Originally Posted by hoob

If AC could actually make an effort to work with their main Canadian hub airport so that checked baggage delivery/transit there wasn't a complete cluster, they might have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by yulred

Was AC having problems with carry-on bags? Were they delaying flights? Were they injuring people (like, say, the Rouge seats)?

If not, a lot of the standard vindictiveness on display on this thread is nonsensical. This has nothing to do with 'rules' and people 'not following rules'; why should it be 2 bags at 10 kg each and not, as CA requires on domestic flights, 1 bag at 5kg? Beyond the dimension of the overhead bin, its all arbitrary and any support for these 'rules' is based, presumably, on the notion that the airline knows best (consumers don't have brains, apparently).

One imagines that if the airline banned using the left armrest tomorrow, and began enforcing it two years down the line, many folk here would applaud themselves for following the airline's rule for two years, and criticize the pax who flouted that rule, conveniently ignoring the reality that they're no better off for it ; everyone is simply worse off. I suspect the tangible negative impact of people carrying oversize/overweight carry on bags is close to zero, pointless self-righteousness notwithstanding, and if one thinks those checked baggage delivery times are going to get better, well, good luck.

The long and short of it is that this is a cash grab. They're charging for checked bags, so it makes sense to maximize revenue by limiting ways to avoid it and funnelling more money into the system. More fees=more profit. Will they hire more baggage handlers to deal with the fallout? Probably not.

I've started treating this nickel and diming like charity. Just give money away and expect nothing in return. Except that, in this case, we'll probably end up getting less than nothing insofar as even longer baggage wait times count as a negative.

Originally Posted by gglave

They're just following the US carriers. The US carriers' experiences dictates that now that AC is charging for bag passengers will try to carry everything on, delaying boarding and causing frustration.

So they're trying to head that off at the pass by enforcing the rules.

Originally Posted by robsaw

I am proud to be vindictive against those that exceed their carry-on limit and lead to the gate stampedes of those jockeying for overhead space.

The rules are primarily contractual and based as much on $ and cents as any safety or regulatory issues. Therefore, the rules, like most contractual matters are based upon offer and acceptance not some law of nature.

Originally Posted by robsaw

The impact of additional and larger carry-on is readily predictable and evidenced by similar experiences on US airlines.

Originally Posted by robsaw

Of course it is cash grab, airlines are a business, not a charity. But passengers, like corporations, are equally "greedy" - one to maximize profits the other to minimize cost - the result is the steady parade to the bottom.

Originally Posted by robsaw

I don't expect baggage wait times to change.

Originally Posted by yulred

Some carriers are decent enough to give wriggle room (by not putting weight limits in place). Others just see it as an opportunity to heap on the misery. Airlines are a business, but being a business is not carte blanche to abuse consumers. If it weren't for greed trumping a reasonable approach, we wouldn't need regulatory authorities (or, for that matter, the Phantom).

WS has dropped the weight limit. Will AC?

Originally Posted by theseatbelt

OK I'm looking at this video that CBC put on - I think there is a design flaw in the measuring device. It should not be designed with metal bars... it should be hard plastic or a wooden box.

<snip>