spin88

people bringing on 24" bags is not the "ultimate effect" of reasoned enforcement of the carry on rule, and you know it as well as I do. 99.99% of agents (and probably 99% of us) can spot (1) a 24" vs 22" bag, and (2) an expanded 22" bag on sight for 10 feet away. The sizer is not needed other than to use as a tool to get the passenger with the oversize bag to check it.

"slightly overzealous enforcement" is not needed, I can't recall any time that on a full flight anyone has ever come on with a 22" bag expanded or a 24" bag on UAL. (I have seen loose goosy on not full flights, which is also ok with me). Its the difference between common sense enforcement and a certain rigidity of though. I have a B&R 22" expandable that fits in every overhead on UAL (except the Y bins on the 763 3-class bird) nose in with room to spare, yet fails the sorter. It actually fits expanded, but when I have to expand it, I check it. I am all for reasoned rules, just not unreasoned ones.

and p.s. for years, knowing the bin issues on the 763s, UAL would make a bigger point re carry ons on the 763 on a domestic leg, no objection to that either, again its common sense. Rules can, and should, be applied based upon the particular facts.

Actually, I think you have a very odd sense of what rules to break. Red light rules are there for a reason, (1) even if you think its clear, it may not be - particularly at night, and the consequences are very severe, and (2) often times the rule violators are those who are most dangerous (not paying attention, drunk) and we need a firm rule, easily enforced to keep them in check. I've personally seen a red light runner take out a car on a dark and rainy night in LA one day. I'm sure he thought it was clear.

And jay walking? Well its again a safety issue, but generally less severe, and in most cities (at least in SF) the cars do stop. But if anyone gets hurt, its the jaywalker. And unlike red light running, the law is seldom enforced, its there as a "reminder" and to be enforced when its appropriate to do so.

We have firm rules in place to prohibit events with very bad consequences (red light running) and other rules which are honored more in the breach (jaywalking) for other issues. There are similar airline rules which you may think are silly (requiring those in the exit row to say "yes" to knowing and being wiling to do x in an emergency or not checking guns, I'm sure they guy on that AS flight though the gun was empty) but I don't think anyone here would complain about them as they pose safety issue.

Nothing in this rule is a safety issue.

And your A320 example is a perfect example of rigid thought. Every one of the UA 320/319 has new bins in them. I will 110% guarantee you that 100% of "oversized" 22" bags will fit wheels in/out in those bins, its an undeniable fact. I can also 110% guarantee you that any issue was not a 22" bag (the point of contention) but someone with a 24" bag, or some odd duffle bag, etc. Again, no one is disputing the need to police 24" bags, or large duffles, etc; your argument is for a rigid enforcement of a rule (all 22" bags must completely fit the sizer) that serves no purpose whatsoever.


I guess I have a different experience. Some folks fly other airlines (VX, B6, AS, WN) which allow 24" bags. They get on UAL (or DAL with the same 22" rule) and don't know the rules. It quickly gets sorted out. I can't think of an elite passenger (I do see issues with FC pass angers, usually older from time to time) trying to get a 24" bag or similar sized duffle on. These are issues found in the lower boarding groups. What you see in the elite groups are (1) 22" bags that are slightly too large for the sizer (I think the bone of contention for those taking my view of the matter) or (2) elites trying to carry on a third item, usually a large purse or bag to go with the 22" carry on a top bag.


Actually the new bins (and retrofits to the 757 bins on AA and DL to jack up the front of the bag a little) were expressly designed to allow for slightly oversized 22" bags to go in nose first rather than sideways. The old bins were too tight for certain 22" bags (which don't fit the sizer, but now do fit). United (and AA and DL, etc) were quite clear why they spend the money to add the new doors, it was to make sure that all 22" roll-a-ways fit.

FYI, the new "stand up" bins are not on narrowbodies, only widebodies, and on every widebody I've ever been on (other than the 763 with the old bins) there is more than enough overhead space.

I've had to check my bag several times recently on VX (going for too many days, and need to wear suits) and I have been very pleasently surprised by the bag return times. Often its there when I get to Baggage Claim. Its a world of difference between that and UAL.

But the other issue is the risk of losing luggage, which on a business trip is just not an option. No way I would trust UAL with my luggage on a connection.

OskiBear

Given that LAX is now open from T4 through T8 and also allow for entering into any terminal with a same day boarding pass, could one avoid the UA enforcement by going through security at another terminal?

enviroian

Gate agent at A9 today (SEA) actively having people put their roller boards in the sizer, including me with my 20" Kirkland bag ( no problem). However the guy in front of me with a large overstuffed bag could not squeeze it in. He then went off "I take this flight every week and have never had a problem!!" F bombs ensued from there. When I finally saw him board a few minutes later, minus the bag, his face was beet red. Lol!

MatthewLAX

What a load of twaddle.

What a wonderfully fair method of determining whether to follow rules.

(and clearly, you've never been to Germany...)


Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your line of reasoning for reasons that have already been said.

mgcsinc

Yes. In fact, you can go to the lower (arrivals) level in T6, and take the escalator up from there, and you avoid the redcoat entirely.

MatthewLAX

Sometimes she's posted there. If you ignore her, she tries to block you.

