Jetstar "cabin bag crackdown"

Bossfan on 04/09/2014 - 12:14

Interesting..

The days of passengers bending Jetstar's carry-on baggage rules are about to come to an end with the airline cracking down on customers taking bags that are too large on board planes.

A Jetstar spokesperson has confirmed the airline will introduce cabin baggage officers to crack down on passengers who try sneak on oversized or heavy carry-on luggage on board, instead of paying extra fees to check-in them in.

The officers will enforced the airline's carry-on size and weight limits at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Cairns and the Gold Coast airports on a trial basis.

Currently, Jetstar passengers without a checked bag can check-in online or at an airport kiosk. The boarding area is usually the first place they interact with a Jetstar staff member.

The airline will have officers positioned at some airport gates to ensure all passengers do not breach the maximum allowable size and weight limits for carry-on baggage. Passengers deemed to be taking on baggage that is too large and/or too heavy will likely face a higher baggage fee than what they would have paid at the time of booking.

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-planning/travel-news/…

Travel

Related Stores

Jetstar Airways
Jetstar Airways

Comments

    • blitz on 04/09/2014 - 13:27
      +23

      What if people just take another airline?

    • RockyRaccoon on 04/09/2014 - 14:30
      +4

      What if…

      Really!!! like everything, what if they allow an extra 1kg leeway, then what if someone has 1.075kg.

      You give the leeways away and then what?

      And why the sexist Granny remark!! What about dirty old men??, surely they must allow for raincoats being oversized. LOL

    • Davo1111 on 04/09/2014 - 14:43
      +13

      If i cry i can carry extra stuff on board?

    • pmupsinep on 06/09/2014 - 19:06
      +2

      Yes, let's get rid of ALL rules everywhere, just in case they cause someone to cry.

  • hellbound on 04/09/2014 - 12:39
    +14

    Good, about time they closed this loophole.
    I'm sure they'll focus on the oversized bags first as they are easy to pick out and most oversized bags will also be overweight.

    • JoyVee on 04/09/2014 - 13:50
      +4

      they have a major maths problem obviously. If everyone brought a standard size carry on bag into the cabin the amount of storage space available is still less than the volume of the carry on bags. No amount of surveillance will solve that spatial problem.

      • hellbound on 04/09/2014 - 14:13
        +7

        Have you got numbers to back that up or are you assuming?
        Either way you can still fit more people's carry-on in if everyone plays by the rules.

        • JediJan on 05/09/2014 - 10:17

          Some of our (legitimate size and weight) carry on baggage had to be stowed under the seat in front of us on our last flight … Most people don't seem to play by the rules!

        • jace88 on 08/09/2014 - 14:09

          Happens all the time across various airlines which charge for check in baggage. Even on modestly full flights (I'd say 85% capacity) passengers were unable to store their carry on and it had to be taken down to the hold.

        • hotphil on 09/09/2014 - 13:54
          +1

          @JediJan: I won't put up with having my footroom reduced because someone else has brought too big a bag. I just remove anything clearly oversize from the lockers, place my (correctly sized) bag in there and hand the oversize bag to cabin crew to deal with the bag/its owner.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 07/09/2014 - 10:40
      +7

      What if I put my heavy bag INSIDE a light bag?

      They'll never know!

      • pebee47 on 08/09/2014 - 09:05

        Yeah, I like your "over-weight person" rationale: "I'm really a light person that's got a heavy weight inside me"
        Duh!

    • travelwiz on 12/02/2015 - 14:29

      was always going to happen. Learn to travel with less.

      People take far too many clothes with them & they never wear even 1/2 of them.

      Even I still take too much, but way less than used to.

  • skyva on 04/09/2014 - 14:34

    I am guilty of this. Mainly because there are 2 sizes of carry on: domestic and international. So my cabin bag is international std, which is a bit too big for domestic std. Pain in the rear.

    Jetstar is just the cheap end, one step above the appalling Tiger. The only benefit of Jetstar was that I could use my Qantas membership to get into the lounge when flying cheap. They need to make sure they differentiae themselves from Tiger otherwise they will have to compete on price alone.

