Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Products
Reload this Page >

Review: Briggs & Riley Baseline 20" Exp. Wide Body– Smart Choice for Light Travellers

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Review: Briggs & Riley Baseline 20" Exp. Wide Body– Smart Choice for Light Travellers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 31, 2014, 12:01 pm
  #181  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CLE
Posts: 1,886
Talking

Originally Posted by boltjames
I have to reiterate:

My opinion, the "crackdown" on carry-on sizes won't apply to those of us who are 'normal' travelers with reasonably sized bags and personal items. I don't think anyone is out to stop a B&R International bag and it's squared dimensions or would ask for it to go in the sizer.

This action by United is strictly so gate agents can go after the serious over-packers who stuff their carry-on's till the zippers are about to burst, have backpacks that can hold a small goat, and bring multiple old Bloomingdale's shopping bags filled with clothing. United wants these types to cut it out and, at the same time, have the leg to stand on when they throw these people back to the baggage check area where they belong.

BJ
Love the goat!
CosmosHuman is offline  
Old Apr 3, 2014, 12:54 am
  #182  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,721
Originally Posted by greg99
What I'm worried about is that while it fits in the box in two dimensions, it very definitely sticks out over the top of the sizer in the third (i.e., the width).

Greg
No, it doesn't. The only way it will stick out is if you unzip the expando zipper to increase the width from 8" to 12". But in it's normal state it fits fine.

The bigger problem for most of us (as noted in the UA thread on this topic) is that most of our "personal items" do not fit within the ridiculously small sizer. Fortunately that is rarely enforced.
Boraxo is online now  
Old Apr 7, 2014, 4:59 am
  #183  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: AFKL Platinum, LH Senator
Posts: 2
Excellent bag,own one of these as well.

Besides the weight (that can be tricky in EU from time to time), I can stow a lot in it.

Only remark I have is that the toiletry bag is not detachable but I think they revised the design and you can pop it out now.

Thesun
thesun040 is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2014, 12:36 pm
  #184  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by greg99
What I'm worried about is that while it fits in the box in two dimensions, it very definitely sticks out over the top of the sizer in the third (i.e., the width).

Greg
Originally Posted by Boraxo
No, it doesn't. The only way it will stick out is if you unzip the expando zipper to increase the width from 8" to 12". But in it's normal state it fits fine.


Boraxo, you're reading him wrong.

He is not talking about the bag depth (where one could expand it) but rather the bag width (fixed distance, east to west) for which a widebody design that isn't 14" (this B&R is 15.5") would "stick out of the top of the sizer".

BJ
boltjames is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2014, 1:37 pm
  #185  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
Originally Posted by boltjames


Boraxo, you're reading him wrong.

He is not talking about the bag depth (where one could expand it) but rather the bag width (fixed distance, east to west) for which a widebody design that isn't 14" (this B&R is 15.5") would "stick out of the top of the sizer".

BJ
Which B&R bag is shown in your photo? Looks like it fits the UA sizer exactly....
goodeats21 is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2014, 3:06 pm
  #186  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K MM, Accor Plat, Htz PC, Natl ExEm, other random status
Posts: 2,876
Originally Posted by goodeats21
Which B&R bag is shown in your photo? Looks like it fits the UA sizer exactly....
Parallax effect. It doesn't fit.

The front metal panel (with the diagram) is shorter than the one in the back.

Greg
greg99 is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2014, 3:39 pm
  #187  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by greg99
Parallax effect. It doesn't fit.

The front metal panel (with the diagram) is shorter than the one in the back.

Greg


No, both aluminum panels are the same height.

Thank you for amazing us with what you learned in high school physics, though.

BJ
boltjames is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2014, 3:41 pm
  #188  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by goodeats21
Which B&R bag is shown in your photo? Looks like it fits the UA sizer exactly....
On their Facebook page, B&R was kind enough to test all their products in the UA sizer and showed photos of those that fix in it.

https://www.facebook.com/BriggsandRiley

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1588913&type=1

The photo I posted was of their U122CX which is their best-selling bag, the 22" rolling carry on.

