Bringing back the fedora bins
August 8, 2016 5:57 AM   Subscribe

"Passengers who stopped to get their hand luggage put 300 lives at risk last week, after a fire broke out on an Emirates airliner in Dubai. Luckily, everyone escaped before the plane was consumed by flames - but it could have been different. What can be done to make people leave their bags behind?"
posted by Catseye (136 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
Blame capitalism and materialism. Our lives without our stuff have no value at all.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:03 AM on August 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


I can just picture spending my last minutes of life absolutely furious at the dingbat two rows in front of my who's trying to wrestle their oversized wheeled bag out of the overhead bin as smoke fills the cabin.
posted by indubitable at 6:04 AM on August 8, 2016 [30 favorites]


Stop gouging them for the privilege of taking a bag on a trip and put them in the hold?

This is a moron's dilemma.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:05 AM on August 8, 2016 [157 favorites]


I was recently at a zoo when a sudden thunderstorm hit. A crowd was gathered watching a demonstration and was evacuated into a nearby shelter. It was awful; people were standing around blocking the doors, and once inside they stood right inside the entrance gabbing or pointing at exhibits. Meanwhile 100 people behind them are getting soaked.

Don't they still teach fire drills at school?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:07 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


What ryanshepard said. We didn't have the problems of people dragging metric tons of luggage onto the plane when you could check bags in for free.
posted by octothorpe at 6:08 AM on August 8, 2016 [26 favorites]


I really like the idea of having people not try to carry everything they could possible use on their trip into the cabin. They didn't used to. Carry on bags used to be just the stuff for the flight plus a change of underwear if you got held up. Now, during an emergency, people are trying to get the stuff that would have previously been stuck in the cargo hold, out of reach.

Some ideas:
Smaller overhead lockers with the lock, enforced size restrictions, legally banning the checked luggage fee. Maybe even shrinking the allowed size. I was thinking of saying to ban wheeled bags in the cabin, but that would hit disabled people harder than the idiots who are likely to cause this sort of panic, so I unfortunately need to leave that out.
posted by Hactar at 6:08 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Stop gouging them for the privilege of taking a bag on a trip and put them in the hold?

As someone who has traveled for business a ton, if I could favorite this 100 times, I would.
posted by prepmonkey at 6:10 AM on August 8, 2016 [20 favorites]


Actually thinking a little more, I think I have a solution. Lock the overheads and then let everyone who does not have a bag in the overhead compartment off the plane first on a normal landing. This will infuriate everyone with a bag in the overhead. The only way to not have to watch smug jerks leaving the plane without any problem is to not have a bag in the overhead.
posted by Hactar at 6:11 AM on August 8, 2016 [35 favorites]


However, a roughly equal number said that if the bins were locked, passengers would waste even more time trying to force them open.
This is exactly what I'd expect to happen.
posted by zamboni at 6:12 AM on August 8, 2016 [25 favorites]


My job requires lots of air travel. I wish I didn't have to lug my rolling office with me on to the plane, but I would lose my job if I lost my paperwork. The only reason I don't check my carry on bag plane side is because it can take 15+ minutes to get it and I frequently have just 30 minutes to get to my connecting gate. Even on international flights! But believe me, if the plane was on fire I would not be worried for one second about that stupid bag.
posted by pjsky at 6:14 AM on August 8, 2016 [12 favorites]


As I recall, folks stopped checking bags before the airlines figured out they could cut costs and reduce taxes and increase revenue with the bag fees. IOW, most fliers prefer to carry-on, probably because it's faster, and more reliable, and I don't expect elimination of the checked bag fee will have much more than marginal effect.

(I prefer to check.)
posted by notyou at 6:16 AM on August 8, 2016 [12 favorites]


Even when checking bags was free people still hauled all their shit on the plane, probably from a combination of believing it would save them time, and lack of trust in the airlines to deliver their bags safely to the proper destination.

I've always felt much more comfortable with gate checking luggage. It's probably irrational but having the bags checked that much closer to the plane seems safer. If it could work like a bus where you simply drop your bags plane side and pick them up as you exit I bet people would be much more willing to live with much less on board with them. Also, that negates lost luggage - if the plane makes it to the destination you and your luggage are still together. Might negate theft issues too as the luggage transfer happens in a very secure area, where as the luggage return carousals at most airports aren't particularly secure.
posted by COD at 6:16 AM on August 8, 2016 [10 favorites]


Yeah, add me to the chorus who think airlines are bringing this on themselves by gouging for bag fees.

I recently flew with a bag I'd have been more than happy to check, but not "willing to pay 40$ to check".
posted by corb at 6:16 AM on August 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Even when checking bags was free people still hauled all their shit on the plane, probably from a combination of believing it would save them time, and lack of trust in the airlines to deliver their bags safely to the proper destination.

Prior to the advent of bag fees, I would regularly see half-empty overhead bins, and lots of people with just a backpack or briefcase under their seat. I have never seen a less than packed bin in the last 2-3 years of travel. Bag fees have made the problem massively worse.

This will infuriate everyone with a bag in the overhead. The only way to not have to watch smug jerks leaving the plane without any problem is to not have a bag in the overhead.

Given the airlines' love of treating their customers like sucker marks or an unpleasant social engineering to be solved as cheaply as possible, this should appeal to their top brass. I'd start a consultancy and pitch it, if I were you.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:18 AM on August 8, 2016 [15 favorites]


Checking your bags comes with its own problems, too: wait around in line for 15-30 minutes to check the bags onto the plane (if you're lucky), on retrieval, the same standing around for 15-30 minutes just waiting for the conveyor for your flight to start up, another 10 minutes for your bag to actually show up. All this is assuming that they don't lose your luggage. You go through none of that if you just have it with you the whole time.
posted by indubitable at 6:19 AM on August 8, 2016 [14 favorites]


Stop gouging them for the privilege of taking a bag on a trip and put them in the hold?

But then they'd have to ensure that the baggage in the hold:
A) Gets to the destination
B) At the same time as the passenger, and
C) Without having been rifled through for valuables.
posted by TedW at 6:20 AM on August 8, 2016 [27 favorites]


Or what everyone above me just said.
posted by TedW at 6:24 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


IOW, most fliers prefer to carry-on, probably because it's faster, and more reliable, and I don't expect elimination of the checked bag fee will have much more than marginal effect.

It's hard enough for me to afford air fare as it is (which is why I only visit my family every four years and usually then when my mother pops for the air fare). I can't afford to tag on $50 to check a bag. I'm sure there are MANY in my shoes.

(I am ALWAYS willing to check at the gate for free if they say the flight is crowded and the bins will be full, which has happened the last few times I've flown. They seriously need to just suck it up and check the damn first bag free.)
posted by dlugoczaj at 6:26 AM on August 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


Having flown on American (with a checked bag fee) and Southwest (no checked bag fee) I can safely say that while there are a ton of business travelers that will still fly light with all carry-on there are a huge number of people on most flights that would be more than happy to check their bags in order to not have the stress of finding a bin (which is heavily favored towards the fliers with priority seating - i.e. business travelers). This is especially common on flights with families (yes some people still do that) and it would not only make loading and disembarking a much more efficient process but it would probably be safer for everyone.

And let's be honest you are probably wasting 20+ minutes waiting for people to find bins at the beginning of a flight and getting their bags at the end of the flight.

Having the Bins automatically lock during the flight might be an acceptable compromise but business travelers would absolutely hate it and it would punish families alot.
posted by vuron at 6:42 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Blame capitalism and materialism. Our lives without our stuff have no value at all.

