A May 12th article circulated by Individual.com states that "flight attendants from across the U.S. are visiting their congressional representatives this week to urge them to make flying safer. [PR Newswire] . . . 'We need a federal watchdog that will make the airplane cabin a safer place for flight attendants and for passengers,' said Patricia Friend, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, AFL- CIO."

Statistics are then cited to the effect that flight attendants have a higher than average exposure to occupational injuries and that: "Flight attendants suffer injuries related to: operating poorly designed food and beverage carts, slipping on galley floors, falling on icy walkways, breathing bad cabin air, sustaining cuts and burns from galley equipment, and handling or being struck by heavy carry-on baggage."

How important is the carry-on-baggage factor in the airline attendants' injury rate? The Individual.com article does not address this question, and so I fell to searching for related discussions at nine websites. I learned from this review that the airline attendants are very exercised about the carry-on-luggage issue. More importantly, I emerge from the review with two conclusions about the desire of people like to me make sure that what we want to have in the plane cabin does not get sent to the cargo hold: (1) there is a significant personal and collective safety issue that should concern us all, (2) the airline attendants are on the right track in wanting to have something effective done about the matter.

While better enforcement of existing restrictions, if not more restrictions, seem to be in order, there remains the rather complex question of how to organize effective action, and whether any government body can by itself bring about the needed change. Some of the key dimensions of the 'underlying forces' behind this complexity are cited below.

         DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM

A good discussion of the nub of the problem is contained in a report on a 1997 conference organized by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFL-CIO) -- henceforth called "the AFA conference". The problem has several dimensions, the conference proceedings show:

INJURY TO PERSIONS ATTEMPTING TO LIFT HEAVY PIECES
"Jetways are not designed to carry baggage down, and one of the major causes of injuries to gate agents are the steps leading from the jetway to the ground. Weather conditions also significantly affect one's ability to carry luggage down steps. Nearly 25 percent of injuries suffered by gate agents while handling baggage is due to overexertion in lifting."

HEAD INJURIES TO PERSONS CAUSED BY FALLING BAGGAGE
"A panel of physicians at the conference said that the majority of injuries from carry-ons are to the head, and that many of them have long-term and sometimes life-long health effects. . . . [Note that] carry-on items that fell from the bins in the study were all well within the specified size limits."

"During a crash or turbulence, overhead bins that are overloaded are prone to pop open because of the poor latch mechanisms that are used to fasten the door of the overhead bins. We have proposed installing stronger latches which could be electronically controlled and kept locked as long as the seat belt sign remained on."

REDUCTION OF SWIFT EVACUATION OF ENDANGERED PLANES
The discussion of this topic seemed to focus on problems caused by passengers trying to take pieces with them during emergency evacuation. Ubfortunately, new regulations on numbers and sizes of bags will probably do little to discourage a person from desperately wanting to save some item of enormous value.

Along with such regulation, drastic upgrading of consumer education is needed -- e.g., to the extent possible make sure that what you take onto the plane is bags you can afford to leave there. This may call for great behaviour change (and clothing change to give yourself more pockets for key small valuables); but such change is not out of the question. People "investing" the stock market soon learn that if they are to sleep soundly at nights they must ensure that they are prepared to lose 100% of what they put into this refined form of gambling.

THREATS TO SAFE TAKE-OFF AND LANDING
When "the actual weight of carry-ons exceeded the planned weight by as much as 10 pounds per passenger. On a plane of 200 people, a weight difference of 10 pounds for each passenger would throw off the calculation by 2,000 pounds. This is enough of a weight difference to affect the aircraft's ability to take off, abort take off, and to maneuver."

INCREASED OPPORTUNITY FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TO EVADE DETECTION
"The presence of a large amount of carry-on bags moving into x-ray machines sometimes pressures security personnel to hurry up the screening process. Under such circumstances, screeners perform their job less well than they otherwise would."

      WHY IS THE SOLUTION COMPLEX?

