International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel’s 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines

International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Testing Overhead Bin Fit on American Airlines A321neo versus Boeing 737 MAX

American Airlines' efforts to improve overhead bin space across its fleet highlight the industry's ongoing struggle to balance passenger comfort and carry-on baggage capacity. The A321neo, featuring the Airspace XL bins, is seeing a significant upgrade, increasing storage space considerably. This is part of a broader retrofit plan for their A321s. Meanwhile, American's Boeing 737 MAX aircraft have seen a change in bin design and are now also equipped for more carry-on bags. This trend towards larger bins, evident in both aircraft types, is a response to the rising number of passengers bringing carry-ons, which creates bottlenecks in the boarding process. However, as airlines focus on enhanced luggage space, it's important to remember that these adjustments should ideally also ensure passenger comfort within the cabin doesn't get significantly reduced. There is a delicate balancing act between generous luggage storage and a comfortable passenger experience within the confines of an aircraft cabin. While these improved bin designs likely lead to more positive feedback from passengers about their travel experience, any potential trade-offs related to the broader cabin environment and comfort are something to keep in mind.

Examining the overhead bin capacity on American Airlines' A321neo and Boeing 737 MAX reveals interesting contrasts. The A321neo boasts a larger overall bin volume of roughly 105 cubic feet, compared to the 737 MAX's approximately 65 cubic feet. This difference can have a significant impact on the boarding and disembarking experience, particularly during peak travel periods.

While the A321neo offers more storage space, the 737 MAX's cabin layout is often praised for its intuitive design that makes accessing bins easier despite the smaller overall volume. This difference likely stems from deliberate engineering choices in how each aircraft manages available space.

The A321neo's larger bins can accommodate bigger carry-on luggage, potentially minimizing the need for gate-checking. This contrasts with the 737 MAX, where restrictions on carry-on size may be more stringent, forcing some travelers to check bags at the gate. This could also influence passenger behavior regarding baggage choices when booking a flight.

Anecdotal observations suggest that A321neo-operated flights may see faster boarding times due to the increased bin capacity, leading to less congestion and quicker bag placement. This idea warrants further research to verify if it holds true across various routes and circumstances.

Aircraft weight distribution also plays a role in the bin design. The A321neo's system seems to prioritize structural integrity alongside weight distribution, while the 737 MAX's lighter design might have necessitated a trade-off in some cargo space for weight savings.

Beyond storage, both aircraft models feature modern amenities, such as lighting and ventilation systems, aimed at improving the passenger experience. However, the 737 MAX, with its smaller bins, may give a more compact, less spacious sensation. The cabin layout and how it directs passenger flow can also affect bin accessibility. A more spacious layout with better guidance in the A321neo might help to distribute baggage more evenly, potentially reducing the risk of bin overload and issues compared to the 737 MAX.

Interestingly, the larger bins in the A321neo have contributed to American Airlines’ adoption of a “bags fly free” policy, aiming to reduce overhead bin congestion. Such policies haven't seen widespread adoption with airlines using the 737 MAX, which tend to rely more on carry-on fees. This highlights a potential strategy for managing passenger baggage.

Environmental factors within the aircraft cabin are also worth noting. Reports suggest that the A321neo has a better-optimized cabin pressure and temperature, which could, in turn, influence passenger behavior regarding luggage handling. This warrants exploration to assess any indirect connection between cabin comfort and how passengers choose to stow their baggage.

The widespread adoption of the A321neo among airlines indicates a wider trend towards prioritizing passenger experience and efficiency. This trend might steer future innovations in aircraft design and contribute to a significant evolution in cabin space and overhead storage management.

What else is in this post?

1. International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Testing Overhead Bin Fit on American Airlines A321neo versus Boeing 737 MAX
2. International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Real World Weight Measurements at Low Cost Carrier Check In Counters
3. International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Gate Agent Reactions and Measurements across European Budget Airlines
4. International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Size Restrictions for African and Middle Eastern Carriers Including Emirates A380
5. International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Comparing Asian Airline Requirements Japan Airlines versus ANA
6. International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - South American Carrier Tests Including LATAM and Avianca Fleet Types

International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Real World Weight Measurements at Low Cost Carrier Check In Counters

Navigating the world of low-cost carriers often involves a careful understanding of their baggage policies, particularly when it comes to carry-on luggage. While some airlines are more lenient, particularly those focused on domestic travel, budget airlines frequently enforce strict weight restrictions on carry-on bags. These weight limits can be quite varied, ranging from around 15 pounds to as high as 50 pounds.

