23 Kilos max baggage weight as of 13th Feb
Dec 13, 2006, 12:19 pm
#77
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 23,428
I have to say I am not that bothered about this. I've never checked a bag that weighs more than 20 kilos, and for that matter never checked more than 2 bag (and that was after being away for several months). But I can see it poses problems for others.
However the lack of the second item is a major, major PITA. I used to be able to manage a week trip out of a carry on bag + lap top case (evidently I am both poor AND straight
). Now I am forced to check the carry on bag out of the UK, but also from India amongst others. No problem arriving in HKG or SIN where bags arrive swiftly, but as it took an hour for my bag to arrive in the T1 hall this morning it is a major pain when coming home.
I'm not off yet, but flying VS and CX certainly feels like a preferred option now.
However the lack of the second item is a major, major PITA. I used to be able to manage a week trip out of a carry on bag + lap top case (evidently I am both poor AND straight
). Now I am forced to check the carry on bag out of the UK, but also from India amongst others. No problem arriving in HKG or SIN where bags arrive swiftly, but as it took an hour for my bag to arrive in the T1 hall this morning it is a major pain when coming home.I'm not off yet, but flying VS and CX certainly feels like a preferred option now.
Dec 13, 2006, 12:31 pm
#78
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold4life, ICH RA, Hyatt Gold and others
Posts: 701
Have just returned from 3 weeks in Oz. Make a conscious effort to look at the wieght of my bags in light of the earlier scheduled attempt at introducing these new rules. 18kg ex LHR and 20kg return ex SYD. yet I had over packed having made sure i had every possible combination of casual, semi casual, smart etc
Frankly this is not an issue. Dont know whether this is a HSE regulation or recommendation but frankly once a big player adopts it at LHR frankly only a metter of time before everyone follows.
Sorry for being so blunt. If you dont like it please DO switch loyalty to *A or whoever. I may then get availabiulity for 241 and reward bookings in general!!
Roll on the good times! 700,000 miles to burn and (sounds like) empty premium cabins! Wohooo!
Frankly this is not an issue. Dont know whether this is a HSE regulation or recommendation but frankly once a big player adopts it at LHR frankly only a metter of time before everyone follows.
Sorry for being so blunt. If you dont like it please DO switch loyalty to *A or whoever. I may then get availabiulity for 241 and reward bookings in general!!
Roll on the good times! 700,000 miles to burn and (sounds like) empty premium cabins! Wohooo!
Dec 13, 2006, 12:42 pm
#80
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sometimes Houston, Sometimes London.
Programs: CO Gold Elite, BA Blue, for the moment - Hyatt Gold Passport, Priority Club, Marriott etc etc
Posts: 2,126
What with the carry on rules, baggage rules, high taxes, security nonsense with high risk of misconnecting, higher risk of losing bags, risk of strikes, etc, it is getting nigh on impossible to justify flying through UK any more. It is time for me to brush up on the best back alleys through CDG, AMS and FRA.
I flew through CDG yesterday afternoon on my way back to the US. It was pretty painless, aside from the buses-to-the-777 nonsense, hopefully to be rectified soon when they've finished with Terminal E.
Oh BA, what are you doing????
It's coming to the point where I'll be entering the UK on Continenal at LGW, then spending 1/2 day taking the Eurostar to Paris and then returning from CDG.
The food on Air France was excellent, by the way... best I've had in the air in yonks. And I was in Y!
Dec 13, 2006, 12:44 pm
#81
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,727
I agree with everyone here. This is ridiculous. It's all about giving consumers a choice and BA seems to want none of that. I'm going on holiday to the UK/France coming up and plan on bringing a large suitcase to check in and a backpack for carry on. I don't want to have to pack 2 bags weighing less!
What the hell is the f****** difference between 1 suitcase weighing 32kg or 2 suitcases each weighing 23kg?
Choose the former on BA and you have to pay a fee EVEN THOUGH it's less weight.
What the hell is the f****** difference between 1 suitcase weighing 32kg or 2 suitcases each weighing 23kg?
Choose the former on BA and you have to pay a fee EVEN THOUGH it's less weight.
Dec 13, 2006, 12:46 pm
#82
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Falkirk, Scotland,VS Red, BA Gold, HH Diamond,UK Amex Plat
Programs: Master of the Privy Purse des Muccis
Posts: 17,907
I agree with everyone here. This is ridiculous. It's all about giving consumers a choice and BA seems to want none of that. I'm going on holiday to the UK/France coming up and plan on bringing a large suitcase to check in and a backpack for carry on. I don't want to have to pack 2 bags weighing less!
What the hell is the f****** difference between 1 suitcase weighing 32kg or 2 suitcases each weighing 23kg?
Choose the former on BA and you have to pay a fee EVEN THOUGH it's less weight.
What the hell is the f****** difference between 1 suitcase weighing 32kg or 2 suitcases each weighing 23kg?
Choose the former on BA and you have to pay a fee EVEN THOUGH it's less weight.
Hi,
It is worse than that- from February -you will NOT be allowed a case above 23kg ( you will need to repack) and if the extra case takes you above the case limit then you get a charge.
Regards
TBS
Dec 13, 2006, 12:56 pm
#83
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,727
I say everyone sticks it to BA on the first day of this new policy by bringing the maximum number of bags with the maximum weight in each. So if traveling in F, bring 3 bags to checkin each with 23kg. Hell fill em with cement if you have to.
Maybe then BA will realize the stupidity of this and go back to the old way. Either that or they implement a new policy where passengers are not allowed any luggage period.
Dec 13, 2006, 1:07 pm
#84
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Earth
Programs: Proud owner of 3 Mucci's (yes, 3!) the latest being Chevaliere des Bains Chauds, BA Silver (6 yrs)
Posts: 10,985
And don't think they'll honour what it says on your ticket. I was originally due to be affected by this last October - and they basically told me "tough, we're giving you enough warning - you can only bring back 23kg despite what it says on your ticket"
I'm only glad it got delayed then. I was travelling in CW.
Dec 13, 2006, 1:13 pm
#85
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EDI
Programs: BA Gold, QF LTG, TK Elite, IHG Amb & HH Diamond
Posts: 233
Bye bye BA
When I check my bags in for a BA longhaul flight there is a one in two chance that they won't arrive at the destination (the mishandled baggage staff in EDI know me by name). I can't imagine the situation when more bags appear as a result of the 23kg limit.
Together with the baggage and seating 'enhancements' I've had enough and will be moving away from BA. I need to fly to IAD next April and have decided to abandon BA and will fly with UA or LH (UA F is the same price as BA NCW). As with many of you I spend £20k with BA each year. It's a shame as I like the BA product. Maybe when they get their act together I'll reconsider.
thedavebloke
When I check my bags in for a BA longhaul flight there is a one in two chance that they won't arrive at the destination (the mishandled baggage staff in EDI know me by name). I can't imagine the situation when more bags appear as a result of the 23kg limit.
Together with the baggage and seating 'enhancements' I've had enough and will be moving away from BA. I need to fly to IAD next April and have decided to abandon BA and will fly with UA or LH (UA F is the same price as BA NCW). As with many of you I spend £20k with BA each year. It's a shame as I like the BA product. Maybe when they get their act together I'll reconsider.
thedavebloke
Dec 13, 2006, 1:24 pm
#86
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,572
Not everyone is going to dislike the change, there are people who gain from it. I like the change. It is making me look at changing my Oz-UK flights from CX to BA. If I travel on CX in F , the allowance is 40Kg which limits how much dive gear I can take with me. Goin on BA, I can take 3*23KG of regular baggge ( already 29Kg more than CXs allowance ) which makes taking all my regular dive gear easy, PLUS, I can take my 31Kg cylinder setup on top of this. 100Kg vs 40Kg allowance... very nice
Dave
Dave
Dec 13, 2006, 1:26 pm
#87
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Not everyone is going to dislike the change, there are people who gain from it. I like the change. It is making me look at changing my Oz-UK flights from CX to BA. If I travel on CX in F , the allowance is 40Kg which limits how much dive gear I can take with me. Goin on BA, I can take 3*23KG of regular baggge ( already 29Kg more than CXs allowance ) which makes taking all my regular dive gear easy, PLUS, I can take my 31Kg cylinder setup on top of this. 100Kg vs 40Kg allowance... very nice
Dave
Dave
but you are also one of the very few who do like it!
Dec 13, 2006, 1:50 pm
#88
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SIN
Programs: SQ PPS, LH SEN, Amex something, nothing everywhere else
Posts: 994
Boo. I expressed my displeasure in the previous thread when this first came up, and nothing since then has changed my views. The incremental hassle of taking a second bag on a trip is just enormous... and being based in AMS I have a much easier time avoiding BA (and LHR) than most here. This will just reduce my propensity to fly BA even further.
Dec 13, 2006, 1:52 pm
#89
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 670
Wow, this really seems to have got peoples backs up - including mine! I just have no idea what BA are thinking when they introduce this crap.
Is it just me, or do they seem to have a whole bloody department working on new policies and procedures just to annoy everyone and to make all their passengers journeys more complicated? BA at the moment seems to be the most heavily policy ridden airline I use, and every other week I seem to get another e-mail of enhancement that, or simplified this. Its just utter nonsense.
If good old Willie is trying to lower costs, he might want to think about getting rid of the idiots who come up with this stuff. I have often made my opinion on the differences between BA and VS premium services on this forum quite clear, and now I have another thing that backs my argument that VS is winning by miles. I've really had enough with this, and am growing evermore glad that I am now increasingly flying with *A. I just don't need to even think about this kind of stuff with other carriers - especially not if I am in J or F! Paying for a premium fare is supposed to make my journey easier - just why would I bother with an airline that seems dead set on making as hard as possible?
Good Job BA
Is it just me, or do they seem to have a whole bloody department working on new policies and procedures just to annoy everyone and to make all their passengers journeys more complicated? BA at the moment seems to be the most heavily policy ridden airline I use, and every other week I seem to get another e-mail of enhancement that, or simplified this. Its just utter nonsense.
If good old Willie is trying to lower costs, he might want to think about getting rid of the idiots who come up with this stuff. I have often made my opinion on the differences between BA and VS premium services on this forum quite clear, and now I have another thing that backs my argument that VS is winning by miles. I've really had enough with this, and am growing evermore glad that I am now increasingly flying with *A. I just don't need to even think about this kind of stuff with other carriers - especially not if I am in J or F! Paying for a premium fare is supposed to make my journey easier - just why would I bother with an airline that seems dead set on making as hard as possible?
Good Job BA
Dec 13, 2006, 1:59 pm
#90
Join Date: Aug 2006
Programs: BA Gold, Aegean Gold, IHG Platinum Elite, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 114
It's all about cost
Most of the people here get to fly Business or First and are essentially complaining about the drop in allowance to 23kg for the US, Canada etc.
What has actually happened in the bigger picture is as follows;
1) The largest number of passengers are in World Traveller
2) The most expensive cost for an airline is fuel
3) BA's non US/Canada/etc baggage allowance for WT has dropped to 1 bag
4) The charge for 1 extra bag is £120 or £90 online
Basically, BA has just halved the cost of carrying baggge for the majority of it's customers on non US/Canada/etc flights. And it's set to make a decent profit on those who are in the middle of trips right now or turn up and didn't know about the new rule, or who have to take more than 1 bag.
For trips to the US, Canada etc, regulations enforce 2 bags, but previously it was 64kg (2x32kg), now it is 46kg (2x23kg). So for these flights they've got their baggage fuel cost down by a third.
It doesn't help that BA are in trouble over their fuel surcharge. They need this to keep their profitability up.
What's pathetic about this is how they've tried to soften their email announcement by linking it to the terminal 5 news first and how they haven't outlined the most important details at all on the email. They've basically said we've told you and if you didn't go to the website and then click the link and then read through all the details, then it's your fault if you turn up and have to pay £120. We even gave you an option to pay £90 online first, look how nice we are.
But it's also absolutely true that this just reflects BA's psyche that the passenger is the problem. Rather than find the profit by being a better or more efficient airline, they basically look to screw the customer. Had they reduced the price of their tickets by £120, then it would have been ok. At least that is the rationale of the cost cutting airlines ie pay for what you use.
I stopped flying these guys a long time ago, having been paying full fare first class and continually running into attitude and flexibility problems. Things clearly haven't changed.
My guess is that once the long haul WT news gets out, they are going to have a lot of empty seats as people look for alternatives. That part of the market is purely based on price and BA has just become significantly more expensive. The beneficiaries of this policy are BA's competitors on long haul routes who can increase their fares by a good share of that £120, and the BA long haul traveller who is happy taking 1 bag of less than 23kg on a long haul flight and can now look forward to lying down flat in economy!
What has actually happened in the bigger picture is as follows;
1) The largest number of passengers are in World Traveller
2) The most expensive cost for an airline is fuel
3) BA's non US/Canada/etc baggage allowance for WT has dropped to 1 bag
4) The charge for 1 extra bag is £120 or £90 online
Basically, BA has just halved the cost of carrying baggge for the majority of it's customers on non US/Canada/etc flights. And it's set to make a decent profit on those who are in the middle of trips right now or turn up and didn't know about the new rule, or who have to take more than 1 bag.
For trips to the US, Canada etc, regulations enforce 2 bags, but previously it was 64kg (2x32kg), now it is 46kg (2x23kg). So for these flights they've got their baggage fuel cost down by a third.
It doesn't help that BA are in trouble over their fuel surcharge. They need this to keep their profitability up.
What's pathetic about this is how they've tried to soften their email announcement by linking it to the terminal 5 news first and how they haven't outlined the most important details at all on the email. They've basically said we've told you and if you didn't go to the website and then click the link and then read through all the details, then it's your fault if you turn up and have to pay £120. We even gave you an option to pay £90 online first, look how nice we are.
But it's also absolutely true that this just reflects BA's psyche that the passenger is the problem. Rather than find the profit by being a better or more efficient airline, they basically look to screw the customer. Had they reduced the price of their tickets by £120, then it would have been ok. At least that is the rationale of the cost cutting airlines ie pay for what you use.
I stopped flying these guys a long time ago, having been paying full fare first class and continually running into attitude and flexibility problems. Things clearly haven't changed.
My guess is that once the long haul WT news gets out, they are going to have a lot of empty seats as people look for alternatives. That part of the market is purely based on price and BA has just become significantly more expensive. The beneficiaries of this policy are BA's competitors on long haul routes who can increase their fares by a good share of that £120, and the BA long haul traveller who is happy taking 1 bag of less than 23kg on a long haul flight and can now look forward to lying down flat in economy!