Weighing all wheelie cases

Old Dec 18, 2018, 11:58 am
  #151  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,913
In your post, you admitted that it was oversized and that it was13% over the permitted 23cm , so was definitely over the permitted size. whether it fts in the locker is irrelevant

Your situation is not special - the bag did not comply with requirements and the agent required it be checked in.

I cannot see how a claim can be made that the "clearly my bag is not oversized" when it is 26cm wide with the published limit being 23cm
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 2:01 pm
  #152  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: New Zealand (when I'm home!)
Programs: Air NZ Elite
Posts: 1,218
Originally Posted by Cedar Jet
Totally disagree, my roller bag is hardly oversize. It easily fits under a seat and in overhead lockers....how else did I get by last three years? Qantas perhaps are a little too stringent in my case. When my bag goes into the overhead locker it takes less space as it is shorter and narrower than the rules stipulate. With regard to its slightly increased depth rarely is there ever enough room between the top of my bag and the roof of the overhead compartment to put anything anyway when its in the locker wheels in first other than a jacket maybe shove an unwanted pillow. My wheelie bag just takes 3cm more of that narrow gap. Thus calling my bag "oversize" is illogical considering Qantas aim is to enhance safety and/or items brought on board. FYI when I protested to cabin manger on board she "totally agreed" with me. It may be academic according to you and Qantas but that hardly makes it right or logical.
Ummm are you serious?

Like... your bag is literally oversized. As in, Qantas has a size limit and as you said... yours was measured and it didn't fit.

Mate. It's not about whether your bag fits in the overhead locks. It's about does it meet their size limits. Yours literally doesn't. You admitted this. You don't like their sizing requirements? Fine, but they made them extremely clear in their terms and conditions.

You should have measured your bag before you bought it. This is entirely your fault. You aren't a dumb consumer. You're a frequent flyer.

You don't like their sizing requirements? Fine, you can write an angry email telling them they should increase them.

But as of now, they have very clear ones. Yours does not meet them. A lady was doing her job, telling you yours doesn't fit: and you called her a dragon. Hm.
nancypants likes this.
kiwifrequentflyer is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 3:09 pm
  #153  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cairns, Australia
Posts: 930
Originally Posted by kiwifrequentflyer
Fine, you can write an angry email telling them they should increase them.

But as of now, they have very clear ones. Yours does not meet them. A lady was doing her job, telling you yours doesn't fit: and you called her a dragon. Hm.
Why must it be an angry email rather than a cogent and logical one mapping out the reasons why QF is behaving in a manner that the complainant finds (1) inconsistent with years of previous policy (2) illogical in terms of the safety claims being put forward and (3) not in the best interests o its customer? (If that's what the complainant perceives).

Oh and some QF staff do behave in a rude manner and the term dragon, might, in reality be correct in this instance (of course it may not depending on their behaviour).
nancypants likes this.
Platy is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 3:58 pm
  #154  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SYD
Programs: QF Platinum (LTG), OW Emerald, Accor Platinum; Hyatt Explorist.
Posts: 2,170
As I said, my bag easily fits in an overhead locker or under the seat in front thus just because Qantas measurements are stated doesn't mean Qantas is correct in measurements outlined. You blindly worship rules which I'm pointing out , in my case at least, are erroneous in their definition of 'oversized' baggage. Thus, considering my bag fits anywhere its required to be safely and legally placed on board I still insist it's not 'oversized'. It's an irrelevant definition in my case. To further add to Qantas 'consistency' my flight home was completely different. I wheeled it on at BNE and cabin crew looked at and said "thats fine" when I gestured towards the scales thinking I'd have to weigh it again. Qantas is having a meltdown of some sort by applying the rules all of a sudden considering I've safely been using the bag just on 3 years and even then it's clearly inconsistent in its application. And the gate attendant on the said SYD-BNE flight was the perfect definition of a "dragon" I assure you.
Cedar Jet is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 4:05 pm
  #155  
og
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 13,544
Originally Posted by Platy
....
Oh and some QF staff do behave in a rude manner and the term dragon, might, in reality be correct in this instance (of course it may not depending on their behaviour).
Yes.
“Dragon” is IMHO a general term used in FT to describe a “gatekeeper”. It is not always necessarily a term of abuse. I used to call my MIL a dragon ( to her face ) and it was always taken with a smile and a laugh. Perhaps its Oz culture to speak in irony whereas other countries’ people can’t differentiate that.