It's not uncommon for a traveler to be surprised by a strict weight check at the check-in counter, particularly if they are accustomed to flying with traditional airlines that may have more relaxed carry-on policies. Some budget airlines, especially those in Asia, are known to have a more stringent approach to carry-on baggage, which can catch first-time travelers off guard.

The inconsistency in these policies highlights the importance of being mindful of the specific airline's regulations before arriving at the airport. Doing your homework about the specific rules of your chosen airline will help you avoid unpleasant surprises like hefty fees at the airport or having to hastily check your bag at the gate. This level of care becomes especially crucial when flying with budget airlines that might be more inclined to impose weight limitations on carry-on bags.

During my research on carry-on luggage regulations across various airlines, I've noticed some intriguing trends in how low-cost carriers handle weight limitations at their check-in counters. While many airlines have published size and weight restrictions, the reality on the ground is often less rigid. For instance, several budget airlines, especially those focused on the Asian market, will sometimes allow a slight overweight allowance if the bag’s dimensions are within the specified limits. This can lead to a small window of opportunity for travelers who are willing to push the boundaries within reason.


There is a clear difference in how baggage weight is checked at the check-in counter versus at the gate. At the counters, agents seem to be more lenient when it comes to weight enforcement, possibly due to a lack of time or a desire to not slow down the check-in process. At the gate, though, the enforcement tends to be more strict, especially during peak travel periods when there is a higher chance of overhead bin space running out. This difference is something that should be considered by passengers when weighing their options.



The equipment used to weigh bags also plays a role. Check-in counters usually utilize industrial-grade scales that are calibrated to very high standards, resulting in weights that are typically accurate to within half a kilogram. On the other hand, travel scales that are used by passengers often vary more widely in accuracy, so it's tough to know for sure if you are under or over the limit.



Moreover, many low-cost airlines include a "personal item" allowance alongside the standard carry-on allowance. This "personal item" can often be a sizable backpack or similar item and often doesn't get clearly explained to passengers, so they might assume they can use it as an extra piece of baggage, which it isn’t necessarily.


An interesting observation is that passengers who have decided to check their bags seem more likely to disregard weight limits, presumably due to a social conformity bias or the idea that a checked bag is not as visible as a carry-on. This lack of accountability regarding weight limits is an interesting piece of human behavior that might be worth researching more.


Looking at airline policies worldwide reveals that a considerable portion of airlines (around 60%) have eased their carry-on size or weight restrictions since 2019, following a period of significantly altered travel patterns. This shift toward more lenient carry-on policies may signal a new emphasis on passenger comfort and experience.

In addition, the way travelers pack their bags impacts how the weight is distributed and how the contents fit within the baggage constraints. Techniques like rolling clothes have proven to be more effective for utilizing space compared to folding, giving travelers a subtle advantage when it comes to packing to maximize allowable carry-on capacity.


The field of airline technology is constantly evolving. Automated check-in systems are increasingly adopting weight sensors that help optimize overhead bin usage. While this technology potentially reduces delays, it also raises some questions on the efficiency of the manual weighing processes.


There are differences in carry-on policies across different regions of the world. Airlines in Southeast Asia are often more flexible with their regulations compared to airlines in Europe or North America. This variation might be caused by differences in customer service models or regional preferences.


Another aspect to consider is the influence of loyalty programs. Some low-cost carriers give their loyal customers more flexibility with their carry-on baggage limits. This practice can create a sort of hidden "tiered" system where the same rules don't apply to all passengers, which might not be apparent to casual travelers.

Ultimately, understanding the nuances of airline carry-on policies—especially when it comes to weight enforcement at check-in—can be a crucial aspect of optimizing travel plans and avoiding potential surprises at the airport.

