Weighing all wheelie cases

Reply

Old Jan 8, 19, 7:38 pm
  #196  
sxc
Moderator, Cathay Pacific
Accor Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX MPC Silver, BAEC Gold (OWE), Hyatt
Posts: 9,334
Originally Posted by Dave Noble View Post
Some bags sold on site indicate that they are compliant with Qantas regulations - others have no such statement
a retail store does not create any requirement by any airline to accept the bag
Correct. But it's embarrassing.
shuuy likes this.
sxc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 19, 7:49 pm
  #197  
og
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 12,562
Originally Posted by sxc View Post
Correct. But it's embarrassing.
Its bait and switch. But QF will probably get away with it - going by their track record.
shuuy likes this.
og is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 19, 10:39 pm
  #198  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cairns, Australia
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by Dave Noble View Post

not sure how much more explicit it needs to be
It needs to be explicit on the QF website.

Which it isn't.

It's ambiguous.

And incorrect on QF's own retail website.

Wouldn't that be more and absolutely explicit?

This ongoing argument is probably the most childishly stupid and boring outpouring of idiocy I have ever read on FT. Only my opinion. And to be clear this personal observation is made on the arguments offered (not the owners of those arguments).

Arguments already made demolishing your position, you simply ignore - posted facts, which are not in alignment with your position, you simply disregard.

Fruitless - better things to do....

Last edited by Platy; Jan 8, 19 at 11:03 pm
Platy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 19, 12:13 am
  #199  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 38,642
No one has made any argument demoishing t

The site selling bags is simply a site selling bags
the site states a total max dimension and then goes on to state the permitted dimensions

On top of that, the claim that there is any contractual obligation to allow a 57.5 x 1 x 2 item hasn't been proven

regardless , if at the airport and the bag is not within permitted size and is required to be checked in or not taken - what will someone do? refuse and then try to claim a refund under a contractual breach?
Dave Noble is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 19, 1:07 am
  #200  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,026
Originally Posted by Dave Noble View Post
No one has made any argument demoishing t

The site selling bags is simply a site selling bags
the site states a total max dimension and then goes on to state the permitted dimensions

On top of that, the claim that there is any contractual obligation to allow a 57.5 x 1 x 2 item hasn't been proven

regardless , if at the airport and the bag is not within permitted size and is required to be checked in or not taken - what will someone do? refuse and then try to claim a refund under a contractual breach?
I guess the concept might be a bit confusing because of your familiarity with Qantas.

Let's change the scenario.

Flybe has an unusual cabin baggage size policy in that their maximum permitted bag is quite a bit smaller than its fellow European operators. Check-in agents were strict in their enforcement of the sizes.

Now if Flybe was selling bags through their site, branded with the Flybe logo and given names like 'Exeter' and 'Devon', stating that they are wheelaboards and approved cabin baggage - I think they'd have a hard time trying to argue a bag wasn't acceptable. So the same applies to Qantas (the bags even have a 'QF' code!)

And by that logic, if one or more of the dimensions of the QF bags exceed those listed on the website, it is supporting evidence that they are not individual maximums.

It is unreasonable to expect a passenger to buy an airline marketed and branded bag, which clearly states it is acceptable as cabin baggage, to then have to go and confirm whether or not those claims are true by referencing another part of the site. You're entitled to take the airline's word without further checking.

As to the 57 x 1 x 2 item - yes, there is provision for that if it is a musical instument. That states you can have any individual dimensions as long as they fit within the stated maximum dimension.
shuuy and sxc like this.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 19, 2:52 am
  #201  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cairns, Australia
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by Dave Noble View Post
No one has made any argument demoishing t

The site selling bags is simply a site selling bags
the site states a total max dimension and then goes on to state the permitted dimensions

On top of that, the claim that there is any contractual obligation to allow a 57.5 x 1 x 2 item hasn't been proven

regardless , if at the airport and the bag is not within permitted size and is required to be checked in or not taken - what will someone do? refuse and then try to claim a refund under a contractual breach?

