zombietooth

The Fedex $1,000- liability limitation applies to so many things, and has multiple fragility and other exclusions, that it makes their coverage virtually useless for anything they choose to define as being "particularly susceptible to damage" (or anything made of "glass…..and any other commodity with similarly fragile qualities" e.g. camera gear as in exerda's case).

For you lawyers out there, Fedex specifically states that the liability coverage they provide is not insurance.
I don't know if that is another slippery way out of paying claims or not.

You can buy separate insurance from Lloyd's of London, but it is insanely expensive and they usually will only underwrite larger business entities. No American companies that I know of will provide you with shipping insurance as a small business.

See the Fedex exclusions here:

F. Shipments (packages or freight) containing all or part of the following items are limited to a maximum declared value of US$1,000:

1. Artwork, including any work created or developed by the application of skill, taste or creative talent for sale, display or collection. This includes, but is not limited to, items (and their parts) such as paintings, drawings, vases, tapestries, limited-edition prints, fine art, statuary, sculpture and collector’s items.
2. Film, photographic images (including photographic negatives), photographic chromes and photographic slides.
3. Any commodity that by its inherent nature is particularly susceptible to damage or the market value of which is particularly variable or difficult to ascertain.
4. Antiques, or any commodity that exhibits the style or fashion of a past era and whose history, age or rarity contributes to its value. These items include, but are not limited to, furniture, tableware and glassware.
5. Glassware, including, but not limited to, signs, mirrors, ceramics, porcelains, china, crystal, glass, framed glass, and any other commodity with similarly fragile qualities.
6. Plasma screens.
7. Jewelry, including, but not limited to, costume jewelry, watches and their parts, mount gems or stones (precious or semiprecious), industrial diamonds, and jewelry made of precious metal.
8. Furs, including, but not limited to, fur clothing, fur-trimmed clothing and fur pelts.
9. Precious metals, including, but not limited to, gold and silver bullion or dust, precipitates, or platinum (except as an integral part of electronic machinery).
10. Stocks, bonds, cash letters or cash equivalents, including, but not limited to, food stamps, postage stamps (not collectible), traveler’s checks, lottery tickets, money orders, gift cards and gift certificates, prepaid calling cards (excluding those that require a code for activation), bond coupons, and bearer bonds.
11. Collector’s items such as coins, stamps, sports cards, souvenirs and memorabilia.
12. Guitars and other musical instruments that are more than 20 years old, and customized or personalized musical instruments.
13. Scale models (including, but not limited to, architectural models and dollhouses) and prototypes.

I have a lot of experience with Fedex and can tell you that they will never pay a claim if they can fit your commodity into one of the exclusions above, even if they charged you the premium for the liability coverage (limited to 50K). They will only refund your premium if you incur a loss.

WineCountryUA

Moderator Note

While this side trip has been interesting, the topic of this thread is the bag enforcement and use of sizer by UA. While understanding issues of using FedEx or baggage insurance are peripherally related, things have stray a bit too much from the thread topic and UA related items. So let's get back to bag enforcement and use of sizer by UA.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

raehl311

UA doesn't get to decide what is legal either. They can certainly write down policies in their CoC, and they're obligated to follow their policies, and you essentially agree to the policies when you buy your ticket, but just because they write it in their CoC doesn't mean it's enforceable.

UA can almost certainly tell you where in the airplane to store your carry-on and can almost certainly tell you you can't bring your carry-on onto the plane at all, but they can't say anything of a certain size is allowed on the plane, then when you bring something of that size, refuse to let you bring it on the plane *AND* charge you to check it. Even if their CoC says so (not saying it does).


I think most United customers want planes that leave on time. Using the sizer as a tool to keep bags that are not going to fit in the bins off the plane makes sense. Using the sizer to force passengers to pay $39 to check any bag that doesn't fit in the sizer is just United trying to squeeze more money out of their customers, in an unpredictable and unfriendly way.


