when the bags weigh over 7kg, filling out the bag tags takes more time.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

In my own experience, stopping people as they board to weigh their bags of course takes extra time. How can it take the same amount of time to walk through as to put bags on a scale to see the reading, then remove the bags and walk through? And when the bags weigh over 7kg, filling out the bag tags takes more time.

But that's what @Pushka just said. If they organise themselves, it's not an issue. The "walk straight through" boarding arrangement is mostly delayed anyway. How many times do you walk straight through the gate doors, only to stand in a queue in the aero-bridge waiting for people in front to stow half their house in the overheads?

 

[nutwood]

In my own experience, stopping people as they board to weigh their bags of course takes extra time. How can it take the same amount of time to walk through as to put bags on a scale to see the reading, then remove the bags and walk through? And when the bags weigh over 7kg, filling out the bag tags takes more time.

Hence my earlier comment that if people simply checked in over size/ over weight luggage, the airlines wouldn't have to check them. I can't imagine having to check bags is giving any pleasure to Qantas. If it were Jetstar, they'd simply slug the over size bags with extra charges. All Qantas gets are arguments, delays and additional baggage handling duties. Presumably, this is why they've been slow to introduce these measures. It's been apparent for a long time that some "HLO" pax push the boundaries. Actually, more like trample the boundaries underfoot and ignore them!

 

[drron]

Force equals mass times acceleration. The lower the mass, the lower the force....

Unless you are going to introduce specific packaging requirements for every item brought onto an aircraft to ensure adequate impact absorbtion, the easiest way is to limit the overall mass of an item.

But with impact damage you need to know the area of impact as well as force.A women of 40kg in 6 inch heels is more likely to damage a lino floor than an 80kg fellow in his size 11 brogues.
Hence being hit point on by a 2Kg tile sample will likely do more damage than an evenly distributed 10Kg bag.

 

[Pleb Status]

But with impact damage you need to know the area of impact as well as force.A women of 40kg in 6 inch heels is more likely to damage a lino floor than an 80kg fellow in his size 11 brogues.
Hence being hit point on by a 2Kg tile sample will likely do more damage than an evenly distributed 10Kg bag.

You are correct. However, with everything else being equal, a higher mass will give a higher impact force.

As we do not want to go down the road of enforcing certain packaging requirements for various articles etc, limiting the mass of an object is the easiest method of ensuring passenger and staff safety.

 

[Austman]

As we do not want to go down the road of enforcing certain packaging requirements for various articles etc, limiting the mass of an object is the easiest method of ensuring passenger and staff safety.

So why not make it a 5kg limit? Wouldn't that ensure safety even more?

Besides, the actual safety studies don't seem to support you ... Eg bins don't get overloaded so I don't know what the staff safety issue actually is.

And even within the Qantas group itself, a 10kg limit is actually allowed today, so clearly the Qantas group considers a 10kg limit to be safe.

It's fair enough if the company wants to set a 7kg limit, but I doubt it's about safety.

 

[Pleb Status]

So why not make it a 5kg limit? Wouldn't that ensure safety even more?

Besides, the actual safety studies don't seem to support you ... Eg bins don't get overloaded so I don't know what the staff safety issue actually is.

And even within the Qantas group itself, a 10kg limit is actually allowed today, so clearly the Qantas group considers a 10kg limit to be safe.

It's fair enough if the company wants to set a 7kg limit, but I doubt it's about safety.

I do not believe that I have commented above on the suitability of the currently enforced weight limit.

My comments are solely in repsonse to those who incorrectly state that weight 'does not matter'. My argument is if QF are only going to enforce either mass or volume limits, then the mass limit should be the one enforced if safety is a concern.

A very large 7kg item is most likely to be less dangerous than a small 7kg item (as your examples imply). A small 12kg item is most likely to be more dangerous than a 7kg item of the same size.

I have also stated previously that if safety is not a concern, then QF are really doing this just to annoy their customers. I would like to think they are better than that...

 

[fifo]

American Airlines don't even have a weight limit. If you can fit it within the volume limits, you're good to go.

British Airways was 23Kg per piece last time I checked. That means you could technically bring on 46Kg into the cabin if you could fit it within the volume limits (pretty unlikely).

Not for me. I can and have flown with that much or more carryon. When I travel its usually with a tonne of metal items for diving. I strip all metal items (1 brass regulator body weighs 1.2kgs alone). I fill up a north face duffell full of every metal part i can, weighs about 30kgs (I need 8 reg's alone for the type of diving I do). then another bag with all camera kit, it ends up weighing 20kg easy. housing, lights, strobes etc.
BA + AA are godsends! I do end up with quite a sore back lugging it all around. still, beats paying excess luggage fees!!! I'm always well inside the volume requirements.

