indyfabz

I’ve ridden past the Rock &Roll Hall of Fame, the Burmis Tree in Alberta, the world’s largest purple spoon in East Glacier, MT and the giant statues of Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox in Bemidji, MN. Spent a night in Grand Rapids, MN, but did not visit the Judy Garland Museum. (She was born in Grand Rapids.) Spent a night in Dyersville, IA, but it was way too hot to ride out to the Field of Dreams. I’ve still never seen the film. But I did spend some time at the falls Leo floats down in The Revenant. They are outside of Libby, MT.

Doug64

Field of Dreams, Dyersville, IA


Sac City, IA-- How did you miss this?


Clown Doll Museum- Plainview, NE


Judy Garland's house - Grand Rapids, MN

Tourist in MSN

Not much to see here.

indyfabz

It was around 100 degrees when we pulled into Dyersville. None of our group of 13 had any interest under those conditions.

Don’t think we passed the popcorn ball. We were on ACA’s Northern Tier Route. That would have been neat to see. Had a day off in Davenport, IA. I took a ride to the John Deere Center in Moline, IL, and got to climb in equipment on display, including a giant combine.

I read that several years ago the pair of ruby slippers that had been stolen from the museum and had been missing for many years were recovered. IIRC, they were one of three pairs that had been made for filming.

Spent a night in Rugby, ND. There is a man made monolith there marking the approximate center of North America.

Tourist in MSN

We were driving home after a week of car camping while mountain biking on the Maah Daah Hey trail. I saw a sign announcing that we could stop and look at it. We did not stop, but I snapped a photo as we drove past. I just cropped the photo so it is easier to see.

KFC

Does the 115" baggage maximum only apply to only SOME airlines or it it some sort of industry regulated standard? I cannot find any mention of a 115" linear dimension standard on Southwest airlines. I would like to check by bicycle in an AMTRAK Box on a flight this upcoming May. It would be about 50 lbs. and 120 (rounded) linear inches. SWA public policy is confusing as subject to more than one interpretation. ..... "The items listed below will be accepted as Checked Baggage for a $75 each way charge.

Bicycles (defined as nonmotorized and having a single seat) properly packed in a bicycle box or hard-sided case from 51 to 100 pounds in weight or 62 to 80 inches in total dimensions will be accepted for an overweight and oversize baggage fee of $75 per item. Pedals and handlebars must be removed and packaged in protective materials so as not to be damaged by or cause damage to other Baggage. Bicycles packaged in cardboard or soft sided cases will be transported as limited release items. Bicycles over 100 pounds in weight AND 81 inches in total dimensions cannot be checked as baggage and can only be shipped as Cargo if the Customer is a known Shipper". (capitalization added by author)


I have called SWA twice and received two different interpretations. One help agent interpreted as bicycles EITHER over 100 lbs OR 81 inches would not be accepted. Another interpreted it as bicycle BOTH over 100 lbs. AND 81 inches would not be accepted. I have personally shipped a boxed box (last November) that was just under 50 lbs. and 91linear inches with no problem for a fee of $75. The box was accepted as checked baggage at the counter as was not weighed or measured.


Anybody have any insights or experiences with SWA?


Thanks...

indyfabz

I'd say that if it is within the listed weight range it will be exempt from overweight fees. If it is within the size range it will be exempt from the oversize fee. In other words, I think the policy could result in a passenger getting charged one fee but not the other. E.G., A 150 lb. bike in a 75 inch (total dimensions) box would be charged an overweight fee but not an oversize fee.

Tourist in MSN

I have not flown Southwest for four years, when I flew them my bike was in a S&S case that met the 62 inch limit. So, my experience is not directly applicable.

Your bike probably was weighed without you realizing it.

Every airline is different when it comes to the maximum size they will accept. Looks like Southwest is 80 inches.

I pasted this from Southwest site, checked baggage section where I clicked on "full details":

Weight and Size Allowance
Southwest will accept the first two checked bags for free provided that the bags do not exceed 50 lbs and 62 inches (L+W+H). Overweight items from 51 to 100 pounds and oversized items in excess of 62 inches but not more than 80 inches will be accepted for a charge of $75.00 per item one-way. Only one $75.00 charge applies if the piece is both oversized and overweight, regardless of the weight as long as it does not exceed 100 lbs. Excess baggage which is also overweight or oversized will be charged excess baggage plus the applicable oversize or overweight charge.

I am surprised that only one extra charge of $75 is charged if it is both overweight and also oversize. But that is what it appears to be.

I think you got lucky on the 91 inches. Perhaps it was not a very busy day? But airlines are much more likely to focus on the weight than the size. I have never seen a ticketing agent pull out a tape measure, but the scale clearly reads out in pounds (or outside USA, in kg).

That said, looks like since you were already paying the $75 oversize fee, that it could have been 99 pounds and not generate another fee. So, if it was over 50 pounds they probably were silent on that.

If I was you, I would try to get down to 80 inches or at least closer to it, just in case the plane is full when you want to fly.

John N

I had the same situation a few years ago with interpreting United's policy at that time. I ended up going out to the airport a few weeks early at the same approximate time that the plane was to leave and talked with the senior check in agent as I figured if there was a discrepancy, that is who I would be speaking with come the actual check in time. I got my answer and her name and noted the time and date. Sure enough, when I got to the airport with my unboxed but padded and taped bike, I had to speak with the same senior agent who remembered me and approved my bike "packing". They wheeled the bike out and it arrived fine in Calgary for my next adventure.

My point is that it might be worth a trip out to the airport to see what the actual decision maker says.

Tailwinds, John

kevmcd

I googled "southwest airlines oversize baggage 115" " and multiple websites said Southwest accepts oversize baggage up to 115" but none of these websites were official Southwest Airlines websites. It is confusing.

Their baggage policy is a good deal. I have used Southwest for rental car camping trips and checked a duffle bag and cooler packed with gear plus took a standard size carry-on onboard. I haven't tried taking a bicycle on Southwest.

Tourist in MSN

Agree on Southwest having a good luggage policy. Last time I flew with them was four years ago. In the photo below the brown duffel on a wheely cart was one of my checked bags, my other checked bag was my folding bike in the S&S Backpack case, which I am wearing. Both checked bags flew for free. The yellow smaller duffle was my carry on. My camping gear was in the brown checked duffel, the trip was for a week long van supported bike trip, the van hauled our camping gear on that trip.

It is hard to see that I am wearing the S&S Backpack case because it is black and against a dark background.



That trip on Southwest was when Delta, American and United still had exorbitant oversize fees for bikes, so that made Southwest even a better deal than now. I flew with two others on that trip, they both shipped their bikes using Bike Flights, but since my folding bike could fly for free, that is the option I picked.

I live in Madison Wisc, I wish that Southwest flew in and out of my community airport, to fly Southwest requires a long drive or bus ride to the Milwaukee airport.

staehpj1

I agree that it would be wise to heed the 80" limit. They seldom pull out a tape measure at the gate, but they could and there really isn't much reason to take the chance unless you have a bike that won't pack that small like maybe some tandem or recumbents.. If exceeding the 80" limit then definitely stay under the 50# limit and under 115".

I think that for any fairly normal bike it just makes sense to not exceed either 80" or 50#. For the large majority of bikes those limits should be easy to stay under. Heck, I have managed to stay under both with a hard tail mountain bike and all my gear for a multi week trip where I was camping and cooking in my soft case with no other bag.