- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Another Perspective
Unnecessary Baggage
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) thinks that your carry-on bags are a threat to national security. To address this grave threat, he has introduced the Securing Cabin Baggage Act (H.R. 2870). It would set a maximums size for all carry-on luggage at 22" x 18" x 10". Airlines would be allowed to set lower maximums if they wished to do so.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would enforce the limit by setting up measuring templates at airport security checkpoints. If your bag doesn't fit, you'll have to check it.
Would any of this make airplane cabins more secure? Doubtful. As Cato Institute security expert Jim Harper says, the only way to prevent terrorism is to make terrorism difficult. With this law, all that any would-be terrorists would need to do is buy smaller luggage. Rep. Lipinski's bill doesn't make it any harder to sneak a weapon on board.
The security argument doesn't hold water. But supporters have another justification for it: convenience. A July 2 New York Times editorial made this argument by mocking a fictional passenger stuffing an oversized carry-on into an overhead bin: "If I Give This Footlocker a Half-Turn and Push Even Harder, Maybe in 20 Minutes Its Rigid Vertical Dimensions Will Magically Shrink, and Then I Can Sit Down and Let These Angry People Pass."
There's only one problem with this reasoning: United Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Midwest Airlines, and other carriers already have size restrictions smaller than what Rep. Lipinski has proposed.
And yet the maddening spectacle of passengers trying fit square pegs into round overhead bins still occurs. Presumably the measuring templates will reduce the problem. But the question needs to be asked: Does this problem really need a federal solution?
Then consider the added inconvenience. If your bag doesn't fit through TSA's template, you will need to go back to the airline's service counter to check your bag, pay for the privilege, get back in the long security line, and hope you don't miss your flight. This is not convenient. It is, in fact, most decidedly inconvenient.
And all for what? Non-regulatory solutions already exist. If your carry-on is too big, then the airline can check your bag at the gate. It's not that big a deal.
At least not to you or me. But it could be a very big deal to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, a union that represents airline baggage handlers. Strictly enforced carry-on size restrictions could steer a lot of business their way -- almost certainly more than enough to recoup the $10,000 they gave Rep. Lipinski last election cycle.
United Airlines also gave money to Rep. Lipinski. Now that they are charging for checked luggage, they could also see a windfall. Yes, they could strictly screen carry-on size themselves. But with the TSA doing it for them, United can deflect customers' ire away from itself.
The Securing Cabin Baggage Act would not make passengers safer. It would not make their lives more convenient. It is but another instance of organized labor and business interests extracting favors from government -- regulatory capture, in economics lingo.
The size of your carry-on luggage should not be a federal matter.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 7.7.09 @ 6:38AM
If there was a way to keep people from carrying everything from huge double-wide baby strollers to Christmas trees on board toothpaste-tube-sized airliners, and then arguing ceaselessly about it while the line grows ever longer and visions of missed connections dance in our heads, then lets hear it.
If there were only a return to the days when the hoi polloi, who have no manners and who believe the rules -- ALL rules -- do not apply to Them, could not travel, things would improve dramatically.
And by the way, if the Unions did not smash, lose, abandon or raid our checked baggage, more of us would check our bags.
Let us return to civility, and the problem would be solved.
Bram| 7.7.09 @ 7:25AM
More of us would check our bags if we didn't have to pay extra for the privilege - then wait an extra 45 minutes after the flight to see if the bag made it to the same airport as I did.
JohnD| 7.7.09 @ 8:48AM
I think he is right on. I would go further and ban ALL carry-on luggage. If you hit a tailwind or turbulence those compartments open and the bags can decapitate someone, all so some self-important blackberry-addict can avoid waiting at the baggage claim; while you wait for him to finish blocking the aisle retrieving his bag at the end of the flight.
Also, finding space for carry-ons delays boarding and causes delays. Plus, where do you put your suit jacket on a business flight when the bins are packed?
Purses and brief cases only should be allowed as carry ons. All luggage should be checked.
(By the way; first, outlaw baggage checking fees; its way for airlines to fool people that their fare is the lowest, when it is not - its fraud).
ucfengr| 7.7.09 @ 9:12AM
Yes, JohnD. By all means, lets make air travel less pleasant and less convenient. That will surely help the airlines return to profitability.
John D| 7.7.09 @ 9:29AM
ucfengr:
It is already unpleasant when I have to wait 30 minutes before takeoff for someone to find space for their steamer trunk in the overhead, and then wait for him to fish it out while he blocks the aisle when we arrive.
Just asking you to be considerate. If that's too unpleasant, then try Trailways or Amtrak.