    • arcticmonkey on 06/09/2014 - 16:57
      +3

      JetScum above Tiger? Not from my experience. Tiger has really improved in recent times for me.

      • jimbobaus on 09/09/2014 - 08:43
        +3

        Agreed, Never get delays on tiger
        Delays on Jetstar are expected

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2014 - 12:59

          Last night I flew Tiger from Melbourne to Perth. Boarded the plane on time. Well, 10 minutes after scheduled, but close enough. The flight to Sydney just before us didn't, it was running 30ish minutes late.

          Once we got on the plane we all sat there for about 10-15 minutes while what looked like some 20 year olds in flouro yellow vests kept wandering in and out of the cockpit. It was then announced that one of the cockpit computers wasn't working and as a result they'd have to delay another 30ish minutes and re-route the plane over land. So after sitting on the tarmac for about 45 minutes we take off on our hour longer flight.

          Scheduled to arrive 11:55pm, arrived 1:45pm.

          It wasn't a big deal, although the non-functioning computer in the cockpit had me a little worried we were going to be Malaysian Airlined.

          tldr; Tiger gets delayed. Both flights out of Tullamarine last night were.

    • amkssg on 08/09/2014 - 22:46

      Just so you know, as of 2013, "Tigerair Australia" is now the official budget-arm of Virgin Australia.
      (Yes, the Australian Network is no longer run by Singapore Airlines.)

      • jimbobaus on 09/09/2014 - 08:43
        +1

        Singapore airlines still owns half

        • amkssg on 13/09/2014 - 09:52

          No they don't.

          TigerAir Australia is 60% owned by Virgin Australia, and 40% by TigerAir Holdings (of which Singapore Airlines only hold a 32% share).

          Therefore, Singapore Air technically has only a 13% share in TigerAir Australia.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/09/2014 - 15:24

    It's been a while since I've flown domestically.

    Can you carry on a backpack (like small/midsize, not massive) AND an item of carry on luggage to keep in the overhead locker? What about women who carry on enormously oversize handbags plus carry on luggage? What are the rules surrounding those types of… semi-loopholes?

    • RyanMK on 04/09/2014 - 15:31
      +3

      I travel interstate fairly often. I've always carried a mid/large size backpack + a small trolley bag onto the plane. Never had an issue. Have always made sure I stick to the weight limit though.

    • hellbound on 04/09/2014 - 16:06
      +3

      Lifehacker had a good breakdown of the different airlines rules on this. Generally it's two pieces of luggage, with a combined max of 10kg.
      http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2012/07/australian-airline-bagg…

    • JediJan on 05/09/2014 - 10:14
      +2

      Although female I do see your point in this. There is a metal size frame available at the check in counters for use, that obviously some passengers avoid like the plague; idea is the carry on luggage must fit within its parameters. Our handbags are relatively small but some women do go a bit overboard with the handbag size; perhaps premeditated. Yes, we can then take an item of carry on luggage to store in the overhead locker. That is if there is any room left up there. If not, it has to be stowed under the seat in front. I agree with Jetstar getting tough with the carry on baggage rules; about time actually. It is/or was only an extra $20 for 20kg of luggage in the hold, so it is just a case of people bending the rules and being rather mean.

    • peterpeterpumpkin on 06/09/2014 - 13:55
      +1

      If backpacking internationally with carry on only I never exceed 7 kg and restrict myself to a single bag as that's often the limit with budget carriers in Asia and Europe (Ryanair now allows a second small bag). The back mesh padding thickens the bag though so it may pose problems fitting in the cage if enforced (sometimes only 20cm in depth). If it wasn't for wind and rain requiring some form of jacket and not all hostels providing towels I would need much less volume. Shoes suitable for hiking is hard to get around (especially for people wanting to buy shoes above size 12 in Asia and South America) so I sacrifice my feet :(

      Other than financial benefits, many international budget airlines have also recently started providing express check-in services for carry on passengers (you may have to ask though since it's not always advertised). And I love not waiting for bags on arrival and instead nervously exiting through immigration (since they often ask "is that all you got?!").