I think this is a bit of an over-simplification. I mean, sure, people may well be grabbing their bags because they contain things like their phones and laptops. But for an awful lot of people those are the things that hold an awful lot of the non-material (so to speak) things they value in life as well - i.e. photos, contact details and emails (the modern equivalent of letters) etc.

Now it's easy to say "yeah but most people have those backed up / on Facebook / whatever" but that's not actually true - or at least they don't realise that they do. Any glance at a tech forum, or even Ask Meta, will highlight that.

So yeah, I can understand why they do it.
posted by garius at 6:45 AM on August 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yeah, locking the bins sounds like a non-starter. People sometimes keep things in the bins that they need access to during the flight; do you think a family of five is going to be able to fit everything they need to keep the kiddos comfortable, clean, and entertained during the flight underneath the seats? Have you SEEN a diaper bag lately?

Hmm. What if they started letting the first checked bag on for free but then instituted a nominal charge for putting a bag in the overheads? Five bucks works well around here…
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:47 AM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


This always freaked me out as a kid travelling, wondering how I would rescue my beloved softy in the event of a plane fire. I keep my passport on my body (either in a 'bumbag'or pocket) because of similar emotions.
posted by freethefeet at 6:48 AM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]



Blame capitalism and materialism. Our lives without our stuff have no value at all.


But when we're flying, we've got our possessions down to a bare minimum of necessities. "I would like not to be in a strange city without my meds, phone, wallet [many women have their wallets in their bags since women's clothes tend not to have pockets] and a change of clothes" isn't some kind of horrible capitalist thing to think. It's only too human to panic and make a stupid decision in a frightening one-off situation, of course, and none of that stuff is worth your life.
posted by Frowner at 6:49 AM on August 8, 2016 [48 favorites]


And really I think that the "get people to leave their bags behind" thing is an impossible problem to solve, or at least solve effectively enough that it would matter. It doesn't take much to clog up the aisle on an airliner, certainly not if everybody is already frantically trying to bail out as fast as possible—see the case in which 55 people died during an evacuation because passengers literally became wedged in the exits in their eagerness to escape.

What needs to happen is that the evacuation process needs to be revamped such that people can escape in a timely fashion with their bags. People are going to bring their bags and they're going to want to take them with them if they have to evacuate, and we should be focusing on routing around that because it seems really unlikely to change. What we need are wider aisles, bigger/more exit doors, and more easily-accessible baggage storage. We need to build the emergncy plan around actual human behavior, not make an unrealistic plan and then throw up our hands in exasperation when, totally predictably, it fails.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:52 AM on August 8, 2016 [29 favorites]


I travel with a giagantic carry-on bag that I am frequently praying they don't weight because it is absolutely over the weight limit. The reason my carry-on is so big and heavy is that it's full of things I need for the flight (e-reader or book, snacks, sweater cause flights are cold), an extra outfit in case my luggage gets lost, *and* everything I don't trust the airline with -- my laptop, my DSLR and extra lenses, my smaller digital camera, medication, jewelry, and anything potentially breakable, and any work-related papers or reading material that it would be a disaster to lose.

What that means is that there's no room in my carry-on for things like my clothes for the trip. So, I'm checking bags, also. This isn't a substitute for a checked bag. Not having checked bag fees would not (and does not, since I frequently travel without such fees) make my carry-on any smaller or lighter.

Now if there were a fire, I would absolutely leave it all. So yeah, lock the bins, fine. Or do a gate check so I know my suitcase got on the place and will get off the plane without passing through a million potential-loss points in between.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:57 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


But when we're flying, we've got our possessions down to a bare minimum of necessities.

What needs to happen is that the evacuation process needs to be revamped such that people can escape in a timely fashion
with their bags.


Repeated for emphasis. For most people, the checked bag (or underseat personal item) holds literally our most important items - medication, medical devices, items of great sentimental value, electronics holding essential information, etc.

Of course none of that is more important than your life but people make some pretty stupid cost-benefit decisions when such important items are involved.

I love this thread on road design for discussion on similar design principles: How Sweden's Roads Became the Safest in the World...let's create a system for the humans instead of trying to adjust the humans to the system
posted by R a c h e l at 6:57 AM on August 8, 2016 [13 favorites]


Hactar: " Carry on bags used to be just the stuff for the flight plus a change of underwear if you got held up. Now, during an emergency, people are trying to get the stuff that would have previously been stuck in the cargo hold, out of reach."

You can't check batteries. Which for me means not checking my laptop; SLR and flash; phone or ebook reader. And I sure as heck ain't checking thousands of dollars worth of glass for the SLR.

'Course I try to get an exit row whenever possible and I'd flee like a wounded bunny in an emergency. I'd be half way to the terminal in a crash landing before it would even occur to me to grab my stuff.

Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The: "locking the bins sounds like a non-starter. People sometimes keep things in the bins that they need access to during the flight;"

The proposal would only lock the bins during take off and landing and when the fasten seat belt sign was on (when people shouldn't be getting crap out of the bins anyways).
posted by Mitheral at 6:58 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Put a button somewhere accessible to the flight crew that can remotely lock the overhead storage.

"In the event of an emergency evacuation, all overhead storage will automatically lock for your safety and the safety of others."
posted by cilantro at 7:02 AM on August 8, 2016 [9 favorites]


Bluntly, I don't think there's any luggage or check policy that will fix people's innate badness at determining risk.

This is why I generally try to get a seat as close to an exit as possible.
posted by mightygodking at 7:02 AM on August 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


There is no way to get all people to make rational decisions under duress. Once someone begins to panic all the rules are out the window. So keeping people calm is probably the most effective thing to do - soothing music, soft lighting, etc. Smiles all around! Basically "this is fine."
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:04 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


From the article:
His [Patrick Smith's] preferred solution would be to re-focus pre-flight safety briefings - which so many passengers currently ignore - and to firmly emphasise just four or five bullet points, including the importance of leaving all bags behind during an evacuation.
While it OF COURSE makes sense to leave behind luggage in case of an emergency on a plane, they should put it in the safety video. I think the entire concept of leaving everything behind during an evacuation is something I thought about for literally the first time after reading about it here on Metafilter. Put it in the safety video!
posted by purpleclover at 7:06 AM on August 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Yeah Mitheral, I forgot that. Only locking the bins during takeoff, landing, and turbulence would be way less unworkable. Still a bit dehumanizing and degrading though—what, I can't be trusted with my own goddamn luggage?—but that's nothing new in air travel. I'm pretty resigned at this point to flying just getting less and less pleasant, and already I only do it when I really need/want to be somewhere and just don't have time to drive (or if it's somewhere where driving is impossible).

I can totally see people rattling the locks on the bins as the plane burns down around them, though. And if there were a way for people to be able to escape without having to abandon things like medication, identification, and valuables that would be a lot better. I mean, if your plane is burning down you're probably about to be stranded in some random city somewhere, and not having your ID or meds is going to be extra painful to deal with.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 7:07 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Of course none of that is more important than your life but people make some pretty stupid cost-benefit decisions when such important items are involved.

I was never more worried about having my luggage stolen or something happening on the flight than when I moved internationally and had to have in my hand luggage not only all my hard drives, computer, cards for all my bank accounts, but everything valuable, plus all my vital documents like birth and marriage certificates.

Not worth my life of course, but it would be complete identity loss if that bag went.

I am in the process of leaving a job for which I traveled regularly to locations where checking in luggage meant worrying about theft, bribes etc so I did carry on where possible and got that down to a fine art. I'm glad to not have to be dragging so much around in future. Again, if anything ever happened on board, I wouldn't give those bags a second thought.

