IATA agrees new cabin luggage dimensions
Feb 4, 2016, 1:23 am
#77
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 65
IATA proposal implied changes in travel gear sizes, and perhaps in strategies how we plan our trips. Original proposal was killed, no doubt about that, and seemingly all was back to normal, until several US airlines changed rules, IATA or not. Their sizes are actually very close what IATA suggested (14" width). Now discussion leads to who carries such sizes. It appears that Tumi has a few, Briggs&Riley Domestic Baseline has as well (9x14x22). From my correspondence with Rimowa they confirmed that they do not support downsizing, but not much more.
My applogy if this discussion should have been taken over to some other thread, but on subject of carry on gear there are quite a few, and I got lost. The thing is, I have not found a bag that suits them all. 9x14 is acceptable to LH, but 22 (in theory) is not. American in turn will not let you off the hook with 40 mm width. So, challenge continues.
Feb 4, 2016, 1:23 pm
#78
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Mass
Programs: Independent
Posts: 4,829
I think the changes you are referring to happened before the IATA proposed it's rules.
In the US, almost all the airlines are 22x14x9. The way it was phrased previously was overall dimensions, but as overhead space became tighter they restricted to teh actual size. A few airlines allow up to 24in on some aircraft. Europe and most other airlines are based in metric, not inches. So when translated they are off by a little bit - they usually allow a little wider luggage but a tad bit shorter length.
Most luggage companies have both a regular size and a wide-body. Usually the wide body works for most of the rest of the world, while the longer but narrower regular works for the US. As for something that is usable on all airlines, that is when you have to drop down in size to the 20in. carry ons.
When it comes to sizers, most airlines give a little wiggle room. How much seems to vary though - I find some only about a half inch or so, but have a hole for handles, while others are more restrictive but give you a full inch of wiggle room.
In the US, almost all the airlines are 22x14x9. The way it was phrased previously was overall dimensions, but as overhead space became tighter they restricted to teh actual size. A few airlines allow up to 24in on some aircraft. Europe and most other airlines are based in metric, not inches. So when translated they are off by a little bit - they usually allow a little wider luggage but a tad bit shorter length.
Most luggage companies have both a regular size and a wide-body. Usually the wide body works for most of the rest of the world, while the longer but narrower regular works for the US. As for something that is usable on all airlines, that is when you have to drop down in size to the 20in. carry ons.
When it comes to sizers, most airlines give a little wiggle room. How much seems to vary though - I find some only about a half inch or so, but have a hole for handles, while others are more restrictive but give you a full inch of wiggle room.
Feb 4, 2016, 1:47 pm
#79
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 65
I think the changes you are referring to happened before the IATA proposed it's rules.
In the US, almost all the airlines are 22x14x9. The way it was phrased previously was overall dimensions, but as overhead space became tighter they restricted to teh actual size. A few airlines allow up to 24in on some aircraft. Europe and most other airlines are based in metric, not inches. So when translated they are off by a little bit - they usually allow a little wider luggage but a tad bit shorter length.
Most luggage companies have both a regular size and a wide-body. Usually the wide body works for most of the rest of the world, while the longer but narrower regular works for the US. As for something that is usable on all airlines, that is when you have to drop down in size to the 20in. carry ons.
When it comes to sizers, most airlines give a little wiggle room. How much seems to vary though - I find some only about a half inch or so, but have a hole for handles, while others are more restrictive but give you a full inch of wiggle room.
In the US, almost all the airlines are 22x14x9. The way it was phrased previously was overall dimensions, but as overhead space became tighter they restricted to teh actual size. A few airlines allow up to 24in on some aircraft. Europe and most other airlines are based in metric, not inches. So when translated they are off by a little bit - they usually allow a little wider luggage but a tad bit shorter length.
Most luggage companies have both a regular size and a wide-body. Usually the wide body works for most of the rest of the world, while the longer but narrower regular works for the US. As for something that is usable on all airlines, that is when you have to drop down in size to the 20in. carry ons.
When it comes to sizers, most airlines give a little wiggle room. How much seems to vary though - I find some only about a half inch or so, but have a hole for handles, while others are more restrictive but give you a full inch of wiggle room.
Feb 4, 2016, 3:32 pm
#80
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,879
What airline? I've been using the Rimowa 55x40x20 as a carry on successfully for about 3 or 4 trips now. Flying in/out of JFK on B6 soon...nervous now.
Feb 4, 2016, 3:36 pm
#81
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Mass
Programs: Independent
Posts: 4,829
You are probably right, but I borrowed Rimowa 55x40x20 (for test drive), and got nabbed at JFK last year because 40 mm is not 14", a regulation I failed to check in advance. I was about to lay down some serious cash for Topas, but now I am hesitating, and may end up with Briggs (Domestic) 22x14x9, or Tumi (Arrivé) of the same size. My heart was settled on Rimowa for some time, but a reason might prevail over sentiment. I am also hoping that LH (and Air Canada) will cut me slack on those 22". Next question is, if my personal article is large than 40x30x10, how much I can safely get away with? My closet is full of expensive gear accumulated over couple of decades, and it's all over the limit. To end this, I am not going to win this battle, because if I get sizes (almost) right, it is safe bet I will be over 8 kg (17.6 lbs). I might start calling it "cost of doing business".