BJ
boltjames is offline  
Old Apr 9, 2014, 4:50 pm
  #189  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,721
Originally Posted by boltjames
On their Facebook page, B&R was kind enough to test all their products in the UA sizer and showed photos of those that fix in it.

https://www.facebook.com/BriggsandRiley

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1588913&type=1

The photo I posted was of their U122CX which is their best-selling bag, the 22" rolling carry on.

BJ
That's nice, but this thread is about the 20" bag @:-)

As for the 22" I would take my chances based on the photo. If you read the extensive thread in the UA forum, UA is looking to ding the extra long bags with the spinner wheels that don't fit nicely in the overhead, or expando bags that are stuffed too full to fit in the overhead and fail the depth test (you can't even squeeze them into the sizer).

Heve not heard of anyone being turned away whose luggage dropped nicely into the bin as shown.
Boraxo is online now  
Old Apr 9, 2014, 6:19 pm
  #190  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ATL
Programs: DL Scattered Smothered Covered Medallion, Some hotel & car stuff, Kroger Plus Card
Posts: 10,745
Originally Posted by boltjames
Originally Posted by goodeats21
Which B&R bag is shown in your photo? Looks like it fits the UA sizer exactly....
On their Facebook page, B&R was kind enough to test all their products in the UA sizer and showed photos of those that fix in it.

https://www.facebook.com/BriggsandRiley

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...1588913&type=1

The photo I posted was of their U122CX which is their best-selling bag, the 22" rolling carry on.

BJ
A bit OT, but can I just say how tickled I am that B&R took the time to do this? Talk about some nifty CS!
gooselee is online now  
Old Apr 9, 2014, 7:03 pm
  #191  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by Boraxo
That's nice, but this thread is about the 20" bag @:-)

As for the 22" I would take my chances based on the photo. If you read the extensive thread in the UA forum, UA is looking to ding the extra long bags with the spinner wheels that don't fit nicely in the overhead, or expando bags that are stuffed too full to fit in the overhead and fail the depth test (you can't even squeeze them into the sizer).

Heve not heard of anyone being turned away whose luggage dropped nicely into the bin as shown.
We know its about the 20" Baseline but the question was regarding where it "sticks out of the sizer" and the answer would be "right out of the top opening where you see the 22" Baseline barely makes it".

I own that 22" Baseline shown in the sizer photo and it works everywhere, wheels in, and makes good use of every available inch, doesn't make you compromise on interior space. That said, I lust after the 20" Baseline because I like the way it looks but I know it'll eventually get noticed by a gate agent and punted, it also doesn't fit in the aisles of certain planes and will get noticed by a flight attendant, don't need that kind of stress every flight.

That said, the thing most don't realize is that the 20" Baseline Widebody and the 22" Baseline Regularbody both have the identical cubic capacity, they hold the same amount of stuff to the milliliter, so there's no reason to risk the 20"ers extra width when we know that the 22"s normal height passes all the tests. The issue here is how these luggage companies name their products. The 22" is wrongly named the "domestic" model and the 20" is wrongly named the "international" model, so it fools people into thinking each is compliant in each location, makes you think you might need both bags. Untrue. The 20" is too wide, even for "international" flights and the 22" should be called the "domestic and international" model because that's exactly what it is.

BJ

Last edited by boltjames; Apr 9, 2014 at 7:10 pm
boltjames is offline  
Old Apr 22, 2014, 1:54 pm
  #192  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YYZ, ORD
Programs: UGS, Aeroplan dBlack
Posts: 7
Hello All,

I bought the Briggs & Riley Baseline U122CX after consulting this forum and a couple of other sites. Definitely one of the preferred out there and after doing about 75K in 2 months, I can say that it's been wonderful for my travels for 4-5 days.
I've been on long flights to Europe and small planes from Chicago or Newark to Montreal or Toronto and the bag fits in the overhead.

Admittedly, when available, all my flights are business class so there is usually not an issue with cramming your bag into the overhead. But, with priority boarding on the short flights, I've been able to get the bag into the overheard easily.

Still happy that my bag, at it's hefty price, wasn't one of them being tossed around by AC staff .

Still licking my wounds after shelling out $500 for bag. The lifetime warranty is a definite plus and I'm about to test it out on my Briggs & Riley garment bag that I've had for 8 years that needs a little adjusting.

I definitely recommend this bag and I love the small suit / shirt holder inside.
garm is offline  


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.