On most flights I do try to keep my phone in hand during landing in case of evacuation and needing to contact someone for help.
posted by wingless_angel at 7:11 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Even when checking bags was free people still hauled all their shit on the plane, probably from a combination of believing it would save them time, and lack of trust in the airlines to deliver their bags safely to the proper destination.

Totally agree. I fit a Rickenbacker 4001 bass, in a hard case, into an overhead bin in 1982 or so. I've had to wait 5 minutes while someone tried to shove ski boots in there. This was also years before they started charging for luggage. That policy made the overhead situation worse, but it was already a madhouse.
posted by thelonius at 7:18 AM on August 8, 2016


We didn't have the problems of people dragging metric tons of luggage onto the plane when you could check bags in for free.

This seems like the reason so many people are carrying on a lot of baggage, but it really hasn't been that long since major airlines were charging a fee for checked baggage. Only since 2008. So only around eight years. Meanwhile, I did some flying in 2001 not long after the September 11 attacks, when there were extreme restrictions on what could be carried on board a flight and almost everything had to be checked, and can remember marveling at how much faster the boarding and deboarding processes were. In my experience, people have been bringing enough carry-on baggage that it made sense to be at the front of the line if you wanted to put your bag in the overhead compartment instead of under the seat since at least the mid-1980s when I started flying fairly frequently. It may be even worse now due to the imposition of checked bag fees, but it was most certainly not the case in, say, 1988 that most people were carrying on nothing more but a small bag with a change of underwear, medications and things that might be needed on the flight.
posted by slkinsey at 7:22 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


The allowance for carryon is just too much. While they're on the plane, nobody needs more than what they can stuff under the seat. Airlines should ditch the overhead bins entirely, and introduce a standard bag -- like, plastic shopping bag -- that is the only thing allowed in the passenger compartment.

*buys stock in cargo pants*
posted by Sys Rq at 7:23 AM on August 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


I moved internationally. I had some notarized copies documents sent to me later. It was EXPENSIVE to do that. Replacement of documents like passports is expensive. People do have things like that in their carry-on for a reason. They are going to grab those things for a reason.
This all reminds me so much why I hate flying. That and having to go through security. I feel for anyone whose work require flying, anyone who is traveling with children.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 7:23 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Someone just pointed me to the Fire Safety Group at Greenwich. Some really interesting stuff on evacuation modelling, human behaviour and design.
posted by Catseye at 7:24 AM on August 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Maybe don't judge people not in the first world for putting more price on their possessions than _you_ think they should.
posted by mysticreferee at 7:29 AM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Fees don't bother me one way or the other when I'm travelling on business.

However, having a 15-30 (or more) wait at the carousel at times when I'm already on a time crunch is far more prohibitive than a $20-50 checked bag fee.
posted by splen at 7:31 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


While it OF COURSE makes sense to leave behind luggage in case of an emergency on a plane, they should put it in the safety video.

It is in the safety video. At least I'm sure I've seen it. The proposal isn't "put it in the safety video" it's "remove a bunch of other stuff so the stuff that stays gets more attention.

Also, I realize that retrofitting planes is prohibitively expensive, but for new planes why not line the overhead bins in steal? It's light enough that it would be fine for flying, right? If you turn the overhead bin into a firebox (that locks at key times), people would know that their stuff isn't going to burn (ok, electronics and jewelry would melt, but deal) and they'll get it back after the fire is out they won't be so willing to kill people rather than risk having to replace their passports.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:33 AM on August 8, 2016


An account of escaping from a burning plane, by political philosopher Hans Morgenthau.
posted by russilwvong at 7:34 AM on August 8, 2016


"While they're on the plane, nobody needs more than what they can stuff under the seat. Airlines should ditch the overhead bins entirely, and introduce a standard bag -- like, plastic shopping bag -- that is the only thing allowed in the passenger compartment."

HAHAHAHAHAHA NO.

Leaving aside what a terrible idea this is, the airlines are utterly dependent on business travelers, which a policy like that would enrage.
posted by uberchet at 7:34 AM on August 8, 2016 [6 favorites]


Is there some reason business travelers couldn't check their little suitcases? Maybe even at a discount for size and/or frequency? What could they possibly need while flying that couldn't fit into a shopping bag?
posted by Sys Rq at 7:40 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Can we take a step back to say how amazing it was they evacuated that plane before it exploded? The 777 is designed to be evacuated in 90 seconds but no one believes that's realistic, whether idiots are trying to get their bags or not. A lot of previous emergency evacuations have gone poorly. Has anyone seen a reliable report on how long it took to evacuate EK521 and how long they had before people would have died in the fire?

Next time you ignore a repetitive safety briefing or think unkind thoughts towards your "sky waitress", consider that their training saves lives in the very rare incident an evacuation is needed.
posted by Nelson at 7:42 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Lesson from the Emirates fire: People who stopped and got their luggage didn't die, and the people who left it behind lost all their stuff and also had to deal with shitloads of airline paperwork.

I mean, this is what happened here, right? Sure, they're jerks, but I doubt they're regretting their actions.
posted by ryanrs at 7:43 AM on August 8, 2016 [25 favorites]


Maybe even at a discount for size and/or frequency? What could they possibly need while flying that couldn't fit into a shopping bag?

Whenever I travel on business it's less about what I need whilst flying and more about what I can't afford for the airline to leave behind in Heathrow or the handlers to accidentally lose between plane and luggage retrieval.

Basically once you've had that happen once, you tend not to make the same mistake again.
posted by garius at 7:44 AM on August 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Huh. Sounds like the solution to this is to hire somebody to sit next to the air marshall to handle this issue if it arises. Allow me to volunteer my services. My entire job description can be "conditionally stand in the aisle screaming 'LEAVE THE LUGGAGE, YOU FESTERING SHIT-GIBBONS, OR YOU ALL DIE TODAY' "

Airlines: call me!
posted by Mayor West at 7:45 AM on August 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Is there some reason business travelers couldn't check their little suitcases? Maybe even at a discount for size and/or frequency? What could they possibly need while flying that couldn't fit into a shopping bag?

You're assuming everyone accepts the premise that only things needed during the flight should be in one's carry-on. I don't accept this premise. There are good reasons other than "needed during the flight" to put things in one's carry-on, including that they are extremely valuable, they are not allowed in checked luggage, or it would be disastrous to lose them.

Furthermore, the point being made about business travellers isn't that they absolutely cannot check bags and need big carry-ons, it's that they don't want to check a bag and if one airline makes them, they will go to another airline, which will be a disaster for the airline that loses all its business travelers.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 7:46 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Half the reason for not checking baggage is time saved. I spent an hour waiting for my checked bag getting off a flight yesterday to SFO, despite the bright orange "priority" tag that's the meaningless privilege of being on a business class ticket.
posted by Nelson at 7:48 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


Is there some reason business travelers couldn't check their little suitcases?

I normally travel for business for 2 nights or less with a backpack, more than 2 nights with a roller. I could, in theory, just carry my laptop for working on the plane but as I said upthread, the problem is waiting for a checked bag. With my carry on I'm already in my car before the first bag hits the carousel most of the time.

Maybe even at a discount for size and/or frequency?

I couldn't care less about a discount, it all gets expensed.
posted by splen at 7:49 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Convenient or inconvenient, I'm guessing the solution that goes into place (if one does) will be the one calculated to cost the least, both in terms of implementation and liability.

Business passengers can scream until they're blue in the face, but I'll bet taking their business to Amtrak is a non-starter.
posted by Mooski at 7:54 AM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


If I only had a penguin: It is in the safety video. At least I'm sure I've seen it. The proposal isn't "put it in the safety video" it's "remove a bunch of other stuff so the stuff that stays gets more attention.

