Gardyloo

I don't know if this should be put in some other thread or if it's been answered elsewhere, so mods please do what you must...

Turns out I have a carryon bag that meets the new size limit with a mm or two to spare here and there; however when fully loaded with bits and pieces it may exceed the maximum thickness by a cm or so. Maybe even 2.

Can anyone comment on tolerance or lack thereof shown by bag size checkers at LHR or LGW since the new rules have been imposed? Thanks.

KenJohn

Not sure about Y, but in CW & F, I think the answer is yes, they will be lenient, especially if it is not a US flight.

The issue here is your cabin bags need to be manually search (along with a second pat down) at the gates for US flights. Large bags filled with stuff will take a long time to search at the gate and further delay flights.

What BA are really trying to stop at the roll-on size bags or even overstuff bags which will take time to search. So, the trick is not to make the bag looked over-stuffed.

How officiously the check-in staff will be is another thing. If you are checking in a bag in the hold, they will be less suspicious. If you are not, they will take a second look knowing that you will have a full cabin bag.

Tits McGhee

The new luggage measuring thingys that little the airports have been amended to include a new, wooden insert that is the new standard for hand luggage sizes.

The BAA have stationed people at all security access points with these devices and they will check most bags passing through. It all depends on who you get on the day - nice person will be a bit flexible, jobsworth will not.

Try and be as close to the dimensions as possible to avoid any upset at the airport.

jjpb3

My laptop bag is deeper than the regulation size (by about an inch), but the other dimensions are smaller. On three trips through LHR, I've never been asked to verify compliance with the (silly) new rules. I think as long as a quick visual check, which BAA agents were doing, doesn't reveal your carryon to be in blatant violation, you'll be fine. (YMMV, naturally.)

P.S. My bag was stuffed with papers and my electronic stuff, so it had definitely swelled to its limits. It was even heavier than the rollaboard I had to check in at LHR.

Dave Noble

My sister is travelling LHR-SIN on friday and had the question which I wasn't sure on. She has a backback which exceeds the dimensions, however wouldn't have much in it and would easily squash down to be within the dimensions. Would this be allowed since it would fit into the container or be refused since its normal size is greater than the 16cm allowed?

Dave

Kiwi Flyer

should be okay

fly_ba

I agree - flew from LHR to TXL today and my laptop bag is slightly deeper than the limits - had no problems through security - they were mainly concerned with ensuring no liquids taken through. I did see other passengers being asked to show their hand baggage to the check in agents but this seemed only to be a visual check - rather than measuring in the hand luggage size guides. ^

atl runner

This is a topic of interest to my wife and I. We will be flying in and out of MAN (from ATL) on Delta--arriving in the UK the last day of this month and returning to the US about two and a half weeks later. This is an annual trip we make--my wife does some work in York and we holiday beforehand.

We have some carry-on bags that meet the width across and height requirements but are a little thicker that what they are showing as allowable. The allowed limit is 6.2 inches and ours are more like 8 to 9 inches, but are not taller or wider across than the limits. FWIW, we are flying in Business Class (not sure if that matters) and will not overstuff the bags, but would not want to check stuff like a camera, etc. if they rejected us.

I understand this is the BA forum and I'm not clear if this issue is airline specific or controlled by the airport security authorities.

Thanks.

Crampedin13A

I have a leather bag that I've used as a carry on for what seems like forever that easily meets the larger dimensions but if fully packed is probably 8" high. Since I never have anything in it other than a light jacket and some reading material it can probably squash down to 5" or so. I'm flying through LHR next week from YYZ(where it is ok as cabin baggage on BA) and was wondering if as long as it squashes down to the new 6.2" requirement will it be acceptable or will someone measure the actual dimensions of the bag. Has anyone here had a similiar situation going through LHR since the new regs and was the bag accepted as cabin baggage?

number_6

The rule applies only to the return leg, which will be in mid-September. If the rules have not changed, you will not be allowed to take an "8 to 9 inches" bag on board -- that is over 33% larger than spec, which is a bit beyond the limits. It does not seem likely for the rules to change in the next 3 weeks. Maybe the best course is to buy a new bag to take on-board for this trip, or you could buy it at MAN airport for 5x the price. The restriction is enforced by the airport, not the airline. In theory flying J makes no difference compared to Y for the carryon size restriction.

On the other post question about squashing bags down, yes, if a bag is flexible and will fit completely into the guage used for sizing the bags (including handles and wheels, etc.), then that bag is allowed, so squashable bags are definitely useful in this instance.

bealine

At Gatwick, the new size limits are enforced by the BAA absolutely with no leniency or flexibility. The one or two passengers I have turned a blind eye to have been frog-marched straight back!

JSC

Any insights from those working at Heathrow T4? In particular flying out to JFK this Thurs so do they measure again at the secondary check before boarding?

Thanks

jsincla

Not true about LGW. Passed through with no problem with my Tumi Boarding tote - carried not wheeled. Certainly there were a few rucksacks which also were allowed through and even a couple of old ladies with what i would describe as small wheeled carry ons which definitely would not fit.

All in - sure it's luck of the draw but it doesn't seem completely draconian