By this strict definition even the 20" (non-wide) is oversize given the 15" width (Continental's' defintion is: "The maximum combined linear measurement (L + W + H) of the carry-on bag is 45 inches (115 cm) up to 14 in x 9 in x 22 in"). I doubt many passengers bring on board bags that comply with the strict #s... I honestly don't know but I'd wager its well less than 50% if not less than 20%. I recently spoke to my go-to luggage store and they said 9 out of 10 buy 22" luggage vs. the 20". I personally do not see any harm in bringing on board a 22" if it fits the bins and does not inconvenience the other passengers (e.g., stowing lengthwise). E.G, if the 22" height fits the bins with wheels then who was harmed? The 20" wide arguably does inconvenience other passengers, although I am not convinced here as I think nearly 100% of the time I see space in bins of more than 2 inches going free -- but if there is a popular trend for 20" wide carry on then this could become a problem. To be clear, if the strict rule was 22x14x9 exterior dimension of a bag, and this rule was strictly enforced or it was a clear taboo to go beyond these strict numbers -- then I would by indeed find luggage to comply with these strict dimensions.. which would probably rule out the 20" Victorinox as well. As of now many passengers still do not find it rude to put a 24" lengthwise in an overhead bin... so I don't view a 22" that fits in straight as "flouting" the rules.

Ultimately, I wish we didn't have to have this idealogical argument. I wish MFG just made luggage that fit the dimensions without overpromising, e.g. a 21" options or 22" with shrinking exterior dimensions (e.g. wheels only sticking out .25" or .5"). I suspect the new 22" lines do this, but I can't confirm. I am going to reach out to Victorinox and find out what their "hard" exterior dimensions are for the 22" 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 werks traveler.