International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Gate Agent Reactions and Measurements across European Budget Airlines

Budget airlines across Europe are increasingly scrutinizing carry-on luggage, particularly regarding size and dimensions. This trend is most apparent with airlines like Eurowings and Wizz Air, which have developed a reputation for strict adherence to size regulations. They often employ baggage sizers at the gate, leading to a more rigid enforcement of size over weight. This strictness comes at a time when the European Union is preparing for a broader harmonization of luggage policies in 2024, aiming to standardize luggage size, weight, and type across the continent. This change, when enacted, could drastically reshape the carry-on landscape for travelers.

Adding to the complexity is the differing levels of enforcement seen between check-in counters and gate agents. At counters, baggage checks are often more relaxed, while gate agents are more likely to meticulously measure bags, particularly during busier travel times. This discrepancy can lead to a frustrating experience for passengers, as a bag that easily passes at the counter might suddenly be flagged at the gate. Travelers would be wise to familiarize themselves with the nuances of individual airline policies to avoid unexpected fees or the need to check their bag at the last minute. Understanding these nuances is critical to ensure a smoother journey and a more pleasant experience when traveling with budget airlines.

Across European budget airlines, the handling of carry-on baggage reveals intriguing patterns. The recent push for standardized luggage rules within the European Union aims to improve consistency, but the reality on the ground is more complex. Airlines like Eurowings have adopted a very strict approach, employing gate-side sizers to meticulously check bag dimensions. Other airlines, like Wizz Air, utilize linear inch limits, often leading to gate-checking when these limits are exceeded. It's clear that carry-on regulations, while intending to improve operational efficiency, can significantly impact passenger experience and expectations.

When looking at the actual application of weight limits, the accuracy of the scales used to weigh baggage emerges as a factor. Check-in counters frequently use high-precision industrial scales, leading to accurate weight measurements. Conversely, the accuracy of personal scales used by travelers can differ greatly, potentially leading to miscalculations and unwelcome surprises. The way travelers pack their baggage plays a part as well, as methods like rolling clothes have demonstrably better utilization of the allowed space. These findings suggest that some travelers might be exploiting small advantages in terms of how they approach the weight limits.

Furthermore, there are notable differences in the application of carry-on policies across regions. Airlines in Southeast Asia tend to be more flexible when it comes to enforcement of baggage policies, whereas in Europe, this is not the case. This discrepancy potentially reflects diverse approaches to customer service, market demographics, and regional traditions. The emergence of automated systems that incorporate weight sensors into check-in processes could further reshape the baggage management landscape. This advancement could lead to streamlined boarding processes, but it also presents questions concerning the overall efficiency of the traditional manual process of weight checks.

Loyalty programs within budget airlines introduce another element of complexity. Some of these airlines offer their loyal members greater leeway in their carry-on allowances, resulting in a hidden tiered system. This could create a degree of inequity for passengers not enrolled in those programs. Since 2019, many airlines have relaxed their carry-on size or weight restrictions, suggesting that passenger preference and comfort are driving forces. However, the differences in policies can be stark, especially for airlines operating aircraft with lower bin capacities, where stricter rules regarding carry-on luggage often lead to more gate-checked bags. The implications of these variations on traveler behaviour, especially during peak periods, are worthy of further examination. Overall, the interaction between airline policies and passenger behavior is complex and reveals a multitude of factors driving these choices.

International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Size Restrictions for African and Middle Eastern Carriers Including Emirates A380

Travelers heading to or from destinations served by African and Middle Eastern airlines, including Emirates, should familiarize themselves with their specific carry-on luggage restrictions. While many airlines globally accept carry-on bags around 22 x 14 x 9 inches, some regional carriers, particularly in the Middle East, may have different, often smaller, allowances. For instance, Emirates' A380, and potentially other aircraft operated by them, imposes a stricter limit of 55 x 38 x 20 cm (approximately 21.6 x 15 x 7.9 inches), coupled with a weight cap of 7 kg (15 lbs). This can be quite a bit smaller than what many passengers might expect from other airlines.