Yes, some staff are brilliant but others seem to go out if their way to be difficult. For example in the Priority line the other day at SYD T3, one gate dragon specifically targetted men in neat casual gear for a BP inspection ( with the aim of booting them out of the Priority line ). Only 2 people out of about 20 were quizzed. Both said Business and Platinum. Nobody else was questionned. Her attitude was poor - and it was clear that she walked away in a huff and buried her head in her computer screen.

Oh, and no measurement or weighting of bags (a 332).

Last edited by og; Dec 18, 2018 at 4:43 pm
og is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 5:34 pm
  #156  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,413
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
In your post, you admitted that it was oversized and that it was13% over the permitted 23cm , so was definitely over the permitted size. whether it fts in the locker is irrelevant

Your situation is not special - the bag did not comply with requirements and the agent required it be checked in.

I cannot see how a claim can be made that the "clearly my bag is not oversized" when it is 26cm wide with the published limit being 23cm
The qantas website talks about total dimensions, not about individual maximums: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/travel-...n-baggage.html

It gives examples of various total dimensions, when added to 115cm, that are acceptable, but I can’t seem to see where it says 23cm cannot be exceeded.

On that basis, perhaps not unreasonable that if you are under on your other two dimensions, that one can be exceeded if it still adds to 115cm? Especially if it has been allowed before and fits in the overhead bin.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 6:44 pm
  #157  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: New Zealand (when I'm home!)
Programs: Air NZ Elite
Posts: 1,218
Originally Posted by Platy
Why must it be an angry email rather than a cogent and logical one mapping out the reasons why QF is behaving in a manner that the complainant finds (1) inconsistent with years of previous policy (2) illogical in terms of the safety claims being put forward and (3) not in the best interests o its customer? (If that's what the complainant perceives).

Oh and some QF staff do behave in a rude manner and the term dragon, might, in reality be correct in this instance (of course it may not depending on their behaviour).
Given the angry, accusatory tone of the woman literally doing her job when they brought a bag that is bigger than their stated sizing requirements, I assumed they would write angry emails as well.

And my goodness. Saying that just because your bag fits means that they should allow it is ridiculous. It's extremely normal to have sizing limits. Is there any airline that doesn't? If there were no limits other than it fits, imagine what would would do - they would take up the whole compartment selfishly themselves because "it fits." They have to draw the line somewhere and this is where they drew it. It will always be a little arbitrary, literally no way around that.

And to be crying about consistency. Really? That's the point. They haven't been consistent with their rules. They are trying to change it. And obviously not every attendent will be used to the new change. Be grateful that you can still sometimes get away with it...

And to call me someone who worships rules? As I said, I try and skirt them too. I just know who to blame when I fail - me.

You got your hand caught in the cookie jar and now you are embarrassed

Last edited by kiwifrequentflyer; Dec 18, 2018 at 7:17 pm
kiwifrequentflyer is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 7:02 pm
  #158  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattExpl.►HiltonGold►ALL Silver
Posts: 22,027
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF
[left]

The qantas website talks about total dimensions, not about individual maximums: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/travel-...n-baggage.html

It gives examples of various total dimensions, when added to 115cm, that are acceptable, but I can’t seem to see where it says 23cm cannot be exceeded. ...
They are not examples, they are the maximum bag lengths in any one direction.

i.e. 56cm + 36cm + 23cm are the maximums for a 115cm bag.

With that, bag can be no more than 56cm in any direction, no more than one length can be between 36cm and 56cm, etc.

Last edited by serfty; Dec 19, 2018 at 12:39 pm
serfty is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 7:09 pm
  #159  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: WLG/BKK
Programs: TG*G, NZ*GE, QF G, Accor Gold
Posts: 10,363
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF


The qantas website talks about total dimensions, not about individual maximums: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/travel-...n-baggage.html

It gives examples of various total dimensions, when added to 115cm, that are acceptable, but I can’t seem to see where it says 23cm cannot be exceeded.