  • Belistic on 04/09/2014 - 16:18
    +1

    The joys of being female… One largish carry on bag, one handbag and one laptop bag…

  • [Deactivated] on 04/09/2014 - 16:45
    -3

    Ohhh! I snapped a great picture of this on my way to board a jet star flight last month!

    3 people ( Mother and 2 Sons)
    7 .. YES SEVEN! carry on bags .. all which were over the side of a standard carry on bag.

    Haha.. See if I can dig the photo out :)

    Edits: Just found the photo it's actually 9!! :O

    Pic: http://imgur.com/dAaoUEB

    • Baghern on 04/09/2014 - 23:46
      +5

      That's actually not a big deal considering they're medium size and can be squish down

      Any 3 of them could easily fit into a proper cabin carry on luggage

      • pebee47 on 08/09/2014 - 09:12
        -1

        I wonder how the 3 of them will fit into a 3 seat window row with all that …er, "stuff" they've got. Beats me why, they're no lightweights themselves, and they can't possibly be planning to utilise all of it during the flight.

    • JediJan on 05/09/2014 - 10:05
      +4

      Actually that is quite lame compared to what we have seen (sorry no pics). At least the boys backpacks are very tiny compared to the larger hiking packs I have seen being carried on, so they could qualify/compare as handbag size (or less). The other carry on bags do number four though, so yes you are correct on this, although they probably placed the laptop bag under the seat. Ps. My eyes must be deceiving me … I count seven! I do catch your drift though. :o)

    • ronnknee on 06/09/2014 - 12:08
      +1

      Are you sure that's not the father?

    • syousef on 08/09/2014 - 08:06

      Oh the horror. How will the plane ever get off the ground?
      Seriously the airlines keep squeezing people and all they do is start fighting with each other instead of putting the blame where it belongs. Pretty soon you'll be standing upright, paying $1000/kg for luggage and people will still be complaining that the person behind them had headphones that were too loud to let him sleep upright. PATHETIC!

      • JediJan on 09/09/2014 - 10:02
        -1

        Standing upright (if there was room) is actually preferable to being seated behind a bad mannered person who reclined their seat back. Claustrophobic nightmare. My son had to get out of his seat and stand in the aisle, much to the consternation of the cabin staff. I quickly explained he had cramp … he does have long legs. He was lucky to have been able to squeeze past my mother (centre seat) who had to tolerate the *** who reclined his seat back. Fortunately I was in the aisle seat at the time so son could then swap seats with me … It was the only obvious choice at the time so son could stretch his legs sideways at times in the aisle. I then had to work hard to control my claustrophobia … standing up in the aisle would have been bliss … if not practical!

  • Herbsman on 05/09/2014 - 07:35
    +23

    I say bring on the "pay by total weight and volume of each passenger and luggage" rule. A 65kg person with a bag 2 inches too big will surely cost the airline less to transport than a 200kg person with no luggage.

    • RockyRaccoon on 05/09/2014 - 08:34
      +1

      Simple solution with complex implementation.

      Someone books 3 months in advance and puts on or reduces weight, the fare will now change. Refunds/extra payments now have to be processed at the airport. Heaven help you if you are last in line after all this processing.

      You have everyone going to the bathroom before checking in, wearing light clothes, then adding weight before boarding after meals airside etc. Then needing to be reweighed before boarding. Good for on time boarding and departure, unless of course people have to be locked into the departure lounge area 1 hour beforehand so all the issues can be resolved.

      Then there's the extra staff to handle all the issues and checking. Did you ever travel just after 9/11 where security caused massive delays and checking. This would be worse.

      What about older people feeling the cold needing more clothes, taller people who weigh more than short people, kids who weigh less than adults.

