We noticed that you're using an unsupported browser. The TripAdvisor website may not display properly.We support the following browsers:
Windows: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome. Mac: Safari.

Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

Tacoma, Washington...
2 posts
Save Topic
Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

I'm flying from Washington to Florida (and back) in October and I'd really like to avoid baggage fees if possible. Besides fees, I'll be taking the bus to the airport on my initial trip, and I'd really like to keep things simple.

I have a duffle bag which measures 20 long x 11.5 tall x 11.5 wide, which adds up to 43 inches. The website for my flight (US Airlines) says it can be "45 inches (22 x 14 x 9 in)" and I'm just wondering if the distribution of the measurements is very rigid. About 2 inches of the width could possibly be ignored if I left the front pocket empty.

The website also says "Instead of a carry-on bag, you can bring on a soft-sided garment bag up to 51 inches." but I don't know what qualifies as a soft-sided garment bag and I'm a little hesitant to risk it.

Thanks very much for any input!

Phoenix, Arizona
Level Contributor
39,575 posts
1,135 reviews
Save Reply
1. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

Leslie,

Which airline are you flying?

Have you looked at their Web site?

Each airline has different dimensions, though maybe by just a bit.

Good luck,

Hunt

Portland, Oregon
Destination Expert
for Air Travel
Level Contributor
29,322 posts
6 reviews
Save Reply
2. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

I haven't flown US Airways** for a while. Last time I noticed their carry on sizer it wasn't a rigid "box" that you had to fit the bag into. But that may have changed now that the US carriers are following United's lead and enforcing the rules.

Your duffel is only too big in one dimension - the 11.5" tall. That could be a critical dimension depending on the type of overhead bin on the plane. But, if the duffel is soft/not rigid and you under pack it so that you squeeze the height down to about 9" you should be okay. You have 2.5" in width to play with if squashing the height makes it wider.

[** - I checked the US website and the requirement matches the OP's description exactly]

Edited: 29 August 2014, 04:07
Tacoma, Washington...
2 posts
Save Reply
3. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

Okay, thanks! I had been imagining the dimensions as 9 inches wide, not tall, but if that's the case then I'm sure I can make it a bit shorter. I'm thinking about just calling them and asking about the duffle as a garment bag, too.

Surrey UK
Level Contributor
1,979 posts
30 reviews
Save Reply
4. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

i don't understand the US Airways website rule for carry on. It says

"Your carry-on bag can be up to 45 inches (22 x 14 x 9 in)"

Surely, they should specify a max aggregate dimension or max individual dimensions? Half that statement seems to be plain wrong. Are the individual dimensions only intended as an example?

San Diego
Destination Expert
for San Diego
Level Contributor
61,238 posts
67 reviews
Save Reply
5. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

A "garment bag" is long and flat and is usually used to hang up suits or fancy clothing. Sometimes they fold in the middle so you can carry them with a handle. It is not the same thing as a duffle.

@carhirer, They have a max aggregate dimension listed. It is 45inches. The 22X14X9 are the max individual dimensions.

@Leslie, The 9inches is if you lay the duffle the long way on the floor and measure from the floor to the top.

Surrey UK
Level Contributor
1,979 posts
30 reviews
Save Reply
6. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

Thanks Riff, but I still don't understand, If the max individual dimensions need to be followed then they will always add up to 45" or less. Adding "45" seems to serve no purpose other than confusing the issue.

I know some rules require us to stay within aggregate dimensions (for checked in luggage) and some look to the individual dimensions. Unless I am going ga-ga (be brutal if I am) the website info seems to be contradictory.

Portland, Oregon
Destination Expert
for Air Travel
Level Contributor
29,322 posts
6 reviews
Save Reply
7. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

"If the max individual dimensions need to be followed then they will always add up to 45" or less. Adding "45" seems to serve no purpose other than confusing the issue."

=====

Actually Carhirer you make a very good point. United had exactly the same issue when it introduced its sizers last year - including references to "45 linear inches" - that it left loopholes in their rules. If the limitation is "up to 45 inches (22 x 14 x 9 )" that 22x14x9 could certainly be construed as an example, and hence 25xx10x9 (too long to fit wheels first), or a 15x15x15 cube (too tall for OHBs) would have been strictly speaking "legal".

It took United eight months (until June this year) to finally get all the aspects of their website correct and unambiguous. The last piece was the most important, the contract of carriage, and that required two iterations.

The US carriers appear to be (or have been) so fixated on references to "linear inches" for carry ons that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to remove that reference from their T+Cs and websites. It makes you wonder if all that ambiguity is/was the reason that nobody bothered enforcing the rules.

Surrey UK
Level Contributor
1,979 posts
30 reviews
Save Reply
8. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

Thanks USB.

Lawyers have a rule "surplus words turn sceptic". Say what you mean and nothing more.

Now if i could only convince the wife of that!

9. Re: Carry-on dimensions: 45 inches?

-:- Message from TripAdvisor staff -:-

This topic has been closed to new posts due to inactivity. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.

To review the TripAdvisor Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow this link: http://www.tripadvisor.com/pages/forums_posting_guidelines.html

We remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines, and we reserve the right to remove any post for any reason.

Removed on: 31 August 2015, 06:16