On that basis, perhaps not unreasonable that if you are under on your other two dimensions, that one can be exceeded if it still adds to 115cm? Especially if it has been allowed before and fits in the overhead bin.
It might not be explicitly clear whether or not the diagrams are examples, or are actually specifying the maximum in each direction. However, the absence of any wording to state that any combination of LxWxH <= 115 is OK, suggests to me that the depictions are maximums for each dimension. The construction of the 'checking 'bin' (which Cedar jet's bag failed the test) further supports this conclusion.

There is non-binding IATA guidance on this as well, which proposes 126cm total (56+45+25) , which Cedar jet's bag would also (just) have failed:

Weight and Size

Carry-on baggage allowance can vary according to the airline, the cabin class you are traveling in and even the size of the aircraft. As a general guide, carry-on baggage should have maximum length of 22 in (56 cm), width of 18 in (45 cm) and depth of 10 in (25 cm). These dimensions include wheels, handles, side pockets, etc.

Some airlines also enforce weight limitations, typically starting at 5kg/11lbs.
https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-in...check-bag.aspx
Thai-Kiwi is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 8:36 pm
  #160  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,413
Originally Posted by serfty
They are not examples, they are the maximum bag lengths in any one direction.

i.e. 56cm + 36cm + 23cm are the maximums for a 115cm bag.

With that, bag can be more than 56cm in any direction, no more than one length can be between 36cm and 56cm, etc.
Except it doesn't state that! And if QF are relying on their policy stated on the website they would have a hard time showing the current wording implies maximums per dinension.

The wording is simply:
  • Total dimensions are measured by adding together the length, height and depth of the bag.

As it talks about 115cm bags, 105 cm bags and garment bags, the 'total dimensions' could be taken to mean each one of those items by themselves. not the actual LxHxD.

QF are well known for being very specific when they wish to be (just look at any of the footnotes in their emails). If they intended 23cm to be the max they would have stated this explicity.

The bag sizer is irrelevant as it is introduced after the contract has been formed. It cannot later be added in.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 10:22 pm
  #161  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,913
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF


The qantas website talks about total dimensions, not about individual maximums: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/travel-...n-baggage.html

It gives examples of various total dimensions, when added to 115cm, that are acceptable, but I can’t seem to see where it says 23cm cannot be exceeded.

On that basis, perhaps not unreasonable that if you are under on your other two dimensions, that one can be exceeded if it still adds to 115cm? Especially if it has been allowed before and fits in the overhead bin.
it states


1 x 115cm bag = 56cm + 36cm + 23cm

seems to be pretty clear that it is 56 x 36 x 23
jeffrocowboy likes this.
Dave Noble is offline  
Old Dec 18, 2018, 11:57 pm
  #162  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,413
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
it states


1 x 115cm bag = 56cm + 36cm + 23cm

seems to be pretty clear that it is 56 x 36 x 23
It could be interpreted that way. But it could be better worded to remove any ambiguity.

If QF wanted they could have stated: 1 x 115cm = 56cm (max) x 36cm (max) by 23cm (max). But they haven't. They just talk about total dimensions, which they say are the addition of HxDxL.

And if there is any ambiguity I'd side with interpreting in favour of the passenger. If my bag was 46x38x23 I'd calcualted that as 107cm and I'd probably think I could take that on board (for international).
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Dec 19, 2018, 5:58 am
  #163  
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,129
Originally Posted by sxc
I wasn’t sure if this “strictness” was extended to international, but even on domestic there are retailers selling things that would easily end up putting you over the limit.
And if we go there, I wonder how QF would treat the in-flight purchase from their duty free trolley that might weigh rather a lot

It'd be quite funny to be punished for buying things from them.
LTN Phobia is offline  
Old Dec 19, 2018, 6:22 am
  #164  
sxc
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Accor Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX Green, QF Platinum, BAEC Silver, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 10,780
Originally Posted by LTN Phobia
And if we go there, I wonder how QF would treat the in-flight purchase from their duty free trolley that might weigh rather a lot

It'd be quite funny to be punished for buying things from them.
QF has actually stopped selling duty free.
sxc is offline  
Old Dec 19, 2018, 6:56 am
  #165  
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,129
Originally Posted by sxc

QF has actually stopped selling duty free.
I hadn't even noticed that. How long has it been that way?
LTN Phobia is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.