"It's the rule so it should be enforced" totally misses the point that the "rule" in this case is a policy summarily written by one party and then forced on another party.

channa

You guys are incredibly lucky. It can be 20-30 minutes at SFO for the belts to start rolling sometimes. And if Priority bags are not honored, it can take even longer to actually get your bag.

And you're really lucky with bag delays. I've had a couple delayed bags in the past 6 months. A handful this year, and probably 10+ since 3/3/2012. I actually once recognized the courier when he delivered a bag! ...and I don't even check nearly every flight.

In the 10 years prior to 3/3/2012, UA has delayed a bag 2, maybe 3 times total. But now I'm running that level or more a year.

Hengilas

Full time, traveling commercial photographer here. And I am in complete agreement. I often travel with a rollaboard bag full of probably $35-$60k in gear depending on the assignment (computers, lenses, the occasional medium format kit) not to mention the hard drives, cards, etc that go along with it. The amount of anxiety involved with a gate check is simply unreal, especially considering the inconsistent policies at different airports (and don't get me started on "weight limits" in Europe/NZ). I would love some kind of media carry-on policy, similar to how many airlines have a media rate for checked luggage.

I doubt people would have such a hard time with gate checking if airlines actually accepted responsibility for their screwups and made it right, but I know that if anything went missing from my carryon after gate checking it, I'm not seeing a dime, and I'm getting a huge, huge headache in the process.

raehl311

For all the "It's a rule" folks, here is a logical exercise:

1) Should airlines prevent passengers from bringing carry-ons that will fit in the overhead bin onto the plane?

Of course not.

2) Does the answer change if the airline writes a rule about it?

No.


Stupid doesn't become less stupid just because you write it down first.

Tchiowa

Actually they do.

Actually it does. As long as the rule doesn't violate some other law.

Actually they can and the CoC definitely says that.

"b) UA reserves the right in its sole and absolute discretion to determine the suitability and place of storage of any items to be carried in the cabin of the aircraft.
c) UA reserves the right to check a Passenger’s Carry-on Baggage for any reason,"

And your proof that this is the reason that they are doing it is....? In fact there have been a lot of problems about carry-on luggage and maybe they're simply trying to end the problems. Yes, there will be transitional pain. But that's always the case with changes.

Well, I'm one of the "It's the rule so it can be enforced" people. I'm also a regular flyer who gets fed up with people bringing pianos on to the plane with a tape measure to say "SEE!!! IT FITS!!!!" and creating all sorts of problems both boarding and exiting the plane.

And society is based on the groups in charge creating rules that others have to follow.

I can fit my guitar in some overhead bins. But it would take all the space above 2 rows and no other passenger in those seats could use the space. So, yes, it is perfectly logical for the airlines to say "while 1 of your bags would fit just fine, if every passenger brought the same size bag then there would not be near enough room. So we are going to restrict the size."

Nope, doesn't change. The airline can still restrict carry-ons for whatever criteria they choose.

WineCountryUA

Not so simple.
Multi-segment itin -- what determines is acceptable? What if it works on the first segment but not on one of the later ones?
What if fits for some rows of the plane but maybe not over certain rows of the plane?

Should the "standard" be the in the middle of the workable size or toward the smallest / most constrained of the mainline fleet? Or a different size depending on the plane -- or you wait until the bag does work on the plane?

I guess I don't think it is as simple as "it fits (most of the time)".

raehl311

Airlines don't make laws.


"It's enforceable, unless it's not enforceable." = "It's not necessarily enforceable."


Nowhere does it say they can CHARGE you for checking it though.

I was referring to the bins accommodating taller and deeper bags than the size allows.

Interestingly, the most important dimension, width, is the one least constrained by the sizer.

Tchiowa

Agreed. And with that, and since there seems to be a whole lot of wheel spinning here, I think I'll bow out of the thread.

Unless I don't.

Bonehead

Not really. If bags of greater length (greater than the 22" or so maximum) were allowed on the plane they wouldn't fit wheels in/out (on most narrowbodies at least), and would have to be turned sideways, which significantly affects carryon space. Fortunately the sizer constrains that dimension quite effectively.

