I dont understand.. His cabin baggage was overweight and he was stopped.. He is allowed to carry a ''small'' camera + laptop and he could have tried removing the laptop and carrying it separately but he choose not to..

IDB claim for having excess cabin baggage and refusing to check it in ..hmmm..

I am sympathetic with the OP's plight the same way I am sympathetic with those caught by a cop going 58 in a 55mph zone. Yes, technically you are breaking the law/rules. But come on. It is a lame way of enforcing the rules.

Planes don't take sufficient responsibility for your checked in luggage. I just find it amzing that in these days of overdone security theater that they would allow luggage to not be monitored long enough for it to be lost or stolen.


Anyway, I do wonder why the OP did not huddle back away from the gate with his 7 friends and redistribute the gear among their hand luggage to a point where he could go back and challenge the GA on the weight issue since he was confident that his luggage met the size issue. All he had to do was immediately go to another Lufthansa counterm, show his handluggage, demand a size measurement, tell them that there are others in the line as he speaks that have bigger luggage, so it's not even consistent discretionary judgement. And if they are prepared to insure his handluggage on the spot.

By the OP's own admission, he was there early. So I am assuming he had this time to come up with a different tack.

Also regarding NYCDude's post, I am on his side. He talked to a Lufthansa agent on the phone and they promised him 3 seats side by side. I dont give a damn if the fine print talks about seat assignments not guaranteed. The phone operator should have told him explicitly that this tactic of buying an extra seat for the infant is not guaranteed to get him 3 in a row and I highly doubt she told him that. uWhat is NYCDude supposed to do? It's not like he can wait until boarding to see if he can get 3 seats in a row to decide if he wants to spend on an extra ticket at which point the price would be prohibitive.

As far as my Lufthansa experience, I took a roundtrip from ATL-BOM once a decade ago. My flight from ATL-FRA was fine, but the flight from FRA-BOM was second rate and quite honestly found it discriminatory of Indians being the majority on that segment. It's like they assigned their worst crew, worst food, and worst attitudes for that segment. I didn't even receive a meal on the whole segment because they ran out of meals(they had some fish thing left and I don't normally eat most fish and certainly not the remaining decrepit looking one they offered me). But they attitude was kind of annoying as they didn't seem concerned at all. Having said that, my experience from ATL- FRA and on the return was good. What I don't like is how the airline handled a bad experience. When I complained on the ground in BOM, the staff seemed indifferent. So I haven't taken Lufthansa again. But I won't rule it out in case I have no other options as that kind of experience is very possible on at least half of the world's airlines.

u didnt miss anything .. only the interpretation of the problem is different

Facts and interpretation.

No one has claimed OP s carry on was too big.
LH claimed it was too heavy, which is not proven, and is disputed.
In any case OP expressly explained his carry ono contained laptop (s), camera(s) etc, but was not given the option to repack/redistribute/rearrange.

Im not even taking into consideration the attitude and (missing) customer service.

Contrary to what seems like common belief IDB is not only by overbooking.
Article 2:
"(j) "denied boarding" means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation"

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...61:EN:HTML:NOT

Interpret reasonable.

The different national organs can be found here;
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passen...ent_bodies.pdf

OP might want to contact
Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA)
Hermann-Blenk-Str. 26
DE - 38108 BRAUNSCHWEIG
Tel. : +49 531-2355-100
Fax : +49 531-2355-707
[email protected]

On my own behalf, and clients I have won far more difficult battles than this. I feel OP has a pretty strong case based on case law/practice, with a well written and well documented claim.

For the sake of discussion:

Where in the regulation is it foreseen that the airlines needs to explain to the passenger what the passenger needs to do to fulfill the conditions of contract? The passenger insisted to board the aircraft with (still assumingly but likely) too heavy hand luggage and refused to check it in.

What you propose is not only an uphill battle but to my belief not within the language of the regulation and could only have success if the ECJ issues another ultra consumer friendly decision.

Well, if you have so many experiences I really wonder where your interpretation comes from. Just have a look at the laws, rules and T&Cs (8.7)

The opposite is not proven as well!

He always had the option! Technically (law wise), he should have known the rules of the contract.

Sorry, but in no means interesting for interpreting laws or rules!

Since the OP had the option to check the hand luggage in, he was not denied boarding. The OP had an option, thats basically it.

I am not talking about customer service, how the situation could be handled in a better/nicer way. But if you want to claim anything, you only can stick to the rules, laws and T&Cs. There is no IDB because the OP was allowed on the aircraft, but the OP choosed not board because his hand luggage was too valuable for him.

Thanks for the input. There is clearly room for discussion here, especially as the facts are not carved in stone. But as I have explained above there is a concept in obligatin law called loyalty of contract. This is a fundamental principle on obligation, maybe the most basic legal sentence. If you think that laws/rules need to be written (except in legal theory or case law) you are misguided.

Too heavy? Not proven, just an assumption. And even then very unlikely at all if repacked. The point of the regulations here are that they, in contrary to the carrier here, are customer friendly.

Uphill battle? Well, at no cost at least. Several of the national boards mentioned in my link have made their statements public on their web sites. Interesting reading, and with all the layman blah blah on this thread/forum on this issue with crystal clear statements, I doubt very many have read any.