      The Hassles far outweigh any benefits

      • DeWalt on 06/09/2014 - 08:28
        +6

        The other alternative? A friend if mine is slight of build and often gets pinged for 500g over because his scales are different to those if the airlines?
        Solution?
        Wear heaviest shoes
        Wear a jacket
        Wear pants with many pockets and put items from a suspect bag to pockets
        Wear two layers of clothing
        Wear your heaviest belt

        It's a system that just doesn't work well. Children pay too much and overweight people are advantaged. Better to accept the system and cheat a little if you need to.

        I'd rather cheaper flights and weight restrictions - but have to accept that some are advantaged more than others because it reduces aircraft weight, leading to less fuel usage, leading to cost savings.

        Btw, if you see a flight passenger in a big thick full length jacket in the middle of summer, it's probably me :)

        • kwaker on 06/09/2014 - 11:38
          -4

          overweight people are advantaged

          are you serious? that is the most naive thing I have ever heard anyone say.

          What is the advantage of being overweight DeWalt?

        • secondstory on 06/09/2014 - 15:06
          +2

          @kwaker:
          I think he was referring to things like pockets on clothing normally being bigger and its easier to hide items to "cheat a little" in order to not have some items weighed. It's harder for children to hide something of a greater size or weight than it would be for someone of a larger build. Also there wouldn't be as much of a baggage weight difference if children were to wear another layer of clothing.

          There are also exist airlines (though I only know of one) that charge by weight and not on a per person basis. I believe they do this because most of their customers are quite large and are heavy. It makes sense as a heavier flight would consume more fuel and cost more for the flight. Also, in transportation size is normally considered for costs as well and as mentioned below, one person may have two seats for the price of one in the case of obesity. The extra seat can no longer be sold for another fare. To cover these expenses/losses, flight fares might be increased.

          A child who weighs much less and takes up less space will pay the same fare as a fully grown adult who is on the overweight end of the spectrum who is designated two seats.

          In short, the advantage is probably that the ability to more discretely hide belongings on person increases with the size of the person, as well being able to receive a better cost to benefit ratio.

    • Boshait on 05/09/2014 - 08:40

      Would not survive challenge as discrimination against the differently abled. I believe courts have already ruled the obese are entitled to take up two seats for the price of one.

      • Cheshire Cat on 05/09/2014 - 20:50
        +3

        Differently abled? Being obese isn't differently abled.

        Also many airlines do force you to purchase a second seat so not sure which courts said this.

      • algy on 05/09/2014 - 22:57
        +4

        This is a joke right?

        • Boshait on 06/09/2014 - 12:47

          Unfortunately not. When size matters: obese passengers and economy seating

          Last November, after a six-year legal battle, Canada's domestic airlines were forced to comply with a Federal Transport Agency rule instituting a one-person, one-fare policy that would see obese passengers receive an extra seat at no extra charge. The decision hinged on a new legal definition that said an obese person may be considered disabled for the purposes of air travel if they were unable to fit in an airline seat, making it discriminatory to charge those obese passengers for an extra seat.

          Some disability rights advocates and legal experts say the obesity policies of the Australian airlines are vulnerable to a similar challenge here.

        • cookie2 on 07/09/2014 - 10:09

          @Boshait:

          so I wonder if very tall ppl will also be considered dsabled for air travel and get exit row seats? this is ridiculous. in saying that, siiting next to an obese person is a horrible experience on a plane. Hmmm I wonder what they have to show in Ccanada to prove theyre obese when they get the flight? maybe there's a trial seat at check in and you need to try and get ur arse in it. Like the cabin luggage size checker.

      • FloatingPoint on 08/09/2014 - 16:48
        +1

        I wonder why don't the obese go and sue the theme parks for not letting them sit in some roller coasters because the restrain would not fit them properly?

    • SirFlibbled on 05/09/2014 - 09:45

      That penalises larger people. I didn't ask to be naturally 108kg(ok currently 130kg but that's my skinny weight) and almost 2m tall with size 15 shoes.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/09/2014 - 14:48
        +2

        That's amazing. You're like, double my proportions lol. You're Stephen Fry height! :)

        • ndr2h on 07/09/2014 - 10:08
          +2

          You're pretty big for a waterlogged turnip anyway.