JohnMacWW

No issues today at the premier checkpoint. The bored TSA person did not look at anyone's bags. Two agents were checking boarding passes as you go left to go back to get in line, but of course just checking to make sure you are premier eligible.

I have quit the pre-check program because it has become more Kettle-ish in many places. I can handle taking my shoes off, pulling my liquids and laptop out. Thsi post just gives me another reason.

MatthewLAX

Why quit the program? You can still use the regular line if you really want to...

mgcsinc

All the way downstairs at arrivals?

JohnMacWW

DYKWIA!

Seriously, though, the discussion on rules and whether or not it is correct to follow them, which always has folks taking sides, misses a point that I think is relevant.

When a rule, regulation, requirement is adopted, posted etc, but then not enforced at all or not enforced consistently, it loses respect in society, and many people quit following it. Occastionally though, either an enforcer who feels like randomly enforcing it comes along or the rule is used as an excuse to engage the offender for other reasons.

Speed Limits in many states area great example of this:
1) Sometimes a cop has a quota to get and you just get unlucky
2) Sometimes you were acting suspicious or otherwise jerky so the cop gives you a speeding ticket in response.

My position is that when a rule is blatently not enforced then the morality of not following it also goes away. The leaders and enforcers are, in effect, setting an example (that some would call bad), that the rule is not something one needs to respect. I do not like that behavior by government, but it rarely gets me upset. In my perfect world, all rules would be enforced or lose their enforcability. Of course that is not reality in any jurisdiction I am aware of.

And I definately fall in the camp that not following a rule that the majority of people do not follow and government enforces only on a lark is not a morally wrong thing to do. Of course if you break it or challenge it and get it enforced against you, you have no room to complain either.

But what about a rule that you believe (or that is) safety-of-others related? Well isn't the speed limit just that? I think the reality is that lax enforcement of safety-related rules undermines the credibility of the rule and encourages its violation. But I cannot get too upset with someone who sees that violation and either tries to enforce it as a civilian or reports it to an enforcer. After all that rule was there to protect others right? But I think the real party at fault is the entity or enties that were supposed to enforce it but do not. They create that situation that the person ignoring it is responding to.

JohnMacWW

Actually, I got dis-enrolled at some point this year. I have never bothered to find out why or to seek enrollment. It happened right after I started going to Kenya all the time, so my pet theory was that it was somehow related to that. But I had never signed up in the first place. United put me on it and I used it. Since being dis-enrolled I have just not missed it that much. And when I see the big long kettle-line at pre-check I am particularly happy.

Weirdly, I saw the ID checker make someone go through the pre-check line. It was a middle-aged FF-looking business man and he had waited in the shorter premeir line at Sacramento. When his boarding pass did the beep-beep beep sound of being pre-check the TSA person told him to go over to the TSA metal detector line (which was also much longer). I was right behind him and was able to walk straight up and unload on the belt/ into the tubs and he was still in line waiting to get to the metal detector belt. He had asked to go right instead of left and the TSA person, "Sorry Sir you have to use that line." I have never seen that again and assume that agent was not correct. But, of course, not doing as told by a TSA agent is never a great idea.

WineCountryUA

To have switch lists would mean off with shoes, belt, ... ecterta would have to be removed plus it would separated you from your carryon.

While I am also dismayed by the longer PreCheck lines, in my experience the PreCheck moves faster. So I have measured the outcomes by looking at a recognizable marker in the other line. So far the unscientific analysis suggests in most cases I was still better in the PreCheck line -- but not always. It is a bummer the 100% advantage has been lost but still a great program.

Kacee

I think there is some confusion here, in that those who are generally in favor of enforcing carry-on limitations are somehow viewed as favoring use of a slightly too small sizer. I'm not a particular advocate of this particular sizer, but I am in favor of enforcing carry-on restrictions, and IMO imperfect enforcement is better than none.

As it now stands, people know what will or won't fit in the sizer. They even make you click through a specific acknowledgment page when you check-in online. If people choose to carry-on a larger bag, they risk being forced to check it. I see nothing unfair about that. Moreover, in practice, that risk seems fairly minor. (Probably because most UA gate personnel want nothing to do with instigating confrontations with DYKWIA elites who insist they have the right to carry-on an oversize bag.)

JohnMacWW

I agree about UA gate folks not really wanting to go near it, but selective enforcement can bring about its own series of issues and claims and risks claims of harrassment or discrimination and is probably more likely to trigger outrage.

Perfect enforcement stops all of that.

So too does random but complete enforcement (i.e. random flights where everyone is forced to put their bag in the sizer).

But if you have a clear policy that you can be asked to put your bag in and if gate agents consistently reacted to all bags that looked oversize, then you would not have as much of an issue about harrasment, discrimination, and irritation. But when all the folks in boarding group 1, and 2 stroll on and plenty of obvious oversized bags or people with three or more items are allowed to baord hassle-free and then somewhere in 3, or more likely 4 or 5 they start enforcing the rule, it looks bad.

MatthewLAX

No, I menat at the escalator going upstairs to T6 security.

There is one agent who is...well, [overly strict [edit by Moderator]]. I am not even necessarily convinced it is UA's instructions she is following.