As regards the solution to the problem, a very clear statement was made at the conference: "What is required is a "single, enforceable" carry-on bag regulation that applies to all airlines. AFA's recommendation is for passengers be allowed to carry on board aircraft whatever bag or bags that can fit into a sizer box of a prescribed size. The benefits of such a policy would eliminate passengers' confusion over what is permissible among different carriers. With a single rule for all carriers, safety would no longer be compromised by airline marketing efforts which try to attract customers by advertising more a lenient carry-on bag policy than a competing carrier. With uniform standard for all airlines, carriers would be encouraged to strictly enforce carry-on bag policies."

Will the issue of a new and clear federal regulation stating restrictions that all airlines are expected to enforce largely remove the dangers associated with carry-on bags? Probably not, the discussion at the AFA conference suggests. A variety of parties are complicit in creating the problem, and until they can cooperatively back away from what they have been doing, the regulation would tend to be enforced unevenly and 'sharp operators' will seek to take advantage of the ones who are acting conscientiously to promote greater safety.

There is no need to identify all the complicit parties individually, since you can imagine who they are with a little reflection. It's better to go to a deeper level and point to some really hard-to-shake forces.

First, a profit-making centre may calculate that the risks to safety and of injuries to individuals are worth being taken in order to maintain or improve profitability or competitiveness. Look at this remark from the AFA conference proceedings: "We are not required to lift bags, but it is common for us to do so because of the pressure 'to get the flight out on time.' A flight attendant may be blamed for a delayed departure and be disciplined."

This is not just an 'airline issue', however. The issue crops up almost throughout marketplaces around the world, not just in the "free markets".

Equally hard to shake is my tendency, and that of many other persons, to be unable to see how our small individual actions and choices can add up to a COLLECTIVE situation that in fact hurts interests that we ourselves hold dear. Furthermore there is little in our experiences to induce us to take action to deal with this broader picture of the cumulative impact of many small individual choices.

Who will forget Professor Milton Freedman's brilliant and persuasive lectures on the theme of "Free to Choose"? His televised programs were only the most sophisticated presentation of an idea that is now taken as gospel almost everywhere: "we need to maximize prosperity and we will be most prosperous when markets are free of regulation and directed by consumer choice".

It is arguable that only when a widespread disaster strikes 'close to home' will people tend to have an incentive to see the broader picture beyond their pursuit of individual happiness. Until that happens, many of us will still want the ticket and gate agents to accept into the plane cabin our reinforced Sansonite bags bearing our laptop computers, because that's what makes our particular lives better today!

The third deep and hard-to-shake force is identified repeatedly in the AFA conference discussion, and called "lack of political will". If only the politicians would exercise adequate political will, one might think. Well folks, it's just not that simple. To see that, you have to study the political system and how it depends upon other critical systems in our society. But who dares to openly dissect and challenge The System?

To get a glimpse into the nature of The System, consider one seemingly simple thing we can do, and which is identified in the following quote from the AFA conference: "There is no 'single right answer' to the industry's growing carry-on bag problem. All parties - government, airlines, and flight crews - need to 'work together' to educate the public ... "

Where is the public education campaign? Why does a reasonably well-read person get to find out the 'real goods' on this matter only by spending a few hours researching the literature? All I ever get as education on this matter is an announcement at the airport or in the plane!

Which institutions have the resources available and clout to carry on the public education campaign needed? Surely not the government; because if they started down this road we would rise up ask "Government to get off our backs", and instead give us that money in the form of tax cuts so that we can be consumers who are Free to Choose!

If not government, then who has the sufficient incentive and resources to organize the needed mass-education campaign? Right now, I feel the answer is 'no one'!

Here is another seemingly simple small step -- dynamic testing of the ability of overhead bin doors to stay closed when fully loaded under air turbulence, sudden stops, etc. Here's a related quote from the AFA conference: "In an accident involving a U.S.-manufactured SAS aircraft near Stockholm, several overhead bins had detached and fallen on to the passenger seats. It was discovered that 70 percent of the latch plates of the bin doors had been damaged. During the investigation, the NTSB asked for strength tests of the bins and learned that all had met the current FAR requirements for "static" testing. The NTSB then recommended to the FAA that bins be "dynamically" tested to determine if the bins could withstand multiaxial forces during an impact sequence. The FAA rejected this recommendation."

Now ask yourself this question: "Who and what forces are preventing the FAA from mandating dynamic testing" of overhead bins?

In short, the solution to the carry-on-bag issue requires regulations that apply to all airlines. But other things must also be put in place. And don't hold your breath waiting to see them come on the scene.

But do take the time to examine how we travelers can help in our own little ways, and how we can make sure that if we are in the cabin during an emergency the only things we cannot afford to leave behind are already inside our pockets.

This question is answered nicely at the website of Holloway Travel Outfitters (Sacramento, Cailfornia), which has several pages of detailed tips about how to travel light. Most commonly, "your bag can be no larger than 22 inches in length, 14 inches in width, and 9 inches in depth.  . . .  Is it a Guaranteed-To-Carry-on size?  No, there are three general instances in which domestic airlines may skunk you even if you have a 22 inch bag."  Two of them are that "you are one of the last passengers on the plane and the over-head bins are full . . . [and] you have over-packed and the bag exceeds nine inches in depth."

The Holloway Travel Outfitters' article advises you to be aware of variations among airlines, especially the international carriers. Among the latter are airlines that enforce a maximum carry-on-bag weight of 13 pounds (which means my reinforced Sansonite computer carry-on-bag would fail even if it is empty). A review of weight restrictions suggests that between 40 and 50 pounds are the common maximums. The bottom line here, stressed at many web sites, is that you cannot be sure of your own situation unless you call the airline before you leave home, and even then special circumstances may lead you to have your carry-on piece sent off to the cargo hold.

Most airlines will also allow you to have a second bag that seems like a purse or a small briefcase. But what about your garment bag? It's usually, not invariably, counted as one of the two pieces you can carry on! At the website of Luggage and Leather (Raleigh, North Carolina) there is a useful discussion of garment bags. It advises that "garment bags can be no thicker than 8" folded, so that leaves out most of the wheeled garment bags."

           IS ANYTHING EXEMPTED?

First, until recently some airlines have allowed first-class passengers to have bags that surpass the airline's stated limits. Second, some have lists of specific exempted items. For example, "United Airlines exempts the following items from the two piece limit:
* Child safety seats for ticketed children
* Assistive devices (i.e. canes, crutches, etc.)
* Outer garments (i.e. coats, hats, etc.)
* Small purses (no larger than 25 linear inches)",
according to text at its website.

According to a 1997 story by American City Business Journals Inc., " 'All major carriers have moved to the same restrictions,' said Marta Laughlin" [of Northwest Airlines] . . . But resistance to those restrictions on other airlines arises from fear of the baggage handling being unknown."

             USEFUL WEB SITES

The following are nine web sites that provide additional information, including lists of restrictions that apply to individual airlines. One problem with these lists is that one does not know if what you see for Airline X is still true; and so you are well advised to check the website of Airline X if you are about to use them.
  www.luggageonline.com/
  www.cmcwwdirect.com/timepiece/airlugrul.html
  www.packinglight.com/html/carry_on_requirements.html
      (very well done, this one)
  www.go-abacos.com/travel/lug_lim.html
  http//freetraveltips.com/Airlines/Air03.htm
  www.nanpa.org/faxondemand/TravelTips.htm
  www.harrisonluggage.com/airline.htm
  www.britannia.com/travel/PackingGuide/
  http//mckleinusa.com/carryonsizes.html
  www.flightattendant-afa.org/default.htm
Sorry we have not set up links here -- too much work to set up for each case the kind of link that fits the overall design of our website (insert a colon after "http" in some items named above).

Credits for sources for this article are also due to Individual.com news service (www.individual.com). A serious effort has been made here to respect peoples' copyrights. Any lingering violation will be corrected promptly, as soon as someone points out where the violation takes place. Contact me at lestone@arawak.net.

© 2000 Arawak Enterprises. All rights reserved.