By the way, the 9-11 Hijackers hid their razor blades in carry-ons. 'Nuff said.
Appleby| 7.7.09 @ 9:59AM
And the Shoe Bomber hid his explosives in his Reeboks. Why have those not been banned?
How about somebody start a carryon-luggage-free airline and see how many customers it gets? And if anybody wants to start a child-free airline, I am your first customer. In a true capitalist society there would be people fighting to fill these niches. Where are you guys?
Pingback| 7.7.09 @ 10:05AM
Regulation of the Day: The Size of Your Carry-On Bags | OpenMarket.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Eric Damon| 7.7.09 @ 10:57AM
The point here is not the silly arguments made about the alleged incivility of having carry-on baggage, it is about a bill being introduced that sticks the nose of the federal government into private business affairs. And it is also about the backscratching mentality that infects Washington, DC and how that mild corruption seeps over into our private lives.
Instead of being outraged that people may annoy you with carry-on bags, maybe you should have some outrage over a member of Congress introducing legislation that will charge you extra money at the airport; money that will go right to people who were contributors to the congressman's campaign. That's the story here, not whether or not someone has a carry-on that may be too big.
Sheba468| 7.7.09 @ 11:19AM
Unless I am mistaken, one can hide a box cutter in a purse or a briefcase, too.
It is not inconsiderate to bring a carry-on bag onto a plane, it is a matter of convenience; a convenience that is extended to all travelers. One that businessmen and tourists alike have been using for decades. Yes, it is a bit frustrating when someone holds up the line of departing passengers while they are retrieving their bag—I am guilty of sighing loudly at the end of a cross country flight—but a few extra minutes is not the end of the world.
I absolutely agree with Mr. Damon. The argument here is government overreach. I do not need or want the government deciding how large my luggage can be. Especially when the airlines “already have size restrictions smaller than what Rep. Lipinski has proposed.” The bill reeks of security theatre, and frankly, I’m tired of the show.
And, when was the last time you even saw a steamer trunk, let alone someone trying to wrestle it onto an airplane?
JohnD| 7.7.09 @ 11:33AM
By saving a few minutes at baggage claim, carry-on'ers endanger and delay their fellow passengers. Again, if you hit turbulence, those bins open and the suitcases become projectiles. I have seen many people carry-on huge bags aboard flights, delaying takeoff while looking for space.
Why not just check the bag and wait yourself, rather than making your fellow passengers wait. It is simple common courtesy and consideration, which I know is not in vogue anymore.
Banning carry-ons would save time, prevent flight delays, and make passengers safer. I would love to see a stricter version of this go through.
As for "no-carry on" airlines, I'd prefer an airline that lets you smoke.
Pingback| 7.7.09 @ 12:50PM
Young in American Spectator: “Unnecessary Baggage” | OpenMarket.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 7.7.09 @ 12:55PM
Years ago I worked as a prison guard. You'd be surprised what naked prisoners can hide.
mmm| 7.7.09 @ 1:14PM
Best solution would be completely standardized luuggage, designed for optimal packing and handling effciency. Would enable more automation of the checked baggage, and less disputes over overhead space.
JerseyJ| 7.7.09 @ 1:46PM
Eric's right. The issue is not whether the carry-on baggage is convenient or whether some poser decides to stuff a dishwasher in the overhead, the issue is that there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to meddle in the size of luggage nor most of what they meddle in including health-care, lending guidelines, use of seat belts or even recently, how much Verizon is allowed to charge a consumer for a text ... the list of unconstitutional laws is too long to even comprehend, yet most are passed to guarantee a profit to someone in return for campaign contributions.
I used to think legislation such as this was simply the results of full-time career politians having nothing better to do than think up ways to justify their own existence since theirs are positions which were designed to be part-time temporary ones. I have since come to realize, as this article demonstrates, there is a more distasteful reason for it and that's profit. The old expression "follow the money" is clearly valid.
The legislature is a basic example of people with too much power and too much time on their hands. They use their time to figure out how to use their power to profit themselves. Who cares what it is they're trying to regulate ... from naturally occurring gas like CO2 to the use of a hand-held phone while driving ... it's time we put a stop to all of it.
JohnD| 7.7.09 @ 2:36PM
JerseyJ:
The federal government regulates aviation and has dominion over the skies under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. The Constitution's "interstate commerce clause" gives Congress plenary power to regulate interstate commerce, including aviation (and everything else). Setting standards for passenger safety is well within that ambit.
I think people who endanger others well-being to avoid the inconvenience of waiting (while making others wait so you don;t have to) is beyond mere selfishness and being inconsiderate; it reflects a contempt for those around you, and a self-centered attitude that everyone else can wait, but not you.
