Haha... it wasn't there when I asked the question.

it really helps if you read the whole page before you accuse people of providing the wrong information...

copy from exactly your linked page:

Additional items which are allowed in the cabin
In addition to your hand baggage and technical appliances you may take the following items into the cabin:
html_list
A handbag, wrist bag or small bag (or small laptop bag) and their content
A coat, shawl or blanket
A small camera or a pair of binoculars
An appropriate amount of reading material for the journey
A infant carrier and baby food for the flight
Crutches or other orthopedic aids you are depending on

I stand corrected (although it doesn't help that the page is long and confusing, and contradicts itself - says "only one piece" and you have to scroll down 3 PAGES to where is says, only one piece means only one piece, plus this, plus that...). And, looking at this in disbelief, because this makes it even worse - I clearly told the a*hole at the gate that I had a computer and cameras in the "huge and too heavy" hand luggage. Did he tell me to remove the computer (could have done it easily, it was in its own bag) or the cameras (one for me, one for my wife - an easy solution)?

NO. Although this was about half of the weight in my carry-on... he told me that since my carry-on was too heavy, I could choose between checking it in or not flying.

So, since I have been accused with overreacting, let me restate "my story" in simple terms:

A self-important Lufthansa employee decided to pick on me, *assuming* (not even knowing) my hand luggage was larger than allowed and too heavy, instead of offering me one of the easily available solutions, he cherry-picked the one rule based on which he could refuse his airline's service to me on a flight which was only 2/3 full, although (and I am sure he knew this full well) there was another rule, using which the problem could have been easily solved, and service provided. He went as far on his mission as to even cause the flight to be delayed, just to make sure he won his battle.

Now that's service with a smile!

Conclusion: a*hole wins battle "for LH", loses war (and a customer).

Simple as that.

this might be part of the problem...

thank you for that!

Sadly, even if you would have obtained said voucher in DEN, the chance of it working and you being able to successfully access the internet is near nil. Very poor capacity in either RCC.

It is unconscionable that they wouldn't have provided a voucher.

An alternative at DEN is to use the airport's free wi-fi, which works (although not always at high speed) everywhere but in the RCCs.

With the information to date, if this had happened to me I would be filing an involuntary denied boarding claim against LH for up to �600 compensation plus consequential costs.

Thanks for the clarification!
That explains it all. ^

So, now it is LH fault that it published its baggage rule in a way that does not suit your intellectual abilities of reading and comprehension? If you are not familiar with the rules of the airline you are going to travel, it's worth spending a bit of a time understanding them (and for me, the way the rules are explained on lh.com are rather self-explanatory).

Secondly, the fact the the flight was only 2/3 empty does not have to do anything wit the fact that you luggage was overweight. Even if you were the only passenger on A388, an agent has the right to deny you boarding in case your luggage does not meet LH requirements. By the same token, if you were the only passenger on a flight and had 10 bags at 100 kg/each to check in, would the fact that you are the only passenger on the flight allow you to bend the rules and check in all your luggage. Dura lex sed lex. While of course there could have been a compromise on part of LH to handle this issue, in pure legal terms, they did not do anything they were not supposed to. You have a contract with LH about transportation, the terms and conditions of which you did not abide by. LH followed its procedure and denied you boarding because you did not comply with the rules. Since you (I assume) were on a re-bookable ticket, they offered you to fly later, at a fee and under condition that your luggage would meet LH requirements.

Next time, do read through a list of rules.

+1..

Am I the only one who thinks this thread should be closed now ..

I have suggested doing that last week, but was accused of trying to avert the attention of how horrible LH is. It seems that OP had too much luggage in his carry-on and was (un)lucky to have an agent who sticked to the rules adamantly. Of course, the agent could have let it go, but why should (s)he? Rules must be obeyed, regardless if the flight was full or not.

Thats because you are too quick, and obviously stalking me

Yes, but now we have more info, have had more debate and there is somewhat more clearer view to the reason..

Absolutely not. It now seems OP has a valid IDB claim.

And we should await the result.

There is something called loyalty of contract, where the parties are obliged to help fulfill the contract. The employee should definately have explained the rules of one laptop + one camera each in addition to the one piece. And that is ONLY if it was in fact overweight.

IDB + costs. Every EU country has a free "SCC" for violations involving the EU directive.

Did I miss something ? Why is there a valid claim ?