South London Bon Viveur

The other day I was coming back from ZUR (in Y) and, unusually for my SH flights, I was checking in hold baggage. I also had my usual hand baggage with me, namely one medium/large rucksack type bag. It usually fits under the seat in front, although when fully bloated this can be a struggle. I am also quite happy to slot it under the seat (which also means that I tend to be quite relaxed about getting on board early, as I'm not too worried about the potential lack of overhead storage space), but it it's not a small bag, and does therefore take up all of the space under the seat in front

At the check in desk, having deposited my suitcase, the assistant then tagged said hand luggage with the yellow tag, which states that the bag must be placed under the seat in front. I always thought that you were allowed one cabin bag and one personal item, and that it is the latter that gets the yellow tag. However I only had the one piece of hand luggage. This got me wondering, what are the rules? Is it entirely at the discretion of the check in/gate agents? Or is the rule as I had always understood it, as set out above?

ExpatSomchai

Just rip it off like everyone else

BA6501

The rule is that everyone is guaranteed a personal item, i.e. a yellow tagged item, as it goes under the seat in front. The larger item is no longer guaranteed on board, and does not receive a label.

fruitcage

I have certainly seen CC on full flights taking small items (yellow tag or not) from overhead lockers and insisting that pax put them under the seat in front, in order to free up locker space.

dddc

And what happens if the pax says no? Assuming this is their only bag?

Like the OP, I've had a small back pack tagged at checkin. But when I boarded there was space above my seat for both mine and my travel companion's similar small back pack to be placed one in front of the other and our coats in over the top and front. The space as the same or less than one standard carry on wheelie bag.

If I'd been asked to asked to move my one small bag to under my seat so that someone with a larger carry on could fit theirs in instead of checking it it, I would refuse to last point possible. If BA is going to be insistent with densifying it's fleet, it's got to expect pax to push back at being squeezed every which way.

Often1

Easy solution. Simply offload the bag and offer a gate check or to send the bag to L&F for retrieval.

There has not been the space to acommodate all "legal" carry-ons in a typical narrow-body aircraft for many years. Densification makes the problem greater. The problem is geometric and does not involve policy. If every passenger brings onboard the largest "legal" bag, all such bags cannot be acommodated.

This calls for either radically reducing the maximum bag size, charging for anything to be placed other than under the seat, or doing what happens now.

BA is not markedly different than most carriers in this respect and the current system seems to fairly balance the demand against the ability for the flight to close and then push at some time near schedule.

SteveF

If the pax won't give in, then eventually offloading can be the only result.

Sealink

Why not place the bag underneath the seat? If it fits?

bisonrav

Worth noting that NEO as a suffix stands for "not enough overheads"

willmatt

In my case because I'd like my feet to fit into that area under the seat in front to marginally improve the comfort especially for short haul longer than about 90mins or any long haul. It is incredibly unfair that a person bringing one huge rollaboard into the cabin gets to utilise their legroom for their legs but someone who's checked a similarly sized bag and only hand carries a laptop style backpack on board should get secondary rights to the same overhead space. Placing your first and only hand carry item under the seat in front should be optional rather than required.

Depending on where you are on board you might be forced to have your bag under the seat while others in different areas have quietly stowed at least two bags up top.

ginger50

If you are 6'4" you need the space under the seat in front of your for your legs. I often take just a small computer bag as carry on, if they insisted on it going under the seat in front I would regard that as being very unreasonable, I would ask,

Often1

What happens if it comes down to you and some other 6'4" passenger?

Commercial air travel is about the best for the most.

There are only so many cubic meters of useful space overhead and no matter how much one pouts, that is immutable.

Perhaps the answer lies, on a 100-seat aircraft, of affording an allowance of 1% of the space. Then imagine the whinging here !

streetmagix

Then I would suggest that they haven't gate checked enough bags! I'm also 6'4" and my backpack is going in the otherheads no matter what. There just isn't space by my feet.

Tobias-UK

EsherFlyer

I don't think that's the right test. In the cabin there will be people with a mix of hand luggage sets, such as single "additional sized" bag, just fullsize, fullsize plus additional, fullsize+additional+duty free+straw donkey, etc.

Those of any height with just small bag ought to be least inconvenienced by the rule I think. If a pax with both sizes wants both in cabin they should be prime candidates for one under their feet, or cabin-check the larger.

I'm 6'2" and get pains in my knees if I don't move them around frequently. A bag under my feet would be very uncomfortable, so I pack to ensure (in my mind, but not aligined to BA's rules) that I will have legroom.