No, it's not. At least not in the Virgin America safety video I just watched.
posted by purpleclover at 7:57 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Explosively auto ejecting waterproof bins. Or, given that a fiver was enough to nearly cause injury in trials, a guaranteed minimum reward for evacuating without any luggage.

Seriously though, > wider aisles, bigger/more exit doors would be amazing. Take a seat out, get it to the point that two people can reasonably move past each other or a fallen person can be helped up. I know it won't happen, but the way it's almost forced to be a one-way system is disquieting even during perfectly smooth flight.
posted by lucidium at 8:00 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's in the Air Canada video.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:01 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Also, I realize that retrofitting planes is prohibitively expensive, but for new planes why not line the overhead bins in [steel]? It's light enough that it would be fine for flying, right? If you turn the overhead bin into a firebox (that locks at key times), people would know that their stuff isn't going to burn

And while we're at it, why is it that they don't just make the whole airplane out of black box material???
posted by indubitable at 8:02 AM on August 8, 2016 [10 favorites]


Business passengers can scream until they're blue in the face, but I'll bet taking their business to Amtrak is a non-starter.

...unless they're outside the US, where rail is a genuine competitor in many countries and territories ("do I Eurostar or fly?" is a genuine travel question for me, for example).
posted by garius at 8:04 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


I'm flying today. I'm actually leaving for the airport in about ten minutes. (I'm running ahead! It's some kind of miracle!)

I don't give a shit about the rolling bag that I'm going to put in the overhead. Literally: I would be upset if it disappeared, because it would cost money to replace all that stuff, but in the event that there's a plane crash, I'm sure that will be the last thing on my mind. I would ditch it in an instant. But I think I would take a second and reach for the bag that will be under my seat. It has my medications in it. It has my glasses and contacts in it, which is a big deal. (I am extremely nearsighted and have a complicated prescription and some other eye problems, which means that I wear daily disposable contacts. If I leave my glasses and contacts behind, I'm not going to be able to see after the end of the day, when the contacts I'm wearing expire. I know lots of people are wondering what the big deal is, and I can only say that I think my vision is probably worse than yours is. And I would try to reuse my contacts, but they tear pretty easily, so that might not work.) It has my phone and my ID. It's probably irrational, but I don't think I would leave that stuff behind.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:05 AM on August 8, 2016 [13 favorites]


Wow, whoever is in charge of regulating these things needs to ban that Virgin safety video. People who aren't native English speakers will have a much harder time getting the lyrics than they would understanding a video spoken clearly. The point here is to convey information, not to be cool. I get it that you can't convey information unless people pay attention, but I'm not sure have-more-people-pay-attention is worth the trade-off of have-more-people-not-catch-everything.

And while we're at it, why is it that they don't just make the whole airplane out of black box material???

It's too heavy and too expensive and given that the plane is much larger (square-cube law etc.) it might not actually work. I think cecil what's his name did a thing on this once. Also maybe the Salon ask-a-pilot series.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:06 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is why I always keep my most important items -- passport, wallet, phone -- right with me so in case of emergency I could stuff them in my bra. Everything else is replaceable, but those are likely to be really important very quickly. But who knows what I would actually do in an actual panic.
posted by jeather at 8:08 AM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Convenient or inconvenient, I'm guessing the solution that goes into place (if one does) will be the one calculated to cost the least, both in terms of implementation and liability.
Business passengers can scream until they're blue in the face, but I'll bet taking their business to Amtrak is a non-starter.


Ok, easiest solution - every carry on item aside from what fits under the seat in front of you is $20 bucks. Who does that inconvenience, the business traveller or the family of 5?
posted by splen at 8:08 AM on August 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


But I think I would take a second and reach for the bag that will be under my seat. It has my medications in it.

All it takes is a second to cause a traffic jam. Witness all the studies of actual traffic jams where each person slowing down a few seconds worth to look at an accident causes the road to back up for miles and miles. I get you have good reasons for wanting these things. Maybe put them in a fanny pack or wear your (very small) purse on the flight...just have the strap worn across your body and tuck the purse between your hip and the armrest.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:10 AM on August 8, 2016


Yeah, no, I'm not wearing a fanny pack for the 1 in a million possibility that something will happen on the flight.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:14 AM on August 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


There are good reasons other than "needed during the flight" to put things in one's carry-on, including that they are extremely valuable, they are not allowed in checked luggage, or it would be disastrous to lose them.

I flew a few months ago, on a small plane, for a short flight (Rochester, NY - Boston). There was an option where you could "check" your carryon bags at planeside. Since my carryon was items that I did not need during the flight but did not want to leave to the mercy of counter checking, it was a perfect solution for me.

Maybe that could be a thing for longer flights.
posted by Lucinda at 8:16 AM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


Ok, easiest solution - every carry on item aside from what fits under the seat in front of you is $20 bucks.

I'm thinking that putting a price tag on items placed in the carry-on bin doesn't solve the problem of people trying to get items out of those bins in an emergency.
posted by Mooski at 8:17 AM on August 8, 2016


If the airlines want people to stop carrying so much stuff on the planes, they need to adopt a different policy for checked luggage than "we will steal it or break it, you will have no recourse, and we will not be sorry."
posted by KathrynT at 8:23 AM on August 8, 2016 [44 favorites]


Frontier charges for every overhead bin item. You get your coat and an under-seat bag for free, and that's it, unless you have a medical reason for your baggage. This was publicized at booking. They really did enforce it at the gate, oversize carry-ons were seriously $100 to gate-check with no other options, and it was the best flight I ever took in terms of boarding and leaving quickly.

I would personally remove overhead bins and cargo checking entirely, and just offer gate-checking. Cargo-checking clearly does not work if people are going to these lengths to avoid it. Maybe give you an RFID keyfob that matches up to your gate-checked bag, just for security. Consider offering a cargo-shipping service for people moving, similar to what Greyhound does with packages, but obviously with higher security.
posted by blnkfrnk at 8:25 AM on August 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Make it legal to murder someone for trying to grab their luggage during an emergency evacuation. Done.
posted by aramaic at 8:28 AM on August 8, 2016


Wait, there are Safety Videos?!
posted by evilDoug at 8:34 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


I would personally remove overhead bins and cargo checking entirely, and just offer gate-checking. Cargo-checking clearly does not work if people are going to these lengths to avoid it.

Again, I think only some of the people with big carry-ons are doing it to avoid cargo-checking. Lots of those people have checked bags, too. And having gate-check only would be a disaster for many people -- on international flights, I frequently travel with two or three (yes, you pay for the extra one) giant hockey bags stuffed to the gills so tight that you need straps wrapped around them to prevent the zippers from bursting. And of course family members who each have 2 or 3 such bags of their own. So gate check only? We're supposed to A) Get our bags through security to the gate B) Carry them around everywhere until flight time, C) Get them down the jet bridge and then hand them over to the gate check person. While sitting in the jet bridge by the plane they will block the path of everyone trying to get on the plane. Then someone is going to have to take them down the stairs that lead from the jet bridge to the cargo opening in the plane. Then when we arrive, someone has to get them up the stairs back to the jet bridge and we do the whole thing over again in reverse.