Feb 4, 2016, 11:37 pm
#82
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 65
Lucky you. I have to take whatever is available in transit. I haven't done any exhaustive study of all airlines, but in my case I was caught at the gate after my 24" was already on the conveyor by someone who might not even work for one specific company. Flight was on American, but later I learned that Delta and United have similar requirements. From what I have seen they did not checked everyone. Best is to consult luggage allowances on the internet. I entered US in Chicago, got over to NY, and American wasn't really in the original itinerary. I must admit it has never occured to me that in US 14" is "new" standard, which is of course my own problem.
Feb 4, 2016, 11:55 pm
#83
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 65
Right - the 50cmx40cmx20cm is the widebody size - OK for most of Europe, but not OK for US. It depends where you buy it with Rimowa I believe. In the US you will get the US carryon size, in most of the rest of the world you will get the metric carryon size. Does Rimowa make a smaller one? I don't know - I have never even considered looking at something that expensive. My first car (used of course) was cheaper than that.
With respect to cost, Tumi (originally an American company), was sold to British, and their prices for boarding cases run pretty much these days from EUR500 - EUR2700. Whether it is worth it, is up to a buyer to decide.
More I think of it, Briggs U122CXSP (4 wheeled), or U122CX (2 wheeled) might be best bet at the moment under those conditions. One thing is emerging as certain, which is, if you have too many bags (that is more than zero), than you are in mercy of an airline business, and we cannot go back to horse buggy.
Feb 7, 2016, 5:29 am
#84
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 65
To my knowledge Rimowa is not selling at the moment 14" (or 35 mm) wide suitcases, and who knows what future holds.
With respect to cost, Tumi (originally an American company), was sold to British, and their prices for boarding cases run pretty much these days from EUR500 - EUR2700. Whether it is worth it, is up to a buyer to decide.
More I think of it, Briggs U122CXSP (4 wheeled), or U122CX (2 wheeled) might be best bet at the moment under those conditions. One thing is emerging as certain, which is, if you have too many bags (that is more than zero), than you are in mercy of an airline business, and we cannot go back to horse buggy.
With respect to cost, Tumi (originally an American company), was sold to British, and their prices for boarding cases run pretty much these days from EUR500 - EUR2700. Whether it is worth it, is up to a buyer to decide.
More I think of it, Briggs U122CXSP (4 wheeled), or U122CX (2 wheeled) might be best bet at the moment under those conditions. One thing is emerging as certain, which is, if you have too many bags (that is more than zero), than you are in mercy of an airline business, and we cannot go back to horse buggy.
I stand corrected on recommendation of a product from Briggs. Apparently a reviewer on Amazon site revealed, that information as supplied by the company is misleading in terms it does not includes wheels, so, it is somewhat large than stated, and it may fail some sizers as well.
Feb 7, 2016, 7:53 am
#85
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Mass
Programs: Independent
Posts: 4,829
Try these two threads. They are about United's sizers, but of the US Domestics, they are probably the most restrictive.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...x-2015-a.html#
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...sizer-151.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...x-2015-a.html#
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...sizer-151.html
Feb 7, 2016, 8:01 am
#86
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 65
Try these two threads. They are about United's sizers, but of the US Domestics, they are probably the most restrictive.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...x-2015-a.html#
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...sizer-151.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...x-2015-a.html#
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...sizer-151.html
Feb 7, 2016, 11:01 pm
#87
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 639
I'll add that many US airlines have had 14" restrictions on the books, but many used 16" (~40mm) bags without issue. I've seen a few times on full flights with lots of roller boards, gate agents who know they'll need to gate check bags begin to enforce the long ignored rules. They can check a bag before boarding rather than hold up boarding with overfull bins. Delays also tend to increase enforcement as the agents want a quick turn around.
Long story short - you may expect leniency if you fly domestic first, empty planes, or routes with few rollerboards. Otherwise expect the existing rules to be applied more often.
Long story short - you may expect leniency if you fly domestic first, empty planes, or routes with few rollerboards. Otherwise expect the existing rules to be applied more often.
Feb 7, 2016, 11:43 pm
#88
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 65
I'll add that many US airlines have had 14" restrictions on the books, but many used 16" (~40mm) bags without issue. I've seen a few times on full flights with lots of roller boards, gate agents who know they'll need to gate check bags begin to enforce the long ignored rules. They can check a bag before boarding rather than hold up boarding with overfull bins. Delays also tend to increase enforcement as the agents want a quick turn around.
Long story short - you may expect leniency if you fly domestic first, empty planes, or routes with few rollerboards. Otherwise expect the existing rules to be applied more often.
Long story short - you may expect leniency if you fly domestic first, empty planes, or routes with few rollerboards. Otherwise expect the existing rules to be applied more often.
With Rimowa's distinct appearance (my case at JFK), I suspect, it was easy prey for zealous eye, because most people in business know by now, that those products are wider than regulations permit (by approx. 1.75"), and they shall nab you with distinction, if they had bad day, and want to let some steam off.
Conclusion is pretty simple - regulation bag for the road is a good decision, and I am checking Rimowa site often, if they decided to change. Meanwhile, a few bags by Tumi look also decent, in regulations, and soft skin is not a bad solution.