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

[Vic]

It's not the same if there's a bulkhead in front of D-F and none in front of A-C.

And back OT - my argument is you're paying to add 3Kg to an allowance that on many routes/airports they won't weigh.

There is a bulkhead in front of both sides on VH-VFD.

Again they have always weighted my carry on, so I'm paying for certainty.

 

[justinbrett]

There is a bulkhead in front of both sides on VH-VFD.

Again they have always weighted my carry on, so I'm paying for certainty.

That's cruel putting weights in your luggage so you have to pay more! No wonder you're buying the bundle. It's all part of the scam

I have seen the bulkhead in front of 1A-C but only once or twice - I think it was only fitted on the Asian fleet and perhaps some have been transferred into the Australian fleet. Usually you have all the legroom you could ever want.

As I keep saying, this all depends on the route, I fly Jetstar roughly four times a month (way more than I'd like to) and my bag is never weighed. They might be doing it before the lounge pax arrive, but certainly by the time I'm there to board they just want to get the pax on and close the gate.

 

[QF WP]

About to see whether they are weighing at SYD when I board my flight to BNE. Think one could be above 7kgs

 

[kpc]

Jetstar’s new $13 carry-on rule ....but if you are willing to pay, 10kg caaryon is ok on J*

 

[suze2000]

I know my carryon weighs more than 7kg - almost always. BUT it's small sized and I feel strongly that the carryon issue is more about overSIZED stuff than overWEIGHT. The only time recently it's been weighed was on Qantaslink coming out of BDB and I offered to pull my toiletries out and put them in my handbag and the chick was happy enough with this, though it only bought the bag weight down to 7.5kg. I was tempted to put it back in before the flight, but that happened at checkin (no OLCI on this flight for some reason) and then when I got to security, they made me open my whole bag for a "random" search, so I was glad I didn't do it, because I think they were checking to see if I put it back!

Most of the time I would say my carryon comes in under 10kg and I think this is a MUCH more reasonable limit considering some bags themselves weigh close to 4kg empty.

 

[Archipelago]

<snip>
Me I just have two tablets and an ereader plus normally hand bag stuff.

Off topic - why two tablets AND an e-reader? Question is nothing to do with weight, just curiosity

 

[Archipelago]

Check it in as fragile in a pelican case or similar. Will be fine. Of course, this is inconvenient, but there are practical solutions to your problem. I'd also imagine you could insure your gear.

I've checked in cases of wine as fragile without any special protection and never had an issue.

Been there, done that (we *never* travel without protective cases & they're conspicuously marked fragile with tags and stickers) and they still managed to destroy my equipment. I've seen the way some of these guys toss bags about, and honestly, I'm surprised I haven't had more gear broken than I have.

It's not a case of claiming on insurance, it's the inconvenience of arriving in a remote location with gear smashed and unusable - no insurance is going to help me out if I can't get gear to undertake the shoot.

I sometimes wonder if those (HUGE!!) fragile tags we have plastered all over the cases are magnets for rough handling . . .

Archphoto - I've been checking in filming and photographic gear in Pelican cases for many years, with the proper foam inserts, including on some very dodgy regional airlines in SE Asia - and have yet to have something broken. Its the reason I trust the Pelican cases. Its impossible for me to hand carry all my equipment so I am fully aware it needs to be checked in. No way around this

Daver6 - in Archphoto's defence (even with my above comment) - having insurance wouldn't be something that takes the sting out of having something broken when it is needed on arrival. So not always practical just by having insurance. And I have had bottles in cases of wine broken whether I've had fragile stickers on or not - you were just lucky

 

[mrsterryn]

Off topic - why two tablets AND an e-reader? Question is nothing to do with weight, just curiosity

Lol..I have a net tablet and a gaming tablet.
The two tablets I find too coughbersome for reading so I have an ereader as well

 

[drron]

And 2 tablets in my carryon.One for me and one for mrsdrron.And an e reader for on longhaul plane segments.

