cbrown5294

Yes it was that's why I was so surprised

mgcsinc

Something has gone bonkers then.

What airport was this at? What checkpoint? Where, in relation to the checkpoint, was this person? Can you describe the entire interaction in detail?

zombietooth

Hear!Hear! Someone who is for enforcement of the rules.^ Because, you know, rules are rules.

It's about time that ICE started confiscating the phones of all the "rule-disobeyer(s)" in the secure customs/immigration areas. Every time I clear immigration, I see dozens of people texting and talking on their electronic tethers. So, this must be a serious problem!

UA-NYC

Probably a rogue Redcoat on a rampage...to be fair, I encountered a nasty one at ORD going through AA T3 who made me do the same thing. Just went one checkpoint over and went through.

lhrsfo

I don't see why I should be delayed unnecessarily at a red traffic light when there's no one coming. So I just ignore it and drive straight on, without inconveniencing anyone. Yet I don't expect to get away with it. The only real difference with people who ignore the carry on rules is that they generally do inconvenience people when flights are full.

mgcsinc

The rules are useless, and don't accomplish what you think they accomplish, as has been vigorously discussed here. I can make up a whole slew of stupid, arbitrary rules, and accuse you of being an evil rule-breaker who hates order and thinks the rules don't apply to him, but that wouldn't make it true. Or I could pick a rule you don't follow strictly - the speed limit and jaywalking laws are popular ones - and ruin this absurd analogy that way.

Tl;dr: you don't get to compare this to a red light just because they're both rules. Obviously.

spin88

Actually, there are states that allow a right (or left) turn on Red, some that don't. Its really a question of traffic flow vs. a safety rule. Regardless, the baggage sorter issue has nothing to do with safety, so your "follow the rules or some poor puppy/kid gets killed by you running a red light" hypo is rather off point.

More to the point, the airlines have added larger bins, bins that are capable (at this point on EVERY UA A/C except three class 763s) of holding bags that are slightly over the sorter size. The old issue of a slightly overstuffed 22" bag not going in wheel first is basically non-existent at this point. The reason for the rule has entirely gone away. Some airlines allow 24" bags (see VX, AS, WN, B6) vs. the 22" bags that UAL allows. (Now that I'm mostly flying VX, I'm going to get a 24" bag, it will make a big difference in my life ).

No one here that I know of is suggesting that if you have a 24" bag UAL should let you on with it. The issue instead is that many (if not most) 22" bags, when places in the sorter have an issue with the wheels, but sometimes the top handle or they are packed a little too tight, but it has zero impact on the actual plane, space boarding. So we have a rule that dings a lot of folks, causes delay, but has zero impact on the actual airplane. Such a rule calls into question common sense, or what some of us call "judgment"

There are lots of good examples of what happens with blind obedience to rules and authority that are often very misguided. From burning witches (or scots) at the stake, to more recent 20th century examples, the world created by blindly following rules is not exactly a happy one.

If United wants to make its customers unhappy, with silly rules (or more accurately rules enforced with no common sense), go for it. "Flyer Friendly"

mgcsinc

Spin for the win.

spin88

A number of years ago, the head of the California Highway Patrol was on KQED (public radio in SF) being interviewed. Some "rule follower" called in to complaint about speeders, how the speed limit was not strictly being enforced, and how people ought to just get in the fast lane and drive 55, make them slow down.

The CHP head wisely said that they knew that often times everyone drove fast, and while they did not condone it, it was not more dangerous to drive over the speed limit when everyone else was, what was dangerous was drivers driving above or below the speeds everyone else was driving. That caused accidents. He advised the caller that is he wanted to drive 55, always do so in the slow lane, and that if he was on a road and traffic was going 65, he was probably a greater risk going 55 in the slow lane than if he went with the flow of traffic.

This is what we call "judgment" and comes from applying reasoning skills to facts, its also sort of a lost cause with some folks.

Kacee

Actually, that is the ultimate effect of those who advocate ignoring the rule, and it's (mostly) why people are reacting negatively to the posts suggesting the enforcement is "silly" (or words to that effect).

Many of us are sick and tired of people carrying on obviously oversized bags (or my real pet peeve - too many of them) and are okay with slightly overzealous enforcement.

mgcsinc

The enforcement of "rules" - be they statutory commandments, provisions in a contract, or aspects of the social contract - is a complex business. You know that very well. My way of discussing this, and I think that of others in my camp, is a reaction to the complete lack of nuance and outcome-focused-ness with which the enforcers apply the rule and some folks here discuss the rule.