What law? What rules? What t&c? You mean the carriers t&c? What does it say? In any case the whole point of the EU regulations is that the single carriers t&c cant violate them.

Come on? When denying boarding the burden of proof is on the carrier.
Do you seriously mean that its up to the passenger to prove?


He was given no option, other than check it or dont fly. The whole point is that he was not given the option that he is entitled to. Its a pretty bold statement that the OP should have known the t&c (in detail I presume?). We are dealing with consumers vs a (presumeably very) professional part. It actually appears as that the carriers rep didnt know the rules here. OP offered his explanation on the content, and IF, only IF the bag was proven to be too heavy, he should have been given the option to repack. In this aspect its also important that the flight clearly had room for it. There were no reasonable grounds whatsoever to deny boarding.


Re-read. Excactly what I stated. This however is still an issue psychologically for the judging board. And should be for LH to resolve this out of such organs.

You can still claim so, but then you dont see any of the point.

Wrong. He was denied boarding with his luggage according to the t&c without reasonable grounds. Period.

If OP backs his claim with witnesses, both the ones flying and not, I cant see him not winning.

Thanks for educting somebody who is in the real legal business for more than 20 years. Obviously his contract was governed by German law and German law does not require to educate your contractual counterpart on what he has to do to fulfill his contractual obligation. Such education might be called customer service, but not a "basic legal sentence"

Well, from what we read it was too heavy. I know from my own experience that in 99% of all cases my own hand luggage is too heave. A light Rimova Salsa board case weights 2.8 kg. So 3.2 kg is not an aweful lot and seriously I do not need a scale to identify an American with overweight hand luggage: Our cousins are really specialist in taking half of their household on board of a CJ200. And the OP does not really contest it.

Luftfahrtbundesamt is a regulatory body and they might punish an airline. However, they will not help you to enforce your claims. So you need to take the carrier to court and you need to make evidence that your hand luggage was within the allowed specifications. Rules say, you are allowed 6 kg of hand luggage only. So if you want your handluggage transported free of charge, make evidence that it is within the limits. You want something, you need to make evidence. Law school, first year.

You are welcome The legal world is as diversified as the world it self, and even lawyers working for 50 years might learn new things everyday.
However, I dont know German law, but basic contractual principles based on Roman law I assume quite certainly are valid also in Germany. And you may have misread me. Im not talking about a general requirement to educate your counterpart, even with the present mis-balance between the parts. No, its more the plight of loyalty to find a solution where there becomes a dispute.

I still maintain the point of view that fulfilling a contract within its intentions, and loyally seeking this, even if its written or not, also unforeseen incidents, is a basic legal sentence


Maybe it was too heavy. I certainly wont rule that out. But thats not proven in any single way, and absolutely not by the carrier. And even if so, its unlikely it would have still been when taking out the equipment he/they would be allowed to carry in addition to the one piece.

I will not repeat this key point again. We have freedom of (mis)belief.



Thanks. This is regulated slightly different in all EU countries. I think its now an EU requirement that all countries within some timeframe establish such a body to handle claims. And when not present, then regular court, or any SCC equivalent would be needed. If this is the case with Germany, there is a cost/risk involved. Its not in a few countries I researched.


The carrier claims breach of contract (luggage too heavy). Law school, first year, second semester.
Carrier refuses IDP compensation. Burden of proof. EU-law. Law school, second year

One step back: Pax claims his hand luggage is allowed on board but did not make evidence that it is within the rules. Pax than claimes breach of contract. Law school, first year, second semester.

I think we need more steps back. Probably pre law school.

You could argue whats first of the hen and the egg. But thats not the case here.

The airlines claims the carry on is too heavy, breach of contract, and continues with sanctions, denied boarding as a result.

Passenger THEN (=afterwards) claims IDB, breach of contract, as in illegal sanctions.

This is contrary to the regular IDB situation where it is the passenger that claims breach.

And you still claim that the burden of proof is on the passenger, to prove he is within the weight limit at the gate!?

This is wrong.

The burden is on the carrier. Of course it would be a lot more IDBs on this ground if this would require passengers to bring their own scale to prove they are within the limit.

Unless of course a scale would be put on the list of personal items on the excempt list They could do that, but at the same time reducing the limit of the main piece of course@:-)

No that is unfortunately not yet true. On a purely domestic flight, they will not provide you with it until CO completely will have absorbed UA.

Rambuster is right on both accounts and it is the standard procedure.
So much for the interpersonal skills ...

No seriously. If you fly onwards in C or F on any *A carrier you are eligible for a 24h WiFi access.

I even got the vouchers in December without any problems (adding BOS, SFO, PDX and SEA to the list).

Speaking of cabin luggage on US airlines - I recently helped and olderly woman put her carry-on on the xray machine since she couldn't life it. It had to be more then 20 kilos - she said she had apples in it.
And obviously every single flight I was on had the announcment about checking in bags on the plane since there's not enough space to accomodate all.
But the airlines brough it upon themselves with the bag fees.

http://www.united.com/page/article/1...4,00.html#wifi

i doubt its been interpersonal skills, my last RCC encounter was (thank god) quiet a while ago...