Of course, now someone is going to say "Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to take giant hockey bags that big and heavy at all, etc. etc." But that will be someone who is assuming (like the people arguing that you should only bring on what you need on the plane, that everyone should have to check everything etc. etc.) that everyone's travel situations, purposes, and needs are like there own. People travel for all sorts of reasons, to all sorts of places, and have many different needs. You can't assume that something that would work fine for your travel needs is therefore fine for everyone else and anyone who wants different is just entitled and unreasonable.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:36 AM on August 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Oh, and everyone else on the flight has two or three overstuffed hockey bags, too. So really we'd be talking about gatechecking hundreds of bags that occupy more space than the passengers themselves. Great idea.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:38 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


I love to travel light. There's something about efficiency in packing and freedom of movement that I love. And the past experience that half of what I've packed never got taken out of the suitcase. Plus, if there's something you need or forgot, you have a reason to buy something or ask someone at your destination. Checking one bag that I can carry myself and walking onto the plane with my phone in my pocket and a pair of headphones makes flying a joy. At this point, both of my kids are wheeling their own bags and walking on with iPads.

Now at $40 per person each way X 4 family members, a weekend trip to visit the Grandparents costs an extra $320 plus fucking tax. Even for someone who absolutely would prefer the convenience of checking and is completely careless about spending money for convenience, there's just no way. yes, there is the sneaky "get to the gate and volunteer to check your bag for free because the flight is full" but I've already carried 2 kids and four bags across the airport, and at some point they'll start charging for this anyway because of course this is what everyone is doing now

In conclusion, the first airline to come up with the slogan "We're not assholes!" will get my business every time.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 8:46 AM on August 8, 2016


But why is it hockey-bag sized? If you knew you only got the one under-seat bag and could gate check a rolly-bag, why would you not plan for that?

Would your behavior not change to either avoid flying, do laundry or buy clothes when you get there, or ship stuff ahead?
posted by blnkfrnk at 8:46 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


The best solution is the following:

1)Don't charge for checked baggage unless it exceeds a weight limit.
2)Allow for 1 bag carry-on at zero cost
3)Second carry on costs whatever.
4)Give people the ability to do wavers for life safety or families traveling with children.

That way business travelers can do their attache or backback and then they get charged for their big massive garment bag or massive roadwarrior carry-on. They are going to pay the costs regardless because they don't want the inconvenience of checked baggage and are afraid of lost or stolen items.

I honestly don't have a lot of sympathy for people that feel like they have to carry on everything because it would get lost or stolen otherwise. If it's that important to you it seems like you should be willing to pay extra.
posted by vuron at 8:47 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


Overhead laptops not the only baggage on that flight, it seems.

Emirates crash-landing incident brings to light the deep-rooted racism against Indians

As ever, don't read the comments.
posted by chavenet at 8:47 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


I use overhead bins on some trips (short ones, usually) and cargo checking on others (long ones or ones where I am travelling with an overpacker). But you will never gate-check my bag -- if I have only carry-on, it has electronics or jewelry or both in it.
posted by jeather at 8:48 AM on August 8, 2016


But you will never gate-check my bag -- if I have only carry-on, it has electronics or jewelry or both in it.

True. When I gate-checked my bag, it had roller derby gear in it (which would not be very useful on a flight - though I could've crashed through people trying to get their overhead bin stuff with ease).

And for those who sneered at fanny packs - I have one of these and it holds SO MUCH without making me look like a tourist stereotype.
posted by Lucinda at 8:55 AM on August 8, 2016 [4 favorites]


Lesson from the Emirates fire: People who stopped and got their luggage didn't die, and the people who left it behind lost all their stuff and also had to deal with shitloads of airline paperwork.

People who lost their stuff eventually get all brand new replacement stuff worth the same or more than what they lost. People who took their stuff have their same old stuff.

That difference doesn't really favor the people who took their stuff except for people who may have kept some sentimental attachments.
posted by srboisvert at 8:55 AM on August 8, 2016


Is luggage theft by airlines a significant problem? I thought the TSA guys take all the good stuff before handing it off.
posted by ryanrs at 8:56 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


But why is it hockey-bag sized? If you knew you only got the one under-seat bag and could gate check a rolly-bag, why would you not plan for that? Would your behavior not change to either avoid flying, do laundry or buy clothes when you get there, or ship stuff ahead?

See, you're assuming everyone travels as you do for the reasons you do to places like you do etc. In fact, I carry very little clothes for myself to wear though often going for a month. You're assuming I'm going somewhere where it's easy to buy clothes (as opposed to somewhere where clothing sold is either prohibitively expensive or crappy quality and so we are carrying clothes as gifts for 50+ family members). You're assuming there are reliable and affordable shipping options (as opposed to situations where shipping is so expensive that you might actually be flying for the purpose of being your own courier because it's cheaper and if you ship you always run the risk of your package never arriving or its arriving with contents missing).

How exactly would "plan for it" if you could only take one rolly-bag, other than completely undermining both your ability to travel and the purpose of your travel?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:57 AM on August 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


srboisvert: up to $460 (or did Emirates refund more than their carriage agreement promises?)
posted by ryanrs at 8:57 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


I fly constantly for business - 3-5 day trips. I used to always check my bag and carry my work bag (messenger bag with laptop etc) on. I lost so much time every trip and my checked bag itself so many times at great inconvenience that I have - wherever possible - refused to check anything. It costs me a minimum of one hour per trip (each leg of the trip) if I check a bag because without it I can check in online, walk straight to security and to my gate. No need to go to or wait at the airline counter at all. When I arrive at the other end I walk straight to the rental car counter (or , more likely, straight to the car with Hertz Gold or similar). No need to wait there either.

If I am without my clothes in a work trip, I am usually far enough away from the airport that getting my lost bag back to me takes at least 24 hours. Which is insane. I also have branded team gear I need to wear, which can't be just bought. So then I have to carry a change of clothing, plus rain jacket, extra fleece, long trousers etc. So If I'm carrying a third of my stuff anyway, why would I pay to check the rest of it and spend an hour waiting for it?

Gate check is the answer, for me. Checked bags should be free for the first bag, gate check should also be free, but part of the carry on restricted sizes. You can take one (small) bag on the plane, everything else gets gate checked (one current carry on size), anything extra gets checked. I'm not sure how that doesn't work for everyone.
posted by Brockles at 9:04 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


And for those who sneered at fanny packs - I have one of these and it holds SO MUCH without making me look like a tourist stereotype.

Those are not horrible.

My husband tends to be the carry-on type as he likes to fly as lightly as possible (even when we are in the UK for nearly two weeks) and I try to be. I have no bad luck checking my bags, but the wait for them at the carousel is tedious. My purse or backpack is what I carry on a plane: passport, phone, phone charger, wallet, any documents I need. I am lucky in that I require no medications or anything like that. I have sympathy for those whose plane journeys are much harder.
posted by Kitteh at 9:08 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, also: I always carry my phone and passport in my pocket when on the plane. Because they are really the only things I absolutely wouldn't leave on the plane if I had to get off in an emergency. I'd be totally fine with locked overhead storage, but removing half of the stuff in there to a (more efficient) gate check system would be preferable.
posted by Brockles at 9:14 AM on August 8, 2016



And for those who sneered at fanny packs - I have one of these and it holds SO MUCH without making me look like a tourist stereotype.


The point isn't whether it looks dorky, the point is "are you actually going to be wearing it at all times, or are you going to take it off when you're on the plane because it's way more comfortable that way?"

It could be styled by Louis Vuitton; I bet you're still gonna take it off when you're on the plane because the combination of airport seatbelt + fanny pack = something digging into your stomach, and you want to be comfortable as you can get in those tiny seats. So - you're going to take it off and put it under the seat in front of you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:24 AM on August 8, 2016


Oh, also: I always carry my phone and passport in my pocket when on the plane.
Women's clothes don't really facilitate doing that, though.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:25 AM on August 8, 2016 [7 favorites]


Women's clothes don't really facilitate doing that, though.