Seriously tragic and pathetic. Travel safe.
Platy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 19, 1:12 am
  #202  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 191
Real reason for domestic hand luggage clampdown

What is the real reason for Qantas clamping down on over weight hand luggage on domestic sectors?

The supposed reason to limit the delay of boarding and departure seems a bit misplaced since Qantas is checking even standard size wheelie cabin bags.

Surely if the bags are within the allowed dimensions, 500g to a kg over the weight limit is not going to adversely impact the speed of boarding - you will still need to find space for the bag even if it is empty!

Does anyone one know the real reason for this clampdown? Have the cabin crew union been complaining?

TheRealBabushka is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 19, 1:53 am
  #203  
Moderator: Asiana & Qantas Frequent Flyer
Aman Contributor Badge 2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: STR/SYD/SMF
Programs: QF SG, LH SEN, OZ D+, HH D, SPG P
Posts: 13,879
[mod hat] Merged this new thread into the existing one for this topic. [/mod hat]
DownUnderFlyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 19, 8:45 am
  #204  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Programs: QF Gold, VA Plat, IHG Plat Amb, LCAH Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by TheRealBabushka View Post
What is the real reason for Qantas clamping down on over weight hand luggage on domestic sectors?

The supposed reason to limit the delay of boarding and departure seems a bit misplaced since Qantas is checking even standard size wheelie cabin bags.

Surely if the bags are within the allowed dimensions, 500g to a kg over the weight limit is not going to adversely impact the speed of boarding - you will still need to find space for the bag even if it is empty!

Does anyone one know the real reason for this clampdown? Have the cabin crew union been complaining?
It seems there are multiple issues that all come back to cabin baggage.
1) CASA have raised issues around non-compliane
2) A number of staff have been injured (and at least one ended up in a coma when a bag fell out of a locker - said FA will never work again)

It does seem all about safety issues
perthite is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 19, 7:55 pm
  #205  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: mostly MEL
Programs: QF WP LTS, HHonors Diamond, VA NP
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by perthite View Post
It seems there are multiple issues that all come back to cabin baggage.
1) CASA have raised issues around non-compliane
2) A number of staff have been injured (and at least one ended up in a coma when a bag fell out of a locker - said FA will never work again)

It does seem all about safety issues
Relevant to cabin baggage, CASA - as far as I can tell - have only issued Safety Bulletin 8 in the last 12 months. Even this only emphasizes a previous bulletin which states that Australian Operators must ensure compliance with the operators Cabin Baggage limits.

With respect to those limits, CAO 20.16.2 (3) applies , which only states that cabin baggage must not exceed the limits to which the overhead lockers are designed ... and this order has been around since the early 2000s; QF has either been operating illegally or else something else has changed in the last 12 months - perthite what have I missed?

Regardless, all passengers must abide by the instructions of the operating crew. If they deem that a bag is dangerous, it is. The fact QF consistently inconsistently apply their own standards is something we must accept when we purchase a QF ticket. I've previously balked at QF being inconsistent with this application but am resigned to the fact that I *could* be pulled-up for an oversize bag and have ordered a new one. Only last week, I was asked to weigh mine with the direction: you'll need to put it directly onto the scales, as it won't fit the measure. It weighed exactly 7kgs - the same as when I'd weighed it at home - but 0.5kg lighter than on the scales of the adjacent gate (such is the paranoia QF is instilling!).If we'd boarded at Gate 21 instead of Gate 23 then the crew would have been in their rights to exclude my bag. It doesn't make sense but that's what we need to accept.



