VegasGambler

OPs bag is marketed as 22x14x9, but the expanded depth is listed as 11". OP mentioned that his bag was expendable but did not say whether it was expanded. But it didn't fit in the sizer, so...

OPs statement that other pax's bags would not have fit in the sizer is to be taken with a grain of salt since he didn't actually try to fit them in. We have no effect that their bags would have fit. We only know that his bag didn't fit. The same bag, not expanded, should be fine.

Antarius

I don't think it's a bad estimate by the OP. The vast majority of bags don't fit the sizer, it's evident on old a320s and non-refit 737s. Many bags struggle to fit in the overhead bin, which is several inches larger than the sizer in all directions.

It's extremely frustrating to have grossly inconsistent rules. That said, there's no real recourse here as the sizer is the rule of law. You just have to suck it up and deal with it. Odds are that you won't have a problem on the next 100 or so flights.
​​​​

BA2158

Once traveling on Iceland Air in J, and they put my bag in the sizer and it didn't fit. Tagged it and told me to bring it down the jetbridge and someone will take it from there.

Didn't see anyone, removed the tag and brought it onboard.

Bag is probably missing in their system still lol

USFlyerUS

It's an FAA issue. Airlines are required enforce the rules they set per the FAA. It's in effect incorporated into their air operator's certificate. Therefore, the "former" here is what should matter -- the rules are the rules and need to be followed.

carlosdca

If the police can demonstrate that you were actually going at 56 (assuming 55 zone), you absolutely deserve the ticket.

In the case of AA, AA has an objective way to check the carry-ons that is using the sizer.
The rule enforcer should not use common sense, as common sense is subjective.

Spanish

The problem is that the AA sizer is open. There's a photo of it at the top of the thread.

Any 22" x 14" x 9" marketed baggage would easily fit in a Spirit Airlines luggage sizer, but may appear to stick out from the AA one. AA makes it ambiguous by its unfortunate luggage sizer.

Superguy

Come on. If you live in the DC area as your handle implies, you know that's bunk because of how traffic is enforced in the area.

2 reasons: precision and prerogative.

There's error inherent in the process that can't be compensated for, whether that's human or technical. Lasers and radar aren't 100% precise even when properly calibrated, and it's easy for the officer to make a mistake. Cops know this. Unless the officer is extremely bored or hasn't met their quota, no cop will waste their time on such a ticket, as there's a high likelihood of it being thrown out. It's a big reason why cops will often give 5-10 over as then there's no dispute of three person speeding.

Same thing with overweight bags. If you're over by a pound or so, they'll usually let it slide they as the scales aren't precise. Push 52-53 pounds and you're a lot more likely to get hit with the fee.

Enforcement varies. As I said before, no cop is going to write up 56 in a 55. You're right, technically they could. But it's not worth their time to do so as a ticket like that will be challenged, and if it's not outright thrown out, the revenue it brings is too low to not make it work it.

There are bigger fish fry, and that's what the focus is. MSP has already said in the Baltimore Sun that they generally don't pull people over unless they're doing at least 80 in a 65. They said there's plenty to keep them busy above that did they let the small potatoes go. They're going after the egregious violators.

Yes, I've been passed by cops while doing 85 and also passed sitting cops at that same speed. Knowing the policy, I consider myself fortunate I didn't get l busted in those incidents, but I know I might not be that lucky next time.

Also, there's the flow of traffic. If everyone's going 80-85, it's doubtful anyone's getting pulled over. They'll go after people doing 90+. At least in Maryland, of everyone's going that fast and you're doing the speed limit, you're going to get the ticket for inhibiting the flow of traffic.

So it should be with carry on bags. Most GAs have been around enough to know the rough size of a bag that should fit. Measuring every bag would slow boarding significantly, and that goes against their incentives you get that planes out on time. That should be looking out for the big violators, ones whose bags are obviously too big. We've all seen those bags where we wonder how a GA ever let that pass. But an inch or so either way? Come on, that's just being nitpicky, especially when other similar bags are being let thru.

Yes, the letter of the rule says one thing, and they're within their right to enforce it. But the whole reason such a rule is in place is to prevent people from bringing big bags on board. As long as they're reasonably close and similar to others, let them go. The intent was met. If it's way too big, have at them

There's nothing black and white about either of these situations.

carlosdca

not DCA, CA is for California, my home for 2 decades already. Anyway.

Exactly. And because the reading of the radar or whatever else would make 56 debatable in court, so most of the times, you will get a ticket only when it is certain that you were above the speed limit.
BUT the reason for not giving a ticket is not because there is some leniency or because 56 is ridiculous, it is because the ticket could be challenged.

Going back to the carry on issue, most of the times that GAs says the bag is oversized is because the bag obviously does not fit in the sizer or completely covers the white lines of the sizer (a 75mph carry on).
In the cases where the bag is just at the limit , i.e. the edges of the bag are at the white lines of the sizer or almost completely covering it, most GAs will let it pass. Some will argue the bag does not comply but these are not the majority of cases.
We don't know how the Tumi bag (in the last post) fit in the sizer. Most likely it did not fit at all? the poster did not clarify, it seems he is admitting that the bag did not fit the sizer, so that's the end of the story.

wrdouglas

I must say the responses to my replies have been interesting.

To clear things up.
1. I mention my status and segments to point out the ridiculousness of the GA.
2. I have not had a problem fitting my bag on any non-RJ aircraft.
3. To all the rule “obeyers” all I can say is wow.

wrdouglas

I am not aware of any FAA requirement. Only FAA guidance to airlines.

The only thing I found close . . . quickly mind you . . . is as follows.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC121-29B.pdf

Dave Noble

Your status and segments travelled are irrelevant as to whether the bag is compliant with the permitted size. There is no extra allowance based on status. Was the agent correct in that the bag was non complant? If so, then the agent was not being ridiculous, but doing his or her job
Whether a bag can fit in the locker is irrelevant. A bag can be significantly over the permitted size and still be within the dimensions of the locker - what matters though is whether it conforms to the regulations
How dare people thing that published rules should be followed by all parties. If an agent fails to follow a rule to the detriment of a passenger, there is outrage on the fora. Are you suggesting that agents must follow rules, but passengers just do what they want?

carlosdca

1. irrelevant
2. completely irrelevant. the sizer rules.
3. It is not about being a rule obeyer. It is about knowing what to expect and then take decisions accordingly.
It does not matter that you or I think the rule is ridiculous (Which it very well may be). The rule is there, the way it is enforced is what it is. Nothing you can do about it. I'd rather make sure I have a carry-on that complies (fits in the sizer) than risking it being taken away and then rant on FT about it.

VegasGambler

I think that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Or maybe I'm just projecting; it certainly rubbed me the wrong way. It implies that you feel you should be treated differently because of your status and/or the amount you have flown, and that's not the case here. In this instance, the rules are the same for everyone. There are other instances where you should be treated better than others, but this is not one of them.

no1cub17

LOL, welcome to FT.

Antarius

The point here is, if you get caught doing 56, you don't really have a defense. The other guy was doing x is irrelevant.

No one is saying that you should automatically get caught. The sizer is stupid, we all know that. But it is the rule, just like a dumb low speed limit on a road that can be way higher - push the limit until you can, but if you get caught - too bad.

I don't think FT overall acts like they never do anything wrong. The point many posters made is that this is the rule, flaunt it as it's stupid albeit at your own risk, if you get caught - too bad.

"I've always done 10 over on this road" is a losing defense for speed limits. The same applies here.