QFT. There is an indie clothing company out of Toronto called Encircled that designs women's traveling clothes that can be worn different ways so as to minimize packing. (It is female-owned.) Their stuff ain't cheap, but I did save up and sprung for one of their dresses and holy shit that thing has proper pockets.

(So yes, before I get castigated: not everyone can afford their clothes--I had to save up for what I have from them. But I like that someone out there is thinking about versatile travel clothes for women that have pockets. I wish more people would so the price would come down.)
posted by Kitteh at 9:33 AM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


When I fly, which is usually at least a couple of times a year, I have two carry-ons, one that I keep under the seat in front of me, one that I keep in the overhead bin. The one under the seat in front of me has on many occasions contained medications that keep me alive.

The one in the overhead bin contains medical equipment that keeps me alive.

I get that this conflicts with tidy moral absolutes, but sometimes possessions are worth your life. It's possible that I could replace those things before the lack of them killed me, even if stranded in a strange country with no immediate means to pay for them. It's also possible I could retrieve them both quickly enough to not dramatically impact everyone's chances of survival.

Not sure which choice I'd make under the circumstances faced in this situation, but it isn't as obvious a choice for me as complete strangers might assume, and it has nothing to do with capitalism and materialism.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:46 AM on August 8, 2016 [11 favorites]


Women's clothes don't really facilitate doing that, though.

There are many items of clothing for all genders that have pockets. I fail to see how wearing something with a hint of practicality for travelling is a burden. It's travelling in a metal box, not a fashion parade.
posted by Brockles at 10:04 AM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


People who lost their stuff eventually get all brand new replacement stuff worth the same or more than what they lost.
… up to a low threshold set in the contract and, no doubt, extensive proof required that it contained anything worth more than old t-shirts. When someone at SFO stole my bag, the airline first tried to pretend that having the checked bag code didn't even prove that I'd checked it in the first place and then wanted receipts for every item so they could estimate depreciation on a very aggressive schedule.

This is the main problem with restricting carry-on luggage. As a bunch of people have pointed out, it'd require them to get serious about bag theft - billions in security theater later and they don't even reliably have CCTV coverage! - but beyond that you have a major problem because it'd be completely impractical to inventory and assess every bag and fraud would definitely be attempted routinely.
posted by adamsc at 10:05 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


There are many items of clothing for all genders that have pockets. I fail to see how wearing something with a hint of practicality for travelling is a burden. It's travelling in a metal box, not a fashion parade.

In my field people traveling for job interviews are often picked up at the airport by the interviewer. Not that they would expect you to be in a full on suit (unless you were going to straight to the workplace -- usually you arrive the night before and interviewer takes you to the hotel, but sometimes you'd go straight to the interview), but you would definitely want to be professionally dressed.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 10:11 AM on August 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


Maybe I don't have enough money to buy special big-pocketed clothing that is useful only for travelling on an airplane. Women don't choose to buy primarily pocketless clothing just for kicks.
posted by jeather at 10:13 AM on August 8, 2016 [11 favorites]


I can chime in as a committed one-bagger: this year I did a 6-day international trip with only a single carry-on bag[*] small enough to fit under the seat in front of me. (Yes, it fits even on the dinky turboprops that serve my home airport.) If I had 2 carry-ons, I'd have no qualms about ditching the larger one, but with a single one that has everything (including my laptop!) right there at my feet, I'd be sorely tempted.

Yes, that probably makes me part of the problem.

Would I have the discipline to just pick out my phone and passport and evacuate? Or would I want to pick up my laptop too? Everything else can be trivially replaced - clothes, shoes, toiletries, papers, a book - and there is no way I wouldn't have my phone and passport on me already. But I'd probably suffocate in the smoke and die while thinking about whether to take the laptop or not.

[*] Tom Bihn Tri-Star
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:20 AM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


(Of course, ultralight only works when I'm traveling alone on an academic work trip. No extra formal clothes, at most one extra pair of shoes, and absolutely no kids stuff. If I travel with kids - no way. I'm in awe of the single parents who are able to manage three kids on a trip.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:22 AM on August 8, 2016


I can't afford to tag on $50 to check a bag. I'm sure there are MANY in my shoes.

Man, those are some big shoes.
posted by flabdablet at 10:23 AM on August 8, 2016


I feel like I should at least mention that unlike a lot of US airlines, Emirates actually doesn't charge checked-in baggage fee as long as it's under 30kg (Economy) and regardless of the number of luggage. The other international airline that's similarly generous is KLM, but it's 2 pieces of luggage at 23kg max per piece.

idk I felt a lot of the discussion so far could benefit having that fact stated. So, in light of the generous check-in baggage rule, why is it that the passengers were still like so?
posted by cendawanita at 11:35 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


in light of the generous check-in baggage rule, why is it that the passengers were still like so?

Fear of the airlines losing their luggage. That's actually the reason I try to travel with just a carryon myself.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:38 AM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


What can be done to make people leave their bags behind?

First, you create little safety chutes that allow the baggage a quick ride to the ground from the outside of the plane during an emergency. Then, you have the storage compartments open automatically with little blinking signs inside that say, "Don't worry, your baggage is safe and waiting for you outside. Now get thee to the door." When you go outside, airline personnel would tag each bag with a tracker and hand it to you personally based on your seat location, with a complimentary bag of peanuts.

Ha ha ha, complimentary bag of peanuts. I kill me.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:38 AM on August 8, 2016


in light of the generous check-in baggage rule, why is it that the passengers were still like so?
As mentioned, checking baggage is a considerable time suck. Also, they lose stuff pretty often.
posted by Brockles at 11:39 AM on August 8, 2016


"Is there some reason business travelers couldn't check their little suitcases?"

Nice job minimizing the other view there, boyo.

Pro travelers carry on for two main reasons: time and reliability.

If you fly 3 times a year, you don't mind losing 30-60 minutes on each flight to bag-related queuing, and you're unlikely to get hosed by delayed or lost baggage.

If you fly 5 times a month, the time adds up, and so do the odds of the airline fucking up and losing or misrouting your bag.

Fortunately, there is essentially zero chance the airlines will take a step like this that would be so universally unpopular with business travelers, so this kind of thought experiment is happily confined to Internet threads.

"People who lost their stuff eventually get all brand new replacement stuff worth the same or more than what they lost."

That's not how insurance works.
posted by uberchet at 11:41 AM on August 8, 2016 [8 favorites]


I still think there's an angle here that we're missing. That link about the racism encountered by the Indian passengers has more of a clue. But I'm following the discussion with interest; I'm also thinking that the checked-in baggage is a misdirect, because most ppl pick Emirates BECAUSE of the check-in allowance.
posted by cendawanita at 11:42 AM on August 8, 2016


And Emirates, at least in Dubai during transfers, are generally quick and efficient with the handling. Tbh, my worst experience with baggage handling (in terms of speed; lost luggage is a crapshoot globally) is in N.America and Europe.
posted by cendawanita at 11:44 AM on August 8, 2016


I'm also thinking that the checked-in baggage is a misdirect, because most ppl pick Emirates BECAUSE of the check-in allowance.

