warehouse341

Went through security today at LAX and there was a long line before entering the line. I kept seeing angry people yelling and rushing away from the line. Come to find out they are enforcing the carry on size so much so that the security agent would not let people through if the whole bag would not fit inside the container. It seemed a little extreme. I am sure united will get a lot of angry letters.

Example: one guys bag mostly fit. The wheel was catching leaving the corner of the bag showing. The agent said if it does not fully fit it needs to be checked.

It was turning pretty intense. Thought I would give the heads up.

mgcsinc

Which checkpoint?

Did you see anyone ignore the person and walk through? That's the recommended approach. If they follow you, the TSA will eventually yell at them to go back to their post.

warehouse341

TSA pre check area. No one was doing that. I just walked through with no issues (my bag fits with a little bit of work). But if it does happen to me I will take your advice.

azepine00

This has been a routine procedure at aa t4 escalator to security...

warehouse341

I think it was somewhat isolated. Got on the plane and the FAs kept making announcements about bags being to large for overhead bins and requested them to be gate checked. Crazy day.

JVPhoto

So the moral of the story is pack a bag that fits into the sizer and you have nothing to worry about?

Or you're special and exempt because....?

mgcsinc

Not agreeing with a rule, or not wanting to deal with enforcement of the rule, or not wanting idiots who don't know what they're doing blocking your access to a TSA checkpoint that can be used to access flights on four airlines based on one airline's policies,* all of those things have nothing to do with people acting "special" or "exempt." As has been discussed again, and again, and again, and again with respect to this topic.

If folks want to argue in favor of the merits of these (plainly wrong, horrible) policies (that don't accomplish anything good and create enormous headaches for everyone), go for it. Those against will engage with you on that. There's a whole thread for it. But labeling those who have different opinions as silly rule-disobeyers who don't think the rules apply to them accomplishes precisely nothing, and suggests that you don't have a real argument to make.

I don't want these idiotic rules and these even more idiotic security blockades to apply to anyone.

(*Enforcing an airline-specific policy at a security checkpoint serving multiple airlines in order to create a ceiling for baggage allowances is an antitrust violation that United has faced litigation about in the past.)

AndyPatterson

Believe it or not, it was Continental suing United and Dulles for this very reason! The lawsuit was initiated in 2000, and the appellate decision (excerpt below) is from 2002:

http://openjurist.org/277/f3d/499/co...l-airlines-inc

First paragraph of the Court of Appeals decision:

Continental Airlines, Inc. and Continental Express, Inc. (collectively "Continental"), brought this antitrust action in April 2000 to challenge the installation of templates, which limit the size of carryon baggage, at Dulles Airport. Continental alleges that in agreeing to install the templates, United Air Lines, Inc. ("United"), the primary air carrier at Dulles, and the Dulles Airport Airline Management Council ("AMC"), an unincorporated association of all airlines serving Dulles, unreasonably restrained trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1 (1997). Applying an abbreviated "quick-look" analysis, the district court granted summary judgment to Continental, awarded Continental $254,426.85 in trebled damages, and permanently enjoined the use of templates at Dulles. See Continental Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 962 (E.D. Va. 2001) (granting summary judgment) (hereafter Continental); Continental Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 542 (E.D. Va. 2001) (granting treble damages and an injunction) (hereafter Continental II). Because issues of material fact remain disputed and because both the unique architectural configuration of Dulles Airport and the competitive effects of templates require thorough consideration in a less "quick look," we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

mherdeg

Thanks for the citation.

exerda

This seems to be UA's new approach. I've encountered it at several airports recently, including EWR, BOS, and LAX. I don't know how UA thinks it's a good idea to harass pax at the checkpoint rather than at check-in or boarding--the checkpoint is not run by the airline.

mgcsinc

Hehe, indeed. The irony of the fact that it's the CO management doing it now is not lost on me.

I believe the case later settled, resulting in the elimination of the offending devices.

The worst part about it is they seem focused on the PreCheck checkpoints. The TSA should really just nip this behavior in the bud.

raehl311

Because the airline advertises the availability of larger bins than can hold larger luggage than fits in the sizers.

Tchiowa

^^^^^^ YAY!!! Finally someone is starting to deal with the nitwits who insist on carrying a piano on the plane because they don't want to be delayed for a few minutes when they get off.

Except that if you don't like the rule or don't agree with the rule and thus decide you're going to ignore the rule, it kind of does make you a rule-disobeyer. By definiion.

cbrown5294

Same happend to me last Fri, my bag was about an inch to thick and was told to I check it or speak to UA agent a few steps away (this was a Tsa agent)
United agent says it's the Tsa and they have no control, interesting because I thought the airlines made up the size rule? I dunno maybe not
The kicker is I go to check the and it's less than 45 min cut off and the next flight to SMF was not for another 9 hrs later. I ended up taking out my shoes so my bag would fit into the sizer, walked a few steps and put them back into my suitcase

mgcsinc

It was not a TSA agent, unless something has gone bonkers.