        • pebee47 on 08/09/2014 - 09:17
          +2

          @ndr2h: There's nothing wrong with wet turnips, even if they're overweight

        • JediJan on 09/09/2014 - 10:06

          Actually Stephen Fry went on a diet not so long ago (for ye of little hope) and the result was quite amazing. One of those motoring programs I believe … He did maintain his height though.

      • Cheshire Cat on 05/09/2014 - 20:48

        And statistically you will earn more too.
        Also everything penalises tall/small people. Short people can't see well at a concert. Tall people find some seating uncomfortable, some big people can't fit in rides etc.

      • DrStinge on 08/09/2014 - 08:34

        My mind skipped through the text and I read "penal-" then "size 15".

    • JediJan on 05/09/2014 - 10:21
      +2

      Actually one of the Pacific nations does use the "fly by weight" rule and passengers are weighed prior to boarding, to ensure the aircrafts are not overloaded. I think it was Samoan Airlines but I may be incorrect. Anyways, yes, I have seen photos of this.

      • SirFlibbled on 05/09/2014 - 12:11

        Those are small planes though.

        • Sira on 06/09/2014 - 01:07

          But it proves that in practice it can be done

        • RockyRaccoon on 06/09/2014 - 04:13
          +1

          @Sira: Yes when the airline flys one or two planes a day and the planes are small and talking about a nation that does have a large number of large passengers.

          Simple logic tells you that weighing 200 - 400 passengers a flight with 20 flights an hour multiplied by a number of airports etc….. Plus if all airlines did the same.

          Look at the bitching that goes on even with simple bag checks let alone body checks. The chaos that would ensure.

          It would be faster to drive especially if you were flying at the end of the day.

        • arcticmonkey on 06/09/2014 - 17:00
          +1

          @RockyRaccoon:

          "talking about a nation that does have a large number of large passengers"

          Doesn't Australia have one of the highest rates of obesity in the world?

        • RockyRaccoon on 07/09/2014 - 13:12
          +1

          @arcticmonkey: That's out of context of what I said, if you put back in context like the following

          Yes when the airline flys one or two planes a day and the planes are small and….

          The country that this applies to isnt Australia. (and I didn't say highest) For your information

          Samoa Air flies from Samoa to American Samoa, North Tonga, Niue, North Cook Islands and French Polynesia. The airline does not fly large commercial aircraft, but rather small planes that are more susceptible to weight variances.

      • [Deactivated] on 07/09/2014 - 16:14
        +1

        When I flew to New Zealand for the first time it was via Polynesian Airlines. I don't think they exist any more. As a big bloke I found I was one of the smallest on board.

        For smaller aircraft, especially charter aircraft they measure the fuel load a little more precisely. You need the weights to do this.

    • [Deactivated] on 07/09/2014 - 16:17
      +3

      As a big bloke who topped 140kg I agree with this totally. If that ain't a motivator then I don't know what is.

      But they should do it the other way around, a discount for lighter people.

      The reality is the more the weight the more fuel they use. Its not discriminating, its being pragmatic.

      • SirFlibbled on 07/09/2014 - 17:42
        -1

        So what do I do to make myself lighter to get discounts? Chop off a leg?

        • [Deactivated] on 07/09/2014 - 20:58
          -1

          lol!
          But seriously, your BMI is dangerously high. According to the Heart Foundation BMI calculator, you should aim to lose at least 40kg.linky

        • Cheshire Cat on 08/09/2014 - 00:19

          Well you can lose the extra 30kgs you are carrying or don't take luggage….or pay extra. Pretty simple really.

        • Cheshire Cat on 08/09/2014 - 00:23
          +1

          @Jar Jar Binks: not sure why you were down voted. Sir flubbed is obese not even overweight.