StingWest

I don't have a big problem with the sizers (my bag fits - just), but I do understand the frustration of people who's bag is more like 24" long (roughly the max length that will fit in most of the larger planes (ex 767) wheels-first. A bag of this length won't fit in the sizer, but fits fine in the overhead. Many have been flying with these bags for years and suddenly are faced with the uncertainty of possibly having to check them.

I capitulated early on and got myself a so-called 20" bag which is actually 22" long with the wheels. Flying and airports are stressful enough.

Bonehead

My 22" bag just fits wheels-first on many/most of the narrowbodies that I fly; unless folks have widebody-specific and narrowbody-specific carryon bags 24" doesn't cut it.

LaserSailor

A problem that can be solved by buying a bag that conforms to whatever regs are enforced is not a problem at all.

emcampbe

Let's put blame where blame is due. I don't doubt UA has some bag delivery problems, though honestly, I've rarely had to wait more than about 10-20 minutes at most stations. But bags at YYZ are most definitely some sort of GTAA/YYZ problem. Bag delivery times can vary greatly, and this goes back probably to the opening of the [current] T1 (at least). I've had bags delivered in a relatively normal amount of time, but there are a lot of times I've had to wait. But this is across all airlines I've flown in there. In the late spring, for example, I waited very close to an hour for my bags to come off an AC flight. I don't recall ever having to wait that long on any carrier at any other station....I've had a few delayed bags, but even then, usually the bags stop rolling within 20-30 minutes and you can go an file a claim.

Oh, and claim 13 is actually the farthest at YYZ.

There is a solution to this - bake the sizer into the procedure. In India, for example, you need to have a tag on all checked bags and it has to be stamped to show its cleared security. Sure, its for a different reason, but not sure why this can't be modified. Something like every bag that is bigger than a personal item needs to be put in the sizer either at the check in desk or as part of the line to security. If it doesn't fit, it needs to go back to be checked. If it fits, it gets an airline-specific tag, and GAs can simply verify its attached at boarding. If a bag makes it to the GA without a tag, it gets gate-checked there, no questions.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make upthread - that even though I know I'm not carrying anything prohibited, I still need to put it through for screening. And yes, security screening is now normal, but there was a point when this kind of thing was also new.

In the strict definition of law, of course not. But they are a private company and do get to decide what limits to set for carry-on baggage and a myriad of other things, so long as it is approved by FAA, on their flights. So in essence, they do set the rules.

It actually is enforceable by them, until a higher authority invalidates these policies. So you can certainly take them to court to have a judge rule whether a particular policy or set of policies are legal or not, for example. But until a judge invalidates them, they can certainly enforce them.

Not sure the relevance of this. Are they trying to charge people for checking bags that are of legal carry-on sizes? The sizers are being used to make sure people conform to their policies. I've certainly seen them gate check bags when their is no more room in the overhead bins, but I've never seen them charge to check these bags when this is the case. Have you?

Using the sizers is trying to ensure passengers are not bringing bags on board that are bigger than you agreed to. If you try to bring a bag on that is beyond your allowance (as contractually agreed to), then I don't have a problem if they charge to check it, if that's what they do for other bags that are checked.


How is it forced? You agree to the rule when purchasing a ticket. You have the choice to purchase the ticket, with the rules that come with it, or if you don't like the rules, you can choose not to purchase the ticket, and purchase it with someone else who's rules you are ok with. I suppose its a discussion point if you are somehow literally forced to purchase the ticket, but can't see this as the case.

The bin size argument has been tried over and over again, but again, only makes sense if the bins are all the same size. But they're not, even if talking about mainline only.

If the bins in all aircraft were the same size, then I would agree that the rule should allow bags that can fit lengthwise, with a reasonable width limit so that as many passengers as possible can stow their bags. Until then, however, it would be crazy to try, from both a passenger and airline perspective.