28% decrease in baggage allowance via USA - will it change your plans?
 

For Pacific Economy flights, I believe that they will still be running the piece system (2 pieces) , but this will be reduced to a max of 23kg per piece (instead of 32kg).

I was wondering if this might change people's plans for flights to and from the USA and Europe and NZ? I know it is still over double the allowance for flights via Asia, but it is still a large adjustment - a 28% decrease in allowance.

I will certainly be looking twice before flying via the USA now - the stopover in Singapore, Hong Kong or Bangkok may prove too tempting.

[QUOTE=treadsoftlyI know it is still over double the allowance for flights via Asia, but it is still a large adjustment .[/QUOTE]

I think you just answered your own question - it is still over double the allowance for flights via Asia - so people who are unable to travel light will still need to go via North America even though it has been reduced to a more sensible allowance . There really is no point cutting off your nose to spite your face by taking a routing that gives you an even smaller allowance. The vast majority of people do not take anywhere near 64kgs of checked luggage so it is only really going to make a difference to a relatively small number of pax anyway .

I moved most of my trips to europe to go via asia a few years ago due to the extremely inconvenient transit in LAX or SFO.

That said, I very rarely need to make full use of my baggage allowance so probably no impact.

For me the best allowance is with SQ - based on status I get double the allowance (not just an extra bag).

I prefer the 50kg weight allowance as I generally travel with 5 pcs of luggage, thus having to fly West from New Zealand anyway.

that must be absolute hell - if you don't mind me being incredibly nosy what sort of job do you have that requires you to lug all that around on a trip ?

I think a 2 x 23kg limit is perfectly reasonable, and in line with what North American airlines seem to be moving to.

What is IMO quite unreasonable is the 20kg total limit for Tasman and domestic flights. The substantial ill-will this generates, especially among international travelers who are surprised by it when they are hit with extra fees at the airport, must surely ultimately cost NZ more than the negligable revenue that the overweight fees generate.

Yes, this has already changed some people's plans. I forwarded a note on the item to a California-based family I know who are relocating to NZ for awhile. They have decided to not fly NZ transpac, but instead will fly to SYD on UA and then connect onwards to AKL. Even though it's a detour and the tran-tasman sector will be on NZ anyway, flying the trans-pac on UA gets them bigger baggage allowances.

But they cant use bigger allowance trans-tasman? :confused:

They are in for a suprise as UA was the first one to changethe rules on all flights, nect werethe other American carriers and then Lh, now it is NZ ..

I would tell them to reconcider as the allowance is 2*23 in Y and 2*32 in F and C ... and of course plus one for status ..

I hear what you say about the allowance still being plenty. I just wondered if on the balance of things e.g. inconvenience of LAX transit and immigration stuff, service considerations (esp as they're still using the Clasic 747s), whether it would make a difference.

I will be getting *A Gold Status this year, so will be able to take 2 x 20Kgs via Asia, which will be plenty for me. I may have flown via Asia anyway because of this new status, but the downgrading of the baggage allowance has just made me look twice at my options I suppose, instead of it being a no-brainer Air NZ decision.

That's correct for *G pax on NZ, but not on UA.

When UA last changed their international baggage policy (effective for tickets purchased on or after Sept 7, 2005) the checked baggage allowance for *G pax for for international coach remained the same: 3 bags, maximum 70 pounds/32kg each.

http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,51146,00.html

Since the parents in this family are both *Gold, flying UA permits them to check up to 6 bags of up to 32Kg each. If they flew with NZ, their limit would be 6 bags of up to 23Kg each.

Oh no that's just for personal travel :D By the time you count my ski equipment, outdoors stuff, piles of paper, bottles of duty free liquor (with the accompanying wrapping) as well as the usual stuff people take you’ve got around 5 piece (I’ve even been known to check a laser printer in with my stuff).

On a side point was at TUO once a few weeks ago when someone was trying to check in a television – but didn’t want to pay the excess charges.

I don’t think the 20kg limit is unreasonable – when they started enforcing it I’m sure the total weight of baggage went down as the word got out and people didn’t want to have to pay excess. The cost savings associated with that are not negligible, I can assure you.

What is unreasonable IMHO is agents who don’t know that Gold are entitled to an extra 20kg of luggage or agents that charge fare-paying Business Class passengers for excess luggage.

Huh? who can't use the bigger allowance trans-tasman? If you're asking about the California family I know, of course they can use the bigger allowance trans-tasman since they're on a single UA ticket, connecting through SYD on to a NZ operated UA code share flight to AKL. The bags will be tagged in LAX, by UA, using UA's rules.

So you are saying the UA codeshare on NZ flight entitles bigger baggage allowance.