        • SirFlibbled on 08/09/2014 - 08:16
          +3

          @Jar Jar Binks: I spent 4 months in hospital not eating 4 years ago. I literally had no fat on me and was being fed through a tube and according to the BMI I was 'overweight'. Mind you the 108kg figure also meant I had very little muscle mass on me. My 'sporting weight' is about 115-120kg with some muscle mass. Sure I could lose about 15kg of weight atm but even at my skinniest I would still have to pay a crap load more simply because of my genetics.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2014 - 08:38

          @SirFlibbled: Waist size may be a predictor of life expectancy

        • SirFlibbled on 09/09/2014 - 12:01
          -1

          @Jar Jar Binks: Good for the predictor. My wife is a doctor. I'll be listening to her more than you.

          But good job at a strawman by trying to attack me not the point I was making. Charging people by weight is unfair based on people's genetics. I can only lose so much weight. I would still be paying twice the price of a 60kg person for no other reason then genetics. You can only use people being over weight so much. As long as they can fit comfortably into a seat based on the width and pitch of that seat then they should be paying the same price.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/09/2014 - 18:46

          @SirFlibbled: I wasn't attacking you, merely commenting on your comments:

          I didn't ask to be naturally 108kg(ok currently 130kg but that's my skinny weight)

          and

          My 'sporting weight' is about 115-120kg with some muscle mass.Sure I could lose about 15kg of weight atm

          and pointing out the obvious, that if you have a healthy lifestyle, you'll live longer.
          Btw, what's stopping you from being your "sporting weight"? Would getting a discount, as asdubstep suggested, be a motivator? Again not attacking/judging. Just curious.

          p.s: I was a scrawny kid when I was growing up and got picked on a lot at school. Then when the Mrs was pregnant, I put on at least 10 kg.( In between, i was fit and healthy.) I didn't like being skinny and I didn't like being fat.So I chose to do something about it: I swim ,run , cycle to work, walk to the shops instead of drive, eat healthy, portion controlled meals..etc I have a barbell, kettles , tires and a bench press in the garage. Nothing fancy really but it get the job done.

        • Moderatorneil on 09/09/2014 - 22:59

          Jar Jar and SirFlibbled,

          Let's end the discussion about weight and focus on the topic at hand.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2014 - 03:17

          @Cheshire Cat: Muscle weighs more than fat. Assuming that someone is 'fat' or obese purely based on their BMI, and without seeing the person, is unfair. It's not unusual for athletes or body builders to be in the overweight or obese categories if simply going by BMI - it doesn't take body composition into account at all, only height and weight.

          I had a male friend in an eating disorders unit (which I was also a patient in) who had a 'normal' BMI, yet he was clearly very very underweight with a gaunt face, bones visible etc. The only reason his BMI managed to be in the 20s was his muscles (army boy, into the gym big time) - everything else had wasted away.

          BMI is a very basic tool. I consider it rather flawed, but somewhat helpful as a very general guide for everyday people. Just don't rely on it…

    • syousef on 08/09/2014 - 08:06
      +2

      What's the bet you weight about 70kg tops?

    • cuteseal on 08/09/2014 - 10:26

      I think you will find that the carry-on limits are more to cater for the size of the overhead storage bins.
      If bags are oversized not as many people might be able to fit their stuff in (and you get the cases where people have to find bins halfway down the plane because all those around them are full).
      If they are overly heavy as well, in heavy turbulence they might cause the bin locks to fail and pop open, and things might fall out.

      That said I get your point about the total weight though.

  • meaganinmanly on 05/09/2014 - 08:17
    +4

    They have already started cracking down. My husband who is a frequent business flyer had to check his bag with Jetstar the other day as it was 5mm too long (darn swivel wheels that stick out the end). No amount of arguing was going to change their minds and nobody has ever objected to his bag in the past. However I think it's about time. I'm tired of greedy people hogging the limited storage with their ridiculous quantities of cabin baggage

    • SirFlibbled on 05/09/2014 - 09:47
      +6

      What confuses me are the people who do this on Qantas. Checked baggage is included in the cost of the flight. If you have a large back just check it in. Sure it'll mean 10 minutes more in the airport but it also means you're less of a (profanity).

      • ozkiwi75 on 06/09/2014 - 10:17
        +1

        Included checked baggage doesn't necessarily come into the equation for some people. I think you'll find most of these are time conscious business travellers who want a quick exit once landed and not have to wait for their luggage on the carousel. At least that's what I've observed in the last couple of months travelling for work every week.