Look, I disagree with you at a basic level. We had the discussion about the sizer over hundreds of pages of threads. The rules it enforces simply do not relate to the problems that we face on the plane. It's just a set of rules for rules sake. I really don't believe that you believe that having a crappy rule like that is better than nothing. And the idea that ignoring a rule means you're ignoring other rules - come on. I'm not letting any red coat put my bag in the sizer, but I'm polite, and I don't use more than my fair share of bin space. Ignoring rules is only bad when the rules accomplish something.

lhrsfo

What a load of irrelevant twaddle. Almost every statement misses the point.

First, the red light situation I posited was not about safety or about turning right. It was about a rule (made for safety reasons which were not in point,so which had no purpose) being broken for my marginal convenience. This is about a rule that UA has put in place to try to curb major inconvenience to passengers through abuse by loathsome DYKWIA types. At the time of the breach of the rule those passengers don't know whether their actions will inconvenience others, and presumably don't care. And the reference to no one carrying on bags too large for the bins is simply not true: just yesterday in Row 7 of the slimfit A320 I was on, three of the people had bags which had to go sideways ant two of them also put a second large item in the overhead: boarding was delayed for gate-checking bags, including my seat mate who did not want to waste 30 minutes of his life fighting to board first. UA is derided for not having clear and consistent policies elsewhere, but on this one people want rules which don't apply to them.

And, incidentally, like all of us, there are certain rules I choose not to be too diligent about (especially in the US which seems to have more petty rules than the rest of the world put together) but I only ignore them if it doesn't inconvenience others. Jaywalking when there's no traffic: what's the harm? Jaywalking when cars have to stop for you is a non-starter. Carrying six bags onto an empty flight: no problem. Carrying an oversized bag and an oversized personal item onto a full flight is anti-social behavior.

emcampbe

I have no problems with the sizers being used (as I've said in previous threads). I don't say this as as someone who thinks the rules don't apply to me - I am more than happy to put my carry on in the sizer and check it if it is beyond the limits (hint: its not - I've not only measured but put it in the sizer myself - and its the same bag I've been using for years).

The only reason things have come to this is because the carry on rules weren't enforced in the past (not just by UA, but other carriers as well). If they were, people wouldn't be trying to bring on bags bigger than allowed - they would know that they couldn't get away with it. I do think that charging for checked bags has made the problem greater, but I don't think that's where it started. From my (admittedly, non-scientific) observations while flying, those that seem to elite/frequent flyers and in higher boarding groups, etc. don't seem to be any less of a problem than those that fly infrequently.

I actually think a period of consistent enforcement (say a year) at all stations, then go back to a place where it is done randomly or from time-to-time would get the problem dealt with for the most part.

The new bins are not about holding larger luggage or larger luggage than carry- on requirements allow (nor are carry-on requirements built based on the size of the bins..but that's probably another thread and is covered ad neuseum in the other big baggage thread(s) anyway). UA, nor any airline I am aware of, has ever advertised their bins can hold bags bigger than their carry-on requirements allow, or that their own sizers hold. The new bins are designed to hold more bags that meet requirements, so that there is more room for everyone's bags and they don't have to gate-check the bags of people in the later boarding groups or those who board late (running late from connection, etc.)

For example, the doors on the new Airbus bins curve out, allowing some compliant bags to fit with the longer dimension from back to front of the bin than didn't fit that way before, instead of needing to put them sideways where it takes up twice as much room. I don't think UA has them (yet), but the newest generation of aircraft are coming with bins designed not just to hold bags with the largest dimension from back to front, but are also tall enough so the bags can stand up on their side instead of having to lie them down on their back, meaning more bags can fit in a given bin.

Again, bins size compared to the allowed size aren't the point. Different aircraft types have different bin sizes - it would be silly to have rules that allow you size 1 if you're on a 319/320, size 2 if you're on a 737, rule 3 if you're on a 767. There has to be a common rule somehow.

Further to this, UA has filed a carry on baggage limit with the FAA, which has been approved by the FAA becomes the FAA-enforced regulation for UA. They can be fined if they allow bags bigger than what was approved. If an inspection finds that UA is allowing bigger bags on, especially regularly, they will be fined for it. I'm quite sure the FAA inspector doing their job isn't going to measure the bin on the plane and decide, oh, UA isn't enforcing their maximum carry-on size allowed, but that's ok, because the bin on this aircraft was bigger.

mgcsinc

For now, what, the 15,000th time (?), this is not what anyone is saying. It's a silly smear-ey strawman.

The rest of your post, all I can say is wow. You chide people here for disagreeing with rules, then you detail how you ignore rules you disagree with because you're more right about then than we are about this rule. Give me a break.

exerda

If UA could manage to get my checked bag out at Customs in less than an hour, there would be less a need to phone or text my ride to say, "Hold up..."


The biggest issue IMHO is baggage claim. If UA could get bags out in a timely (and reliable) manner, it would alleviate a lot of folks' concerns about checking bags. The cost isn't as big a deal.