akl_traveller

"Discretion" means 10-20%. So for 7kg, let's say 8.4kg might be discretionary.
These are published rules. They aren't sprung on you as a surprise. If you know they are enforced inconsistently, then you need to travel "at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy" i.e. carrying 7kg and not a gram more.
If you can't fit within clearly published rules then you have simple choices. You can reduce weight and increase risk by checking luggage. You can purchase additional tickets. What is unethical is to expect staff enforcing the rules not to enforce the rules. When you ask them to do so, you are actually asking them to do something unethical. And the concept of bribing a baggage wrapper to sneak additional baggage on is so horrific I am going to assume you did so in a moment of high emotional stress and thus your bribery is at least somewhat excusable.

Dr. HFH

Update: Decided that I really preferred to carry-on rather than check, so I removed the items which wouldn't pass security muster. Got to BKK, went to the premium checkin counter. Agent asked if I had anything to check; I said that I would carry on. She asked me to put my bags on the scale. "Really?" I asked. "Yes, we must weigh everyone's bags, no exceptions." She was pleasant about it, but firm. OK, I didn't argue, and on the scale they went. They weighed a total of 17 kg. together. She reached for the two gray QR paper tags to put on them, saying, "The limit is 15 kg.; but no problem as you're only 2 over."

Wow. 15 kg.? I thought that the limit was 7. At this point, I have to assume that it was some combination of my PLT status and/or traveling in J that got both the higher allowance and then the small overage being permitted. Any insight or thoughts from anyone here would be much appreciated.

ph-ndr

One thing that I find real funny is that the airlines are not consistent with what htey allow as carryon, so it isn't all down to government rules and load restrictions.

The funny part is that I have a friend, if she took three times the carryon limit, the weight of her and the carryons still wouldn't be half the weight of just me sans any carryon. (Yes, if you do that math you get to the obvious part here, I'm good with that. ), so why the airlines moan so much of these limits when the actual travellers vary as much is a bit weird.

-A

purple1addict

Dr. HFH

That clears a couple of things up for me, thanks!

IAN-UK

There are probably a few themes working here:

excess baggage revenue protection/generation. A bit short-sighted not looking at individual cases of class/total baggage or allowing discretion, but they probably like to keep it simple for contract staff at out-stations.

linking weight to volume to preserve space in lockers - bonkers but carries the same "keep it simple" idea.

concern at manipulation of heavy bags within the cabin (crew backs - passengers making a mess of placing and extracting bags, dropping them on seated passengers).

overall weight/stress on baggage lockers.



P`S better not to give them ideas about assessing passengers themselves for excess weight charges .......

Grace B

Why not? Weight is weight and it is costly...

Richard Bell

But a hand-carry bag, which is a few kgs over-the-limit, doesn't incur any baggage-handling charge until the check-in agent insists on it going into the hold, there is thus an economic-arguement in favour of the airline being lenient on carry-ons.

Also the fuel-cost-per-kg of carrying an extra couple-of-kgs is minimal, and should IMO be weighed against the marketing-effect of being hard on frequent-flyers, at a time when QR is desperately trying to maintain its business despite the blockade.

In my own case, I take minimal hold-luggage on the longer Thailand-UK journey, but do need to use the full-allowance on the slightly-shorter return-trip UK-Thailand, and it's helpful when this is informally-recongnised at check-in.

IAN-UK

right I can just imagine them asking passengers to step on the scales while checking in their bags. Then have a quiet (or not so quiet) word about being some kilos over the average passenger body-weight. So unless there's the chance of a heroic trip to the loo there'll be an excess BWC (body-weight charge) of $178.

Of course there'll be questions of total weight allowed: BWC+carry-ons+checked bags. Or maybe BWC can be assessed against pooled group weight.

Maybe even we skinny creatures will get a BWCr (body-weight credit)......

IAN-UK

Again, is it's not a weight against fuel restriction. The airline is trying to restrict on-board weight and volume. It has some excellent reasons for doing this. But it's doing it in a clunky, non-discrIminatory way at out-stations i think because that is the easiest, most simple way to give instructions to contract staff who might handle many airlines but very few of your carrier's flights.

The "my bag is inconsequential in terms of weight/fuel analysis" might be an argument to put to the check-in agent, but it's specious in broader terms. It's not just your bags: it's the aggregate.


Do you honestly think that this carries recognition at any level at all? There will be many with exactly the opposite directional weight profiles, and others carrying more or less the same kilos in both directions. I doubt QR keeps tabs on your specific baggage biography.

It might be nice if we were given weight credits for the times we're baggage-light, to set against the days we are over the limit. But I think that's not going to happen. Pity, I'd be able to carry a modestly sized elephant with me by now

IAN-UK

I checked with a friend who knows everything. Well he thinks he does, he's an engineer, and we humour him.

The cost of flying an additional kilo is in the order of cents per hour. Of course that's hedged strongly with aircraft type caveats, among many others.

So the guru says one cent an hour per kilo is a handy rule of thumb. But it's strictly marginal costing, and he points out that to be fair each additional kilo should really share in the weight cost of the infrastructure required to sustain flight and passenger comfort: I think there's hope for him morphing into an accountant ......

Grace B

Very interesting, and it does look like the accountants are running the show at QR (are they qualified?).

But it's rather a farce when anyone could wear an additional 10 kg on their person without question. What are they going to do, strip search you?

Richard Bell

I think that marginal-costing is the correct approach here, full cost-absorbtion doesn't really apply, as the whole plane will fly regardless of whether-or-not someone carries an extra kilo of carry-on. And the extra passenger generates a lot of marginal-contribution towards covering those high fixed-costs. Which is why the blockade is hurting so much, denying a lot of marginal-customers, and their revenue.

That rule-of-thumb is close to what I calculated, when I last did these calculations for-real, which is some considerable time ago.

Richard Bell

You're right of course, it's not going to happen, and yet one could perhaps make an economic-case for giving maybe a 500-Qmiles bonus, to any passenger (in any Class) who didn't check-in any hold-luggage at all ?

That might well fit simply within their existing computer-systems, for Qmiles & baggage, the saving on loading/transferring-in-Doha/unloading a couple of items, plus the fuel-saving on weight not-carried, covering the reduced-cost of the newly-devalued Qmiles awarded. And then using those Qmiles to pay for excess-baggage another time !

This must indeed form part of the calculation for airlines like British Airways, when they limit hold-luggage but extend carry-on weight, or Etihad when they offer only one hold-bag of up-to 23kgs for their cheaper fares.

And wouldn't it be nice to see QR trying something new like this, one-in-the-eye their Gulf-based competitors, especially if it were to prove popular with the SLF !

It's fun to speculate !

ph-ndr

An airline giving credits for the SLF to accomodate the airliner, QR no less? You should surely check the "sell by" date on the stuffing in the turky that you just ate?

-A