        • SirFlibbled on 06/09/2014 - 16:24
          +1

          Happens with a lot of leisure travelers as well. It's more how self important they are then time poor. They're perfectly happy to take up more room then they have the right to because they are important.

        • pebee47 on 08/09/2014 - 09:26
          +1

          @SirFlibbled: RIGHT ON! I'm often amused at the "important people who HAVE to get off the plane first, get to the carusel first, and of course stand there waiting impatiently expecting their bag to be first up. They are usually still there as I stroll up as one of the last to arrive at the chook yard (baggage pickup).

        • rodericb on 08/09/2014 - 09:56
          +2

          Yeah, it is funny to see those people virtually climbing over each other to get out of the plane, juggling bags and their free newspaper and then marching very briskly to the taxi rank where they all queue up for ages for a taxi…

  • Boshait on 05/09/2014 - 08:44

    Grumpy old man time. Why is it everyone goes to the gym these days yet they need wheels and a long handle on an effete little bag that holds 10kg max?

    • algy on 05/09/2014 - 22:59

      Don't lump everyone into one category, some of us gym junkies use handles like men.

      • Sira on 06/09/2014 - 01:09
        +3

        Why is it your using the internet when you could be using messenger pigeon?!?!

        Ohh that's right, it's far easier and more efficient…

        • Boshait on 06/09/2014 - 12:50
          +1

          Ohh that's right, it's far easier and more efficient…

          Unlike those little wheelie bags.

  • JediJan on 05/09/2014 - 09:55
    -1

    It is about time Jetstar reinforced this rule. People carrying 3 bags etc. and bending the rules has just got to stop; really bad manners as no consideration for other passengers. Not funny when 3 of us travelled a few months back and we couldn't place all of our 3 items in the overhead lockers because some others were greedy and took almost all available space … Had to place a couple of our legitimate bags underneath the seats in front of us for the entire flight. Not funny at all when you have long legs, and one of us ending up hopping in the aisle later due to cramp!

    To top it off the usual "pig" seated in front of us decided he would arc his seat back for the entire flight; of course no consideration for anyone sitting behind (an 86 year old), leaving even reduced personal space. I guess I should have complained to the staff, but they and other passengers would have noticed.

    Our last flight was full capacity and the flight staff are always nice but our experience with carry on luggage (we always pay extra for luggage in the hold … just that we had a few valuable items to carry on) was not fair because Jetstar didn't reinforce the carry on luggage rules. Good on Jetstar for acting to stop the skinflint cheats (only $20 for luggage). Next on the agenda is to stop those inconsiderate people from making use of the reclining seats when someone is seated behind. I will still fly Jetstar and Qantas as they have been a great mob to fly with; pity you cannot select your fellow passengers too.

    • ThirdRonnie on 05/09/2014 - 11:08
      +3

      "only $20 for luggage"

      A $10 per item charge would be enough to offset the cost of handling but trust Jetstar to go for greed and gouge, just because they can.

      A crackdown on these dishonest, selfish people who take miniature steamer trunks into the cabin is overdue nonetheless.

      There seems to be an unwritten etiquette rule floating about in airline space that if your flight is under 3 hours duration, reclining your seat is banned. There's talk this rule might be made official in the near future, as reclining is causing increasing displeasure amongst travellers.

    • backpaqer on 05/09/2014 - 12:27
      +1

      The knee defender is your friend! http://www.gadgetduck.com/goods/kneedefender.html

      • kwaker on 05/09/2014 - 14:08
        +7

        good way to end up with your flight diverted so you can be booted off and end up in the news.

      • Sweetnsour on 05/09/2014 - 14:27
        +5

        The only advantage of being 5 foot tall is you never have issues with leg room in economy. Although I'd need help with the overhead compartments. Oh well

      • Cheshire Cat on 05/09/2014 - 20:54

        Lol. The seat reclines, that's what it's designed to do. Why do people think they own that space?….it's not yours it's the seat in fronts.