 

[doublecatered]

Not for me. I can and have flown with that much or more carryon. When I travel its usually with a tonne of metal items for diving. I strip all metal items (1 brass regulator body weighs 1.2kgs alone). I fill up a north face duffell full of every metal part i can, weighs about 30kgs (I need 8 reg's alone for the type of diving I do). then another bag with all camera kit, it ends up weighing 20kg easy. housing, lights, strobes etc.
BA + AA are godsends! I do end up with quite a sore back lugging it all around. still, beats paying excess luggage fees!!! I'm always well inside the volume requirements.

The reason why fa’s are insisting on bags being weighed so I’m told is that there is a huge spike in injuries caused by having to push up the lockers on new generation 737’s. Apparently this is a major cause of workplace injuries
The other reason is the lack of locker space and the constant struggle to find space on those constantly full flights

And here we have people admitting they bring on 20plus kg of weight in one bag into the cabin without even a thought that an FA (maybe doing his/her 4th flight) needs to quickly prepare for an on time departure and having to close the umpteenth locker that weighs more than it was supposed to .....u can see how injuries can/do occur

 

[fifo]

The reason why fa’s are insisting on bags being weighed so I’m told is that there is a huge spike in injuries caused by having to push up the lockers on new generation 737’s. Apparently this is a major cause of workplace injuries
The other reason is the lack of locker space and the constant struggle to find space on those constantly full flights

And here we have people admitting they bring on 20plus kg of weight in one bag into the cabin without even a thought that an FA (maybe doing his/her 4th flight) needs to quickly prepare for an on time departure and having to close the umpteenth locker that weighs more than it was supposed to .....u can see how injuries can/do occur

I guess you didn't read the bit where I said on aa and ba?
Besides, I always heft my own bag and get up to close lockers, cause you know, I'm polite.

 

[doublecatered]

I guess you didn't read the bit where I said on aa and ba?
Besides, I always heft my own bag and get up to close lockers, cause you know, I'm polite.

Oh I got the part about ba/aa.
And it’s great that you are courteous to close that locker with your excessively overweight bag in it ..it’s the least u could do

And correct me if I’m wrong but you replied to a post from justinbrett earlier about BA allowing 23kg. Clearly that allowance relates to checked baggage not carry-on

 

[fifo]

Oh I got the part about ba/aa.
And it’s great that you are courteous to close that locker with your excessively overweight bag in it ..it’s the least u could do

And correct me if I’m wrong but you replied to a post from justinbrett earlier about BA allowing 23kg. Clearly that allowance relates to checked baggage not carry-on

I think you should go read bas website, comeback and assess your use of the word 'clearly there mate.

Nothing excessive about what I do, all within the rules on the varying airlines I travel on.

 

[doublecatered]

I think you should go read bas website, comeback and assess your use of the word 'clearly there mate.

Nothing excessive about what I do, all within the rules on the varying airlines I travel on.

I owe you an apology mate
No wonder airline staff have to shovel S%$#T uphill when carriers have such incredibly different regs

7kg on QF/VA but BA allow 23kg !!!!
I give up

 

[fifo]

Cheers, yes I do agree its quite ridiculous. Consistency would be amazing.

Also, Aa an other legacy usa carriers have no weight limits. Whilst im not suggesting that, bas 23kg would be a great standard imo.

 

[justinbrett]

I think somebody decided that 23Kg was a good weight for a bag, anything more is considered heavy and requires a heavy tag. 23Kg / 50lb rapidly became the industry standard for ideal bag weights.

I’m guessing BA use 23Kg for carry on because their internal whs guidelines say that’s the limit of what can be lifted comfortably.

Also, I believe the caveat for these high allowances on BA and AA is that you have to be able to lift your own bag comfortably, which might be much lower than 23Kg for some people.

As much as you think 23Kg is ridiculous, I think 7Kg is ridiculous considering the airlines fly many of the same types of aircraft (738-800 for example)

 

[fifo]

Totally agree! All should adopt 23kg imo.

Yes that's true. But I'm a rather stout male, so flinging a 23 or even 32 kg bag around isnt a huge problem. Just dont do it every day.

 

[anabolism]

Cheers, yes I do agree its quite ridiculous. Consistency would be amazing.

Consistency is only good if what's consistent is itself good. If every airline had a 7kg weight limit for carry-on, and enforced it, that would be dreadful. If every airline had no weight limit or 20-25kg, that would be great.

I happened to fly MH yesterday. They weigh rolling bags at check-in and put a tag on to indicate it's approved. Mine weighed 11.6kg and my partner's 12.9kg. They didn't weigh our backpacks.

 

[nutwood]

If every airline had no weight limit or 20-25kg, that would be great.

Do you really want to be sitting underneath when someone pulls a 20 kg wheelie out of an overhead locker?! I see plenty of near misses and the occasional accident, with the current weight limits.