If that is correct, then why not just take UA codeshare on the direct NZ flight?

and save some fuel surcharge's in the process ?

not really - UA doesnt charge fuel surcharge ;)

No, what I'm saying is 1) UA has a more generous checked baggage allowance for *G pax traveling coach internationally and 2) what really matters when it comes to checked baggage allowance is the policy enforced by the airline and agent that's checking your baggage in.

Even if they flew the UA code share on the LAX-AKL non-stop operated by Air NZ, they would have to check their baggage in with Air NZ at LAX. Since they will instead be flying on transpac LAX-SYD on UA, they'll be checking in with UA. Since they're *G they'll get the larger allowance. The bags will be tagged with a final destination of AKL. It's not like Air NZ will refuse to transport the interlined checked baggage from SYD to AKL tagged for them.

I doubt NZ will refuse, but would they charge for excess is the question? Wouldnt this approach (nice if it works) fall over for the return as they'll be checking in with NZ?

You are right, they would have a problem on the return, but I think they are relocating to NZ if I understood correctly, so there is no return.

But to answer your questions, of course, this works. I did it a few months ago when I flew UA/LH to Europe in Y. UA allowed me 3x32 kg, but LH will only allow 3x23kg. By checking in with UA I was able to check all the luggage through to FRA w/o surcharge. Once they are tagged, you're off the hook. The problem really is the return flight if you check in with one of the stingy airlines such as LH and now also NZ....I think it's a bad decision because I generally use my 3x32 kg limit when I fly to Europe.

UA approach to allow *Gold the old limits is the way to go ^

To answer the OP's question - it would certainly be a consideration for me. One of several but certainly a consideration. I always seem to be near the limit.

Would a TV even fit on those tiny planes? A fun game at the TUO airport is guessing which of the two "gates" the plane will arrive at.

I thought the rule was that if there are two thresholds of maximum baggage allowances because you are taking two (connecting) flights you were entitled to the larger?

And I never did understand why USA flights got 2 pieces x 32kg anyway - why don't they just use the 20/30/40kg like most airlines?

It seems NZ caved...

In the US we go by lbs, not kg, so:

32 kg = 75 lbs
23 kg = 50 lbs

To go 20/30/40kg would be too confusing for our metric-ly impaired citizens :)

Haha fair enough, but why then is it 2 pieces x 75 lb, whereas other routes just would have a flat cap (at 20 kg)?

i.e. why is not the baggage allowance for USA routes (say) 75 or 50 lb at a flat cap, rather than calculated for two pieces?

Perhaps to limit compensation for lost luggage to just two pieces ?

Then why does it only apply to the US routes (it is more common to get lost luggage on the US flights??) :confused:

It's just that this (why there is a 'piece' system in play for the US and a 'weight' system for every other route) has been an anomaly that has puzzled me for some time...

I imagine whatever reason it was is now lost in the mists of time... (or some IATA conference in the 70s) but I would be as interested as anyone to find out why pretty much every airline just does the piece system to/from&through North America.

While we're at it, anyone know how come many US travellers carry vast amounts of cargo into the cabin? I had a laptop and one of those huge 20kg-monster-suitcase-on-wheels nearly clobber me when I opened the overhead on a NZ flight to SIN recently.. thankfully it missed me and fell onto the legs of its owner who had huffed and puffed and jammed it in a precarious position on top of my small rucksack carry-on into the bin..

The other problem I have encountered with these new rules is when you have one bag of 30kg, they then try to charge you overweight limit as you are 7kg over :rolleyes: So find a box in my luggage and check that separately and hey presto I have 5kg and 25kg which is fine. I guess in 2-3 years time some overpaid consultant will come in and find how much money they loose by having to check and load two pieces and the extra compenation when each piece goes AWOL. ;)

Such if live with the airlines these days, or maybe the pathetic lack of training (or common sense) that staff seem to receive these days.

This was not with NZ, but with the overly grumpy and rule rigid SK, but serves as an example of stupidity.

Mark
p.s. I used to think that 2(3)x32kg was excessive until I lived in Europe and then worked out how much money you saved bringing a bag full of toothpaste, DVDs, deoderant, clothes, books (bike!) etc etc back with you from the USA each time I visited.

It's possible

That may explain the extreme reluctance of american passengers to check any bags?

Actually for this family's case there are several returns, but while they are relocating to NZ for an indeterminate length of time, they'll also be travelling between NZ and California several times a year. They won't have much baggage NZ->US but they will have heaps each time they fly US->NZ (by way of AU it looks like now).

Yep. So much for Air NZ being part of a "seamless" Star Alliance experience.

Actually it is a good thing that some things vary by airline within the alliance. I for one would not want to have to pay for Koru Club access, and even then pay still more for drinks. Just one example.

Now be honest Kiwi Flyer, can you actually remember "paying" for Koru Club membership? :D :D

:confused: