B6 - 26" x 18" x 12" for the A320, 24 x 16 x 10 for the E190
http://help.jetblue.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN...e=obj%28633%29

B6 is the most generous of all.

I have found not all sizers are created equal - even sizers among a single carrier.

For example, I have a "legal size" roll-a-board and you have to fight with it to get it in the sizers with the metal bars. The other sizers that look more like a box, carry-on goes in no problems - perfect fit.

Typically goes into the overhead, wheels first, on mainline aircraft without problem. The only aircraft that gets tricky are DL 767-300's with the old overhead bins and a few odd 757's (ex-NW 5500 series) where there is a lip that causes problems.

Carriers vary significantly as to what they'll take as carry-on's. Qantas, for example, has a strict weight limit. Qantas will sometimes ask to see the carry-on and to weigh it.

At some airports like MEL, you have an "oversize" / "overweight" bag inspector sitting at the entrance to the Intl terminal.

To close, this is not a duty the TSA should take on; private business needs to handle this one. On final note, there are differences among carriers with respect to carry-on size -- no one rule fits all.

When has the inapplicability of any particular rule ever stopped the TSA before?

All good reason for consistency. FAA should invite the carriers to propose a joint policy and then impose one which is the best for most. Needless to say, the RJ gate-check issue is entirely sepatate and apart from mainline. There will always be a need to do gate check on luggage which otherwise fits the sizer (which would then be uniform).

That sounds confusing for the infrequent traveller. I have a feeling most people don't know what plane they are flying and probably wouldn't know what size carry on is permitted. Although the 26x18x12 size is probably larger than most luggage manufacturers list as carry on size.

Back to the TSA, I wonder how many more things they would miss if they had the added responsibility of checking bag sizes. They seem to miss a lot already in their effort to keep bottles of water off of planes.

So you're against competition?

After all, this is one competitive factor that folks might use to select an airline.

Taking your argument to the next step, we ought to reinstate the old CAR-style regulations. You know, government-regulated fares, regulation of number of seats on a route, mandatory service to small communities as a condition of the operating certificate, and the like. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

As long as there is no safety issue (bags fit in the overhead) then the Feds have no business getting involved. None. It's a competitive issue for the airlines.

I can't figure out from your posts if you're anti-competition, if you just favor draconian policies of the big airlines & want the lower-cost carriers to fail, or you're simply the kind of guy that gets in the left lane of the beltway and drives 50 MPH because the speed limit is 55. :rolleyes:

To the point of one size does not fit all, we can add all AC overheads are not created equal. Today I was on a CRJ, and the roller-boards had to be sideways. This limits the number that can fit. Today I only saw one person with 3 bags and he made it on. What really amused me was a person trying to get a bag that was too large into the overhead. Her solution was the overheads in the back must be larger. Finally, they had to check the bag, which was the right move.

Let us know when the overhead bin size will be identical for each Part 121 aircraft.


Parker? Because who doesn't need a good belly laugh now and then. :p

Thanks for the feedback ^ (and I had a feeling at least one of you would feel that way ;))

I favor simple solutions to big problems. OH abuse is largely the product of borish DYKWIA's who full well know what they are doing. The practice makes boarding unpleasant and slow and delays push. As one who generally travels in F, I would just as soon board last, but have to board first to get the OH space which handles by compliant carry-on.

There are two "barriers" to boarding a commercial aircraft: 1) security checkpoint; and 2) gate. #2 is far preferable place and allows flexibility but carriers can't/won't enforce. That leaves #1 which is not preferable for a broad variety of reasons, but can be accomplished.

It's easy and it will work. If the carriers want to do it themselves, I'm fine with that, but let's see them do it.

Fine. But the TSA checkpoint isn't supposed to be the place to fix problems with boorish DYKWIAs. It's suppose to be the place to secure the flight.

A passenger with too many oversized carry-on items may be a PITA, but he's not a security threat.

It does not. In the past, when it did, it was because it felt that it could not screen all bags to the required standard unless people only brought one. A small number of UK airports still have this rule, LBA I think is one.

EasyJet and bmibaby do this.

Nobody seems to have mentioned yet that defining carry-on sizes in terms of inches will confuse the all-but-2 other countries in the world that use the metric system.

Ah, yes, one size fits all. Typical bureaucratic response. That's exactly what I'd expect out of the TSA.

;) Ah, but just as TSA screeners KNOW that everyone REALLY understands English if you just shout loudly enough, most Americans KNOW that furriners REALLY use inches and pounds at home when no one's looking. They only talk about "kilos" and "centimetres" to be annoying. :rolleyes:

The other key point is that a 2-dimensional sizer template only measures (duh) two of three dimensions of a bag; it could be 14" x 9" x [anything] and fit an AA template. ;)

I probably don't need to say this, but for the record I'm against TSA taking on yet another responsibility that has nothing to do with security.