<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by oldpenny16:
I think that you will find the 30" and larger bags are on very serious mark downs these days. A friend of mine bought on at Dillard's. It was cleared advertised and labeled as an 'airline bag'. However when she traveled with it, she got hit by oversize charges. Dillards took the bag back but wouldn't pay for those charges. </font>
Well, here is at least one example of someone having getting whacked.
And yes, both manufacturers and retailers are continuing to market these non-compliant bags. I've only seen a couple, like the Atlantic 28-inch upright "Modern" and the Briggs & Riley 28-inch Upright that are designed to be just under 62 inches.
I also wish that retailers would do a better job of talking about the volume (packing capacity) for comparison purposes, and I've noticed that some manufacturers are not very good about quoting the empty weight, which gives us an idea of increasingly-important payload as we see the airlines tightening the weight allowance.
I'm surprised the manufacturers aren't making more of an issue of volume and payload. Since the most efficient use within these limits would be a cube 20 inches on each side, I'm surprised I haven't seen such a bag for sale, even though it would be a bit unwieldy.
And for payload, I have a wheeled duffle that I use when I travel on intra-European flights that only weighs five pounds when empty, but I don't like it for other travel since it's not rigid and I can't use it as a baggage cart for my other bags.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by IJK:
Was the 62 inches chosen because it is just below the dimensions of the popular 30+ inch size?
...What, if any, standards or definitions exist?
For example, do you follow contours? (I hope not, but this way is easier to measure.) Does one include the handles?
Since this is a maximum combined lenght+width+height measurement, there is no specific-sized box to try to fit it into. (Like the carry-ons, which seem to be seldomly tested.) The large checked bags must be measured by a human, and we know how variable humans are, and we know how close the 62 inches is to so many bags.
This is equally (if not more) controversial than the non-calibrated scale issue regarding the weight of the bag.
</font>
You raise some good points. As I said, I seem to recall that it used to be 64 inches, but I can't be sure. Certainly 64 inches would still rule out those monster bags that no one should be traveling with.
Also, I'm still not certain what motivates the airlines. If they're saying these bags are too heavy, or unwieldy for the baggage handlers, then they shouldn't be making exceptions, even for a fee. It could be to cut fuel burn.
More likely, it's the camel's nose under the tent. Like all the new junk fees, they are trying to apply them gradually to see if people will put up with them. But they may be trying to see if they can get us spoiled Americans down to one 44-pound checked bag and a 10-pound carry-on like on intra-European flights.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by martin33:
I have seen the dimensions checked-- usually when they are obviously over. When they do check, they take out a length of chain, with the 62-inch point marked, and run it along the edges of all 3 dimensions. not much in the way of ambuguity or handle-counting.</font>
So, you're saying that the *do* count the handles, or they don't?
And, I think relying on a person holding a chain could be very ambiguous, following contours, counting or not counting from feet or wheels. And how do you measure a tube, like a military-style duffel? Length + diameter, or length + 1/2 the circumference?