pfxlax

I have to stick up for the GA's on this one. First carry on is not a "Right". Second, the amount of abuse with respect to bag size is large. Third, the GA's are not doing anything except trying to make the boarding process move smartly. The amount of wasted time with PAX standing in the aisles playing the "move everyone's stuff around" in the overhead bins game trying to get their stuff in that "special place" drives me nuts.

zombietooth

Flying is not a "right". Airlines are selling a product, yet seem bent on continually altering the quality and quantity of that product. So they start charging fees for the first piece of checked baggage, and then Congress goes nuts on them for trying to charge for carry-on and they back-off on that one, insisting that everyone will still be able to take onboard one bag and one personal item for free. One of the things that really aggravated Senator Chuck Schumer was the idea that people don't need carry-on. He correctly pointed-out that there were important reasons to have carry-on such as medical devices, medications, and valuable items e.g. computers (which are prohibited in checked baggage by the way), etc.

If the airlines represent to you that you will be able take onboard a 22" by 14" by 9" (I know that some airlines allow larger) bag which fits in THEIR sizer, and then capriciously withdraw that privilege, I say that they are misrepresenting their product at a minimum. OP said his rollaboard was compliant, so if you are sticking-up for the GAs (you don't use apostrophes for plurals) in this case, you are saying that it is perfectly reasonable for them to refuse carry-on that fits in the sizer. Note that the OP also said that the bins had plenty of open space. Where is the logic in this?

mre5765

Negative on that.

You pack two bags: one small enough to be your personal item, and one small enough to fit in the overhead (according to the sizer, and wheels count), but nonetheless you assume as a M+ general member with no status, even though you have a window seat in seating area 2, you will be forced to gate check. Bring both through security.

If you are forced to gate check to your final destination, UA does not (in my observations) charge a fee (this is greatest money saving travel tip for the non-elite on UA: UA's bag fees are for the check in agent; UA apparently loves it if you haul your checked bag to the jet bridge, and hates it when a pax's credit card to pay a gate check fee denies the charge).

On many flights at least half the pax are seating area 1 or better, so seating area 2 is not always good enough. I've often just arrived before *G/1P boarding is called, and find that the F overhead bins are full. F has more overhead space per pax, than E- or E+.

fastair

I didn't see the op's bag (I use the apostrophe to denote possessive,) but no airline a) guarantees space for everyone bringing the maximum, to fit in the main cabin, or b) certifies any luggage is "officially approved". A bag advertised as 22 x 14 x 9, usually is the size of the empty bag without handles or wheels. Over the past decade, external and expandable pickets have been added to most roll aboard suitcases, and I would venture that on more than 75% of these bags, when in operational use, the 9 inch dimension is at or above 10.5 inches. I have seen external pouches with addl "expansion" zippers that allow that 9 inches to achieve 13+ inches.

This isn't to say the op's suitcase was manufactured with external wheels, handels, or the dreaded "overflow" pocket, nor that it was packed in such a way to exceed the 22 x 14 x 9, but I challenge each of you to measure the outer dimensions of your own 22' roll aboards, including all external components to the maximum dimensions, fully loaded in "road warrior" configuration, and tell me, does it grow to beyond the 45 linear inches. I'm betting most would fail this test.

Is it the airlines fault that tumi calls a suitcase a 45 linear inch 22' bag, yet makes it so that only an empty suitcase would retain these dimensions, is it tumi's fault for making a compiant bag easily modifiable into a non-compliant bag, or is it the consumer's fault for utilizing the expansion zippers and external pockets, and then complain that it might exceed airline dimensions?

notquiteaff

A simple "I am sorry I doubted your truthfulness" would have sufficed, too.

I, too, assumed an 8am flight to YVR, but the OP came here for advice, not for people to run a background check and lie detecttor test on him

fastair

I am not too big headed to appologize when it is due. I never mentioned the term "lie" in reference to the op, only when people suggested that he should lie about the final destination or about regulated contents of his bag. After that, when the conversation had deteriorated, did I then question the sea-yvr leg. While maybe not intentionally deceptive, it led many to assume something incorrect. A deception by omission, or just poor/incomplete initial communication, my accusationsl tone was specifically directed at those that advise lying to achieve ones goals, and only tangentially directed at the op for an unclear statement about an 8am trip that was non sequitur.