        • Settero on 06/09/2014 - 15:11
          +1

          reclining seats such a touchy topic, but im with ya, as annoying as it is.

        • sparkles on 06/09/2014 - 20:51
          +3

          I don't understand all the objections to people in front reclining. It's not like you can't recline too in response, giving you the exact same space you had before, it's just at a different angle. If your seat didn't recline and everyone elses did, you would have cause to object but otherwise it's just silly. If you get reclined on, recline yourself. Problem solved.

        • Cheshire Cat on 08/09/2014 - 00:27
          +2

          @Settero: yeah it is but not sure why. I'm 6ft so not tiny and I have no issues on planes with seats reclining etc.
          As long as people aren't jerks such as smashing back before takeoff. If they go up for meals, a slow recline or quick glance to make sure you aren't going to smash someone's head/laptop then you should be able to recline.

        • Cozdog on 10/09/2014 - 08:02

          @sparkles:

          Exactly. Everyone recline = problem solved.

        • Tal_Shiar on 20/09/2014 - 02:56

          @sparkles: you obviously haven't had some asswipe randomly recline on you and squash you or your drink/food

      • JediJan on 06/09/2014 - 15:55
        -4

        Love this but it seems such extreme lengths to go through to enforce a little human decency. Wonders if this would be legal here as it is in USA. Imagine it would cause a bit of confrontation if used though; I would hazard a guess more problems for cabin staff to sort.

        Would be preferable a simple rule (of courtesy) should apply … Do not recline seat if person is sitting behind … was enforced.

        What a shame some people are so ignorant and decline their seats, irregardless of those seated behind.

        It would appear airlines need to take into serious consideration seat sizing is not meeting expected demand; most of us are feeling our personal space is being invaded … even those of us who are nowhere meeting optimum size. I recently managed an MRI but was near to suffering a claustrophobic attack on our last flight, even though no one else was aware of my personal situation. The flight was booked to the max so no other seating was available.

        • sparkles on 06/09/2014 - 20:58
          +3

          I can take invasion personal space to a degree, it's kind of expected. But asshole factor is another thing entirely. I sat next to a older dude once who wouldn't get up when I asked, so I could go to the toilet. He indicated I should climb over him. Honestly, it's the only time I've actually ever been tempted to physically fight someone publicly. I asked to be moved. The stewards said no even when I explained the situation. I spent the majority of the flight pacing the plane and loitering in the galley to avoid the temptation of killing the guy.

        • pebee47 on 08/09/2014 - 09:32

          @sparkles: Should've picked up a glass of red and "stumbled" and spilt all over him when in mid-clamber. I did this once and apologised, saying "so sorry, but it was really hard trying to get past you there". He couldn't say anything as I had asked him if he would please move. Revenge? You betcha!

        • Tal_Shiar on 20/09/2014 - 02:58

          @pebee47: would of been worth it to soil yourself over him too :)

  • boccos on 05/09/2014 - 10:00
    +5

    Dead right they should. Last few flights the amount of in-cabin baggage has become disruptive to nearly everyone. Jam packed overhead lockers, stuff packed under seats, plastic bags on laps, handbags etc….just too much clutter. Near impossible to get out of non-isle seats to go to the toilets. And if the climate controlled cabin air-conditioning is not set to the cooler side, then the crowding means people overheat as was an issue for a woman seated two rows behind me, who fainted and was given ice to cool her and then taken to hospital upon landing.
    There has to some limits and controls in place.

    • Wampus on 06/09/2014 - 09:45
      +1

      Agreed - when you and two family members board the plane to grab your row of seats, and the overhead compartment is already jam packed with stuff even though there's nobody in the seats below it, that's so frustrating.

    • pebee47 on 08/09/2014 - 09:36
      +1

      Haha: as a side comment; on an end of school flight out of Darwin (full of young excited school-kids running amok) they screwed the temp waayy down. Had the effect of sending all the (tropical) kids into hibernation! Most of the adults put up with the cold as all the kids used up the entire supply of blankets.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join