AAaLot

Difference is that there is now way to comply by taking a gun appart.

This violates both the spirit and letter of the law.

bravoecho

Maybe you should write to Qantas and ask for compensation (said with tongue in cheek)

AUS_MD

You did not comply. A bag exceeded 7kg, the maximum permitted weight for one item of hand luggage.

AAaLot

Sure we did ...the agent weighted out stuff just to make sure. He smiled. we smiled (actually we did'nt). More importantly the bureaucracy was happy, yet no one benefited.

NM

The Qantas employee benefited by not being reprimanded by their employer for failing to ensure a passenger complied with a CASA directive.

If CASA directed that passengers are not permitted to carry green underwear onto an aircraft, it would be the airline employee's or the airport security staff's duty to ensure you were not wearing green underwear and if you were, to insist that you remove it before proceeding to the aircraft.

This is the same as not being permitted to carry metal nail files on board an aircraft. I do not believe a nail file poses any more of a safety risk than many items that are permitted, but the rules exists and I have no grounds for complaint if a nail file is removed from my baggage. And I do not expect the security screener to look the other way just because both he and I know it will not be used to hijack an aircraft.

Austman

I know this is changing the thread a bit, but how come in the USA, AA allows a single carry-on to weigh up to 18Kg? I mean that's more than 2.5 times the Qantas limit.

From aa.com:
The one carry-on bag must fit in an overhead compartment or under the seat. It should not exceed 45 linear inches (length + width + height) or weigh more than 40 lbs/18 kgs.

http://www.aa.com/content/travelInfo...horEvent=false

Is the 18Kg allowed by the FAA?

jswong

Remember that the CASA, if I interpret this correctly, do not specify the actual allowances. The directive was simply that the operators (airlines) follow their own legally enforceable rules

Jeff

og

Can anyone recall what the actual load limit for various bins might be? I am sure I have seen stickers in them quoting a maximim weight (note that I have the height to see the stickers). It would be an interesting comparison on how a bin stuffed with QF's 7kg articles compares to a AA bin with typical roll-ons at 18 kgs and whether it makes or breaks the load limit. Surely Mr spotwelder can get into this one!

AAaLot

The load limit for each overhead is something like 85lbs. Anything we have been discussing here or in AA is well within those limits.

I think the lower limits are put for economic decisions, but blamed on security. Obviosuly a 1 Kg bag will hurst someone less than a 6 Kg. The subject pops up more when gas prices go up.

This is is where reasonable rules based on common sense, safety, competition, etc. should be set.

Does anyone know where the 7kg came from?

I think think AA's rules on this particular subject are better than Qantas.

Traveloguy

Calling Spotwelder!

Itsalongwaydown

The media release from CASA that is referred to previously is also linked to an article in this months Flight Safety Australia magazine which also gives a few more details. These include such things as the staff are required to enforce the regulations and that the allowance in overhead bins varies with aircraft type.

As a professional pilot I'm often appalled at the attitude of some passengers with regard to the regulations.

Needless to say AAaLot if his had been my flight and I knew what you were doing then the flight would not have pushed back until the situation was resolved. If this meant you didn't travel then so be it. Personally, from what I've read I believe you need an attitude adjustment before you fly anywhere again.

As a bye line the 22kg that has been referred to has more to do with OH&S limits for manual handling than overhead bin capacities.

Like everything else in life you really only have 3 options:
1. Accept things as they are,
2. Change what you can and then accept things as they are, or
3. Go somewhere else!

bensyd

judging by the what he has so far said I'd say that if an overweight cabin bag did cause injury to the OP, he would be pretty quick to get his ambulance chasing lawyers in to wring every drop he would be "entitled to"

spotwelder

OK. Here we go. The Dash 8 flights to Lord Howe Island have a 4kg MASS limit. This, I assume, is for take off performance reasons. You have an average mass of x, the total number of punters is y, the baggage (hand and hold of z each) has mass of yz plus the aircraft, fuel, oil, crew.... and a short runway means that you will get over relevant obstacles. This is a MASS issue. If your bags are too heavy, the aircraft might crash. No to put too fine a point on it, a bunch of fat Aamericaans and overweight luggage in smaller turboprops and piston engined aircraft have come to grief recently as the single engine climb performance, or other performance limits, have been breeched. So, for Lord Howe Island, travel light!

OK, now for the rest of it. For the domestic runs, we need to consider the total mass of the aircraft for take-off as well. I do not have the figures in my head, but I would guess that a stuffed 738 from SYD to PER is getting close to Max Take-off Mass Authorised. Sorry, I do not know the number of seats, the number of Plats with extra bags and so on, but I can guess in the next H24 if you want me to. This then becomes a total mass question. There is nothing wrong with heavy baggage, as long as they take it into account. The fact is, they cannot be arsed to do so. You are given a standard mass, your hold luggage is weighed and they allocate your hand baggage a standard mass (the famous 7kg). If you had no hold bags and they weighed your hand baggage instead, stuffed it into the computer and you had to put it plus or minus one seat row, there would be no problem. This is a pure and simple case of the airlines not being bothered.

So, now we come to questions of maximum mass of bags. There has been a lot of bull in the writings here about the actual limit of 7kg per person. Simple, open the overhead bin and see what it is certified for. Most 737 fittings are certified for about 38kg from memory. There are two different issues relating to stuff falling out. Firstly, there is the whole bin dropping on your head. The overhead bin attachments are stressed for similar amounts to your seat rails. If the lateral deceleration is so high (for example hitting a mountain) that the seats detach, (around 15g in the newer aircraft), then you will all be dead anyway. Believe me, it is not a pretty sight when 100+ passengers all get into the space that was occupied by business class earlier in the flight.

If the vertical deceleration is so high that the bins detach, you are in trouble again with huge fuselage deformation, wing rupture, fire and so on.

Now, what does happen is that bins pop open. It is the most common form of injury to occur in civil aviation, the instant headache. I have been hit 3 times by falling bags. Ansett came up with the original inner net to stop things falling out if the main bin popped open. Sadly, all of these safety improvements have been removed by airlines. Still, at least you can have them prosecuted under risk management concepts including "As Low As Reasonably Practicable" in that case. If you need to sue, PM me! The bag mass if fairly immaterial, if it breaks your neck, it breaks your neck. A pillow is unlikely to as is a bunch of feathers, but most other stuff just might.

As for the underseat stowage, I am sorry but I do not know the certification limits for mass off the top of my head. I would expect around 10 kg. There are issues about this moving forward etc.

So, in summary, for QF operations that I am aware of, I would say that Lord Howe Island has an issue and I hope that I have explained what that is. The rest of it CAN be an issue, but it is something that the airlines could do something about but cannot be bothered. There is an issue if you have 300+ punters all carrying an extra 15kg on flights from India, but to be honest, a one tonne variation on the 744 does not trigger most airlines to even redo the mass and balance sheet!

Are two bags totalling 14 kg as good as 2x7 for safety reasons? Yep. But you get a huge amount of bull5h1t off check-in agents. They refer to CASA certification requirements. Mmm. I have to admit, this can wind up the CASA inspectors as well, one of the main QF ones is a personal friend of mine and she laughed when it was all blamed on her.

I guess it comes down to poor airline communication with their staff. Still, if they were to employ/empower more check-in agents with serious brain power, you would pay more per ticket.

AAaLot

I am trying for 2.

Would you have enforced the rules or done what was safe? This is at the essence of common sense.

We opted to ignore the rule and do what was safe.

og

Therefore I'll be quite happy to drive down the freeway at 250 km/h in the outside lane because I regard it as safe (too bad about the cars in the next lane doing 100 km/h).