 

[Popeye]

About time they cracked down, their rules are very clear yet so often you see people carrying on bags they can barely lift. I certainly don’t want 10kg++ landing on my head! Oversized and overweight bags need to be stopped and passengers made to check them in the hold, not just on QF but on all airlines where there is a weight, piece and size restriction. If passengers don’t like the rules, don’t fly the airline.....

JQ have recently added a fee of $13 to upgrade from 7kg to 10kg ....that's $4.30 per kilo ....the only people winning with this one is JQ

 

[Vic]

JQ have recently added a fee of $13 to upgrade from 7kg to 10kg ....that's $4.30 per kilo ....the only people winning with this one is JQ

Hmm, pretty easy to recoup that cost in a couple of minutes at my hourly rate. Certainly going to be in front compared to standing around for 15 to 30 minutes waiting for checked luggage to appear.

 

[boomy]

JQ have recently added a fee of $13 to upgrade from 7kg to 10kg ....that's $4.30 per kilo ....the only people winning with this one is JQ

Or they could not offer this option and force customers to check in their overweight bags for much more.

Considering the low fares JQ offer $13 fee for 10kg (with the remaining option of free 7kg) is fair.

 

[Popeye]

Or they could not offer this option and force customers to check in their overweight bags for much more.

Considering the low fares JQ offer $13 fee for 10kg (with the remaining option of free 7kg) is fair.

So all the rubbish we get told about hand luggage more than 7kg being a safety hazard can now be considered as acceptable risk because they can make more money. Also as if overhead locker space isnt under pressure already , this is going to make it worse.

Also while we are on the carry on baggage topic , what reeeeeeeaaally pees me off is the absolutely inconsiderate .......hole that puts their bag and stroller in the bin in row 5 and then goes and sits in row 36

 

[Popeye]

Hmm, pretty easy to recoup that cost in a couple of minutes at my hourly rate. Certainly going to be in front compared to standing around for 15 to 30 minutes waiting for checked luggage to appear.

Dont know what your hourly rate is but the majority of mine comes from retirement funds that are finite .... so when budget airlines do things like this it doesn't help

 

[boomy]

So all the rubbish we get told about hand luggage more than 7kg being a safety hazard can now be considered as acceptable risk because they can make more money. Also as if overhead locker space isnt under pressure already , this is going to make it worse.

Saying that going above 7kg overhead is safety hazard does sound like a load of rubbish, considering airlines allow more and even double that. Main reason for 7kg restriction is saving cost on fuel AFAIK.

 

[eastwest101]

Discussion needs to discriminate between a weight problem with hand luggage (eg: the 15kg rollaboard) or a volume issue (eg capacity of overhead locker volume if everyone on board brings a 36 pack box of Krispy Creme donuts).

I know these are extreme examples and the issue is muddied further by extra fees and charges for checked luggage and even carry on luggage in some cases, but the fact remains that most typical single aisle aircraft in service are more densely configured and fly with higher load factors while still having a similar volume of overhead space as the original designs of the aircraft back in the 1960s and 1970s.

If the airlines want to control weight for fuel or OHS reasons then they will need to hire gate staff to be the scale police, if they want to control volume then they need to hire gate staff with volumetric test frames and police this. In either case they may need to gate check excessive carry on luggage and take the hit to turnaround times and on time performance.

The more inconsistent the hand luggage rules are or aren't enforced then the less efficient the boarding process becomes.

This is an issue in other countries, how have they approached this?

Just some of my observations.

 

[Popeye]

Discussion needs to discriminate between a weight problem with hand luggage (eg: the 15kg rollaboard) or a volume issue (eg capacity of overhead locker volume if everyone on board brings a 36 pack box of Krispy Creme donuts).

I know these are extreme examples and the issue is muddied further by extra fees and charges for checked luggage and even carry on luggage in some cases, but the fact remains that most typical single aisle aircraft in service are more densely configured and fly with higher load factors while still having a similar volume of overhead space as the original designs of the aircraft back in the 1960s and 1970s.