I think you'd be surprised by how few people actually have the luxury of picking and choosing their airlines, though. Most often in my travel and the travel I book for other people (particularly and mostly in the US, but also back when I was booking Euro travel) the schedule and end points dictate the airline. Maybe a choice of two. But more often than not, if you want to get somewhere in a certain time window, your airline is chosen for you by your schedule.
posted by Brockles at 11:47 AM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, I completely agree on those factors. And back to the original speculation that's more general, sure, let's talk about discussing passenger behaviours. But this particular region where this flight was operating in is lousy with Emirates options, due to migrant worker population and geographical proximity (Dubai makes a better transfer point for a lot of Asia vis-a-vis Europe), plus the cutthroat pricing.
posted by cendawanita at 11:51 AM on August 8, 2016


(and when I say options, I also include codesharing ones too, where inevitably it's an Emirates plane)
posted by cendawanita at 11:53 AM on August 8, 2016


I've flown on Emirates economy in and out of Dubai. People were checking a ton of big items (e.g. TVs) and then cramming way too much stuff in the overheads as well. One woman had claimed two bins and was ready to fight people for them. As well as baggage a lot of people had brought their own food on and were serving each other. The seating was even more cramped than is usual for economy and had 10 across. If you were going to have trouble getting people off an airplane quickly, an Emirates economy cabin flying into Dubai would be my top bet.

This story really makes me think how important it is to have the useful stuff in my pockets, because if the shit hits the fan I am grabbing my kid and heading straight for the exit anyway.
If your clothes lack pockets, have a small bag you keep on you with that stuff.
posted by w0mbat at 12:22 PM on August 8, 2016


I have a laundry list of medical issues, and so my carryon and shoulder bag are always filled to the brim mostly with medical supplies. They have to be with me on the plane in case of emergency, even though those emergencies hardly ever happen. Only once have I needed to get something out of my wheeled bag in the overhead bin, but things could have turned really nasty really fast if I hadn't been able to get it. I'm sure my doctor wouldn't mind writing a note to that effect for me to show the flight attendant, but I think that might be against the ADA or something. Even if it's not, I'm sure a lot of people's doctors would be ready to do the same thing.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:33 PM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


(And no, I don't carry that many medical supplies around with me every day. But you can't stop at a drugstore when you're miles in the air, or nip home for a third set of supplies if the backup in your purse goes bad.)
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:37 PM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


I am sympathetic to medical concerns and needs in luggage, but a fire is a DIRE emergency on a plane. Getting out is priority #1 and not being an obstacle to others should be part of that. Get out first and worry about the rest later. It scares me so much to think my life depends on whether dozens of people are going to block my exit for their possessions that they may not use anyway, because we all perished. I would be very happy if airlines would take this more seriously and do away with overhead bins completely.
posted by agregoli at 12:45 PM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


I would be very happy if airlines would take this more seriously and do away with overhead bins completely.

That wouldn't solve it, it would just result in people pulling their belongings out from under the seat in front of them, which isn't necessarily faster, and unless it's a window seat, still blocks people (not to mention how carrying the bag out causes congestion). I sometimes stuff my giant rolly under the seat because my feet don't reach the floor and I like to pull it out and put my feet on it in flight. Getting it out of there is harder than getting it out of the overhead bin.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:49 PM on August 8, 2016


I can chime in as a committed one-bagger: this year I did a 6-day international trip with only a single carry-on bag[*] small enough to fit under the seat in front of me. (Yes, it fits even on the dinky turboprops that serve my home airport.) If I had 2 carry-ons, I'd have no qualms about ditching the larger one, but with a single one that has everything (including my laptop!) right there at my feet, I'd be sorely tempted.

Is grabbing a small bag that you keep on or near your person actually a problem? I too carry the genuinely important stuff in a regular-size backpack which I could grab in seconds (if it wasn't already in my lap) and I don't think it would occur to me not to. The stuff in the overhead bin is probably among the least important of all my possessions and it can burn. Not saying that works for everybody, but is even that considered unsafe?
posted by atoxyl at 12:51 PM on August 8, 2016 [2 favorites]


It is absolutely faster for people to take what's in front of them then find their stuff and wrestle it out of an overhead bin. I don't accept your premise.
posted by agregoli at 12:53 PM on August 8, 2016


My premise is that what's in front of *me* generally requires wrestling, too. I can assure you this is a true statement not speculation. I have a full-size roller bag. It doesn't bend and my seat and the seat in front of me are very close together, which means that sliding it under the seat in front of me (or out), requires an elaborate in and out, back in, a little further out etc. routine, akin to parallel parking in a tight spot. And of course I can't be standing between the two seats when it happens, but have to either be in a further-in seat or out in the aisle.

Now I realize that this isn't true of everyone's bag and lots of people keep a little pouch or something in front of them, not a full-size roller bag. However, (this part is speculation), I think if you removed overhead bins more people would react by shoving giant rolly-bags under seats than by bringing only a small bag on board. In the event of an evacuation, people trying to un-jam bags from under seats would be as bad an idea as people pulling bags from overhead.

I'm sympathetic to people with life and death medical needs, but other than "attached to your person when the evacuation order happens", there's no way to take your bag with you and not cause delay. Now maybe if 5 people on the plane have medical needs it doesn't end up being a big deal, but if everyone defines their I-need-this-for-my-presentation or it's-a-bitch-to-replace-a-passport need as urgent enough to risk everyone's life, then there's going to be a problem no matter where their bags are.

My second premise is that we know that people taking "a second can" create traffic jams that delay people for a very very long time, not just a second, or even a second * the number of people in front of them. I don't know if this is true in airplane evacuation scenarios, but I know it's the case in other kinds of traffic (like cars). So "it just takes a second" doesn't make it a good idea.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 1:35 PM on August 8, 2016 [1 favorite]


I do wonder how much of this problem would go away if governments passed a law that airlines had to fully insure/replace anything in lost luggage. It isn't like the airport doesn't have a full x-ray of everything in there anyway to prove you had a laptop, etc in there.

Another idea might be a container at the front for medicines that the crew remove with them. Not much point of surviving the crash if you die of lack of insulin or whatever.

Also: I remember when everyone showed up with a suitcase, and it was easy to get a backpack in the overhead bin. Ever since they started charging more and more for luggage it has been harder and harder to find space in the overhead bins for my backpack/laptop.
posted by Canageek at 4:25 PM on August 8, 2016


In the next five weeks I will be in four different countries. I will not check a bag.

I would not grab my bag, especially not from the overhead, but I hold no illusions that I would recoup the cost. My overhead bag alone would eat up most of the obligated reimbursement, not even thinking about the contents. But for me nothing there is irreplaceable.

Also rather than whining at women whose clothing doesn't have pockets, how about those of you so inclined whine at the asshat clothing manufacturers who don't make women's business wear with pockets? I love pockets. I hate that so many clothes made for my body don't have them (or have fake/useless ones). But they don't.

I do not check a bag because the extra waiting time for the number of flights I do in a year would eat up too much time. But I also do not check because whenever I have/want to reroute during transit, the first question is "do you have checked bags" and if you answer yes, then your options are strongly limited. (No standby on an earlier flight, eg). Yes, I would avoid an airline that wouldn't let me take carryon.

On the other hand, I would love an airline that made it easy for all people who are willing to check to do so. Although that may not have been a factor here, it might have been in other evacuations (definitely have seen photos of people with luggage who have escaped other plane emergencies).
posted by nat at 4:51 PM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


It may be too late in the thread, but we got a whole school of herrings red.

First the check-in fee: Emirates does not have one. Neither does any international airline I have ever taken.

Next, the assumption that this is a check-in vs carry-on issue. Be assured that most of these passengers are carrying *both*, over and beyond their official limits (many airlines give you a bit of leeway). Note that this means taking a full load for each for their children.

Third: The most relevant link in the whole thread is that TOI article. The important part is in this quoted twitter thread (read upto the 'fin'). If anything he is understating it a bit. I don't think my dad would leave a burning plane without his passport and immigration stuff unless *he* was on fire.

And a final note to the people saying everyone's insured, you can always buy new stuff etc. Please understand that you are in a different world of privilege from these passengers (read that twitter!).

my first comment and I get to use the p word already.
posted by tirutiru at 5:11 PM on August 8, 2016 [11 favorites]


Let's also talk about landing protocols being an issue here.

If I'm leaving the plane, I need my medication and my ID. I'd also (in an ideal world) like to be carrying my electronics (maybe, at minimum, a backup hard drive). Fortunately, there's an easy solution to this -- I have a purse! It doesn't hold everything I'd like to be carrying, but it does hold a decent amount. And it sits on my lap easily.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to hold my purse on my lap while the plane is landing. It has to go under my feet. Which means that I would lose valuable time during the plane crash grabbing the bag, instead of having it ready to go the instant the plane touches the ground.

That said, if you need to take your stuff from the storage compartment, then, for the love of God, wait until everyone else is off.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 6:22 PM on August 8, 2016


Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I'm not allowed to hold my purse on my lap while the plane is landing.

You're not allowed to have it on your lap (because it could go flying, create a trip hazard, block your ability to adopt the brace position, presumably), but I've never had any problem keeping it on (strap across the body, purse next to me, tucked on the seat between me and the wall or armrest).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:45 PM on August 8, 2016


Let me also repeat, we're not avoiding checking our bag because of the recent charges. It's nothing new; I recall a WSJ article about this issue from the late 1980s which featured
a) an anecdote about someone stashing a croquet set in the overhead, which popped open mid-flight, and a mallet fell out, hitting a passenger in the head, and
b) a very amusing drawing of passengers going up a pre-jetway stairway for boarding, carrying objects like totem poles and palm trees.

I would would prefer enforcement of carry-on size. Those big wheeled suitcases should not be allowed in the overhead bins. One carry-on per passenger, and please get rid of this undefined 'personal item' stuff.
posted by Rash at 7:32 PM on August 8, 2016


Is grabbing a small bag that you keep on or near your person actually a problem?

Some commenters in this thread seem to think so....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:35 PM on August 8, 2016


Like others, I'd be tempted to grab my underseat backpack. I always fly window, so I normally have to stand and wait for the people next to me to clear first anyway, and it contains several thousand dollars in electronic equipment that the airline isn't going to cover. Though I'm afraid enough of fire that adrenaline may overcome that impulse.

Trying to open overhead bins is pretty nuts, though the linked tweetstorm does make it understandable.
posted by tavella at 8:34 PM on August 8, 2016


As someone who usually sits in a bulkhead seat or extended exit section (basically, there is a huge open space in front of the row of seats, with an exit door and restrooms and crew seating), I'd point out that not everyone can keep things under the seat in front of them (because there isn't one). You're not allowed to hold a bag either (basically, you could hold a book/phone/etc but thats about it until takeoff).

Last year I had lost luggage on 3 different flights, and while I got it back eventually it was lost for 4 days in one case. If you're on a short trip, that means you'll go back before you even get your luggage, which they now have to fly back to your origin...
posted by thefoxgod at 8:39 PM on August 8, 2016


I'm surprised there was no violence against those people getting stuff from an overhead bin. If the plane has crashed and I see flames and smoke, my laptop is going to be turned into a face clubbing machine if the person in front of me starts screwing with the overhead bins instead of exiting.
posted by Iax at 9:22 PM on August 8, 2016 [5 favorites]


So much of modern plane procedures have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with not getting sued and saving fuel. When I fly cargo in military planes, we are still pretty safe - and great at exiting. Jump seats are on the outside of the airplane, and you just leave out of your own seat without tripping over other people to evacuate.

The way modern passenger jets are designed are like factories pre-Triangle Fire.
posted by corb at 10:42 PM on August 8, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm sure my doctor wouldn't mind writing a note to that effect for me to show the flight attendant, but I think that might be against the ADA or something. Even if it's not, I'm sure a lot of people's doctors would be ready to do the same thing.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 2:33 PM on August 8


I have written letters of medical necessity many times for my boss-doctors' patients, either for medical devices that set off airport scanners, or for liquid dietary aids like Ensure that are over the liquid allowance for the plane but are the only nutrition some of our oncologic patients can have.
posted by joannemerriam at 9:45 AM on August 9, 2016


corb: " Jump seats are on the outside of the airplane"

I think I'll continue to transact with airlines that allow me to sit inside the plane.
posted by Mitheral at 11:04 AM on August 9, 2016 [6 favorites]


Hahah! Sorry, I mean, on the inside of the outside wall. So...


[s _________ s]
[e _________ e]
[a _________ a]
[t _________ t]
[s _________ s]
posted by corb at 11:15 AM on August 9, 2016


Sitting inside the plane costs extra these days.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:21 AM on August 9, 2016 [2 favorites]


"Thank you for boarding so respectfully. Everyone must watch this episode of National Geographic/BBC's Air Disasters. Now that you see the real consequences of your choices, listen to the people trying to bloody save you. Again, thank you (cheesy fake grin).
Humans are sheeples.
posted by beckybakeroo at 7:26 PM on August 9, 2016


All you people griping about those of us who take our luggage onboard - yeah, I'm guessing you've never had the delightful experience where the airline ruins your vacation by losing your checked bag, leaving you stuck in some faraway place without so much as a change of clothes. If you're rich and you're in a place where they sell clothes that suit you maybe that's not a problem, you just go buy more. But I'm not rich. And apparently I'm not so bright, because I had to have that experience three times before I wised up. Now, if I care about having it on the other end of the flight, I bring it in a carry-on; and if I don't care about having it, well, why bother bringing it?

You'd have to pay me to convince me to check my luggage.
posted by crotchety old git at 1:53 AM on August 10, 2016 [4 favorites]


Oh yeah. They lost my luggage and someone else's going to the RNC, and I was just glad I wore a dress on the plane, because that was all I had to wear for three days. When asked, they said "we don't track the luggage, so we don't know where it is." Why can't they just throw a Tile on it and have their baggage handlers equipped to receive?
posted by corb at 7:07 AM on August 10, 2016 [3 favorites]


PHL strikes again!
posted by indubitable at 8:41 AM on August 10, 2016


> Why can't they just throw a Tile on it and have their baggage handlers equipped to receive?

Well, they'd do this with RFID tags, but that would cost an extra $0.015 per tag...

Less cynically, Delta (SkyTeam) is introducing these tags, and Hong Kong has used them since 2008, apparently.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:42 AM on August 10, 2016 [1 favorite]



I have written letters of medical necessity many times for my boss-doctors' patients, either for medical devices that set off airport scanners, or for liquid dietary aids like Ensure that are over the liquid allowance for the plane but are the only nutrition some of our oncologic patients can have.


I used to carry one, and have offered to show it, but was always waved away with a "No, that's OK. ' The last time I carried one, the agent said, "No, we don't look at those." As long is everything in my bags is labeled and in the original packaging I've never had any problem. Granted, it's been a long time since I flew internationally.

PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT in any way advising anyone to go against their doctor's are medical professionals' instructions or to do anything that makes them less comfortable while flying.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:25 PM on August 10, 2016


Stop gouging them for the privilege of taking a bag on a trip and put them in the hold?

It is indeed a moron's dilemma but at the same time it is no dilemma at all. The planes that catch fire are distant outliers and do not need to be worried about, especially if design or policy changes result in any degree of inconvenience for passengers on the 99% (.9 recurring) of planes that don't catch fire.
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:04 PM on August 11, 2016


Emirates crash: When you don't own your liberty and property, your possessions become most important: an Indian who grew up in the Gulf tells us why passengers on the flight that crash-landed in Dubai seemed more worried about their bags than their lives.
posted by cendawanita at 10:46 PM on August 13, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older Murky origins. Feuding chefs. How the lobster roll...   |   Love, Loss, and Kimchi Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments