Dave Noble

Except all you comments seem to indicate a lack of it but instead an arrogance of "I don't care about the rules, I'll do what I want regardless"

If you don't want to abide by the conditions of carriage , perhaps try another carrier. Regardless, I find it hard to believe that between you, you needed 30Kg of stuff with you in the cabin ( 5*6Kg)

Dave

NM

Perhaps I will try that arguement with the TSA guy next time I go through LAX regarding my safe carriage of a metal nail file . I wondor how long it will take for the rubber gloves to appear .

Itsalongwaydown

Are you really?

If you were trying for option 2 then you would be addressing this to CASA, Qantas and who ever else has limits you don't like rather than here, where you may or may not get agreement but will be of absolutely no help to your case.

Globaliser

Some day, every passenger will be made to recite the words "I accept that I do NOT know better than the crew" before they are allowed to board the aircraft.

serfty

This thread is quite amusing to me. IMO, it really is a "Storm in a Teacup" and 50 posts is completely out of proportion. (Although I have now contributed. )

The gripe is along the lines that the bags' content had to be rearranged to comply with regulations; presumably if one bag originally weighed 10kg, the other four would have totalled ~20kg.

That the OP was travelling in business is of no account here. According to Post #1, there were five people travelling with five bags with a total weight of 30kg.

For what it's worth, total carry-on weight is not an issue here; those same 5 travellers could have had 10 bags between them with a total weight of 70kg; this for either Domestic or Business class! Yes, that's correct, 40Kg more - over double what they actually had.

As posted by perthite, it just so happens that this week CASA had launched a crackdown on the size and weight of carry-on luggage and the OP and family were caught up in it.

Not much, other than regulations state maximim item weight of 7Kg and the staff member checking your weight might not have wanted to risk losing their job.

See above about employee retaining employment ...

No point in singling out Qantas here; given this week's CASA crackdown, the OP would have found the same issues with just about all Oz Airlines.

AAaLot

Thank you for your well thought out post.

After thinking about how the agent acted, I am sure it had to do with CASA crackdown you mentioned.

As someone that did not grow up in Australia, nor entirely in the USA I find this thread interesting because highlights differences in social and business interpretations of rule following, common sense, safey/freedom.

As I mentioned earier I find Australians more progressive on the social scale. It is my observation that it seems the general citizen is open to not follow rules, but look at the big picutre when dealing with other fellow citizens. This does not generally seem to follow in the business world...average Australians seem really not to question any rule.

Likewise I find the average US citizen not to want to look at the big picture when dealing with their fellow citizens, but more apt to question rules in the business environment.

I find this interesting and a big difference between what I see as an average Australian versus an average US citizen. This does not mean one is better than the other, but that there are differences in the fundamental way of thinking.

spotwelder

That is the day that I give up my job for most of the airlines I have the pleasure of sitting on.

bigjobs

surely you jest?

Aussies not questioning rules ... just come and work with me for 5 minutes. i can assure you that most of your average aussies question rules, most of us pride ourselves on it.

americans more apt to question rules ... ??? take a look at Enron ...

AAaLot

I don't have any experience of people 'at work' in Australai, even though I have I lot of experience outside the USA in Latin America and Europe.

My experiences in Aust/NZ have been seeing people interact with each other and people interacting with companies [i.e. Qantas].

All I have to say is everytime I even hint at breaking a rule, even for safety sake, I am generally hammered as if I was someone from another planet to the point where I can tell the difference [between the forums, if nothing else].

p.s. I do think Enron is a case of rule breaking go wrong, even though from people I know in that industry Enron, and others, brought a lot of innovation and benefit before their downfall. I think something like Enron [on average] would be less apt to happen outside the USA (the good and the bad).

seanp7

Yet another Aus vs US interaction it seems...

Rules are rules and when it comes to the airline industry, questioning why or even fighting back is futile. You were inconvenienced for sure, but I'd rather spend 5 minutes waiting for the idiot in front of me to get his bag down to 6kgs than proceed on board in 30 seconds and get hit by a 10kg bag.

Aussies question rules for sure, and even stand up for what is right - but only when there's an avenue for change. A gate lounge or check-in area (which has federal laws to abide by) is probably not one of them. It sounds like most of us here have had exposure to TSA - try convincing *them* that you have a right to, for example, keep your shoes on!

Buster CT1K

I do not wish to get into the aussies v. americans cultural debate. But I do prize my mobility and my time, even when I am on vacation (perhaps especially when I am on vacation). Maybe it's because I'm an impatient New Yorker.

Australia's draconian carry-on rules mean that I dislike flying within Australia and I don't really see myself visiting Australia again anytime soon. BA's draconian carry-on rules also keep me from flying BA much. By comparison, even LH's ground staff are angels!

Dave Noble

istr that you do have a right to keep them on though

Dave

Kiwi Flyer

You do have a right to keep them on. Unfortunately the result is getting secondary.

AAaLot

Obviously the higher the weight the more it will hurt, yet serious injuries are not common due to falling object. [I know you will find links to stories here, but I think that will just prove how sensational these events are]. Staistically you are more apt to be injured by the drink cart [this actually does happen very often].

Even a 1 kilo object will hurt when falling from above--why not limit carry ons to 1 kilo? In the interest of safety we should. In the interest of common sense we should not. [go pick up a 1 kilo object right now and play with it].

Why not get rid of drink carts [actually some airlines have done this (take your order at your seat) with the primary goal of reducing injuries].

If everyone uses sense [put stuff under the seat, check your bags when you can, etc.] you can go to the airplane mfg rated weights.

For a business person 7kg x 2 is sometimes not enough unless you also check bags. Granted a lot of airports are fast, but from what I have heard here some are slow. The slow ones will have a hidden permanent 'time tax' associated with them.

For reasons stated, generally speaking I would say this 'hidden time tax' is something that is less in the USA than Australia/NZ. I don't like paying taxes

seanp7

Yes, yes, point being - they'll send you straight for secondary screening (ime). I was just challenging the OP to make his stand felt with TSA's annoyances also!

I have, however, wanted to test the 'secondary screening in private' option one day - any stories?