Originally Posted by
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?
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?