If the op felt that I directly called him a liar, than I appologize for that.

zombietooth

I wouldn't count on there not being a charge to gate check in the future. My last 3 international itineraries were on CO metal (I am testing the waters), and on my last trip to Japan, the GAs on the TPA-EWR feeder were charging to gate check bags. I remember during boarding that they were making everyone test their bags in the sizer and, of course, mine fit with room to spare, even though some GAs on UA have tried to make me gate check it before. But, prior to boarding, they announced that anyone whose bag didn't fit in the sizer would have it gate checked and be charged a fee, so they did give fair warning. I didn't pay attention to the amount because I knew that I would pass the test and didn't care. I don't know if this is isolated or policy at CO, but I have never before seen it at UA. Maybe this will be one of the "changes you are going to like" that Big Jeff is talking about.

My wife also remembers that CO was doing the same on our MIA-EWR flight in late February--by the way, there is no club in MIA!

Travelin Man 069

I've noticed the last several flights I've been on, most of the later boarding passengers have had to gate check bags (at no charge). It's standard EVERYTHING with wheels gets gate checked on the RJs out of FWA, but I'm talking on the bigger planes (757/A320). The last two flights I have checked a bag which I never, ever used to do. As people are trying to drag everything under the sun on the plane to avoid charges the space fills up quick and I don't want to be "That guy" standing in the aisle searching for space...

Always Flyin

Fair enough. The gate agent was wrong and you should have been allowed to carry it on.

If you couldn't find space once on-board, that's a different issue, but a gate agent should not be proactively limiting carry-ons until the flight attendants announce the bins are full.

aubreyfromwheaton

What's with all the grammatical advice and angry feelings in this thread?

StingWest

Yes, the undercurrent of anger is annoying - probably a side effect of one or more of the following:

(a) the airlines are attempting to squeeze every last nickle out of us one at a time by charging for each little thing separately (although I must say that charging for checked bags is not as underhanded as the so-called "fuel surcharge")

(b) passengers, in response to (a), are trying to fight back, save money, and push the envelope of what's deemed an acceptable carry-on.

(c) a result of (b) is that the giant overhead bins fill up fairly quickly, penalizing the flyers who attempt to play by the rules by packing light, and only paying the checked bag fee when necessary.

(d) the FAs, with the strong incentive to get the flight out on time, often err on the side of making more people gate-check bags than are necessary, sometimes even making entire boarding groups gate-check.
---

For me, anyway, it is infuriating when I see someone drag a giant bag on, stow it sideways in a 777 overhead, thereby taking up space for two bags. This is the image that comes to mind when I read the exchanges under this topic, and it's the me-first attitude of that minority of people that irks me to no end.

(but don't ask me how I really feel

Horst1

I will forever use this one! Thank you for a morning laugh!

mre5765

I did say in my post, to pack a second bag that fits the sizer, wheels included (and I should have added, handle included).

Not so sure that is fair warning. Some people don't have credit cards and might not have the cash; e.g. an unaccompanied minor. Fair warning would have been to state on the reservation confirmation that carry on bags that do not fit the sizer will be gate checked for a fee, and if the pax cannot pay the fee, his reservation will be canceled, and if non-refundable, his fare is forfeited.

At any rate, there is a big difference between charging a fee for a bag that does not fit the sizer, and a fee for one that does fit, and the GA/FA forces a gate check.

If $MI/J goes so far as to force gate checks of stuff that fits under the seat and in the sizer, he is going to generate a major back lash, and I can see a summons to Congress in his future, especially as November, 2012 approaches.

StingWest

Didn't they used to have a template of sorts on the security X-ray belt that was a rough sizer of sorts? It served to weed out the grossly over-sized bags - at least in the thickness dimension.

SkiAdcock

Just realized that the OP was at the same trade show as myself & a couple of other FTers (and 95,000 of our closest friends LOL). Too bad we didn't know; he could have met us for a drink or coffee!

If there had been available space in the overhead I would have been put out as well if asked to gate check, and also would have been angsting on luggage making it with such a tight connection (and agnsting on myself making the connection.

I've had a couple of colleagues who have been forced to gate check even though their roll-aboard was standard size - and luggage didn't make it at all. How that happens w/ a non-stop is beyond me.

Cheers.