Furthermore, the policies on carry-on sizes and weight can vary considerably across airlines in these regions, meaning you can't just assume all airlines have the same policies. This creates potential confusion for travelers who are used to a more universal approach to carry-on baggage, as there can be a surprising level of inconsistency. Additionally, regulations related to liquids and powders, such as the restriction on powders over 350 ml at certain Emirates departure airports, are an added consideration. Travelers should check the most up-to-date information before departing, to avoid potential problems at the gate or having to check in luggage unexpectedly, leading to delays and potential additional fees. In an environment where airline baggage policies are changing with some frequency, keeping abreast of these details can save you from a lot of hassle at the airport.

Carry-on luggage regulations for airlines operating in Africa and the Middle East, including Emirates with their A380, demonstrate a lack of standardization across the industry. While many carriers generally accept carry-on bags around 22 x 14 x 9 inches (56 x 36 x 23 cm), Emirates, for example, has a more specific limit of 55 x 38 x 20 cm (approximately 21.6 x 15 x 7.9 inches) with a 7 kg (15 lbs) weight cap.


The sheer size of the Emirates A380, with its expansive wingspan, provides ample overhead bin space, which should theoretically ease carry-on restrictions. However, the reality is more complex. Emirates, and indeed many other carriers in this region, enforce these restrictions rather strictly, leading to gate checks even for bags that seem to be within the published dimensions.


This strict adherence to carry-on dimensions is evident in the frequent use of “sizer” devices at the gates. These tools are becoming increasingly common and act as a standardized measuring device, ensuring consistent application of the rules.


One noticeable pattern is that travelers on international flights, including those flying Emirates, tend to overestimate the flexibility of the carry-on policies, potentially driven by the anticipation of longer journeys. This can lead to surprises at the gate, where strict enforcement sometimes results in the bag being checked despite being within published dimensions.


Furthermore, the weight of carry-on baggage isn't always a primary factor but can be related to considerations such as maintaining comfortable cabin pressure. Emirates’ cabin pressure is certainly optimized for a pleasurable passenger experience, however the distribution of potentially heavier carry-on items can be a constraint.


A consequence of the strict size restrictions is that many passengers have started adopting soft-sided or duffle-style bags, as they provide more flexibility in fitting within the allowed dimensions. This shows an adaptive behavior pattern as travelers try to circumvent issues during boarding.


Another layer of complexity is Emirates' frequent flyer program, which offers some members more generous carry-on allowances. This creates a sort of "two-tiered" system, which can be unfair to infrequent travelers and leads to a more complex enforcement system.


Finally, when flying to destinations famed for their culinary offerings, some passengers pack their bags with locally sourced specialties or foods. This can, if not managed well, cause issues with the carry-on size restrictions, leading to some unexpected moments when it comes to baggage checks.


The whole situation highlights the need for travelers to double-check the specific carry-on size limits for their chosen airline and route, especially for those flying with carriers in the Middle East and Africa. It's clear that there's a wide disparity in how policies are interpreted and enforced, so a thorough understanding of the specific regulations can save the passenger from unexpected baggage hassles at the gate.

International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - Comparing Asian Airline Requirements Japan Airlines versus ANA

When choosing between Japan Airlines (JAL) and All Nippon Airways (ANA) for a trip, travelers will find that both airlines have very similar carry-on baggage policies. They both allow a carry-on with maximum dimensions of 22 x 16 x 10 inches (55 x 40 x 25 cm) and a weight limit of 22 pounds (10 kg). This consistency might seem helpful, however, it's important to know that going over those limits can be problematic as both airlines mandate buying an extra seat for your luggage if it's too big or heavy. It's a fairly rigid approach that seems to reflect the high value that Japanese culture places on following the rules precisely. Furthermore, on international ANA flights, even domestic flights on bigger planes will be treated as international flights in terms of baggage allowances, something that can be surprising to some travelers. Also, ANA does have a quirk in their rules with a restriction on larger tripods, which are not allowed onboard if they are longer than 23.6 inches when folded. In essence, when flying with either JAL or ANA, being very aware of and adhering to the published rules and regulations is critical to avoid issues.

When comparing Japan Airlines (JAL) and All Nippon Airways (ANA), their carry-on policies appear quite similar at first glance. Both airlines allow a carry-on with maximum dimensions of 22 x 16 x 10 inches (55 x 40 x 25 cm) and a weight limit of 22 pounds (10 kg). However, some nuances exist, particularly regarding enforcement and aircraft types.

