Originally Posted by
macoz
PersonB now demands that PersonA add another sacrifice (loss of footwell) and subtract his ONLY benefit so that PersonB can have yet another benefit.
That is just insane.
Insane, particularly because no one (or maybe only 1 person?) in this entire thread has suggested what you wrote above. There has been no "Person A" in the comparison, only Person B and a Person C who carries on
both a rollaboard and a small bag. The "demand" has been that Person
C should make an extra sacrifice (compared to Person B) by putting his second, smaller bag in his footwell. I don't see any insanity to that proposition, and I don't think you will if you do your onboard footprint analysis between B and C either, not the imaginary victim A.