Regards,

BD
BD1959 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 19, 8:09 pm
  #206  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP LT Plat >3 Million miles,HH Lifetime Diamond
Posts: 2,337
Reading this threads in preparation for travel to Australia next month, and am prepared to have bags checked. I know it is no consolation but the inconsistency is the same in the US. I use the same rollerboard for 20 flights and on the 21st flight it will need to be checked. The last time, even though it fit in the sizer, with wheels out and in, I was told that it had to come out of the sizer easier than it did, whatever that means. They dont call it security theater for nothing.
worldiswide is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 19, 12:19 am
  #207  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,026
Originally Posted by perthite View Post
It seems there are multiple issues that all come back to cabin baggage.
1) CASA have raised issues around non-compliane
2) A number of staff have been injured (and at least one ended up in a coma when a bag fell out of a locker - said FA will never work again)

It does seem all about safety issues
It needs to be about education as well. If a cabin crew member was injured by a falling bag - which is not an easy feat to achieve in itself - please get rid of all the rubbish such as 'speed of boarding'.

And please bring on consistency. If it is about safety, how is it that other airlines can have unlimited cabin baggage but Aussies can only manage 7kg. Or is that 10kg (on Jetstar), or is that 14kg (over two bags).

And fix the problem with your overhead lockers!
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 19, 3:15 am
  #208  
og
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP/LTG | UA P
Posts: 12,562
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
It needs to be about education as well. If a cabin crew member was injured by a falling bag - which is not an easy feat to achieve in itself - please get rid of all the rubbish such as 'speed of boarding'.

And please bring on consistency. If it is about safety, how is it that other airlines can have unlimited cabin baggage but Aussies can only manage 7kg. Or is that 10kg (on Jetstar), or is that 14kg (over two bags).

And fix the problem with your overhead lockers!
Yes!

People are not stupid. They will (generally) comply with a sensible instruction if they can see the logic, see the reason, it makes sense and is it reasonably applied and consistent. QFs carry on instruction fails on these points. They cannot expect people to happily agree until they smarten their act. Why is there such a glaring discrepancy between some US and UK carriers (with similar or more extreme health and safety laws) and ours?
og is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 19, 3:29 am
  #209  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SDF
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 13,026
Originally Posted by og View Post
Why is there such a glaring discrepancy between some US and UK carriers (with similar or more extreme health and safety laws) and ours?
Simple.

Because passengers are taken for granted by Aussie airlines (virtually no competition due to the shackles of status). Overseas they appreciate people have a choice of carrier and they actually want our business (not happy with AA, get a status match with UA or DL).
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 29, 19, 10:14 pm
  #210  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Singapore
Programs: QF LTG, SQ EGTP, MH Silver, SPG Gold
Posts: 3,783
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF View Post
Simple.

Because passengers are taken for granted by Aussie airlines (virtually no competition due to the shackles of status). Overseas they appreciate people have a choice of carrier and they actually want our business (not happy with AA, get a status match with UA or DL).
Horses for courses perhaps? It's disgusting that both QF and VA allow non-elites to check luggage for free. That's terrible, they should be charging the plebs, and allowing only elite customers to check in luggage free of charge. They also screw over people paying higher fares, I mean why should a platinum on cheap red e-deal get free seat selection in advance of check-in? The low fare paying passengers should only be allowed to choose seats once check in opens, irrespective of status. And not to mention the terrible practice of providing hot food to economy passengers on short flights at meal times. Terrible, and should have been phased out years ago, restricting the food offering to cold food, that the passenger needs to pay for, and only on flights over 2.5-3hrs.

I am being sarcastic() , but it seems competition (or lack of it) manifests itself in different ways in different markets. Just because QF is taking a hardline on carry on (which some customers have suggested is a good thing) , doesn't necessarily mean they are taking their passengers for granted (although there are many other things they do as well that might suggest that). Perhaps the Australian market, doesn't get so up in arms about carry on luggage, when most travel is point to point (minimising chance of lost luggage) and checked baggage is free. On the other side of the Pacific, DL/UA/AA seem to be more or less interchangeable in terms of customer experience, and have moved lock step with each other in recent years, all introducing the same sorts of "enhancements" (good and bad) within a year or two of each other.
nancypants likes this.
lokijuh is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread