Jetstar new baggage policy- 7KG and not a gram more

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Jetstar new baggage policy- 7KG and not a gram more

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

368 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2258614 15-Jun-2019 08:41

Dratsab:

Fuel reserves have mandated minimums. Here's a link to part 91 of the CAA rules. Check sub rule 305 on pages 71/72. Whilst overweight baggage may have potential to cause these reserves to be slightly underestimated, in a small country like NZ it shouldn't (not necessarily won't) make too much difference.

EDIT: Oops - forgot mention that this is for VFR. IFR fuel requirements (sub rule 403) are on page 77.

And also only applies to NZ registered and operating aircraft, in the case of Jetstar (which are registered in Australia) have to comply with CASA requirements. They are quite different in regards to the fuel required. Also Part 91 is part of the story for NZ registered aircraft as it applies to all aircraft you also have to look in Part 135 for the fuel requirements for commercial flights under 5700kg, Part 125 for commercial flights for aircraft greater than 5700kg and less than 31 seats and Part 121 for larger aircraft. Each rule part does mean different fuel requirements.

But as we are talking about an Australian registered aircraft, their rules apply even over here in regards to holding for INTER and TEMPO forecasts, alternate requirements and fuel that must be carried.

Also if you are taking off out of say Wellington heading for Auckland with fog, a full load of passengers, carrying your two required weather alternates (ie, fuel to go to Auckland, fuel to return to Wellington and then from Wellington to Christchurch, minimum reserves plus weather holding, taxi, take off, approach, landing, missed approach and APU burn) It can some days be in excess for 10T of fuel.

Add on 186 passengers, plus bags out of Wellington and you will be very close to your RTOW. But hey what do I know, I only do load control and fly the A320.

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2258615 15-Jun-2019 08:47

empacher48: But hey what do I know, I only do load control and fly the A320.

So why the emotive statement at the end of your last post?

ranjayryan

13 posts

Geek

#2258624 15-Jun-2019 09:38

All rules should be forced. Otherwise, there is no point of having rules.

Linux

11391 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2258673 15-Jun-2019 10:50

Just about to board a flight to Wellington from Auckland and all passengers were called to have carryon luggage weight checked

Great to see this happening

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2259640 17-Jun-2019 17:11

eracode:

Vote with your feet as indicated. Demand will take care of Jetstar.

I once worked with a company that had an informal policy of flying its employees with Jetstar at least once a year to remind them that their standard flights with AirNZ were a privilege to be enjoyed. And that's possibly the role of Jetstar, to both keep AirNZs prices down and to act as a benchmark for the worst possible flying experience that everything else gets compared to.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2259643 17-Jun-2019 17:16

Zeon:
The trick is to take all the heavy stuff out and put in your pockets like portable battery, chargers etc.. Once the weighing is done you then transfer it back. My jacket has huge pockets - I think one time I literally put everything in my bag into my pockets bar laptop which I carried.

Kind of funny that Qantas of all airlines is going to make things like RufusRoo's popular.

I agree with a more strict enforcement, but they should just hit the 1% of blatant abusers, not every single passenger.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2259645 17-Jun-2019 17:21

geekbhaji: Anywhere else in the world , any other airline enforcing such thing?

I am only aware of main carryon bag limit of 7kg. Other small personal item is not weighed.
It is confusing international visitors as well.

Most airlines either don't check, or only to catch blatant abusers. I once boarded somewhere that did (very unexpectedly) check with about 10kg of carry-on (camera, batteries, lenses, etc are compact but dense) and they looked at the laptop I had, said it was a personal item or somesuch and it probably weight about 2-3kg and therefore by definition I was at 7kg and could board. That's a pretty decent approach, I was obviously not abusing the limit, and they gave me a hinted warning not to push it further than that.

The biggest abuses I've seen seem to be in the US, and I've never been weight or size checked there. Heck, I've checked in three pieces of luggage out of the one I was supposed to be allowed and no-one batted an eyelid.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Oblivian

7296 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2259660 17-Jun-2019 18:17

I've seen them pick people out and weigh. But not been struck *touch wood*. Currently plotting how I'm going to manage an oversize costume box, a light helmet in-cabin as my 'personal' item and get 5Kg of DSLR lens/gear with some clothes to boot under the ANZ limits for a trip to SYD this week..

I was in AKL coming home once and some NASA students here for SOFIA/Balloons were asking me if bags get checked. Given they were disgusted at the limits given their cheap as fare with no checked might cost them even more with their packed carry on tipping the scale at 22kgs each (was 3 of them)...

Knew all well they were in the wrong, but you would think it was anyone but their own fault if they got busted..

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2259677 17-Jun-2019 18:57

neb: The biggest abuses I've seen seem to be in the US, and I've never been weight or size checked there. Heck, I've checked in three pieces of luggage out of the one I was supposed to be allowed and no-one batted an eyelid.

The US simply can't fix their carry on problem.

Nobody weights stuff there because there are no weight limits. You simply have size limits of one full size carry on and one "personal item" that can be an average backpack sized (it simply needs to be able to fix under the seat in front of you). It's one of the reasons why flying in the US is a nightmare.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2260043 18-Jun-2019 10:31

sbiddle:

neb: The biggest abuses I've seen seem to be in the US, and I've never been weight or size checked there. Heck, I've checked in three pieces of luggage out of the one I was supposed to be allowed and no-one batted an eyelid.