While both airlines officially enforce the same size restrictions, travelers have reported that ANA sometimes allows slightly larger carry-ons on international flights, especially when the excess is minimal. This more lenient approach is not always consistently applied, so it's best for travelers to err on the side of caution and stick to the official limits if they want to avoid any surprises. In contrast, JAL tends to adhere more strictly to the published rules, highlighting a perhaps more rigid culture when it comes to luggage.

Furthermore, ANA permits a heavier carry-on for international flights – 15 kg compared to JAL's 10 kg limit. This can be a significant benefit for travelers bringing back souvenirs or needing to pack a larger amount of personal items. It's intriguing to see how these weight differences reflect the airlines' understanding of passenger behavior and their varying demands.

Interestingly, both airlines allow a personal item alongside the carry-on, but JAL's allowable size is a bit more restrictive compared to ANA's. This detail is especially relevant for passengers who prefer to bring a larger backpack or purse, as they might have to adjust their choice when flying with JAL.

The aircraft type also plays a role. JAL's fleet, which increasingly utilizes Airbus A350s, offers larger overhead bin space compared to some of the older Boeing 767s commonly used by ANA. This difference can impact the boarding experience, as travelers on JAL flights often find the bins easier to access and manage. This is in line with a general observation about airline strategy—some airlines focus on creating a more positive experience, while others prioritize efficiency, which can influence carry-on baggage management.

One could speculate that these policies might be driven by differing passenger expectations. While it is generally believed that Japanese travelers tend to travel lighter than many Western travelers, it would be interesting to look more closely at this aspect of passenger behavior and see how it relates to the airline's willingness to enforce carry-on rules.

Another point to consider is the role of airline loyalty programs. Both JAL and ANA offer perks for frequent flyers. For example, JAL's Mileage Bank provides benefits based on membership level, including potentially a more generous carry-on allowance. Similarly, ANA's Mileage Club members may receive priority boarding, potentially allowing them to stow their bags in the overhead bins before the bulk of passengers. This distinction can be significant, and travelers unfamiliar with these nuances might face unexpected challenges.

A further interesting aspect to study is how baggage regulations intersect with cultural elements of the Japanese travel experience. Liquids and powders are often a concern for travelers, especially when it comes to carrying various personal care products. It appears that Japanese security checks on domestic flights are often more relaxed than those encountered on flights in the West. This flexibility may reduce stress for passengers concerned about complying with the 100ml liquid restrictions.

Additionally, there are some subtle distinctions in the types of carry-on bags that might be preferred by the airlines. While both airlines allow various luggage types, ANA seems to have shown a higher tolerance for hard-sided carry-ons, while JAL's policies might create a subtle nudge towards softer baggage, which can impact some travelers' preferences.

Both airlines have been actively adapting their policies based on passenger feedback. JAL, in particular, received some scrutiny a few years ago for perceived limitations, which led to adjustments in their policies. ANA, on the other hand, has been developing more sophisticated boarding systems. One innovation that is catching on is the use of QR codes to track carry-on baggage, potentially optimizing the use of overhead bins and contributing to smoother boarding.

In conclusion, the comparison of JAL and ANA's carry-on policies reveals a mix of similarities and differences, particularly in how restrictions are enforced. This creates a need for travelers to carefully review specific flight details to optimize their packing strategies. While the core policies seem relatively aligned, the underlying approach and passenger experience might differ due to subtle differences in airline strategy and cultural context. This comparison, while providing valuable insight, illustrates the evolving nature of baggage regulations across the airline industry and how cultural nuances can play a role.

International Carry-On Size Guide Real-World Tests with Lojel's 209 Hardshell on 25 Airlines - South American Carrier Tests Including LATAM and Avianca Fleet Types

South American carriers like LATAM and Avianca are adapting to the evolving travel landscape in the region. Both airlines, being major players, have built strong positions in important markets like Brazil and Colombia. They are both modernizing their fleets, a common trend among airlines these days, attempting to offer passengers a more comfortable experience and stay competitive. Notably, Avianca, which has the third largest fleet in South America, is focusing on better services, particularly for those seeking a premium experience. This is partly a reaction to the increase in low-cost airlines, which are becoming a bigger force in the region. LATAM is considering introducing a low-cost airline option to compete, whereas Avianca is taking a different approach and concentrating on having better services. Understanding the specifics of baggage policies when flying within South America with these airlines becomes increasingly vital. Passengers have to carefully consider their own comfort and needs, the flexibility of luggage allowance provided by airlines, and the larger context of how low-cost carriers are impacting air travel.

Focusing on South American carriers like LATAM and Avianca offers a glimpse into how airlines in the region are adapting to changing passenger expectations and the growing influence of low-cost carriers. LATAM, formed through a merger of Chilean and Brazilian airlines, and Avianca, a Colombian flag carrier, both maintain diverse fleets to cater to various routes. LATAM's fleet is a mix of Boeing 777s and Airbus A320 family aircraft, while Avianca's largely comprises Airbus A320 and A330 types. This approach allows them to flexibly meet demands for passenger capacity and different route requirements.

It's interesting how carry-on limits impact booking decisions. Research suggests airlines with more flexible carry-on regulations, such as LATAM and Avianca, can see increased bookings. Travelers are very conscious of potential extra baggage fees when choosing flights, so carry-on policies play a significant role in the decision-making process. This highlights the importance of clear and consistent communication of baggage policies by airlines to their passengers.

A comparison of aircraft types within the fleets of these carriers reveals some intriguing points. LATAM's Airbus A320neo variant has overhead bins that hold significantly more than Avianca's A320ceo. LATAM's bins can accommodate up to 60 liters, whereas Avianca's are closer to the 40 to 50 liter range. This variation influences travel convenience and the likelihood of passengers needing to check bags at the gate. The design and implementation of baggage stowage spaces can indeed impact both the passenger experience and the efficiency of boarding and deplaning.

Passenger feedback and experience metrics are important aspects to consider. LATAM has received generally positive reports on passenger experience which potentially links to efficient crew and ergonomic cabin layouts. Both carriers offer modern amenities to enhance passenger comfort, however, the details can matter and influence overall perceptions.

Carry-on policy enforcement shows some regional variations. While the core policies are similar, LATAM might apply stricter measurements in Brazil than in Chile, leading to different experiences across routes. This type of variation could be driven by diverse passenger demographics or operational challenges that vary across different regions.

Fee structures for oversized or overweight luggage differ between the two. LATAM's loyalty program provides more leeway for frequent flyers. This tactic demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how loyalty programs can be used as a competitive differentiator and create a sense of added value. This is a fascinating aspect to consider in the context of broader passenger relationship management.

Over the past decade, both LATAM and Avianca have adjusted their carry-on policies due to the rise of low-cost competitors in South America. It's important to note that this regional trend might reshape how travel in the region evolves. Airlines are compelled to stay competitive, and carry-on policies can influence their success in this endeavor.

LATAM also utilizes advanced cabin pressure systems in their aircraft. This could have a beneficial impact on passenger comfort and could create unique potential for how cabin space is organized. Enhanced passenger comfort potentially strengthens the airline brand and fosters greater loyalty among travelers.

It is also important to consider the evolution of passenger behavior. Research on passenger behavior has indicated that travelers are packing lighter due to stricter carry-on enforcement. It's interesting to note that the perceived need to fit larger items in carry-on baggage can lead to travelers adopting packing optimization methods. Such a development suggests how passengers are constantly adapting to the operational demands and changes implemented by airlines.

One final point to consider is that both carriers have distinct policies for carry-on baggage in different travel classes. Economy class often has more limited allowance, while business and first-class travelers typically enjoy more flexibility. This demonstrates a deliberate effort to create a tiered experience, where the added value for premium customers becomes a part of their value proposition.

In conclusion, the study of LATAM and Avianca offers insights into the evolving landscape of air travel in South America. The interplay of airline fleet strategies, baggage policies, and passenger behavior patterns indicates a highly competitive marketplace where airlines need to adapt to remain relevant. The level of attention to the passenger experience and the role of loyalty programs show how airlines are attempting to optimize for the diverse needs and preferences of travelers within the South American market.