If the airlines want to control weight for fuel or OHS reasons then they will need to hire gate staff to be the scale police, if they want to control volume then they need to hire gate staff with volumetric test frames and police this. In either case they may need to gate check excessive carry on luggage and take the hit to turnaround times and on time performance.

The more inconsistent the hand luggage rules are or aren't enforced then the less efficient the boarding process becomes.

This is an issue in other countries, how have they approached this?

Just some of my observations.

Firstly in my past life I worked at QF in Airport Operations in the area responsible for settimg up departure control systems that contained defimed notiomal passenger weights, cabin bag weigjts and checked baggage weights for aircraft trim planning purposes. I was also a certified Aircraft Load Controller. The only thing that changed at the close of checkin was that planned checked baggage weights were replaced with actual weights. The notional planned carry on baggage weight was 8 kg. This is based on helping to calculate MTOW amd MLW which is about aircraft safety.

Most aircraft manufacturers build in big buffers in terms of MTOW and MLW but increasing cabin baggage allowances if oddly distrubuted may have trim effects that are not able to be inluded in loadsheet calculations. . There is also the OHS considerations in realtion to lifting loads at height

 

[eastwest101]

Firstly in my past life I worked at QF in Airport Operations in the area responsible for settimg up departure control systems that contained defimed notiomal passenger weights, cabin bag weigjts and checked baggage weights for aircraft trim planning purposes. I was also a certified Aircraft Load Controller. The only thing that changed at the close of checkin was that planned checked baggage weights were replaced with actual weights. The notional planned carry on baggage weight was 8 kg. This is based on helping to calculate MTOW amd MLW which is about aircraft safety.

Most aircraft manufacturers build in big buffers in terms of MTOW and MLW but increasing cabin baggage allowances if oddly distrubuted may have trim effects that are not able to be inluded in loadsheet calculations. . There is also the OHS considerations in realtion to lifting loads at height

I expected that would be the case with assumptions made about average pax weight and hand luggage weight, no argument from me about the standard procedures for weight & balance and aircraft performance data.

Let me rephrase the question. Which is worse from an airlines point of view?

1. An aircraft where every pax boards with a briefcase with four unweighed house bricks inside

Or

2. An aircraft where every pax brings an extra large box filled with feathers on board so overheads get 'cubed out' so stuff has to be gate checked?

I know, extreme examples right, but I am just trying to figure out if the problem is a weight/pax safety issue or if its a volumetric issue, or maybe some other boarding efficiency or revenue driver?

 

[Popeye]

I expected that would be the case with assumptions made about average pax weight and hand luggage weight, no argument from me about the standard procedures for weight & balance and aircraft performance data.

Let me rephrase the question. Which is worse from an airlines point of view?

1. An aircraft where every pax boards with a briefcase with four unweighed house bricks inside

Or

2. An aircraft where every pax brings an extra large box filled with feathers on board so overheads get 'cubed out' so stuff has to be gate checked?

I know, extreme examples right, but I am just trying to figure out if the problem is a weight/pax safety issue or if its a volumetric issue, or maybe some other boarding efficiency or revenue driver?

Good questions,

The notional pax and carry on weights used were based on actually doing live samples with averages calulated which were based on those carrying on mini minor gearboxes(which i have witnessed) and those carrying on a newspaper.Over the years these were varied based on ongoing sampling excersises and believe it or not there were e even route specific weights.

The point i am getting at with what JQ are doing is that they are using this to collect additional revenue and at the same time encouraging additional cabin baggage that may have aircraft trim impacts

 

[justinbrett]

Airlines used to use 77Kg as the standard assumed passenger weight. It’s now slightly more complex and has different weights depending on gender and age group (adult, adolescent, child).

This is recommended by CASA and very similar to what the FAA (US) do. This publication is from 1990 but is still current.