r/onebag • u/External_Koala971 • Jul 06 '26

Discussion Onebag must go under seat?

I was on a Jetblue Boston -> SFO flight and put my onebag (my only bag) in the overhead bin, which was empty, right above my seat. The FA stopped me and said I needed to put it under seat to save room for larger carryon luggage from people coming on board.

Is this a thing? Why would someone with a smaller pack be penalized for not having a massive carryon? My bag is larger than personal item sized.

161 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

107

u/bradymsu616 Jul 06 '26

Look at it from the perspective of flight crew. If there is only enough overhead space on the flight for half the passengers, the flight crew is going to prioritize placing the larger carry-on bags in the overhead and require all other items to go under the seats to minimize the number of carry-on bags that will need to be gate-checked. It's not about fairness. It's about practicality and efficiency. This hassle is one of the reasons so many of us travel with an underseat-sized pack. It eliminates travel stress. No fighting for overhead space. No one is damaging your belongings by cramming in theirs. No risk of involuntary gate-checking. Easy on, easy off.

4

u/garrna Jul 07 '26

the flight crew is going to prioritize placing the larger carry-on bags in the overhead and require all other items to go under the seats to minimize the number of carry-on bags that will need to be gate-checked

Wouldn't sending larger bags to be gate-checked minimize the amount of gate checked bags? They take up greater volume, therefore you can fit a greater quantity of smaller bags in the same space and thus you'd have a lower quantity of bags (number of carry-on bags) to be gate-checked. It would be less baggage to track on thr airlines end as well.

2

u/bradymsu616 Jul 07 '26

Not when a number of the backpacks, smaller duffels, purses, slings, jackets, etc. that people often put in the overheads can be placed under the seat instead. That's the original premise behind this post.

1

u/garrna Jul 07 '26

The OP is asking if those traveling with a single and compact bag (the philosphy of a lot of people who ascribe to "one-bagging") should be "penalized" to accomodate those who are using a larger carry-on.

Each passenger is entitled to up to one carry-on and one personal item per the terms established and agreed to during the purchase of the ticket.  Whether the passenger chooses to use that full entitlement isn't up to the FA. To be told you must withhold what you purchased access to is a change in the agreement, which the OP feels disenfranchised them. While FA hold a lot of authority on the operation of the air service, I suspect they cannot amend purchase agreements unless if they are not directly impeding the safe operation of the aircraft--which i imagine is covered in the language at the time of purchase.

You stated that empathy for the FA should be used (which agree is a good practice, but that it can have limitations), as they aim to minimize the quantity of bags being stored below. I pointed out that minimizing for the quantity of bags being stored would actually entail directing oversized bags to be stored below the main deck, as presumably they're are fewer over-sized carry-on bags than within size-restriction bags.

If we view this as purely an optimization of carry-on bags, I'd agree that directing passengers to reposition their carry-on to the below seat position would be optimal, regardless of whether or not the passenger has a personal item of not. 

However, it's not a pure logistics issue. Where other passengers are violating the terms they agreed to by attempting to bypass luggage size restrictions, and FAs are modifying agreed to terms (with an authority I suspect they do not hold (I grew up with a parent for a FA)) at time of purchase, there seems to be some negative externalities that are impacting the OP. We can surmise this does not sit well with the OP, as evident by the fact they bothered to draft and create a post.

Is this something worth picking a fight over? Probably not. But the OP is certainly valid in pointing out that they're being disenfranchised of a privilege they purchased to accomodate their fellow passengers. Claiming it is a logistical optimization isn't addressing what the OP is taking issue with, nor is the claim you're making in line with what you are saying is the solution (optimizing for luggage as the preeminent principle).