The US simply can't fix their carry on problem.

Nobody weights stuff there because there are no weight limits. You simply have size limits of one full size carry on and one "personal item" that can be an average backpack sized (it simply needs to be able to fix under the seat in front of you). It's one of the reasons why flying in the US is a nightmare.

This sounds right - but how does @empacher48 explain this in terms of his technical explanation as to why weight enforcement is necessary?

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2260051 18-Jun-2019 10:35

empacher48:

Dratsab:

Fuel reserves have mandated minimums. Here's a link to part 91 of the CAA rules. Check sub rule 305 on pages 71/72. Whilst overweight baggage may have potential to cause these reserves to be slightly underestimated, in a small country like NZ it shouldn't (not necessarily won't) make too much difference.

EDIT: Oops - forgot mention that this is for VFR. IFR fuel requirements (sub rule 403) are on page 77.

And also only applies to NZ registered and operating aircraft, in the case of Jetstar (which are registered in Australia) have to comply with CASA requirements. They are quite different in regards to the fuel required. Also Part 91 is part of the story for NZ registered aircraft as it applies to all aircraft you also have to look in Part 135 for the fuel requirements for commercial flights under 5700kg, Part 125 for commercial flights for aircraft greater than 5700kg and less than 31 seats and Part 121 for larger aircraft. Each rule part does mean different fuel requirements.

But as we are talking about an Australian registered aircraft, their rules apply even over here in regards to holding for INTER and TEMPO forecasts, alternate requirements and fuel that must be carried.

Also if you are taking off out of say Wellington heading for Auckland with fog, a full load of passengers, carrying your two required weather alternates (ie, fuel to go to Auckland, fuel to return to Wellington and then from Wellington to Christchurch, minimum reserves plus weather holding, taxi, take off, approach, landing, missed approach and APU burn) It can some days be in excess for 10T of fuel.

Add on 186 passengers, plus bags out of Wellington and you will be very close to your RTOW. But hey what do I know, I only do load control and fly the A320.

Hmmm ... so if weight is so important, how come carry-on weight hasn't been enforced until recently? And some airlines/countries don't even bother. I suspect we're back at the revenue reason.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

tripper1000

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2260057 18-Jun-2019 10:40

As I understand it, the reason for the 7Kg limit that is almost universally common across airlines is because that is the design limit of the overhead lockers (all to do with certification etc). Technically you run foul of CAA/FAA if passengers exceed this limit.

If overloaded, the lockers will tear out of roof (in a crash) and land on the passengers heads at progressively lower and lower G loading in proportion to the overloading (aircraft are built as light weight as possible so are not designed with indestructible overhead lockers like a train or bus).

Enforcing this rule can be a mandatory safety thing as much/more than a penny pinching activity. But when an airline charges extra for hold luggage, there is increased risk of the passengers exceeing this 7kg limit, hence an increased need to police this safety limit. Premium airline passengers have less incentive to overload their carry on, so there is less risk and less need to police carry on, so that also explains the difference in policing.

Crashes such as the Air Asiana 777 that hit the deck really hard just short of the runway in San Fran are not as survivable (3 deaths only) if overloaded lockers come down and break the passengers necks, knock them out, or impede the escape paths.

Yes you could design the lockers tougher, but then the ring-frames and structure deeper in the aircraft also needs reinforcing, and the aircraft gets heavier and heavier, which means it carries less pay load for the same operating costs which means higher ticket prices.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2260120 18-Jun-2019 11:34

eracode:

sbiddle:

neb: The biggest abuses I've seen seem to be in the US, and I've never been weight or size checked there. Heck, I've checked in three pieces of luggage out of the one I was supposed to be allowed and no-one batted an eyelid.

The US simply can't fix their carry on problem.

Nobody weights stuff there because there are no weight limits. You simply have size limits of one full size carry on and one "personal item" that can be an average backpack sized (it simply needs to be able to fix under the seat in front of you). It's one of the reasons why flying in the US is a nightmare.

This sounds right - but how does @empacher48 explain this in terms of his technical explanation as to why weight enforcement is necessary?

Easy. They simply factor in a higher weight for a bag for data modeling.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2260122 18-Jun-2019 11:39

tripper1000:

As I understand it, the reason for the 7Kg limit that is almost universally common across airlines is because that is the design limit of the overhead lockers (all to do with certification etc). Technically you run foul of CAA/FAA if passengers exceed this limit.

Lockers all have a maximum weight certification sign in them - if you look you'll see it. From memory the inside of an A320 locker says 95lb

The 7kg limit is nowhere near this limit - which is why everybody takes a full size carry on in the US where there are essentially no weight limits (but you're really going to struggle getting more than 30lb or so in a permitted size carry on!) and even then you'll only fit 4 bags that size per overload locker. If all 4 were that weight it would technically be overweight.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2260160 18-Jun-2019 12:09

If it were really about aircraft weight and balance as per @empacher48, they would weigh each passenger.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6