I thought we all used to slam liberals for this attitude.
JerseyJ| 7.7.09 @ 4:18PM
JohnD seems to think ... "Setting standards for passenger safety is well within that ambit. "
First and foremost luggage size is NOT interstate commerce. The combination of Interstate Commerce with Necessary and Proper has given rise to serious abuses of power.
Now I agree that passenger safety is a concern which does require regulation. But to regulate the size and shape of luggage goes far beyond passenger safety and way, way, way outside the enumerated power of the regulation of interstate commerce. It is micromanagement pure and simple. What makes 56 centimeters by 45 centimeters by 25 centimeters the holy grail of safe air travel? What expert determined this to be the point at which my safety is compromised? Is this one-size-fits-all-for-safety the same on a CRJ as it is on a 777?
What you and most of our elected nannies seem to miss is that constitutionally speaking, you can legislate under the regulation of interstate commerce that in exchange for the airfare, the airlines safely and securely convey passengers to their destination and that in the course of that conveyance passengers must act in a manner consistent with the safety requirements of the airline. You can create the FAA to promulgate constitutional rules in accordance with that law. What you can't do is legislate every single solitary detail of what is considered "safe". All we need is a study that indicates that bright orange bags cause seizures in some guy from Massapequa and we'll need a law for that. Where does it end?
Let's take for example the ever-popular-yet-clearly-ignored ban on hand-held cell phone use while driving. What if I am no worse a driver while gabbing away doing 70 down I75 than I am with hands at 10 & 2 and the radio off? Should I be subjected to a law that bans my chat sessions just because you jump in the fast lane and slow to 40 while catching up with your old college buddy even though I continue to operate my vehicle safely? Shall we also enact laws that limit other dangerous activities while driving? There is no law which bans the sheering of sheep while driving. Does this make doing so ok? What about needlepoint, cabinetmaking, cooking and haircutting? Surely these should not be permitted while driving. The requirement to safely operate a vehicle already covers all of these activities IF they result in the unsafe operation of the vehicle. Done.
These are all admittedly absurd examples, but there is no real difference between luggage size and any of those examples. Luggage size is a rule issue not a law issue and there are already rules insituted by the airlines limiting the size and weight of carryon luggage in accordance with their legal responsibility to provide safe and secure transport. Done.
My point is that you can legislate that the operation of a motor vehicle must be done in a safe manner. You can legislate that airlines must provide safe conveyance. You can create laws that penalize me if I fail to operate my car safely or that penalize the airline if they do not ensure the safety of passengers, but you cannot legislate exactly how these things are done. It is foolish to try and more importantly, it is a violation of the right to personal liberty upon which this country was founded.
This bill is clearly outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, but yet we've come to accept legislation like this as permissible. Legislators are governing like kids who used the line “you never told me I couldn’t do it” when their parent asked them why the burned the neighbors house down or why they cut the heads off all their sister’s dolls.
I digress … The real point of the article is not whether my 57 centimeter bag of widgets endangers the safety of others, it's whether the federal government has the right to determine that.
Reagan was right when speaking of the left … “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
My apologies for the extended vent. For the record, my carry-on always fits easily within the little metal box they have at the checkin counter.
SteelerFan| 7.7.09 @ 4:59PM
JerseyJ - Thank you for the well-written, intelligent, and witty post! Seriously - in the top two of my all time favorite comments... Ever!
whyyeseyec| 7.7.09 @ 5:28PM
Airlines can do this on their own. New laws are not needed.
Do something important Congressman like balance the budget and reduce the size of government. Don`t waste valuable time on frivilous laws .....
Roy| 7.7.09 @ 7:15PM
I agree with the article that this law is a fairly transparent attempt by the airlines to transfer their costs to the TSA, IE, the taxpayer. It has no security value at all. Literally none, could not be less.
As far as JerseyJ - I actually don't think I agree. I don't see any argument that this falls outside the scope of regulating interstate commerce. The point of your argument seems to be that it is overboard micromanagement. That does not make it unconstitutional. "Where it stops" is where we the people democratically decide that it stops, unless it violates some other provision of the constitution.
I do agree that it should be left to capitalism. If there were an airline without carry-on luggage, I'd never fly it unless I never wanted to see my laptop again. On the other hand, the airline that invents a better way to store your carryon luggage than struggling with those obnoxious overhead compartments will be a monopoly overnight.
JerseyJ| 7.7.09 @ 7:38PM
Roy ... "As far as JerseyJ - I actually don't think I agree. I don't see any argument that this falls outside the scope of regulating interstate commerce. "
Well we wouldn't be the first to disagree. This argument has been around since the ICA in 1887 and Sherman in 1890. As somewhat of a strict(ish) Constitutionalist I would say that the original intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause was to restrict States from passing punative or discriminatory laws which interfered with interstate commerce. No mention of luggage (sorry, couldn't resist). The current state of the insurance industry (yes, including health insurance) is a fine example of why interstate commerce needs regulating. But regulating commerce and providing health insurance (or coverage or services or whatever) are two very different things. To regulate does not mean to become a party to or participant in, it means to oversee.
Incidentally, commerce is defined as the interchange of goods or commodities.
You can certainly disagree, lots of people do, but I don't think you need to buy what I'm selling to see that this law serves only to enrich the sponsor and those who contribute to his continued "service" to our fine Republic.
Henry Reardon| 7.8.09 @ 8:36PM
Three years ago I finally had enough of airlines and stopped flying maltogether. Haven't flown since and have no plans to fly. If you don't like what these clowns are doing to our country, go Galt.
wholesale shoes| 7.9.09 @ 1:08AM
We are professional cheap kids shoes online store .We provide Nike shoes cheap ,Nike air jordan,cheap kids clothing
cheap womens clothing,Nike shoes online store,Nike shoes cheap,Nike shoes for kids,air jordan sneakers,nike air jordan,air jordans,brand shoe,shoes brand, dropship Nike shoes , brand clothes,brand clothes ,shoes brand,cheap kids clothing for cheap wholesale Air Jordans shoes for kids & women.
No Nonsense| 7.10.09 @ 4:39PM
@Appleby... here here.
If anyone ever starts that child-free airline, I would sign up in a second. I myself would gladly pay an extra $100 for ANY child-free flight.. and I know MANY like minded people that would do the same.
Here's hoping.
Pingback| 7.13.09 @ 3:46PM
Episode 51: Watch for Falling Rupees | Liberty Week links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.15.09 @ 5:18PM
Flying Is a Taxable Event | OpenMarket.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
lingerie wholesale| 7.20.09 @ 6:41AM
Incredible post. Thank you for all this valuable information
ed hardy clothes| 7.24.09 @ 3:36AM
i like
cheap handbags| 7.26.09 @ 6:31PM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.
george| 7.29.09 @ 2:48AM
a href="http://www.louisvuittonlive.com/categories/311-1.html">Louis Vuitton Damier Azur handbags , commonly referred to as
ouis Vuitton Damier Azur, or sometimes shortened to
Louis Vuitton Damier Canvas handbags has become one of the most
Louis Vuitton Damier Canvas luxury brands.
louis vuitton outlet storelove
luis vuitton outleti like
lv outletsgood
louis vuitton onlinenice
gbujnjkn| 8.20.09 @ 2:25AM
Always leading the avant-garde of fashion without compromising traditional craftsmanship of luxury leather goods
Louis Vuitton
Louis Vuitton Replica
Louis Vuitton outlet is also active in other ...
CheapLouis VuittonReplica Handbags,Purses,Wallets Outlet and
Louis Vuitton Replica
Designer Bags,Shoes Outlet Store - discount price is our special offer, ...
Louis Vuitton Outlet
s| 8.20.09 @ 2:34AM
Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes
tiffany jewellery| 8.29.09 @ 4:02AM
good post,I think so!abercrombie and fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T -Shirts, Pants, Polos abercrombie and fitch abercrombie fitch abercrombie cheap abercrombie fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie womens polos Abercrombie & Fitch Men, women,and children's clothing
www cheap handbags com| 9.2.09 @ 6:58AM
Oh well, my colleagues have introduced an www cheap handbags com online store. They said that price and quality are very good. Can you give me more suggestions?
dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 7:59AM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Corum Watches
Replica D&G Watches
Replica De Witt Watches
Replica Ebel Watches
Replica Emporio Armani Watches
Replica Fendi Watches
Replica Ferrari Watches
Replica Fortis Watches
Replica Franck Muller Watches
Replica Graham Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 2:36AM
I never buy from outlet, the priceWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
Bridal Gowns
is expensive and I always bought online.
Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 4:55PM
Flying Is a Taxable Event « Inertia Wins! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 5:31PM
Why Is Your Carry-On Baggage a Federal Matter? « Inertia Wins! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 5:36PM
On the Radio – Regulating Carry-On Bags « Inertia Wins! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.11.09 @ 5:42PM
Regulation of the Day 13: The Size of Your Carry-On Bags « Inertia Wins! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fjdsk| 10.16.09 @ 2:20AM
shanghai massage
turntable bearings
fjdsk| 11.13.09 @ 4:09AM
beijing massage